Why Tarantino Doesn't Like Netflix

El Chimpo said:
i buy films i usually know about or have heard about (director, producer, etc etc) and id day about 95% of the movies i buy i will watch multiple times

a24 has some fantastic films out
Click to expand...

Yep I tend to be the same way, one of the biggest weaknesses of modern cinema is IMHO the spread of the idea that cinema should be made purely for a "turn your brain off" one viewing experience, the "JJ Abrams factor" if you will.

If the likes of Amazon and Netflix have an appeal its more there exclusive content rather than watching normally released films. I actually find I'm watching much less TV/Episodic releases generally these days though, partly because I'm watching progressively more cinema.
 
moreorless87 said:
Yep I tend to be the same way, one of the biggest weaknesses of modern cinema is IMHO the spread of the idea that cinema should be made purely for a "turn your brain off" one viewing experience, the "JJ Abrams factor" if you will.

If the likes of Amazon and Netflix have an appeal its more there exclusive content rather than watching normally released films. I actually find I'm watching much less TV/Episodic releases generally these days though, partly because I'm watching progressively more cinema.
Click to expand...
i love movies that make me feel, think, etc etc

a ghost story was like that
 
Lethal_Striker said:
I find it so weird that Tarantino is against digital cameras while his good friend Robert Rodriguez is one of the biggest proponents of them.
Click to expand...

I know this is sidetracking but film is still better. The colors look better. There is better contrast. Fast moving objects look right. Is it gong to make a shitty movie a great movie? No. Can you make a beautiful movie with digital, Collateral is a demonstration of that.

For archival reasons, we should shoot in film. Lawrence of Arabia 4k looks like it was shot today due to film having a resolution somewhere comparable to 8-12k. You need a ridiculously sized screen to need resolutions greater than 8-12k. Anything big budget, should be on film in my opinion. Anything that is low budget and independent needs to be shot digitally for budgetary reasons.

Funny tidbit, Star Wars: Attack of the Clone Wars was shot digitally at 1080. There will never be a true 4k version of the movie because of that even though everything else during that period can be transferred at higher resolutions due to using film.
 
He absolutely has a point, I still buy and collect physical media because I like to own my media and I like the higher quality, there are also films and music available physically that I cannot find on streaming services. I also miss video stores and the exploration that comes with them, there were less shitty dtv (or dts now) movies on shelves at my local stores, it was mainly Blockbuster that bought that stuff (and what's out now outnumbers what was out then significantly, due in part to digital cameras and editing software). Box art/cover art is a lost art, how many movies drew you in just because of the box art (the movies were a gamble, but the box art was part of the experience)? I only watch movies on actual tv screens, the bare minimum was my portable dvd player that was cool if you wanted to take a hike out in the middle of the woods and watch Friday the 13th or watch something in bed without the large light output of the actual tv.
Streaming definitely has its' place, it's certainly convenient, I have no issues with those who enjoy it more than the old ways, but it has real drawbacks as well.
 
Prefect said:
I know this is sidetracking but film is still better. The colors look better. There is better contrast. Fast moving objects look right. Is it gong to make a shitty movie a great movie? No. Can you make a beautiful movie with digital, Collateral is a demonstration of that.

For archival reasons, we should shoot in film. Lawrence of Arabia 4k looks like it was shot today due to film having a resolution somewhere comparable to 8-12k. You need a ridiculously sized screen to need resolutions greater than 8-12k. Anything big budget, should be on film in my opinion. Anything that is low budget and independent needs to be shot digitally for budgetary reasons.

Funny tidbit, Star Wars: Attack of the Clone Wars was shot digitally at 1080. There will never be a true 4k version of the movie because of that even though everything else during that period can be transferred at higher resolutions due to using film.
Click to expand...

It's always fun watching Tarantino's new releases at the arthouse theaters that show it in real film. The difference is palpable.
 
"I like something hard and tangible in my hand".

Ron-Burgundy-Stare-and-Nod.gif
 
El Chimpo said:
id be more surprised if he felt the opposite

the mans a film lover through and through

is normal
Click to expand...


No it's stupid. Loving film and loving the nostalgic novel memory of going to the video store, and therefore hating streaming services for killing video stores, is stupid. The only people who should be pissed are the people who owned those video stores, because their personal interest in the matter is understandable.

He mentions dumb shit like only watching 20 min of a movie and moving on if they don't enjoy it, as if that's a bad thing. That's a new luxury that we have. Not a disadvantage. I don't miss movie stores being out of rentals, late fees, popping in a dvd to find that it's scratched and doesn't work, or looking for a specific movie only to find it's not there. Rental places have a nice place in our memories, but I wouldn't trade in how it is now for those stores. Not a chance.
 
BJJ NINJA said:
No it's stupid. Loving film and loving the nostalgic novel memory of going to the video store, and therefore hating streaming services for killing video stores, is stupid. The only people who should be pissed are the people who owned those video stores, because their personal interest in the matter is understandable.

He mentions dumb shit like only watching 20 min of a movie and moving on if they don't enjoy it, as if that's a bad thing. That's a new luxury that we have. Not a disadvantage. I don't miss movie stores being out of rentals, late fees, popping in a dvd to find that it's scratched and doesn't work, or looking for a specific movie only to find it's not there. Rental places have a nice place in our memories, but I wouldn't trade in how it is now for those stores. Not a chance.
Click to expand...
<DisgustingHHH>
 
Quinton "Rampage" Netflixtino
 
I miss the physical part of video games more so than physical movies
 
<{hughesimpress}>

90% of the people here aren't even addressing the key part of the quote. It seems like it's so foreign to them, they can't even grasp how it matters.

And that’s what’s really lost — in a weird way, what’s lost is commitment.
Click to expand...

Rod1 said:
I feel the same but about videogames, when i was growing up we had economic crisis after crisis (Mexico), so people who owned a console at best had like 2 - 3 games so you had to go out and rent and then make friends and exchange games and the such.

And when you rented a game you had to commit to said game, and the games you owned, you knew them back and forth.

Now i have like 100 games in my steam account and probably only played half of those whilw finishing like 10% of those.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
It's all about scarcity vs an embarrassment of riches.
When something is limited, you appreciate and value it. When something is greatly abundant, you have a disregard and disdain for it.

Sometimes less is more.

(Although there are some aspects that are different, it's not entirely unlike the MMA situation where it was better before the UFC had a roster the size of a small college and events every weekend)
 
VulcanNervPinch said:
(Although there are some aspects that are different, it's not entirely unlike the MMA situation where it was better before the UFC had a roster the size of a small college and events every weekend)
Click to expand...

Lets face it, it was WADA that killed MMA, fighters that cant fight because they cant keep up with training without the juice.
 
Technology they sold us has taken the fun out of everything. That's true. When it replaces fun with convienence, an even swap can be argued. When the tech doesn' make things easier, like waiters fumbling around with electronic recording for orders, which also takes more time, well then it's just "we are suckers, and let them destroy our free will with their advertising dollars."

Tech can be sad. It can also be convenient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,980
Messages
55,458,949
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top