Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » HATEFUL EIGHT 70mm - all discussion (Page 9)

 
This topic comprises 44 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  42  43  44 
 
Author Topic: HATEFUL EIGHT 70mm - all discussion
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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


 - posted 12-04-2015 03:01 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Stephan Shelley
Cinemark is not letting any outside techs access to there theatres until Dec 22. Can not go in and even do a site check.
Yeah. God forbid they give an experienced tech enough time to discover potential problems and prevent some disasters happening with the film presentation or the print itself. It's like they're literally trying to sabotage this effort as a means of putting a stop to film-based shows once and for all.

 |  IP: Logged

David J Hilsgen
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 192
From: SAUK RAPIDS,MN . USA
Registered: Aug 2004


 - posted 12-05-2015 01:40 AM      Profile for David J Hilsgen   Email David J Hilsgen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Terry i have curtains & proper masking ,here at the willow creek in plymouth mn ,to do a roadshow presentation and they passed me up. for an AMC that has none of that. i even have a dual DTS Reader & player so i even have back up on the audio. and 40 years of experience. anybody know if the BLS set ups have the back up audio.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 12-05-2015 03:09 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
With blood, bounty hunters and 70mm film, Quentin Tarantino is on a mission to save cinema

By Stephanie Merry December 1, 2015

quote:
Quentin Tarantino wants you to know that the only way to fully appreciate his new movie is to see it under a combination of conditions that hasn’t been used in nearly 50 years. Anything less and you are not truly a connoisseur of film.

He asserts that you must watch the western “The Hateful Eight” at a 70mm “roadshow” screening. Is this a marketing stunt? Or just the whimsical demands of a self-indulgent auteur? After all, very few theaters are capable of projecting 70mm film anymore, having made the switch to digital. More importantly, if you ask a typical person what 70mm means, they’ll most likely shrug and get back to whatever television show they’re watching.

But Tarantino sticks to his guns, and on Christmas Day, 96 theaters in the U.S. and four in Canada will be outfitted to screen all three hours and two minutes of Tarantino’s latest the way it was meant to be seen (according to the director, anyway). The cost to make this happen? No one is divulging exact figures, but a feature in the New York Times threw out some guesses: Possibly in the range of $60,000 to $80,000 per screen. And that doesn’t include fees to hire and train projectionists — a nearly extinct breed.

So do we roll our eyes at Tarantino’s willingness to inconvenience exhibitors? Deride his obsession with passe technology for the sake of nostalgia?

Not after watching the movie’s first featurette. Tarantino has worthy aspirations. He’s trying to save the film industry.

The seven-minute movie about the movie is one part history lesson, one part film procedural and 100 percent persuasive marketing. Wisely, Samuel L. Jackson does most of the talking. The actor has always been the epitome of cool, so when he says that seeing the movie in 70mm “will make your enhanced viewing even doper,” we want to toggle over to Fandango, credit card in hand.

So what is a roadshow? It’s a throwback to a time when people got excited about going to movies. In the 1950s and ’60s, certain films played in a limited number of theaters before getting wide releases. Those advanced screenings were classy events. “People even got dressed up,” Jackson marvels in the featurette. An overture preceded the feature, and an intermission gave people a chance to stretch their legs; programs were handed out. These screenings also had extended cuts of the movie, treating early viewers to additional footage.

The roadshow release of “The Hateful Eight” has all that and begins on Dec. 25 with a one-week run, after which theaters that aren’t outfitted for 70mm will show the movie on 35mm and digital.

Tarantino, along with Christopher Nolan, is among the biggest defenders of celluloid, so of course the featurette breaks down the wonders of 70mm film. More than just a delightfully analog approach, shooting on 65mm film (which is then printed on 70mm) offers directors more space within each shot. It’s twice the width of the standard 35mm, so there’s more room for visual elements within every frame and, when projecting the image on a big screen, little loss of picture quality.

It’s especially nice for vast landscape shots and gives movies an epic feel. Think: “Gone With the Wind,” “Lawrence of Arabia” and “The Sound of Music.”

The “Hateful Eight” is a western shot in Telluride, Colo., so it’s ideal for the wide-format treatment. The movie takes place shortly after the Civil War and focuses on eight people, including a bounty hunter and his prisoner, who are holed up together in a haberdashery during a blizzard. Jackson stars alongside Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Bruce Dern, among others.

According to the director of photography, Robert Richardson, “when you see the grain of 70, you see the color of 70 — like the wide shot inside the barn and the close-ups of the faces — it’s beautiful.”

But Tarantino took it a step further by shooting in Ultra Panavision, which, as Jackson explains, is “the widest format there is.” “The Hateful Eight” is only the 11th film ever shot this way. Others include “Ben-Hur” and “Mutiny on the Bounty,” and prior to “Hateful,” the most recent movie was “Khartoum,” in 1966. To make this happen, the crew had to refurbish decades-old lenses and retrofit cameras.

Even the movie’s editor wasn’t entirely prepared for the virtuosic scale of images with an aspect ratio (the ratio of width to height) of 2.76:1. During an interview with CineMontage magazine, Fred Raskin said, “I’m a little ashamed to admit that, aside from my general excitement at seeing the 2.76:1 compositions, I don’t think I was aware there would be any difference creatively. But once the footage started coming in, the combination of the beauty of the 70mm and that super-wide aspect ratio led us to hold on to wide shots substantially longer than we would have otherwise. When you are seeing these beautiful compositions – and the clarity of the image is such that you can see the depth of the performances in the actors’ eyes – why would you cut away?”

Basically this is a lot of effort to remind people that there’s a difference between film and television — and that’s a lesson the movie industry desperately needs to be spreading right now.

Tarantino hasn’t always explained things in the most tactful way. At the Cannes Film Festival, he offended people with his elitism when he declared, “digital projections, that’s just television in public. And apparently the whole world is OK with television in public, but what I knew as cinema is dead.”

That’s a little melodramatic, and less established directors will explain that digital filmmaking has it’s place; it’s much cheaper, which has democratized the art form. Just look at the magnificent low-budget “Tangerine,” which was shot on an iPhone, and probably wouldn’t exist otherwise.

And yet, Tarantino has a point. Making television and making movies has never been more alike.

Just talk to someone who has done both. Director John Wells, a producer and director who worked on “E.R.,” “The West Wing” and “Shameless,” plus the film adaptation of “August: Osage County,” has seen the vast differences between the mediums disappear.

“We have more resources on [recent] shows than on any of the films I produced 10 years ago,” he said recently while promoting his film “Burnt” with Bradley Cooper. “The technology has changed in the sense that there’s no difference in the physical product between doing [the upcoming series] ‘Animal Kingdom’ and doing ‘Burnt.’ We’re using the same tools and shooting them the same way with all the same personnel.”

Throw in the fact that television tends to take more risks with fresher stories and diverse casts — not to mention the sheer volume of options — and the result is that fewer people go to movies. The talk around the water cooler is rarely about what came out at the multiplex last weekend. Everyone’s too busy rehashing what premiered on HBO last night.

Say what you will about his opinions and methods, but Tarantino is fighting a worthy battle by trying to re-assert the divide between the two art forms. You won’t get dressed, much less dressed up, to watch television, he’s reminding us. You can’t enjoy the breathtaking immersion of Ultra Panavision in your living room.

The payoff will likely be good for Tarantino. Police officers notwithstanding, the director knows how to get people excited about the power of movies. After all, “Django Unchained” and “Inglourious Basterds” scored big at the box office without the novelty of a roadshow. But he’s not going to be able to do it alone. In order to save movies, the whole industry is going to have to rethink the existing paradigm. Studios and filmmakers need to understand that A-list stars and familiar characters aren’t guaranteed to tear people away from their flat screens.

But a new story delivered in a way few have ever seen? Maybe Jackson says it best: “It’s pretty cool, huh?”

So let's re-read that interesting sentence in the middle again:

quote:
The roadshow release of “The Hateful Eight” has all that and begins on Dec. 25 with a one-week run, after which theaters that aren’t outfitted for 70mm will show the movie on 35mm and digital.
So is the same thing happening here that happened with Interstellar to where the promised "film only" window is being compromised? Possible reasons...

#1 The movie is boring and Weinstein is afraid word will get out and kill their box office? (HIGHLY doubtful because Quentin only knows how to make awesome movies.)

#2 Everyone is suddenly realizing that many of the technical aspects of the way this thing is being coordinated is just flat out wrong on many different levels. Because of that they know these presentations are going to be littered with failures and problems. (This is a more likely reason.)

#3 This author is just not doing her homework and this is just an example of sloppy reporting? (Please let this be true.)

 |  IP: Logged

Simon Wyss
Film Handler

Posts: 80
From: Basel, BS, Switzerland
Registered: Apr 2011


 - posted 12-05-2015 04:24 AM      Profile for Simon Wyss   Email Simon Wyss   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don’t think they’re completely wrong with their marketing, on the contrary. They make a film, give it a catchy title (although I find the 8 in the writing childish), and present it as film.

What takes its toll here is the situation. Cinema today is a non-film affair. Everybody has to face that. So the producers are trying to secure each and every possible ice sheet because there simply isn’t any more security in the business.

When Mike Todd powered out the Todd-A. O. roadshow 60 years ago the situation was quite different. The only threat to cinema was cinema itself with bad movies and black-and-white television with 20 inches diagonal tubes.

Of course is it frustrating to be passed over for “fresh” installations but one has to see that even Mr. Tarantino is not at home with FILM-TECH. To him it’s a retro thing as is a spring-drive grammophone to somebody else.

This is an acute confrontation of 1960s technique with today’s computer-dependent society. The 20th century is a box it can become dangerous to take something out of.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 12-05-2015 10:07 AM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I hate sentences like this:

quote:
It’s a throwback to a time when people got excited about going to movies.
This is beyond stupid. Maybe that author doesn't get excited about going to movies, but virtually every night we get people who are excited to be going to the movies. In fact quite often, while we're printing their tickets, they (especially women) will say "I'm so excited!"

If Tarantino really wanted to "save cinema," he would insist that his movie be shown in movie theaters only and never released on video, and promoted that way. If he wants people to see it the way it was meant to be seen (and heard!), then it sure shouldn't be viewed on small TV screens, phones and tablets.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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


 - posted 12-05-2015 02:46 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Why the hell hasn't Film-Tech been contacted to handle at least some of the 70mm stuff? As I recall those bastards were one of the few who did 70mm right on Interstellar. Why are PTRs being used? Who is the mentally-impaired moron who made that decision? One week exclusive? OH WOW! Why stop there? It should only be exclusive for the midnight shows. Or maybe the 70mm prints can start at 12:01am and the digital ones have to wait all the way until 12:02am. I mean that's still exclusive! This should have been postponed and planned out more thoroughly and not released alongside Star Wars. Bring it out in February or March. Movies released on Christmas are not a big event. Make your own release day an event. You don't need to release on a holiday just for attention if your marketing department is good. For example release on the 8th of some month. "The 8th is the Day for EIGHT" or some shit.

PS - So if the "8" in H8t3fu11 Eight is supposed to be like a vertically oriented shotgun barrel pointing at the viewer, why not change the spelled out word EIGHT to 8 instead of doing it the dumbass way by putting it in the word "Hatefull"? I wanna argue over this. Someone PLEASE try to counter my argument here with your idiocy.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 12-05-2015 04:15 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I would, if you weren't spot on.

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Brandenstein
Master Film Handler

Posts: 413
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Registered: Jul 2013


 - posted 12-05-2015 10:17 PM      Profile for Bill Brandenstein   Email Bill Brandenstein   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Good rant, Joe. I enjoyed that (and agree all the way).

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 12-06-2015 01:07 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Joe,

You really should've been in marketing. I am now visualizing various cool ways to turn the double barrel of a gun into the number 8 for the trailers and such.

Anyone want to place bets on how many of these prints go flying? Take into account the facts:
  • 3+ hour movie
  • 70mm film (5 perfs instead of 4, so VERY close to the edge of the platter)
  • No FilmGuard (so no static control or true cleaning/wet gate projection)
  • Polyester film stock (mmmmmmm....delicious static!)
  • Small center rings, not the oversize ones like I use (the smaller rings makes timing super critical towards the end of the movie)
  • Who knows what kind of LEDs are in the platters coupled with what variations of control cards, motor drive puck size and light filter. Each of those needs to be calibrated differently too! Remember all of these platters are Christie AW3s from varying vintages.
  • Not necessarily a known fact yet, but I doubt the platter decks were buffed and grooved during the rebuild, so any knick on the surface of the platter can send the payout arm into full throttle and sling the print without even a grooved surface to help it stay put.
  • And the biggest one after adding up all of the above...no Safety Rings. Yup there it is, right there.
Need I go on? Suddenly the decision to waste money on useless PTRs seems pale in comparison, doesn't it? [Frown]

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Gordon
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 580
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Aug 2005


 - posted 12-06-2015 07:08 AM      Profile for Paul Gordon   Author's Homepage   Email Paul Gordon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Wow that does sound kinda sketchy. Oh has anyone seen 70mm on a tower? A theatre near me used to do 70 and has some 70mm tower reels up on the wall. Looks like they could hold about 90mins, so You would to do a real intermission.

 |  IP: Logged

Thomas Hauerslev
Master Film Handler

Posts: 451
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Registered: Aug 2000


 - posted 12-06-2015 08:51 AM      Profile for Thomas Hauerslev   Author's Homepage   Email Thomas Hauerslev   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ho Paul,

Towers with 70mm in London: http://www.in70mm.com/news/2015/london/gallery/index.htm

Tower with 70mm in Copenhagen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5TIn5JmDk4

 |  IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

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


 - posted 12-06-2015 08:51 AM      Profile for Martin McCaffery   Author's Homepage   Email Martin McCaffery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
David Bordwell blogs about Hateful 8 and has some comments from Boston Light, plus pictures of their "platter farm":
Bordwell's Blog

 |  IP: Logged

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

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


 - posted 12-06-2015 10:06 AM      Profile for Jim Cassedy   Email Jim Cassedy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This is a picture of the "Assembly Room" in Valencia, CA where the "Hateful Eight" 70mm
prints are being made up. Film will be ultrasonically welded. (Not Spliced) A shipping case
can be seen against the wall on the far right.
 -

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 12-06-2015 05:52 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Don't forget...not only is it polyester film...but WINTER time...low-humidity, combined with the extended length to all but guarantee some static issues.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000


 - posted 12-06-2015 08:17 PM      Profile for Paul Mayer   Author's Homepage   Email Paul Mayer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Brad, do you not have any more platter rings in stock?

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 44 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  42  43  44 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.