The Hateful Eight (2015)

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

I've just seen the 70MM Roadshow for the third time in a week tonight, and it is tremendous. Just an incredibly fun, gloriously un-PC and stunningly beautiful film throughout. And, I thought I'd remembered how much better film projection is to digital, but I wasn't prepared for how this presentation was going to blow every other (digitally projected) film I've seen this year out of the water. And yes, my Christmas Eve screening (the first for the venue) did have a projection error, which caused the picture to drop out three times in a row (over about five minutes of the film) before it was fixed, but the next two screenings have been perfect.

The easiest way to tell: If you often find that your eyes get tired at the movies, and that bright images can tend to cause eyeache after a while, get to the roadshow, watch the 70MM print, and realize, to your amazement, that after three hours, and even the outdoor scenes, with bright sunlight and white snow, that your eyes don't ache at all. That's how much easier film is to watch than digital projection, which is, after all, nothing more than staring at a huge computer screen for two or more hours.

Yes, it's not as bright as a properly projected digital image, but you're the first person I've heard of who considers this to be an advantage. You must like digitally projected 3D movies or 2D movies projected on the Sony 4K projector with the 3D filter still on because they're dim as a smoggy day in Beijing.

The reason why the bright sunlight and snow didn't bother you is because they weren't white - they were grey at best. I think this was intentional (the storm is blocking the sun and nothing in this movie is supposed to be bright and happy) but it's also because of the relatively dim 70mm projection.

I suggest you get your eyes checked. Do you constantly wear sunglasses? Because that will make your eyes more sensitive to bright light.

I would contend, although I can't prove it, that 70mm roadshow productions back in the day were projected brighter than this was (at least where I saw it) and the screens were generally even larger (although I saw it on a 62' screen). I would also say that the 3-strip Cinerama production of "How the West Was Won" was also projected brighter.

Increased dynamic range in movie projection is supposed to be an advantage, not a disadvantage, which is why most people consider Dolby Vision to be a huge advance (you'd probably hate it). And while digitally projected movies are different than movies projected on film, they each have their advantages and disadvantages. The first ten minutes of H8 in 70mm that I saw was filled with black specks (although no scratches). (And when I saw "The Master" in 70mm, the entire print was filled with dirt.) During the opening credits, a large amount of jump was also perceivable, although the projectionist maintains that it was within spec. The center of the screen was much hotter than the edges. With digital, the picture would have been rock steady, there's never any dirt or scratches and there's far better light consistency across the screen. But especially in the indoor scenes, I thought the color was superb in the 70mm print and some of the closeups were beautifully sharp. Another disadvantage of digital is that 2K digital displays the 'screen door effect' in bright scenes. I haven't seen it digitally (and don't plan to), but I've heard at least one report that the digital version is much "bluer".

I'm a really big fan of 70mm. I'm old enough to have seen "How the West Was Won" in 3-strip Cinerama, "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad World" in 70mm Ultra-Pan Cinerama and "West Side Story" and "Lawrence of Arabia" in their original 70mm roadshows. And during the Dolby era, living in NYC, I was able to see many movies in 70mm Dolby 6-track, although they were almost all blowups from 35mm.

From 2002 to 2006, I also worked as a consultant evaluating projection quality in various theaters.

But overall, I'd have to say that for the average moviegoer in the average city, they're getting a much better presentation when they go to a digital presentation as opposed to what they would have seen if film still dominated. Did you ever see "Grindhouse"? That's how film projection actually looked in most theaters in this country outside of the premiere cities and the best theaters early in the run.

I've already heard of at least two 70mm prints of "H8" that are severely damaged.

Furthermore, I would contend the following: that if this movie had been a traditional 35mm to 70mm blowup, aside from the aspect ratio, audiences would not have been able to perceive the difference. And assuming there are no color timing problems on the DCP, if most people were able to A-B between the 70mm and the digital and they didn't know which was which, they'd prefer the digital.

There's rumors that "Rogue One" is also going to be shot Ultra-Pan and that Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" is going to be shot 65mm and IMAX 70mm. It will be interesting to see how all that works out (just because it's shot on film doesn't mean it's going to be shown that way). Unfortunately, my understanding is that Boston Light & Sound is going to be pulling all the 70mm projectors out of the H8 locations that they installed for this run. That means starting the process all over again if these other films also intend to project on film. IMO, it was a huge mistake to pull every film projector out of virtually every multiplex when they converted to digital. Since they couldn't resell them anyway (except as scrap), it would have made far more sense to keep at least one 35mm or 35mm/70mm projector if they had them.

Of course the other factor is Kodak. The 99 North American 70mm prints of "H8" and the 15 worldwide 15/70 IMAX prints of "Star Wars VII" is not enough to keep Kodak in business.

[Buscemi]

Rogue One will only use partially use film. It will be primarily shot on the Arri Alexa 65 (a digital camera with resolution similar to 65mm film), which is to be outfitted with the Ultra Panavision lenses.

[mdonovan]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Yes, it's not as bright as a properly projected digital image, but you're the first person I've heard of who considers this to be an advantage. You must like digitally projected 3D movies or 2D movies projected on the Sony 4K projector with the 3D filter still on because they're dim as a smoggy day in Beijing.

...

yada yada

...

Of course the other factor is Kodak. The 99 North American 70mm prints of "H8" and the 15 worldwide 15/70 IMAX prints of "Star Wars VII" is not enough to keep Kodak in business.

Things I agree with :

This movie looks amazing projected from 70mm print

Damage can occur to material being projected

... fact of the matter is ... that while 'technically' inferior to a digital projection , the film projection feels better to me. It feels
more natural and less sterile to me.

My single most hated aspect of modern filmmaking is the flexibility in color timing during the grade. I truly believe that this 'ability' has ruined many films due to 'artistic' choices by the colorist or director. I know color timing has always been an art, but with the advent of the digital age ... personal color choices have run rampant and ruined ... at least for me ... the picture quality of many films. Let me also state that this is NOT the case in every modern film ... I don't want to start a huge debate.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by nmycon

They're using that extra bit of footage to get people to go out to the roadshow presentations.

The whole point is that you get to see the extra footage projected in 70mm and nowhere else, not in the general release, not on the blu-ray, etc.

I'm seeing the film in 70mm on Monday

If that's really the reasoning then it's foolish. The roadshow version is supposedly QT's preferred version, it should therefore be made available on Blu-ray (if not DVD and digital, too). There's no point in him going out of his way to shoot, edit and exhibit the film in and for a specific format if a very small percentage of the global audience is ever gonna see that version of it.

[Energy Crisis]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

[Show spoiler]Yes, it's not as bright as a properly projected digital image, but you're the first person I've heard of who considers this to be an advantage. You must like digitally projected 3D movies or 2D movies projected on the Sony 4K projector with the 3D filter still on because they're dim as a smoggy day in Beijing.

The reason why the bright sunlight and snow didn't bother you is because they weren't white - they were grey at best. I think this was intentional (the storm is blocking the sun and nothing in this movie is supposed to be bright and happy) but it's also because of the relatively dim 70mm projection.

I suggest you get your eyes checked. Do you constantly wear sunglasses? Because that will make your eyes more sensitive to bright light.

I would contend, although I can't prove it, that 70mm roadshow productions back in the day were projected brighter than this was (at least where I saw it) and the screens were generally even larger (although I saw it on a 62' screen). I would also say that the 3-strip Cinerama production of "How the West Was Won" was also projected brighter.

Increased dynamic range in movie projection is supposed to be an advantage, not a disadvantage, which is why most people consider Dolby Vision to be a huge advance (you'd probably hate it). And while digitally projected movies are different than movies projected on film, they each have their advantages and disadvantages. The first ten minutes of H8 in 70mm that I saw was filled with black specks (although no scratches). (And when I saw "The Master" in 70mm, the entire print was filled with dirt.) During the opening credits, a large amount of jump was also perceivable, although the projectionist maintains that it was within spec. The center of the screen was much hotter than the edges. With digital, the picture would have been rock steady, there's never any dirt or scratches and there's far better light consistency across the screen. But especially in the indoor scenes, I thought the color was superb in the 70mm print and some of the closeups were beautifully sharp. Another disadvantage of digital is that 2K digital displays the 'screen door effect' in bright scenes. I haven't seen it digitally (and don't plan to), but I've heard at least one report that the digital version is much "bluer".

I'm a really big fan of 70mm. I'm old enough to have seen "How the West Was Won" in 3-strip Cinerama, "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad World" in 70mm Ultra-Pan Cinerama and "West Side Story" and "Lawrence of Arabia" in their original 70mm roadshows. And during the Dolby era, living in NYC, I was able to see many movies in 70mm Dolby 6-track, although they were almost all blowups from 35mm.

From 2002 to 2006, I also worked as a consultant evaluating projection quality in various theaters.

But overall, I'd have to say that for the average moviegoer in the average city, they're getting a much better presentation when they go to a digital presentation as opposed to what they would have seen if film still dominated. Did you ever see "Grindhouse"? That's how film projection actually looked in most theaters in this country outside of the premiere cities and the best theaters early in the run.

I've already heard of at least two 70mm prints of "H8" that are severely damaged.

Furthermore, I would contend the following: that if this movie had been a traditional 35mm to 70mm blowup, aside from the aspect ratio, audiences would not have been able to perceive the difference. And assuming there are no color timing problems on the DCP, if most people were able to A-B between the 70mm and the digital and they didn't know which was which, they'd prefer the digital.

There's rumors that "Rogue One" is also going to be shot Ultra-Pan and that Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" is going to be shot 65mm and IMAX 70mm. It will be interesting to see how all that works out (just because it's shot on film doesn't mean it's going to be shown that way). Unfortunately, my understanding is that Boston Light & Sound is going to be pulling all the 70mm projectors out of the H8 locations that they installed for this run. That means starting the process all over again if these other films also intend to project on film. IMO, it was a huge mistake to pull every film projector out of virtually every multiplex when they converted to digital. Since they couldn't resell them anyway (except as scrap), it would have made far more sense to keep at least one 35mm or 35mm/70mm projector if they had them.

Of course the other factor is Kodak. The 99 North American 70mm prints of "H8" and the 15 worldwide 15/70 IMAX prints of "Star Wars VII" is not enough to keep Kodak in business.

The dim projection was just a problem at your theater. It was perfect where I saw it. The snow was definitely WHITE. I'm pretty sure McCrutchy was talking about the shutter on the projector as opposed to the constant light of a digital presentation - not a flawed, dim projection.

Also, saying film projection commonly looked like the beat up Grindhouse prints? Seriously?! That's not even remotely true. Even when I've bought old collector prints I've only run across a few with anywhere near that much damage. General release films didn't look like that.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by Energy Crisis

The dim projection was just a problem at your theater. It was perfect where I saw it. The snow was definitely WHITE. I'm pretty sure McCrutchy was talking about the shutter on the projector as opposed to the constant light of a digital presentation - not a flawed, dim projection.

Also, saying film projection commonly looked like the beat up Grindhouse prints? Seriously?! That's not even remotely true. Even when I've bought old collector prints I've only run across a few with anywhere near that much damage. General release films didn't look like that.

I get people advocating digital. That wasn't the point of this movie. It was an experiment that just doesn't happen anymore, so I applaud it for that. Other than a hiccup with the overture, it was also perfect where I saw it. Vivid and beautiful. I loved the immersive quality of the widescreen presentation. I don't know how much more substantial it was than the digital presentation because I have no desire to see the digital presentation after this. And certainly we live in an era where digital is just coming into its own after for so long trying to convince that it could replicate the classic look of film. It has its uses and so does 70mm for something like this. Also, when people say things like 'you should have your eyes checked,' I shut down- it kinda invalidates everything else they have to say.

[GeoffOliver]

I'm not an expert, but I do think the print damage increases with each viewing. I remember seeing Finding Nemo with a noticeably dirty print after it was playing for over a month. I was only 9, and it was something that stuck out for me. I've also heard reports about cinemas having to order new prints for Titanic from Paramount because their prints were overplayed to the point of falling apart inside the projectors.

I do prefer the look of film, warts and all, but I can definitely understand the convenience of DCP (practical and financial), even if it comes with it's own problems.

[The Great Owl]

The Hateful Eight (70mm) is my favorite Tarantino film since Pulp Fiction, and it's definitely one of my favorite 2015 movies.

We really need for the 70mm version of this movie to receive the same Blu-ray treatment that other such films, like Ben Hur or Khartoum, have received. Let's get that 2.76:1 aspect ratio.

[McCrutchy]

Hi ZoetMB,

I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack me about my preference for film over digital. I enjoyed a 70MM print screening much more than the digital projections I see at the same theater, And this is something that has held true for me at all of the theaters in my area. It is my opinion, but as you chose to pick it apart (and belittle me more than once in the process) as though I was making some sort of absolute proclamation, let me expand on it for you:

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Yes, it's not as bright as a properly projected digital image, but you're the first person I've heard of who considers this to be an advantage. You must like digitally projected 3D movies or 2D movies projected on the Sony 4K projector with the 3D filter still on because they're dim as a smoggy day in Beijing.

No, try again. I loathe all digital projection, and particularly in my local multiplex, it is categorically either too bright (with whites bordering on blooming) or, as in the case of many of the smaller theaters, too dim, possibly for exactly the reason you suggest, because my theater apparently has "upgraded" to Sony 4K projectors.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The reason why the bright sunlight and snow didn't bother you is because they weren't white - they were grey at best. I think this was intentional (the storm is blocking the sun and nothing in this movie is supposed to be bright and happy) but it's also because of the relatively dim 70mm projection.

No, the snow was white, not gray. I know what the color gray is, and I know what the color white is, and the snow in this print (which again, I viewed on its first public screening, and then twice more) was white. I am keenly aware that there is a blizzard going on for much (but not all) of the film, too, but there are also two large portions of the film which take place during the day.

As for a lack of bright imagery, there are various shots in the carriage where large amounts of bright sunlight are shining in, for example. And these were key moments where I was stunned to discover they did not bother me at all.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I suggest you get your eyes checked. Do you constantly wear sunglasses? Because that will make your eyes more sensitive to bright light.

My eyes are just fine, and no, I do not constantly wear sunglasses. Natural light doesn't bother my eyes. The only time my eyes ache is when I've been staring at a computer screen for several hours, which is essentially what the screens at my (and most every other) cinema have become--fancy displays for digital files.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I would contend, although I can't prove it, that 70mm roadshow productions back in the day were projected brighter than this was (at least where I saw it) and the screens were generally even larger (although I saw it on a 62' screen). I would also say that the 3-strip Cinerama production of "How the West Was Won" was also projected brighter.

I am certain you're correct, although again, how this is projected is going to vary from screen to screen, as you well know, so it is entirely possible that my screening was brighter than yours, depending on what equipment was sourced and brought in.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Increased dynamic range in movie projection is supposed to be an advantage, not a disadvantage, which is why most people consider Dolby Vision to be a huge advance (you'd probably hate it). And while digitally projected movies are different than movies projected on film, they each have their advantages and disadvantages. The first ten minutes of H8 in 70mm that I saw was filled with black specks (although no scratches). (And when I saw "The Master" in 70mm, the entire print was filled with dirt.) During the opening credits, a large amount of jump was also perceivable, although the projectionist maintains that it was within spec. The center of the screen was much hotter than the edges. With digital, the picture would have been rock steady, there's never any dirt or scratches and there's far better light consistency across the screen. But especially in the indoor scenes, I thought the color was superb in the 70mm print and some of the closeups were beautifully sharp. Another disadvantage of digital is that 2K digital displays the 'screen door effect' in bright scenes. I haven't seen it digitally (and don't plan to), but I've heard at least one report that the digital version is much "bluer".

I have no idea if I would hate Dolby Vision, a format which I have never seen, am unlikely to travel to see, and consequently, probably will not see with any film for at least another few years. I don't make snap judgments about new cinematic technologies, and when Dolby Vision arrives with a film I want to see it in, on an appropriate size screen and within a reasonable distance from me, I will see it, and evaluate it. It is, along with Atmos, something I actually look forward to being able to experience.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I'm a really big fan of 70mm.

That's difficult to believe considering the rest of this post.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I'm old enough to have seen "How the West Was Won" in 3-strip Cinerama, "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad World" in 70mm Ultra-Pan Cinerama and "West Side Story" and "Lawrence of Arabia" in their original 70mm roadshows. And during the Dolby era, living in NYC, I was able to see many movies in 70mm Dolby 6-track, although they were almost all blowups from 35mm.

From 2002 to 2006, I also worked as a consultant evaluating projection quality in various theaters.

But overall, I'd have to say that for the average moviegoer in the average city, they're getting a much better presentation when they go to a digital presentation as opposed to what they would have seen if film still dominated. Did you ever see "Grindhouse"? That's how film projection actually looked in most theaters in this country outside of the premiere cities and the best theaters early in the run.

You're lucky to have been in the right place at the right time to have seen the print screenings you've seen. I am also old enough to have grown up with film screenings (though I was never lucky enough to catch a 70MM screening) as is 95% of the rest of world. A big reason that I stopped going to the movies as often (and I still get there multiple times a month) is because digital projection has never really impressed me, outside of the few key venues in large cities where it is done properly.

Yes, I have seen Grindhouse. I also had the privilege to see many retrospective prints when I lived in NYC some years ago, so I have some idea of what procuring and screening a vintage 35mm print is like, and the idea that they are all like Grindhouse has become conveniently overstated. Perhaps if you were in a situation, many years ago, where a film was hugely popular, and new prints could not be delivered, either because the lab was too busy, or because your venue wasn't deemed important enough for them, then such a screening would likely have happened. Or alternatively, if you were screening much smaller, obscure films, for which limited prints were struck, then I could see that happening even now, as that is, after all, what Grindhouse represented. On the other hand, I don't ever remember the film screenings in my youth being full of dirt and scratches, and the vast majority of the time that I saw damage from 35mm prints become intrusive, was during the few seconds before and after reel changes.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I've already heard of at least two 70mm prints of "H8" that are severely damaged.

Considering the nature of this particular engagement, I would say that's a pretty fair trade off. And it probably would have been less likely to happen had there been a new generation of projectionists on hand, and more modern film projection equipment available. As it is, I am astounded it's only two of the hundred.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Furthermore, I would contend the following: that if this movie had been a traditional 35mm to 70mm blowup, aside from the aspect ratio, audiences would not have been able to perceive the difference. And assuming there are no color timing problems on the DCP, if most people were able to A-B between the 70mm and the digital and they didn't know which was which, they'd prefer the digital.

As for "audiences", I am again at a loss what the opinion of the unwashed masses has to do with my preference for film. I know people "prefer" digital (though I suspect that if they were properly educated about film, they wouldn't). and I also know that if it were up to the masses, we would have nothing but Michael Bay movies, Star Wars and reality television shows.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

There's rumors that "Rogue One" is also going to be shot Ultra-Pan and that Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk" is going to be shot 65mm and IMAX 70mm. It will be interesting to see how all that works out (just because it's shot on film doesn't mean it's going to be shown that way). Unfortunately, my understanding is that Boston Light & Sound is going to be pulling all the 70mm projectors out of the H8 locations that they installed for this run. That means starting the process all over again if these other films also intend to project on film. IMO, it was a huge mistake to pull every film projector out of virtually every multiplex when they converted to digital. Since they couldn't resell them anyway (except as scrap), it would have made far more sense to keep at least one 35mm or 35mm/70mm projector if they had them.

Of course the other factor is Kodak. The 99 North American 70mm prints of "H8" and the 15 worldwide 15/70 IMAX prints of "Star Wars VII" is not enough to keep Kodak in business.

Actually, perhaps you missed that Kodak became profitable again this quarter because of large, important films (including Star Wars) being shot on film stock, not digital. The fact that there are still people wanting to shoot (and even project) on film stocks in 2015, when "everybody" is supposed to love digital, should tell you otherwise.

We do seem to agree that it was a mistake to pull film projectors out of so many theaters, and hopefully Boston Light & Sound are going to keep as many of the ones they put together as they can, and then rent them out as needed for other special engagements. It would be great to see some of the older large format films get the same kind of nationwide roadshows as The Hateful Eight did.

Have a great weekend, and do try to get to a different screening of The Hateful Eight if you can. It really is breathtakingly beautiful in 70MM, and I'm sorry to hear that your screening was not adequate.

[jakcul]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

Best film of the year but I can't justify buying Tarantino films new anymore due to lack of extras.

Inglorious Bastards had a decent set of extras. I do wish he had more "making of," featurettes and did commentaries. IIRC, the only commentaries he's done was on Sin City (the one scene he directed) and True Romance (which he only wrote). It seems he has little to no interest in special features.

[Buscemi]

Tarantino's not the only one who isn't big on commentaries. Spielberg, Eastwood, and DePalma don't do them and Scorsese and Paul Thomas Anderson have pretty much stopped.

[St.ylo]

Tarantino exclusively does commentaries on other peoples' movies, heh. (See his Hot Fuzz commentary, in which they reference an astounding number of movies that aren't the one they're watching.)

[MEB]

I'll spend upwards of $40 for a Blu-ray release of the Roadshow version of The Hateful Eight, complete with full intermission and overture. If only the standard release hits Blu-ray, I'll wait until it's $14.99.

Mark

[happydood]

Originally Posted by MEB

I'll spend upwards of $40 for a Blu-ray release of the Roadshow version of The Hateful Eight, complete with full intermission and overture. If only the standard release hits Blu-ray, I'll wait until it's $14.99.

Mark

Man, I hope it's not like Grindhouse- where you only get the non-theatrical cut until everybody has already bought it.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

Tarantino's not the only one who isn't big on commentaries. Spielberg, Eastwood, and DePalma don't do them and Scorsese and Paul Thomas Anderson have pretty much stopped.

Spike Lee and Woody Allen as well.

I applaud all of them...commentaries by their very nature obstruct the movie-watching experience. Give me an in-depth "making of" or several featurettes devoted to certain aspects of the production any day.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

commentaries by their very nature obstruct the movie-watching experience. Give me an in-depth "making of" or several featurettes devoted to certain aspects of the production any day.

Give me both.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Give me both.

Not from QT. Or Woody. Or Spike. Or Spielberg. Or Eastwood

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Not from QT. Or Woody. Or Spike. Or Spielberg. Or Eastwood

That's why Fincher rules (except Gone Girl doe, I dunno what happened with that release).

Honestly I don't expect much from those directors anymore anyway, except for documentaries from Spielberg. If QT can give us a handful of decent featurette, or at least one that deals with the 70mm aspect of the production, that'll be enough for me.

Having said that, if there's no roadshow version available on Blu-Ray, I may just skip it altogether.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

That's why Fincher rules (except Gone Girl doe, I dunno what happened with that release).

Honestly I don't expect much from those directors anymore anyway, except for documentaries from Spielberg. If QT can give us a handful of decent featurette, or at least one that deals with the 70mm aspect of the production, that'll be enough for me.

Having said that, if there's no roadshow version available on Blu-Ray, I may just skip it altogether.

I'll still buy it but will be extremely disappointed. I loved Morricone's Overture score and to not have it would be a shame for cinephiles.

[balthazar_bee]

I'm disappointed I can't muster the energy to drive for hours to see the roadshow 70mm print. I did see the digital projection yesterday -- loved the movie, and can confirm that there is narration after the spot where the intermission presumably belongs.

Since we're all geeks here, I can't imagine I'm the only one who experienced a real frisson of excitement upon hearing unused cues from Morricone's score for The Thing used here and there. Lovely tip of the cap -- Russell, snow, bloody death around every corner -- but it also worked incredibly well in the context of the film, particularly that piece that starts with a few dramatic notes from a cello.

Wonderful performances all around. Great to see Walton Goggins get a substantial role in a prominent film. And I'd say JJL has got her Oscar all locked up.

Hopefully we'll see both cuts made available sooner rather than later.