Tarantino: "Digital projection is the death of cinema"

[Vegosiux]

So, one Mr. Quentin Tarantino had a thing or two to say in Cannes. And the thing he said was as such:

http://news.moviefone.ca/2014/05/23/quentin-tarantino-digital-project-death-of-cinema/

What do you think? Do you agree? And, most importantly of all, can we get the Buggles to make a song for it?

Personally, I don't really care much since I've been off the movie/cinema scene for years, but I do care enough to find this comment interesting.

 

[Foolery]

It is. And isn't. I can get why someone would want to preserve the older style of cinema projection, but for most people it doesn't matter. Unless you're a hobbyist. Personally, the only thing I loathe about digital projection, is ham-fisting 3D in as a gimmick. But at the same time, I'm cool with stuff like IMAX.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Film decays. We're already at risk of losing many of the early classics. Digital copies on a hard drive are essential to being able to watch those movies in 50 years. It seems to me that cinema is more about the art and less about the format the art is held in before you watch it.

 

[Tanis]

Ha...ha...no.

Tarantino has a hard-on for outdated stuff.
It's like the music 'purists' who claim record, with their pin and needle, had the best quality for sound.

Not only is it wrong, it's usually 'justified' by ignorant statements on how music is recorded and mastered in the first place.

Digital projection will SAVE cinema.
It's cheaper, in the long run, and will have better quality of sound and video.
PLUS, it makes it damn near impossible to permanently lose movie because it's so much easier to store and copy.

 

[Salus]

I can't believe a man as intelligent as Tarantino hopes that the next generation will go "back" to celluloid after this one dies out.

If history has taught us ANYTHING, it's that things never go straight backwards. Change, yes, lateral change, diagonal change, but it never ever goes back on itself, no matter how many purists of [insert topic here] believe that it should.

Of course, there are always throwbacks and retro styles, like 2D pixel art emulation, but Hotline Miami is VERY much a 2014 game. It's an aesthetic, not a way to make games, not anymore. People aren't going back.

 

[Signa]

I totally get his romanticizing about film, but just knowing the physical and technical advantages of creating, storing, and transporting digital over film makes me wonder what the hell he was smoking before he opened his mouth. It's like that episode of Archer in the first season where they are on the zeppelin: sure, there's something cool about a voyage over the sea in the air, but it's never going to catch on in the mainstream ever again. Sure, you have some advantages like blowing out the engines doesn't cause the aircraft to crash, but that's not good enough to keep everyone using zeppelins over jumbo jets. It certainly wasn't the death of the travel industry to switch to jets.

 

[Pyramid Head]

I half wonder if it's really the medium he was talking about but the ease of digital film making. And if that is the case, him feeling films are too easy to make now...
...i gotta kind of agree with Tarantino. That asshole knows a thing or two about effort. I love Pulp Fiction, love everything he did with it right down to the intentional continuity flubs, but what RECENTLY came out that was worth a shit? Digital effects often hinder films and look worse than practical effects. Cinematography seems to be becoming a lost art as movies are poorly shot or poorly written and dependent on special effects.


I seriously wouldn't mind films still being published on... well... film. Garbage on the Xbone and other fuck-ups by Microsoft have clearly shown that sometimes being too quick to try and improve things can sometimes make us forget very basic lessons.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

I half wonder if it's really the medium he was talking about but the ease of digital film making. And if that is the case, him feeling films are too easy to make now...
...i gotta kind of agree with Tarantino. That asshole knows a thing or two about effort. I love Pulp Fiction, love everything he did with it right down to the intentional continuity flubs, but what RECENTLY came out that was worth a shit? Digital effects often hinder films and look worse than practical effects. Cinematography seems to be becoming a lost art as movies are poorly shot or poorly written and dependent on special effects.


I seriously wouldn't mind films still being published on... well... film. Garbage on the Xbone and other fuck-ups by Microsoft have clearly shown that sometimes being too quick to try and improve things can sometimes make us forget very basic lessons.

He was talking about projection exclusively, and while your complaints about cinematography and post-production work do have merit he didn't touch on them.

In fact he even states that the good side of digital is the ease of filming and increased accessibility.

?The good side of digital is the fact that a young filmmaker can now just buy a cellphone . . . they can actually make a movie.?

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/2014/05/23/quentin_tarantino_declares_death_of_cinema_at_cannes.html

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Nope, not even close. Tarantino may be a variously talented filmmaker, but that doesn't mean he's an authority on film (either as an expressive medium, or literally). He's just too obsessive and insular.

Film and digital have their own qualities, and should ideally both be enjoyed and expressed. What's kinda sad is that the cost of printing, distributing, and projecting film means we're losing one of those forms.

However, it's easy to argue the benefits of digital to the medium as an artform in general, are well worth the sacrifice of losing mainstream support for analogue filming and screening. To paraphrase Joss Whedon's 'advice' to budding filmmakers: just start making something - because you can.

As with digital photography, it's faster, easier, and cheaper. And over the years digital has improved immeasurably, so it stands to reason we'll see the same progress in cinema.

Also, digital isn't without its beauty in and of itself. Michael Mann shot Heat on film, and Collateral on digital. The former may be the superior work of art, but Collateral's quality of low light is incredible, and Heat would've looked even better were some of it shot on digital.

Terrence Malick's Tree Of Life was primarily, I believe, shot on 35mm, but he also used the RED digital set-up, too. So many creators of art will continue to use film as well as digital, but the lack of film projectors won't hurt the medium (or our enjoyment of it). Also, I've never had bad experiences with digital being screened, but I have - plenty of times - with film. Funnily enough, the very worst example was when watching Pulp Fiction (years after its release, to be fair)...

 

[Areloch]

consider for example the situation with modern flat panel monitors: they look cool, they use less power, they are better for your eyes etc, etc BUT if you can't run a game at the panels native display resolution at a decent frame rate your only option is either buy a new graphics card or play the game looking like shit whereas before...all we did was turn the resolution down a notch or two...

....

What?

Like, seriously. What? What stops you from changing the resolution on the software/your OS?

Also, your fantastic 'no resolution' claim about film doesn't mean much if the film itself degrades to the point of being far worse than a supposedly inferior copy.

Logically, we just get cameras that record at higher and higher resolutions and having a fixed resolution becomes pretty much a non-issue. At it's worst, older movies won't "scale", but then again, pulling old copies of classic, older films aren't exactly bristling at IMAX resolutions either.

Or do you have some special copy of Star Wars that looks crystal clear on your 4k TV? If you do, you could probably sell it back to Lucasfilms for a pretty penny.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I see where he's coming from and understand what he means. Digital certainly has a place and some films undoubtedly benefit from it, but film has a unique look to it. I watched the Hobbit in digital, IMAX, 3D, HFR and didn't like the look of it, at all.

Until I recently left my job at a secondary school, in which one of my responsibilities was working with students taking the Media Studies course, one of the lessons I led discussed this issue. One student years ago asked what it was that made a film look like a film in the cinema and why we couldn't replicate it easily. The answer of course, was that there are many reasons for the look, including costume, make up, set design, lighting and so on, but the format...35mm film @ 24 fps does have a certain look and feel that is *quintessential* cinematic. Consider the spaghetti westerns, even Star Wars (original vs. prequel trilogies) and the "analogue" is much more engaging and thrilling than the digital.

I don't think it's the death of cinema, but it is certainly a downturn. We get very little great films now, instead we're treated to visual spectacles, reboots, retreads and everything made for 12A/PG13 or lower. The number of adult films is tiny and, what I think Tarantino is getting at, is that there's an awful lot more style over substance now.

It's like the music 'purists' who claim record, with their pin and needle, had the best quality for sound.

Not only is it wrong, it's usually 'justified' by ignorant statements on how music is recorded and mastered in the first place.

Firstly, in matters of opinion, there is no right or wrong. Also, tho my ears cannot tell the difference, I appreciate the opinion of those with ears that can. Records do have a different sound than CD and with music being "analogue", being stored in an analogue format without lossy digital conversions, mastering and what not changing the sound, I can see where they are coming from. The reason live music is so popular, apart from the atmosphere of being in an appreciative audience, is the pure, undiluted sound. You get every nuance of organic music-making and hear it just the way it is. There is something to be said for that compared with the digitally mastered studio tracks and records offer a similar, truer sound compared with their digital cousins.

Labelling people "ignorant" when they, hobbyists of the truest sort, have actually spent time and money on every available option to hear for themselves what sounds best and decided based on their own experiences, is laughable and itself displays great ignorance. These folks are passionate and committed to enjoying music and if *they* say something sounds better, I'm more inclined to believe them than you.

 

[Bocaj2000]

I... agree with him.

In a literal sense, switching to digital video will be the death of film. It's much in the same way that digital animation replaced cells. The question, though, is, "Is this bad?" Switching from cells to digital made animation faster to produce and made it it cleaner. This is great if you want a clean animation, but if you want it grungy you have to put in so much more work that you might as well work traditionally. The same goes with movies. Digital video is cleaner, crisper, and shows 3D depth. Perfect for a blockbuster in which you want something clean! But film gives grain, artifacts, and frames everything in a 2D image. This is meant more for people like Tarantino whom thrive on grunge and avant guard.

Admittedly, he went over the top when he claimed that it's "the death of cinema". It's just that AAA films are now using the same cameras as B television shows. Although the average consumer won't notice or care, it may be noticeable when the behind the scenes shots look identical to the movie.

 

[briankoontz]

Sure, you have some advantages like blowing out the engines doesn't cause the aircraft to crash, but that's not good enough to keep everyone using zeppelins over jumbo jets. It certainly wasn't the death of the travel industry to switch to jets.

No, just (part of) the death of the planet.

The logic of industry (bigger, stronger, faster, at any cost) need not be followed by humans, but when humans who take power DO follow it their actions are no surprise. These humans call "bigger, stronger, faster, at any cost" "progress" and have various names for anyone opposing them - "backwards", "crazy", "luddite", "naive". There's an interesting logic at play here - by the time industry destroys the world there will be noone left to say "I told you so". It's like a wild party - it feels really good while you're in it and with the help of enough alcohol you can forget you were ever in it. Unlike a party though or a video game, real environmental effects offer permanent rather than temporary destruction and cannot be undone through the reload function.

 

[TheSYLOH]

Sure, you have some advantages like blowing out the engines doesn't cause the aircraft to crash, but that's not good enough to keep everyone using zeppelins over jumbo jets. It certainly wasn't the death of the travel industry to switch to jets.

No, just (part of) the death of the planet.

The logic of industry (bigger, stronger, faster, at any cost) need not be followed by humans, but when humans who take power DO follow it their actions are no surprise. These humans call "bigger, stronger, faster, at any cost" "progress" and have various names for anyone opposing them - "backwards", "crazy", "luddite", "naive". There's an interesting logic at play here - by the time industry destroys the world there will be noone left to say "I told you so". It's like a wild party - it feels really good while you're in it and with the help of enough alcohol you can forget you were ever in it. Unlike a party though or a video game, real environmental effects offer permanent rather than temporary destruction and cannot be undone through the reload function.

A find it rather silly that you are bring up this argument in opposition to digital projection. Since for film you need to transport multiple bulky and heavy film canisters to every movie theater, where as with digital you just send it over existing internet infrastructure. This ignores the fact that you can reuse digital medium, and don't have to use all those chemicals inherent in developing film.

Progress happens in green directions as well, the fact you're talking about it is an example of progress in and of it self.

 

[Pink Gregory]

I can't help but think that the Buggles might be dead.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

I can't help but think that the Buggles might be dead.

The band, sure, but Geoff Downes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Horn] are alive and well and still making music.

 

[PirateRose]

He sounds like one of those old men that ride around in the go carts at WalMart. They always want to bestow upon the youth their great, amazing, unasked for knowledge about how things were so much better when they were young.

Ever notice how everyone believes generations previous and after their own, don't know how to live as well as their own generation. Previous generations and younger generations are just utterly ruined.

 

[flying_whimsy]

I get the impression Tarantino really loves movies in relation to the 1970s, and the farther away from that standard they get the more he feels they've gone wrong.

From a technical standpoint, I think he's dead wrong. From a cultural standpoint, I can see where he might be coming from (although he doesn't actually state it directly): movies are much more the blockbuster once in a while occasion than they were in the old days (where you could go once a night to cheap, lesser known or niche movies; or spend a whole day at the movies because it was hot out and they had air conditioning). Movie going these days is a stupidly expensive affair, especially for families. Seriously, $4 for a box of candy? Part of those higher prices has gone into this massive shift to high end digital video and sound technologies.

One thing I do harp on digital movies for is their reliance on special effects. The higher resolution means more work going into digital effects, raising costs but also leading to far more shortcuts (ever notice all the shaking or blurring motions?) that are used to cover up the fact that none of it is real or fix composition errors that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Also, I really hate the color filtering that everything has on it, the orange and blue contrast and the greying out of other colors (transformers is a good example of the former and man of steel for the latter). There's more of a focus on the visual spectacle that I do think is hurting the industry as a whole (much the same way the graphics race has been damaging to the gaming industry). There's a guy earlier in the thread that bashes music purists, but as someone who can tell the difference between analog and digitally compressed audio I can say that there is a similar problem with movies: I can always tell when special effects are digitially created as opposed to physically created (not that it's a bad thing, I loved the effects in Speed Racer and scifi wouldn't be what it is without cg).

So yeah, Tarantino is wrong, especially for his stupid comparison to television, but that doesn't mean there isn't something wrong with the current state of the industry. I'm an avid movie viewer, though, and I love going to the movies when I can.

omg sorry this was so long. :/