|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: HATEFUL EIGHT 70mm - all discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 01-15-2016 12:24 PM
quote: Jesse Skeen
Any reason why Hateful Eight, having an intermission, wasn't run as two separate films?
As has been noted the BLSI systems had no automation, so somebody had to be there to start it, had to be there when Act 1 entered intermission (to get lights), had to be there when Act 2 resumed (to get lights), had to be there when the credits started rolling (to get lights) and had to be there when the show ended.
I've made that point before, it made no sense to me to print up 1500 feet of blank film. It seems to me it would've been safer all around to have split the print onto two decks...BUT there is one thing that putting it on one continuous platter DID provide, and that was it permitted for one of the 3 platter decks to fail and the show still be runnable. It also made it so the wrong Act could not have been threaded by mistake (although the running time differential is pretty obvious).
Still though the cost of 1500 feet of blank film vs. the cost of a second "platter reel" is something I would be interested in knowing, but my assumption is 2 reels would've been cheaper than printing the blank film.
None of this argument has been researched from a financial perspective, so I may be blowing total bs here, but the reels shipped were 52" reels. They could have been the standard 38" reels without any custom work. That would've brought the cost down on the first reel. Plus the road case to ship it in would have been cheaper (with it not being oversize freight). This would have also made it easier (and lighter) to get it into the booths, through doors, up stairs and who knows what. To simply ship 2 road cases each with a 38" reel vs. one 52" reel...it's an interesting equation for somebody in-the-know to calculate.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-15-2016 01:15 PM
With rushes, showprints, tests etc., FotoKem will likely have bought around 2.3 to 2.4 million feet of 70mm 2383 for this project. Taking the intermission black footage out of that total will only have reduced the total by around 150,000 feet.
When you're buying that much stock, you don't simply place an order for 2.3 million feet at whatever the per footage cost to you or me is as stated on Kodak's website. FotoKem's CEO will have had a high level meeting with Kodak's head of entertainment imaging and haggled. They'd have had to set up a bespoke production run for that much film anyways, and so my guess is that there was no effective price difference between 2.3 million feet and 2.1, hence the intermission black spacing.
Another advantage of the black spacing is that it makes the playing of intermission music idiotproof, too.
Given Tarantino's general obsessiveness, I'm surprised that the prints weren't on 2393, given that for an order that big, it probably would have been viable to whip up a bespoke "brew" of the emulsion. That would have looked really spectacular, especially the dark interiors.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic