"The Hateful Eight" - Kurt Russell with Quentin Tarantino again! Distributed in 70mm!*

I think the trailers have only shown small parts of the movie. I guess there will be lots of epic scenes outside, why else bother with 70mm if you going to stay in the cabin for the most part? He could've done it in a live theater instead

 

Can't wait for all of those super-wide shots of the inside of a log cabin!

 

I hate to say it, but I see a lot of these refurbed projectors breaking down during the roadshow and there not being a damn person around about to figure out how to get the melting film out of the projector.

But I am excited about these "roadshow" presentations and signed up out for a Fandango alert so I can grab a ticket the instant they become available. Especially as that featurette teases there being programs handed out at the showing. Wow, a program! The last ones I got (at a normal theater) was for "Ice Station Zebra" and "2001!"

 

Apocalypse Now was also shot in 70 mm and, like The Hateful Eight, had a brief "road show" in that format before its general release.

http://in70mm.com/news/2010/apocalypse/index.htm

 

I thought this film was 2.76 Ultra Panavision.

 

I'm holding out for the 2.86 SO GOOD YOU COULD PLOTZ PANAVISION.

 

ugh

I'd see The Revenant maybe at 70mm, or a Malick film.... Tarantino's talky kitsch I can pass over.

 

That list depressed me.

I couldn't believe it even bothered to mention the Sameric 3 in Philadelphia.

it' was a once great theater, but I think it's been closed for over twenty years now.

http://philly.curbed.com/archives/2...jesty-of-the-boyd-theatre-aka-the-sameric.php

I remember Tom Hanks was impressed with it (commented "Wow, a traditional movie palace") when there was
a premiere showing of the film "Philadelphia" at the theater. Not sure if that was a world premier or just an event
to tie in with the location of the film (which resulted in Hank's first Oscar).

Looks like attempts to save the theater failed. :-(

http://www.friendsoftheboyd.org/


No theater in my town (Houston) is listed as being able to screen a 70 mm film (then and presumably still now).

The one theater I've been to in the last 20 years that shocked me (in a good way) was the one in Palm Springs.
It was the only time I ever felt like I saw a true 2.35 aspect ratio displayed properly.

 

Well, that wasn't my aim, but I understand. I don't think I've ever lived near a 70mm capable theater. Now, I don't live near one that can still show film. On top of that, I think they're all just "good" digital theaters, none particularly special.

 

I think it was shot in 35mm and blown up to 70mm. I've been wrong before, however.

 

That's true! It must be .10 better than Super Panavision!

I actually prefer Super Panavision, because I'm convinced the anamorphic lenses are soft and distort the picture. Movies like West Side Story, My Fair Lady, and 2001 were all shot in Super Panavision 70, and they're sharp as a pin. The anamorphic lenses of Ultra-Panavision yields a wider picture, but I don't think the compromises are worth it.

Correct, Apocalypse Now was shot in anamorphic 35mm.

I demand 3.00, so wide they have to cut holes in the walls and let the screen stick out into the parking lot.

 

Here's a detailed article about how they're training projectionists, how they're setting up the projectors all over the country, and how all the technical matters are being handled for the 70mm exhibition of Hateful 8:



http://www.in70mm.com/news/2016/hateful_8/index.htm

 

Thanks for the list. Looks like they *have* updated it... Seeing info on theatres in Sacramento which was updated 8/2015.

 

I wish them success, but boy does this whole release sound dicey. Maybe it will spark a 70mm revival?

Derek

 

I don't get all the "rules" about what should be shot for a bigger screen in higher resolution. Only outdoor expansive scenes? Only serious not-too-talky scenes in wide-open fields? C'mon, can't an artist choose the best option to display his vision? What difference does it make how many "appropriate" scenes are in it??

 

Getting psyched for this. Love what Tarantino is doing - throwing all practicality out the window to bring a real experience to the theater.

I remember going to see Lawrence of Arabia 3 times back in the late 80's when it was re-released in 70mm. I'll never forget that - I couldn't believe the clarity and depth of the image. I'm going to have to travel to see this but it'll probably be worth it.

Last real "experience" I had at the cinema was seeing Godard's Goodbye to Language 3D- and before that watching the General w/ live music...

 

Well, to use an example -- my first experience with Blu-ray was a two-night double-feature of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THERE WILL BE BLOOD. The outdoor scenes were so crisply articulated I had trouble concentrating on the story, the visuals were so overwhelming. My friends and I were sold on the format.

In contrast, my first exposure to 4K was one of the Marvel franchises. It looked terrible! You could "see" -- that is, become overly aware of -- the makeup, the hairspray, the silly costunes, the CGI, the very artificial nature of all the sets, whether they were constructed on a soundstage or a hard drive. The intense resolution only heightened the non-believability of the whole thing. It turned a movie that probably cost $200 million-plus and several graduating classes of computer engineers to assemble into something that felt like an old '60s BATMAN TV show.

 

I'm fine with a stageplay movie, heck Reservoir Dogs would go down well on broadway, but please no musical.
I just wish H8 is as good as his earlier films up to Kill Bill at least.

 

While I'm excited that Quentin filmed this in Ultra-Panavision, I'm really depressed that this will play near me in 70mm only at the AFI. I saw 2001 a couple of years ago during AFI's annual 70mm festival and was not just disturbed but pretty much insulted by the total inappropriateness of the venue for 70mm projection. Small screen (my local digital multiplex's smallest screen is at least twice as big,) impossible to ignore flicker, bad sound, and poor presentation soured me for that theater. (I forgive the beaten up print. They have no control over that.) The screen was too small for 2.20 Super Panavision...how on earth are they going to be able to show 2.76 without it looking like it's an old letterboxed SD TV screen?

It's really sad when the "general release" digital version will probably have more "scope," clarity, and immersiveness than the "real thing" in my neck of the woods.

 

If nothing else the 70mm release of this is generating a lot of press coverage and publicity for the movie.

It was interesting to note in the in70mm article that there will be just one reel. I was wondering how they were going to handle reel changes (requires two projectors in the booth) and that's how - there won't be any. But how in the world are they going to manage wrangling a 220lb platter of film? That would take three, four people, (maybe five) I would think, to handle something that heavy and awkward.

Given the trouble that they are having to go through to acquire and refurb all these old projectors, the different makes, possible breakdowns, etc., I'm wondering how difficult it would be to actually make 100 70mm projectors from scratch. I know that they have their intricacies but it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult. I mean, rollers, gears, drive motor, springs etc.? Could a run of 100 be done for $10k each? $20k each?

Admittedly I don't know what I'm talking about but would love to hear someone who does comment on this.

 

I'm somewhat confused by the hype concerning the 70 mm presentation.

I looked at the link provided by Vidiot and it looks like the closest theater to me is Alamo Ritz in Austin TX .

I understand Quentin enjoys Austin, TX and has has hosted marathon multi-film events in Austin that would exhaust
most mere mortals - but I think I've been to that theater and I wasn't impressed.

It's not a very big room, and if my memory is correct, it's not a very big screen.

I tried to see if I could find a photo of the room or screen at cinematreasures but I think the photo shows a different
Alamo location in Austin (the Ritz is downtown, and there are some others scattered around the town).

This room is more like what I would hope for...



http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/9461


Anything less and I think it will be like watching a very widescreen
film on a television at someone's house.

I stumbled upon the Camelot in Palm Springs when "Brother, Where Art Thou?" was in theaters.

If that photo is truly the Camelot, what's difficult to understand from the photo is that the room itself is small.
My local theater run of the mill average theater that I went to almost weekly as a kid, had 900 seats, and the
Camelot started with 625 seats. The largest theater I ever remember going to had 2,000 seats (the Merben in
Philadelphia). That room was huge and it had no balcony. The Sameric (aka Boyd) might have had more capacity, but the
audience was stacked.

The blurb at cinematreasures claims that when The Camelot opened it was "equipped to the standards of only
three theaters in the United States."

It was the *only* time I was certain that I was seeing a 2.35 ratio film projected without any missing information.

The only time I felt like I was in a similar theater to the Camelot was when I was in the Ziegfeld in NYC in the late 80s.

Looks like the Ziegfeld is going to be busy showing Star Wars and won't be showing Tarantino's film.

I loved the comment on cinematreatures by a former projectionist at the Camelot...

"I was one of the projectionists of the camelot from about 1973 to 1977 when it had a D-150 screen 70mm and 6 channel sound. It was run by F. Hugh Thomas, a third generation Master showman with standards unmatched in the industry. To go from the small “flat” previews and then open the huge 70 foot screen while the picture was projecting on the giant curtain while it was opening was a magnificent event to behold. It was as if the heavens were opening up. " - Stanley Diaz on cinematreasures.com

As of 2012, it looked like they could still show 70 mm films (with the caveat that the sound would have to be DTS). ( I'm assuming
that's because the DTS theater sound used a separate disc that synced with the film (?) )

But the last comment seems to suggest that is no longer true

"(The Camelot) had the D-150 screen and projectors but they gave away the projectors and put in video. Too bad it would have been a great place to run the Hateful Eight."

I guess there was a shortage of 70 mm films with DTS sound.

Looks like the Austin theater has had 70 mm film fests.

I get that they love films at the Alamo Drafthouse, but they don't seem committed to the rooms they use to display them. Last time I
went to one of their theaters (the Vintage Park in Houston), I was in a room with only three rows of seats - all of them too close to the
screen.

 

I did see "2001" in 70mm at the Cinerama Dome in the 90s .,. and it was terribly out of focus. So much so I complained to the theater and left. But hopefully these new lenses and prints will make a HUGE difference. In honor of this, I watched "Ice Station Zebra" yesterday with my daughter. She really liked "one of your movies" for a change.

 

OK, but you're talking about hi-rez digital on a TV screen. The argument posited here is about 70mm analog film, entirely different!

 

There is one in Ann Arbor about a 1/2 hour from me.

 

I'm only seeing the AMC in Century City, Los Angeles. Ouch.