Quentin Tarantino on streaming movies: 'It's almost like they don't exist'

[claws]

Quentin Tarantino is the latest A-list director to decry what the streaming business is doing to the film industry.

Speaking with Deadline from the Cannes Film Festival, the director of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood explained how the advent of films on streaming influenced his decision to retire.

"I like the idea of giving it my all for 30 years and then saying, 'OK, that's enough,'" he told Deadline film columnist Baz Bamigboye. "And I don't like working to diminishing returns. And I mean, now is a good time because I mean, what even is a motion picture anyway anymore? Is it just something that they show on Apple? That would be diminishing returns."

Tarantino went on to say that, in his opinion, true movies are released in theaters before they "eventually get to television." The director said that he will likely make his final film, reportedly called The Movie Critic, with Sony studios "because they're the last game in town that is just absolutely, utterly, committed to the theatrical experience. It's not about feeding their streaming network. They are committed to theatrical experience. They judge success by asses on seats."

Like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, and Christopher Nolan before him, Tarantino thinks the streaming industry is devaluing the artistic value of filmmaking. "I mean, and I'm not picking on anybody, but apparently for Netflix, Ryan Reynolds has made $50 million on this movie and $50 million on that movie and $50 million on the next movie for them," he told Deadline. "Well, good for him that he's making so much money. But those movies don't exist in the zeitgeist. It's almost like they don't even exist."

Source: https://news.yahoo.com/quentin-taran...154739376.html

Does he have a point or is it just old "get off my lawn" way thinking?

[RCMerchant]

I think he has a point.

[Rev. Powell]

He's talking about straight to streaming releases. His point, I think, is that everyone forgets about these Netflix original movies a few days after they premiere. There's none of the buildup that you get through a theatrical release that creates an ongoing conversation among movie fans. They're disposable. For example, have you heard of the three Ryan Reynolds movies he's talking about? I had to look them up.

[Alex]

The world is changing and it is leaving these guys behind. For better or worse, this is how things are and it isn't the fault of Netflix or any other streaming giant. It comes down to the choice of people sitting at home to watch them instead of going to the cinema.

[ER]

Bigger things to care about but he's right, and while it is looking like going to a multiplex and seeing cinematic movies may be in decline like drive-ins were after the mid-'80s (well actually drive-ins didn't decline, they almost instantly collapsed...a lesson there) I think TV will swallow "movies" whole unless movies find a way to differentiate themselves from TV/streaming. Remember straight to video movies? A lot of recent releases that went to streaming almost from the start remind me of straight to video, no matter what their budget or who was in them. I think it bodes ill for the motion picture industry if it cannot keep its movies in theaters in the future. (It also should stop turning out such mediocre, predictable films. TV and streaming have owned the creative force in this century.)

[Trevor]

Our oldest theater chain Ster Kinekor is currently in business rescue and the other chain Nu Metro isn't doing too well either. 

[Alex]

I am sure the same kind of things must have been said when VHS and Betamax came around. You can either adapt to the new world or go the way of the dinosaurs.

[zombie no.one]

"I'm not picking on anybody"

- picks on Ryan Reynolds -


I don't do streaming (movies or music), but I've never really been a big fan of going to the cinema (or going to gigs) either. I like the owning the physical media part.

[Alex]

I am sure Ryan Reynolds will be crying himself to sleep on his bed of $150 million dollars. PersonallyHis, I don't think Tarantino is a great director. Yeah, he can make a ton of money, but hey so can Ryan Reynolds. His best work seems to be well behind him. Increasingly his films seem to be a series of loosely connected situations rather than a single plot running through them. I remember watching The Hateful Eight with some other people and at the end of it, everyone said the same thing. It was a very long time taken to get to nowhere. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood got the same reaction from me.

If streaming services have found a better way for them of getting their product to the consumer, and the consumers agree, then filmmakers are going to have to adjust accordingly. For myself, I mean I'll admit I find the cinematic experience overrated. The volume is often too loud to listen to comfortably, you have other people often making noise and disrupting it, the tickets are overpriced (more the fault of the distributors than the cinema chains) as are the concession stands. Why the hell would I want to put up with that when instead I can put the film on in the comfort of my own home, at a time when I choose to watch it while also having the option of watching a whole lot more movies and it all costs me less.

The only way I could see the cinema being better is if I was going to see movies that no one else wanted to watch and the auditorium was practically empty. If you are getting that though the chances are your cinema is losing money. I have many fantastic memories of going to the cinema as a kid and watching movies with my mum, but if we'd been able to sit at home and watch those films together I can't see those memories as being any less precious.

[ralfy]

The trendline is not only towards streaming but even virtual sets and using only actors' likeness to computer-generate characters. After that, they'll probably be able to license people's appearances and voices, and then use AI to generate sets and characters. Probably similar can happen for screenplays, the music, etc.

[RCMerchant]

^ If that happens- I'll quit watching new movies. f**k that.
AI nay be able to copy all that sh!t, but creating art requires human emotions- and no machine can replace that.

[zombie no.one]

^ If that happens- I'll quit watching new movies. f**k that.
AI nay be able to copy all that sh!t, but creating art requires human emotions- and no machine can replace that.

I agree it has gone too far , not saying this kind of technology can’t be used in good ways, but the prospect of a movie that is basically an AI generated cast of famous actors doesn’t appeal to me. And with some of the ‘deep fakes’ they’re capable of now I’m sure it can be done

One minor exception… if they did a movie where they ‘resurrected’ a dead actor, eg Christopher Lee, and incorporated that into a new movie, I admit I’d be interested to see how it worked. Just once.

In fact Christopher Lee would be the perfect choice to do that with :)

[Alex]

We already have movies where none of the characters on screen exist outside of that. We call them cartoons. We already use computers to draw them on rather than by hand. Having the computers generate them seems to be the next logical step on that chain.

I do agree that I don't want to see this taking over making films with real people, but I can also understand the appeal of this to moviemakers. No stars demanding script changes, no risk of actors having injuries, no one turning up late to set or being difficult, no big paychecks for a headline name. For a studio, there must be a lot of temptation right there. Even if it costs the same as a normal film, you still run less risks in the making of it and it is a hell of a lot easier to reshoot scenes. No trying to bring back actors who are already working on another movie, or have grown a mustache in the meantime etc. 

It will all be down to us though and if we all go and pay money to see them. I'd suspect if watching an AI-generated movie was made cheaper than one with real people it would be successful and replace traditional movies.

[RCMerchant]

^ Then I won't watch them. Cartoons are- or "were" drawn by humans- not robots. And written by humans.
I'm an artist- and no computer can know what little details I may incorporate into a work- something that just clicks in my brain- that strikes me as weird or cool. f**k AI "art".

[LilCerberus]

We already have movies where none of the characters on screen exist outside of that. We call them cartoons. We already use computers to draw them on rather than by hand. Having the computers generate them seems to be the next logical step on that chain.

I do agree that I don't want to see this taking over making films with real people, but I can also understand the appeal of this to moviemakers. No stars demanding script changes, no risk of actors having injuries, no one turning up late to set or being difficult, no big paychecks for a headline name. For a studio, there must be a lot of temptation right there. Even if it costs the same as a normal film, you still run less risks in the making of it and it is a hell of a lot easier to reshoot scenes. No trying to bring back actors who are already working on another movie, or have grown a mustache in the meantime etc. 

It will all be down to us though and if we all go and pay money to see them. I'd suspect if watching an AI-generated movie was made cheaper than one with real people it would be successful and replace traditional movies.

I dunno....
While characters tend to have legs, the names behind it all tend to have a lot to do with attracting people to a movie...