Why? He said that was what he prefers, and obviously its making him money. If you like the way something works, then why change it if you're films make houndreds of millions of dollars?

Aside from Kill Bill, how many huge movies like that has Quentin made? In fact, Aside from Kill Bill, how many movies has he made that most people willingly sit thru?

Uh... ever hear of Pulp Fiction?

The problem is that retro-grouches like Shyamalan get too caught up in the technology, or resist it, which is equally stupid. The medium is about storytelling.

Mark my words... as the tools get cheaper, more and more people are going to make stuff in their basement and challenge Hollywood. It's already happening in every other medium.

Yes, I have, it took in $212,900,000 world-wide. None of Shyamalan's films have done that low a figure as of yet.

However, What Quentin said was not dismissed by Shyamalan. He prefers to use a medium that has and continues to be used for a hundred years because he is comfortable with it. He didn't say that people that shot dititally weren't creating good stuff, or did I just totally miss that?

Shyamalan prefers to shoot in Film. Tarentino is currently shooting in Film. If Tarentino 'got it' and Shyamalan didn't, they wouldn't both be shooting their newest movies on Film.

Speaking of, Lady in the Water was interesting, woderful, and beautiful.

I haven't felt like that at the movies in a while.

I'm comfortable with pen and paper too, but word processing is better. Ever edit film? It's even worse than editing tape, because it really is destructive. Why the hell would you want to do that and not have the flexibility to figure out what looks best without having any physical constraints?

Actually, I have edited film and I've edited tape as well. Again, 'what would someone do that?' Because they're comfortable with it and obviously quite good at it. You sound just as adamant that people 'must' move on to new technologies as you claim Shyamalan is about rejecting them.

It isn't about what is 'better' (hey, didn't Quentin say that?), but what gets the job done. As an artist, one of my favorite 'instructors' (I say that loosely because, and she knew this, no one can teach you how to be artistic, you either have talent or you don't) always said I do things the hard way.

But I always got some of the highest scores in her class as well...And trust me when I say she was tough at dishing out anything above a 'C', since she considered that as average and you really had to be above average to get an 'A' in her class.

Why change your formula when you're making millions off of what you're doing now? (See: New Coke)

I troll around the film boards, and what I'd compare him to is a snobby film student. That's the problem that I have. It has nothing to do with his comfort level, he says it produces a better "feel" that you can't get with digital. While that's obviously subjective, I think it's crap.

And when the studios stop paying for film stock, he'll have to get over it.

"I troll around the film boards, and what I'd compare him to is a snobby film student."

Wha? Dude is making movies that are raking in cash. Sounds like someone who knows what they're doing, likes what they're doing, and is getting paid for it.

If he thinks that film produces a better feel, who are you to say he's a snob, and what is wrong with being snobbish about something inhuman? No offense, but he is actually out there writing screenplays, shooting movies, and making money off of them.

I wish I was lucky enough to make money and have a family while doing what I love, and had the option to do it the way I wanted to do it. For all of the 'advancement' in Hollywood with digital filming, Movies aren't any 'better' as a whole than they were 100 years ago. Sure, some look better, have flashy effects, but as Quentin said, it really is about the story. Night's story's seem to be effective, profitable, and enjoyable. And since he doesn't need to 'get over it' right now, why should he?

Dude, Where's My Car made money too... that hardly makes it a good movie. I personally find his movies very clever, but they also fit pretty firmly into a predictable formula: Build a reality, then tear it down in a way you hadn't thought of. The Village and Sixth Sense were practically the same movie!

Hollywood just annoys me. The "old guarde" has been dictating the way things should be for decades without regard to what the audience wants in terms of distribution, theatrical experience, etc. Disney's recent cuts and announcement to do fewer films is an example of that. Make more expensive pictures, and fewer of them, and make them with such broad appeal and the biggest stars that they're likely to "rake in cash" and be average.

Every once in awhile you get a Lost In Translation or a Sideways, but it's rare.

"Dude, Where's My Car made money too... that hardly makes it a good movie."

I liked it as a movie, it brought me enjoyment, and it made money. Why do people make movies in Hollywood? Don't tell because they're trying to make art. They're trying to make money. They were successful. In the end, the film made money and at least some people enjoyed it. That was the point.

However, the point you were trying to argue was that M. Night Shyamalan is snobbish because he prefers to shoot and edit on film. You used a statement by Tarentino to try to back that up, but in reality, Quentin was offering more of a defense to Shyamalan in what he said, which was that it doesn't matter what you use to film the story, the MAGIC is in the story.

Sure, a word processor may be easier to write a story on. So why do people still use pens and pencils? A lot of people still write stories with a pen and paper. It sure is outdated, and it may even be more efficient. But I can tell you, plenty of people still write on a pen.

What is the basic arguement? Shyamalan stills prefers film to shoot on. Who cares, really, as long as the goal, which is to make a movie and make money off of it is accomplished. Quentin Doesn't care what he shoots on and swtiches up to fit his mood. His goal is to make a movie and make money off of it. That gets accomplished.

No offense, but the only person I see being adamant here about what someone should or shouldn't use is you. So what if Shyamalan uses film and refuses to move on? He isn't the first director, writer, or producer in Hollywood to do so. He wont' be the last. And until he either fails at making a movie or fails at bringing in cash, he can pretty much do what he wants to get the job done.

I mean, sure, it would be nice if film makers could just go out and make a movie they believed in without having to worry about spending or making money, but this is the real world. I'd like to sit around and write and draw and shoot and film and mold and paint and ride rollercoasters all day. But in the end, my job is what I do for income, and my art is what I do for myself.

I don't have a big artistic budget, and I don't care if other people like my art or not. It wasn't for them, it was for me, and as long as I'm happy in the end, regardless of what medium I use or what technology I use to create it, isn't that the important thing? And even more so if, by some chance, someone else enjoys my work, isn't that the 'MAGIC'?

What are you even arguing? Did I not state that I have an opinion? Are you trying to talk me out of my opinion? Did I say it wasn't about the money? I don't see your point. My issues about old Hollywood are related points to the reluctance to evolve.

I think you lack context. There's an ongoing "battle" between the old school directors and people like Robert Rodriguez, who just want to make a good film, as fast and as cheap as possible. Tarantino is saying the argument isn't worth arguing, not that film is better (and he did in fact shoot digital in his parts of Sin City). Shyamalamadingdong and Spielberg are arguing that it is worth arguing about. It's film purists vs. the tool agnostic crowd, so in that sense perhaps my title was not accurate.

How many people see something like Pieces of April and know that it was shot on DV? I'm guessing only film geeks.