Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: HATEFUL EIGHT 70mm

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » HATEFUL EIGHT 70mm - all discussion (Page 15)

This topic comprises 44 pages: 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 42 43 44

Author

Topic: HATEFUL EIGHT 70mm - all discussion

Frank Cox
Film God

Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011

posted 12-11-2015 12:46 AM

Something horrible probably does happen -- whatever financing they got for this thing probably comes due on that date and payments need to be made. So holding back the release would be ruinous to some of the backers.

So I suspect, anyway.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-11-2015 02:04 AM

Also they want it to be eligible for Academy Award nominations I'm sure. Still, that doesn't mean it needs to have a wide release in 2015. It just needs to open in one or two small art houses or some such and play a few shows for the public (which as far as I'm aware it has already done). Early February would be best. Everyone is calmed down. No Star Wars worries from either the techs or the theater management. Star Wars is already available to rent on VHS by then. Big screens almost guaranteed. Better presentation for EVERYBODY. 70mm as it should be. I think the movie would be far more successful as well as it would have next to no realistic competition. Just because something's released in February doesn't mean it sucks. BUT NO! Big movies MUST be released in summer or on a holiday weekend! Or else it is absolute shit!

This all really upsets me. I just can't comprehend the carelessness in planning of the dates here. None of us want it to fail, but Bobby may be onto something when it comes to the big-wigs and their planning of this release.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 12-11-2015 02:25 AM

quote: Bill Brandenstein
Can you just imagine the meeting where that was worked out with Tarantino?

The scene: late afternoon in a nondescript conference room in a 1990s office block; bottles of water on the table and the HVAC system humming quietly in the background. Harvey Weinstein is seated at the head of the table, with an accountant either side of him. Laptops, cellphones and printouts of Excel sheets cover the table. All three look tired and haggard. A cellphone bleep announces the arrival of an SMS message. One of the accountants glances at the phone.

ACCOUNTANT #1:
This is it. He's on his way up.

Weinstein glances at her, nervously. For the next few moments all of them are trying to avoid looking at each other. The doors at the end of the room bust open, and in marches Tarantino.

TARANTINO:
Yo, Harv! What's up, Bro? This'd better be real fucking important - I've gotta "Black lives matter" march in Watts I've gotta be at, like, yesterday.

WEINSTEIN:
Uhh, Quentin, I think you'd better sit down for a moment.

TARANTINO (hesitates, then pulls out an office chair and sits, straddling it)
What the fuck's up?

WEINSTEIN:
We're gonna have to open the DCP on the 25th. [Sharp intake of breath from Tarantino] WHOA..... not everywhere. It' just ... installing those seventy mil rigs, you know ... it ain't as easy as we thought it would be. The costs are going up, Chapin's having problems finding the guys he needs to do this stuff... there aren't that many of them left, you know.

Long dramatic pause, then finally ...

TARANTINO:
FUCK CHAPIN CUTLER, FUCK YOU, FUCK ALL YOU FUCKIN' PUSSIES UP THE ASS WITH A .44 FUCKIN' MAGNUM! YOU'VE FUCKED UP THE FUCKIN' MOVIE EVENT OF THE FUCKIN' CENTURY! DEE CEE FUCKIN' PEE ? WHADDYA THINK I'VE BEEN SLAVING MY ASS OFF TO MAKE THIS LAST YEAR, A FUCKIN' TV SHOW? KEEPING UP WITH THE FUCKIN' KARDASHIANS IN ULTRA-PANAVISION 70?

WE'RE FUCKED. WE'RE SO FUCKED! OK, SO THE MOVIE TURNED OUT TO FUCKIN' PRETENTIOUS GARBAGE, BUT AT LEAST WITH THE 70MM THE GEEKS WHO READ FILM-TECH.COM WOULD GO SEE IT. BUT IN DIGITAL? YOU MIGHT AS WELL PUT A BIG SIGN ON THE MARQUEE OF EVERY THEATER PLAYING IT THAT SAYS "ALSO PLAYING: SOME GNARLY, R-RATED, THREE-HOUR LONG PIECE OF SHIT FOR THE FEW SAD FUCKERS WHO HAVEN'T GOT A FUCKIN' DATE TO GO SEE STAR WARS WITH".

Door slams ; relieved silence in the room. Finally ...

WEINSTEIN (to accountant on his left):
Stacy, if there's anything left in the marketing budget when this nightmare is finally done, why don't you have FotoKem make a 16mm copy and send it over to the New Bev.

| IP: Logged

Fredrik Sandstrom
Film Handler

Posts: 63
From: Turku, Varsinais-Suomi, FINLAND
Registered: Mar 2014

posted 12-11-2015 03:13 AM

quote: Daniel Schulz
I understand there are about 10 35mm reduction prints of the Roadshow Version being struck.

I suppose these are letterboxed to preserve the full width?

They should make 16mm prints too. 16mm scope is 2.66, very close to the UP70 ratio. [Cool]

| IP: Logged

Richard May
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1057
From: Floral Park, NY USA
Registered: Aug 2004

posted 12-11-2015 07:19 AM

Leo, that was toooo fucking funny!!!!!!!!!

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-11-2015 08:10 AM

quote: Brad Miller
..but WHY can the release not simply be delayed until this space movie has done it's thing

1) Weinstein's Ego
2) Tarrantino's Ego
3) Probably some Play or Pay contractual obligations negotiated long before the first foot of film was shot.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-11-2015 08:52 AM

quote: Frank Cox
I saw some mention in this thread of screens being "masked down" to show this movie. Doesn't this mean that the picture that the audience sees will actually be SMALLER than if it had been filmed in standard scope or flat resolution since it still has to fit onto the regular movie screen? If so, then what was the point? I don't see the advantage of a short narrow picture when it could fill the screen if it was a standard resolution.

This is today's modern movie theater design: a HDTV-shaped screen, wall to wall, and even floor to ceiling in some cases, where the main feature (very often in 'scope) is letterboxed just like the living room TV set at home!

And, yes, The Hateful Eight will be shown even smaller than regular 'scope movies due to the 2.76:1 aspect ratio. Since the width of the screen can't change the height must change, to something smaller.

Stadium seated theater designs deserve a hefty share of the blame for this since one would need to build rooms significantly bigger and wider to use common height screens. It's cheaper to use common width.

I remember when most movie theaters were built with common height screens, like our old Carmike 8 theater here in Lawton. The audience would see a few previews in flat format. Then the screen would go dark and the lens would change from flat to 'scope. The movable masking opened up farther out to the sides the rest of the way revealing a significantly wider screen. The audiences' excitement level would be pumped up a bit since the screen just got bigger. A THX trailer and DTS trailer would play and then the main feature.

Modern movie theater screens often don't have any movable masking, because who in their right mind is going to run previews and commercials in flat format, using ALL of the movie screen and then close off some of it to make the main feature picture smaller? Just leave the whole damned thing un-masked. IMAX does that. Everyone loves the IMAX brand. Let's copy that.

quote: Mike Babb
Hey Brad, yes I accept what you are saying now and in the previous posts, it stemmed out of Bobby's comment about intentional sabotage but that's ancient history in internet forum world...we all want it to go well, agreed.

The Weinstein Co. & QT insisted on releasing The Hateful Eight in Ultra Panavision 70mm on Christmas, knowing full well Star Wars would have a monopoly on all the big screens. Many of these smaller, multiplex theater auditoriums have crappy common width screens, which is going to make this movie smaller than a garden variety 'scope movie.

To top it off, we're now going to have DCPs in the mix, that way the movie can play on more than one screen in the multiplex and customers won't have any damned idea for certain if they're watching 70mm or watching "TV in public." The picture is going to be so small it will be hard to tell the difference!

Maybe everyone involved with this movie's release wants things to go well. Maybe there's no deliberate attempts at sabotage going on to crap all over the reputation of film. Instead, it appears we have both ignorance and incompetence present at the top level of this. It may not be a deliberate fuck-up, but it is a fuck-up nonetheless because the decision makers didn't care enough about important details and realities about booking movies into commercial theaters. Those rich guys are woefully out of touch.

| IP: Logged

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

posted 12-11-2015 10:16 AM

I just found out I'll be running a Hateful Eight screening next week at Dolby.

- - But it will be a DCP version. I'm not sure if this event is a "press"
or an "Academy/DGA" screening. (Probably the latter)

I understand that they had discussed running 70mm, but the logistics
and insane expense of shipping one of the limited number of 70mm prints
(two ways) for just one screening put "the nails in the coffin" for that idea.

And, to be technically blunt- - although Dolby has a fantastic facility, the
screen there is only about 27ft wide, undercutting the "70mm experience".
(Although it apparently be just like watching the 70mm version at most
multiplexes! [Roll Eyes]

LoL)

I'm going to be really curious to takalook at the DCP drive when it arrives
next week to see if it's a special "roadshow' or 'standard' version DCP.

I understand their reasons for 'going digital' for this event, even though
I'd gone & checked out the projectors last month 'just in case' they sent
a 70mm print.

(One of the Kinoton 35/70's At Dolby)

(If the walls weren't almost two feet thick and filled with tons of
soundproofing, I'd almost consider running 70mm loops through
the projectors while screening the DCP, so some people in the
auditorium might THINK they're watching 70 by hearing the
projector noise. But the facility is too perfectly sound-proof for that!
lOl

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 12-11-2015 12:28 PM

quote:
And, to be technically blunt- - although Dolby has a fantastic facility, the
screen there is only about 27ft wide, undercutting the "70mm experience".
(Although it apparently be just like watching the 70mm version at most
multiplexes! [Roll Eyes] LoL)

It's not the size of the screen that defines a multiplex. 70mm 2.21 ratio films run awesomely there. I filed the 70 plates myself but a long time ago for sure 2.76 ratio would require letter boxing as there no way to get more width.

| IP: Logged

Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 12-11-2015 01:08 PM

There are multiple DCP(s) of the Roadshow version of "H8" -- we've seen keys now for two versions, #2 (DCP dated Dec. 1) and #3 (DCP dated Dec. 8). This would seem to imply that they are still playing around with it. Or something. They are 4K, and run as one piece, i.e. like the built-up 70mm print, so one has to be on the alert for the time to turn up the lights for the intermission. (We haven't played it in full continuity, so I can't tell you the intermission timings).

One hilarious (IMHO) report (and I haven't yet verified this with personal observation -- but I was told this by a particularly knowledgeable and observant fellow projection person) is that apparently these "Roadshow" versions have added image weave and vertical jitter, just a little, in order to more carefully resemble prints! Now I'm going to have to try to search one, at around the 40-minute mark, to see if they also included changeover cues!

It may also be that that picture instability was in version #2 and maybe they took it out in version #3 (or vice-versa), so ... when you're testing these things, or viewing the movie, more reports will help fill in these mysteries! (We were told by Weinstein Co. folks that the DCP we tested last week, #2, was made from an IP, not from the original neg. Maybe the motion was from the IP itself, and version #3 fixes it?)

And if they've made this "Roadshow" version DCP, will they **really** make a shortened version for some places, as well?

| IP: Logged

Rick Cohen
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 102
From: Amherst, New York
Registered: Feb 2011

posted 12-11-2015 01:26 PM

Moviegoing is a very seasonal business. The release frame from Christmas Day to New Years Eve is one of the busiest of the year. Obviously, they want to cash in on that opportunity. If the picture sucks, poor word of mouth and bad reviews will kill it before it was scheduled to go wide on January 8. If the movie is great, the audience will find it no matter what the release date. This will probably end up being a worse disaster than Grindhouse was. Going up against the second week of Star Wars was a disastrous notion to begin with.

Weinstein is notorious for changing their release dates and release plans right up to the last minute. They finally came to the conclusion that they greatly miscalculated the situation, and they're panicking. As has been previously stated, this could have worked as intended if they had the patience to move the release date back to late January. Too many forces pulling in different directions. Opening in December for Oscar consideration. Getting the movie out to the public over the holiday time frame. Lackluster early reviews. Star Wars swallowing up prime auditoriums. Egos. Financing. Layoffs. Contractual obligations.

Tarantino is going to throw a fit about the death of the cinema experience and blame everyone involved except himself for making a mediocre movie and attempting to revive a dead technology. Meanwhile, Star Wars will be grossing a half billion dollars domestically in its first two weeks of release, almost entirely on DCP.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-11-2015 01:51 PM

I'm not sure if Variety meant to say "35mm and digital print version" but it does sound like there will be 35mm

quote:
The Weinstein Co. decided Friday to move the wide release date for Quentin Tarantino’s Western forward from Jan. 8 for the 35mm digital print version of the film.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-11-2015 02:38 PM

quote: Rick Cohen
Meanwhile, Star Wars will be grossing a half billion dollars domestically in its first two weeks of release, almost entirely on DCP.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens will definitely rake in a lot of money in its first few days of release. I'm sure Disney is already cashing in on the merchandizing. However, there is no guarantee at all the movie will be any good. I've seen no advance reviews of SW:TFA or any score on the "Totato Meter" despite it opening less than a week from now.

Contractually the movie theaters are going to be stuck with that thing playing on their biggest best screens for a month, regardless if the movie is any good or not. The big houses in a lot of theaters could be devoid of people in January. Disney stands to lose out really big in the long term if this new Star Wars movie fails to be a blockbuster. If the movie is no better than the much maligned prequels all of Disney's future plans of sequels and spin-offs will be put into jeopardy.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-11-2015 03:01 PM

We had similar contracts for Phantom Menace and they let us move it to smaller auditoriums after a week or two once people realized that it sucked.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 12-11-2015 08:16 PM

quote: Leo Enticknap
The scene: late afternoon in a nondescript conference room in a 1990s office block........

Where's the "like" button?!!

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 44 pages: 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 42 43 44

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.