The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Grind House shot digital - discussion


#1

So I guess this means anytime QT shoots with Robert he’ll do digital, but when hes by himself he’ll be shooting on film (Inglorious Bastards etc). Thats cool, I can deal with that. Ya know, when you think about it, what makes QTs films so great? I think its his style and eye for direction. Even if he did use digital on his films, We’d still love his stuff. That said, I hope he stays in celluloid awhile longer. Maybe if he does a sci fi film someday (which I hope he does) he can use digital.


#2

I don’t think using digital has anything to do with doing sci-fi or not.

celluloid is dead as disco.

there’s just no good reason to use it anymore. Rodriguez and Mann have shown how great a result you get when using digital and it’s cheaper on top of that.


#3

cool!



how cool would it be if they had an online video blog like King Kong, Superman and Clerks 2


#4

Am I the only one who’s finding it totally ironic that they’re shooting a grindhouse movie in digital format? Somehow it doesn’t make any sense.ÂÂ

[quote] don’t think using digital has anything to do with doing sci-fi or not.

celluloid is dead as disco.

there’s just no good reason to use it anymore. Rodriguez and Mann have shown how great a result you get when using digital and it’s cheaper on top of that.[/quote]

Celluloid is dead? I don’t think so. Just because Star Wars, Sky Captain, Sin City and a handful of other movies were shot in digital doesn’t mean that the future of filmmaking lies in digital format. Celluloid will never die. As good as the final results may turn out to be, digital still ultimately implies a lazy form of filmmaking.


#5

[quote=“Johny_Exhale”]
how cool would it be if they had an online video blog like King Kong, Superman and Clerks 2
[/quote]

I agree : I want it !


#6

[quote=“Scarface”]
Am I the only one who’s finding it totally ironic that they’re shooting a grindhouse movie in digital format? Somehow it doesn’t make any sense.
[/quote]

why does it not make sense? gind house films were made cheap, fast and low budget. and that’s the concept transferred to 2006: shoot it digital.

why do people have a problem with shooting digital? i mean, that’s just a stupid attitude, it’s like saying “aw why do you need color tv, black and white was just fine” and now everyone has color tv. and it’s like “aw, we dont need CDs, vinyl is just fine” and now everything’s CD, DVD etc…

—>bottom line: there’s a technical evolution, you can’t stop, and there’s no reason for trying to stop it.



to me as a film fan, all that counts is the final product: if its an awesome film, who gives a fuck if its shot digital or on normal film stock, as long as the film rocks


#7

The vinyl-cd comparison is unfair and inappropriate and I can’t see any connection whatsoever with my argument. I agree with Pete’s argument. If you’re gonna make a movie like Sin City or Sky Captain, it’s ok to use digital. Why? Because the film deals with a fantasy world and in that case digital may help to enrich the viewer experience with locations and action sequences one won’t able to achieve with the traditional celluloid. But if you’re doing any other type of movie - be it drama, war or teen comedy - using digital is quite inappropriate IMO. The film won’t just feel autenthic. I mean, digital may be a technological evolution, but you just can’t achieve the same results as when you’re filming the real thing, in real locations. Not to mention the fact that filming would be quite a bitch for all method actors. That’s why celluloid won’t ever die. Hell, even 3-D is a technological revolution. Do you think it should be present in all movies? I think not. It would feel just like a stupid gimmick. The same with digital.


#8

who said that drama or teen comedies don’t feel authentic when shooting digital? who said that? would you recognize the digital aspect with Once Upon a Time in Mexico if nobody told you? Or Collateral?

i am not talking about shooting in front of green screens, that you can also do with celluloid. i am talking about shooting digital, high definition, no film stock. that’s cheap and it opens tremendous amounts of possibilites and it cheapens the entire process, and there is absolutely nothing that would stop you from making it look like “normal” film.

you said “…you can’t achieve the same results as when you’re filming the real thing, in real locations”. what is the “real thing”? why can’t you achieve the same results? have you tried? who said they won’t shoot on real locations?

3-D and digital has nothing to do with each other. 3-D is a techonology that requires unnecessary bothering for the viewer (glasses, stiff necks :slight_smile: etc), digital technology is something the viewer might not even notice. it just eases the production and lowers costs while at the same time increasing the possiblities and creativity of the director.


#9

The only reason Im not too into digital is because the majority of films ive seen in that format havent been that good. Sin City is a special case because it was made to look like a comic book. Grindhouse to me is about a certain look you only get from real celluloid. Knowing RR, he’ll probably make it look pretty good, but I hope QT doesnt completely turn over into digital for awhile. He really doesnt need to.



Now, when it comes to young directors just starting out in film, digital is a great thing to have.


#10

Although please call it a ‘movie’ not a ‘film’ since there is no actual film being used. High Definition Digital Cameras have switches on them to give the picture that film-look even though no film is being used.


#11

[quote=“WinslowLeach”]
Grindhouse to me is about a certain look you only get from real celluloid.
[/quote]

is that true? if you can prove that to me, I will stop advertising Hi-def :slight_smile:



but i say it’s just a prejudice, celluloid just accidentially looks low-quality, an “effect” you can easily achieve with the opportunities you get from shooting digital


#12

[quote=“S.E.B.A.S.T.I.A.N.”]
who said that drama or teen comedies don’t feel authentic when shooting digital? who said that? would you recognize the digital aspect with Once Upon a Time in Mexico if nobody told you? Or Collateral?
[/quote]

i did notice the digital on both films without being told, however i am on Seb’s side.



teh reason i noticed teh digital on Once Upon a time in Mexico is because teh quality of digital is actualy far better than the quality of film



and the digital in Collateral to me was one of its best attributes, collateral showcased a taste of the gritty look of digital filmmaking and Seb is definitely right about Grindhouse being about cheap films, grindhouse filmmakers today would use digital, plus it is going to be made to look like film so what the fuck are you complaining about, you wont know the difference



i am not here to advertise that digital has the “film look” necessarily, whatever youo think the “film look” is, but Seb is right, shooting digital is cheaper and has countless opportunities open to it and who the fuck cares how it was done, it is the final product and digital stands up to film in every way



i have a feeling that the people arguing against film dont actually know much about film and the pros and cons it is all nostalgia, i understand that, you want to keep film cause it was teh original and all the old classics were made on film and you feel threatened by this new technology, but it is only nostalgia, dont fool yourself into thinking that film is actually better than digital



note: i am not against film in any way, i only think digital is going to take over from now on and it isnt a gimmick, it is just as Seb said like vinyl to CDs.


#13

Your always pro-digital

somehow the sentimental attachment to old film seems to be outweighed by the cost, well at lest to people who don’t have the money to throw around, and like angel said that’s what its about anyway


#14

I’m normally pro digital but in the case of Grind House I’d rather see it on film or even Hi-8 or 35mm or something low grade and shitty, at least in Death Proof anyway. Calling it “Grind House” and having it be a Grind House slasher film should dictate something a little more trashy. But, we don’t know what either part is going to look like, if it’s not what we’re already expecting for the visuals then it could work with the digital. Like if there are any garishly colored sequences ala The Bride vs. Vernita Green in Kill Bill, that would look almost too good in digital. Although I doubt that you could really do that with a killer car flick, but maybe with an alien zombie flick.


#15

Don’t worry : if you don’t like the digital shooting, QT and RR have said that they want the celluloid look through a digital shooting. Is that enough to convince everybody ?


#16

David Lynch is shooting his INLAND EMPIRE with a digital camera now.


#17

<LINK_TEXT text=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:F … _digitally”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_digitally</LINK_TEXT>



dogville and manderlay! how’s that for “drama”?


#18

[quote=“RazorCharlie”]
I’m normally pro digital but in the case of Grind House I’d rather see it on film or even Hi-8 or 35mm or something low grade and shitty, at least in Death Proof anyway. Calling it “Grind House” and having it be a Grind House slasher film should dictate something a little more trashy. But, we don’t know what either part is going to look like, if it’s not what we’re already expecting for the visuals then it could work with the digital. Like if there are any garishly colored sequences ala The Bride vs. Vernita Green in Kill Bill, that would look almost too good in digital. Although I doubt that you could really do that with a killer car flick, but maybe with an alien zombie flick.
[/quote]

My points exactly.


#19

I’m not an expert on digital filmmaking, but if thats true about them being able to get the look of a celluloid film with it, then thats cool. I guess when it comes down to it, its about the how good the film is, if they can achieve that low budget 70s Grindhouse look with digital then great. I just want to see a cool film in the end.


#20

I’ve heard conflicting stories about High Definition Cameras. On the one hand that they are cheaper than normal film and on the other hand they aren’t really that cheap at all and make no difference to the telephone number length of the budgets on movies. You might as well shoot on 35mm.



Reel to reel projection will probably die out as many cinemas are gradually converting to digital projectors. ‘Revenge of The Sith’ was shot on video but had grain added to it for cinemas that projected the movie with reel to reel projectors. Similar to the early days of printing. The first printed books were designed to look like they were handwritten.