Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Tarantino's New Film

This is topic Tarantino's New Film in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=012333

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 07-25-2018, 02:10 AM:

Looks like MR Tarantino's new movie about Hollywood in 1969 about Sharon Tate and Manson is being filmed on 35mm Panavision® film by looking at his camera set up a few weeks ago outside the Hollywood Cinerama Dome Theatre. He is going with Sony and they probably told him no 70mm film. It will be a year before the new movie is out so who knows maybe he will do a few blow up 70mm film prints for Hollywood, SF, Seattle,Portland and NYC. Hope he shows it when It opens at the Pacific 70mm Cinerama Dome Theatre as many of the parts are filmed also around other movie theatres in the Hollywood area. As Harvey is in lock up he would have bankrolled Tarantino for 70mm film I think. At least MR T is filming in 35mm movie film scope Panavision.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-26-2018, 07:07 AM:

I'd be surprised if any studio would say no to 65/70 photography. The incremental cost of it compared to a filming budget isn't going to be THAT great.

From a filming standpoint, there are trade offs of using 65mm. You lens selection is limited, your required light (a lot) limits you, your depth of field is more limited, even the space needed to move equipment around limits you. Depending on the look Mr. T is looking for, 65mm may not have been the optimal choice. I wouldn't speculate that the studio was the limiting factor. Certainly, it is possible and if Quinten felt that 65mm would tell his story better, he'd likely be able to use it.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-26-2018, 10:37 AM:

After shooting UP70 on a mostly interior movie, I would have thought he would be 65mm forever, albeit regular 65mm. Anything less* is a compromise, right? But glad that he shoots film at all.

* yada yada yada 65-15 perf but why even bother with that when there are almost no places able to screen 70-15. At least with 5-perf there are a number of venues that have had the capability all along plus all the H8 systems that probably belong to Warners now.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-26-2018, 09:53 PM:

quote: Terry Monohan
As Harvey is in lock up...

...he would have made the perfect subject matter for Tarantino's new movie. Jack Nicholson as Harvey and Uma Thurman as Rose McGowan would be perfect. The only problem is that in a Tarantino script, Rose would have castrated Harvey with a motorized jigsaw in a prolonged torture/murder scene, to the accompaniment of 1960s surf music, which wouldn't exactly make it a documentary (yet, at any rate).

But I can see the attraction of Manson and Tate to him. I wonder who will play Polanski?

Posted by Alexandre Pereira (Member # 9295) on 07-26-2018, 10:43 PM:

First off Harvey is a giant GAY. And the only reason he is the bad boy is because his even uglier brother had it in for him.
Harvey was the greatest dude ever until his films started to not make money.
All these actresses are whores - Rose McGowan you have got to be kidding!
The only thing that matters in Hollywood/rock is does it make money. Same for any movie theatre. The pornography of entertainment.
As usual Tarantino has picked the best subject - LA 1969.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-26-2018, 11:14 PM:

quote:
First off Harvey is a giant GAY. And the only reason he is the bad boy is because his even uglier brother had it in for him.
Harvey was the greatest dude ever until his films started to not make money.
All these actresses are whores - Rose McGowan you have got to be kidding!

Not to get any more political, but just to get a grip on things: In the end roughly 80 women accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual misconduct. They must've been all whores...

quote: Terry Monohan
As Harvey is in lock up he would have bankrolled Tarantino for 70mm film I think. At least MR T is filming in 35mm movie film scope Panavision.

I'm pretty sure that when Tarantino wanted 70mm he would've either found the studio that would've paid for it or he would've bankrolled it himself. I guess Hollywood in 1969 fits better with 35mm. His career is also rooted in 35mm, it's unfortunate nobody is really going to see it in 35mm though.

Still I'd like to see Tarantino handle digital for once, maybe even 3D. There hasn't been a really good 3D experience in years and he once promised that if he was to ever do 3D, it would be flying all around you. Obviously, he could potentially do 3D in 30mm or even 65mm. [Wink]

quote: Steve Kraus
* yada yada yada 65-15 perf but why even bother with that when there are almost no places able to screen 70-15. At least with 5-perf there are a number of venues that have had the capability all along plus all the H8 systems that probably belong to Warners now.

I doubt he would like the aspect ratio of 70/15, besides Jacky Brown and his first experimental films, has he ever directed anything with an aspect ratio of 2.35 or less? [Razz]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-27-2018, 09:23 AM:

quote: Alexandre Pereira
First off Harvey is a giant GAY.

Uhhh?! As with Jimmy Savile and Larry Nassar, the public allegations against him, including the ones for which he has been indicted for crimes, all involve members of the opposite sex.

quote: Alexandre Pereira
And the only reason he is the bad boy is because his even uglier brother had it in for him.

Harvey was the greatest dude ever until his films started to not make money.

There I agree with you: it would seem that his brother and everyone else who profited from his business activity protected and shielded him from those allegations until he was no longer making money for them. It's a very common phenomenon (for example, and at the risk of proving Godwin's law, the first and only serious attempt to assassinate Hitler took place in response to accumulating evidence that he was starting to lose the war), otherwise known as be careful what you do on the way up, because it may return to bite you on the way down.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-27-2018, 10:50 AM:

How did this thread end up.... like this?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-27-2018, 11:35 AM:

How? I'm guessing a certain poster woke up with too much sand in his vagina. Rose McGowan may be obnoxious, but an obnoxious personality does not justify her being raped. As for the ugly asshole-style statement "all actresses are whores," here's some news: non-consensual sex is rape. It doesn't matter who the person is or the nature of that person's character. If someone abducts an actual prostitute walking the street and forces himself on her he committed rape. Simple as that. Plus throw in a kidnapping charge, which can be charged as a federal level felony on its own.

Our popular culture is still mired in the childish Madonna-Whore treatment of women. A man can be a promiscuous pig, even spreading disease, and still be seen in a positive light. Terms like "ladies man" get tossed around. I think that aspect of our culture encourages sexual assault. It's as if men feel like they're entitled to get laid regardless of how a woman feels about the situation. If a woman wants to take command of her own sexuality she is dealt with far more harshly (even by other women). It's a bullshit double standard.

Posted by Alexandre Pereira (Member # 9295) on 07-27-2018, 12:13 PM:

Is it 1990 and you just finished your gender studies elective?
How about everyone who is now pontificating about the terrible mistreatment in the whore business that is movies - please go right ahead and send back all the money you made to Miramax.
Tarantino was smart enough to mostly keep his mouth shut knowing full well that this Harvey thing is nothing more than a PR stunt by the MSM. More misdirection by the corporate propagandists to distract the deporables from taking notice of the horrors of capitalism.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-27-2018, 12:20 PM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
How did this thread end up.... like this?

It happened because the gentleman a few posts above yours is one of the most offensive people ever to work in exhibition.

But why take my word for it? Let's hear from one of his more charitable customers:

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-27-2018, 12:33 PM:

That's enough guys.