Tyler Purcell

Well, my point is that the film industry is about entertainment and if something isn't entertaining, it won't make money. If it doesn't make money, then it most likely won't allow the filmmaker to produce more products like it.

Actually, those lists prove my point. Francis Ford Coppola had already been a successful filmmaker before he made Apocalypse now. Alfred Hitchcock had already made millions for the studio's before he made Vertigo. Paul Thomas Anderson had already made a blockbuster and proved himself in hollywood, before making The Master. Orson Wells was already a well-known figure in the theatre and radio, making plenty of money, prior to making Citizen Kane. Beasts of the Southern Wild did well because there was a fantastic little girl in it. If that character was a bitter old man, nobody would have cared. The new Fantastic Four movie was a disaster; switching directors, rewriting scripts, what a mess. It was only finished because there was so much money wrapped up in it, they had no choice. Everyone in hollywood knew it was going to be a disaster. Yes, investors take risks... but it's getting to the point where there are fewer and fewer investors willing to risk it all for the sake of art.

This is show BUSINESS and in the long run, it's just a business. Box office is really the only measure of a filmmakers success. You could win every single award from the Golden Bear to the Palme d'Or, but if your film doesn't make money, you won't get money to make more of them. Young filmmakers struggle to understand how the system works because it's the only business that doesn't reward for a better product. Nobody cares about breaking even, it's all about profit. Nobody will invest in a filmmaker who barely returns their money, it's too risky. Again, this is show business, art is not even relevant. You wanna make art films, get a job in France working as a waiter and apply to the government for a grants to make something that nobody will ever see. And most of the time, you'll find those filmmakers already had success of one kind or another and are making their "art" film for fun. Yep, why else would someone let you borrow millions of dollars? Just because they're a nice guy? Studios make "safe" (lower risk) movies, one's they know will make money. If you let someone borrow millions of dollars, you too would want the risk to be lower. My favorite cinematographer Roger Deakins, said something in a recent interview I find so true. He actually doesn't like going to the movies. Here is a guy who is deathly passionate about filmmaking, to the point of having his own forum where people can ask him questions about his projects. Yet, he has no interest in wasting his time going to see movies at the theater. I find this to be straight up true when it comes to living in the hub of filmmaking in the US. Most of my industry friends, don't go to the movies and were never really big fans of cinema. Yet, they're filmmakers themselves, they watch content on their television at home, but getting them out of the house to the cinema, is like asking them to change a flat tire. They'll just look at you cross eyed and forget you even asked. Sure, there is a small minority of film buff's who visit the theater on a regular basis. I met one such person in all my travels and he basically lives at the theater. He doesn't pay though, he's friends with the general managers of many theaters, so he gets a free ride. Ohh, I care greatly about the art and argue it to a fault. However, I know that it doesn't matter what I say, what matters is if your product is successful financially, that's all that matters. You can paint all you want, but if you can't sell the paintings to pay your bills, you're still a broke painter. This isn't the 60's and 70's either. I can't think of a modern director that just broke into the industry, who's made theatrically run art films that have been critically and financially successful.

Well, I guess we didn't see the same movie. The one I saw (for the 3rd time on sat) was an over-the-top unbelievable stage play set in the old west. It's a complete work of fiction, designed specifically to entertain and a lot of it is built around absurdity to the point of the audience forcing the laughs, due to it being so over-the-top. We laugh because it's revolting, like all the N words, like a naked man sucking the dick of a black man and grotesque bloody violence. Does the audience really need to see those things in order to tell a story? No... Quentin showed us those things because they are humorous to him AND his fans. If it were realistic, it would have been over the moment they entered the haberdashery. Actually the mere definition of cinema is to entertain, that's why it exists. If you look at box office receipts, the movies that do the best, are the one's that are pure entertainment. Some people call them "popcorn movies", but in the end, the point is to watch, be entertained and go home. Look at 'Mad Max Fury Road', it's one of the top movies this year and it has almost no dialog, it's all visual story telling. There are absolutely groups of people who attend screenings of dramatic pieces like 'Carol' or 'Suffragette' for the emotional aspect. That is a very specific genera of cinema, but it's not the popular kind. Both of those wonderful pieces of art, did poorly in the box office. Man, I'm so glad you feel that way. However, it's an unrealistic point of view in the grand scheme of things. This is why the mindless drivel entertainment movies are so popular and have huge financial rewards, yet the intelligent works of art, tend to barely break even. How can anyone relate to a belligerent butt who keeps everything to himself? He also doesn't grow or change during the film, he's the same butt from the open to the close. Why would anyone talk to him ever? Well, because in reality he wasn't that bad and he had more good moments then bad ones. 'Steve Jobs' showed only ONE SIDE of a very multidimensional person. Plus, everyone around him seemed to somehow accept his behavior, which is just ridiculous. It's so fabricated and over the top, it was hard to swallow and it's a real shame. Ohh no doubt that SOME cinema can be highly influential, but the majority of it is mindless entertainment. Look at the action, horror and comedy genera's as a whole, they are the top three box-office genera's. Do you really think 'Jurassic World', 'Dumb and Dumber II' or 'Crimson Peak' are influential in any way? Do you think people go to those films because they are looking for character development?

Please, the whole premise is completely foolish and lacks any common sense. Even Tarantino admitted the whole idea is a film full of "guest stars" and if you don't get his "HUMOR" you won't get the film. It is a down-right funny film because everything that happens is just plain silly. In reality, the story would have ended the moment the carriage arrived at the haberdashery. But no, we spend the next 2 hours going in circles, which is fine and all, but completely unnecessary. I saw Steve Jobs last night... it was very one sided. Knowing the Steve Jobs story very well myself, it's a real shame they made him out to be such a bully. It was well made though, Sorkin's screenplay was really fun and I really enjoyed the performances, but they were ALL over the top. The only reason why it works is because the audience has no time to sit and contemplate until after the fact. It is a visual medium. If you wish to watch people talk at one another constantly, go to the theatre. 'The Revenant' doesn't really have much of a screenplay, but like 'Gravity' it a wonderful piece of adventure entertainment. It uses the visual medium in a way that not very many filmmakers have, which is why it will win a lot of awards. I agree, he is a wizard of story structure and dialog. He also knows how to make dialog entertaining, something that a lot of filmmakers don't really know how to do. Their main focus is entertainment, like a good showman from the vaudeville days. They are going to take you for a ride and that's what makes their movies so powerful. Cinema is in the end, just entertainment after all. So where it's awesome that guys like Quentin and Sorkin exist, it does take several viewings of their films to get the nuances that make those stories so interesting. You have to be devoted to translating what's being heard, process it and of course, pay attention to the visuals at the same time. The vast majority of people are only looking for entertainment to drag them away from their every day life. He landed in a tree and was so effed up, he could barely move.

Right, but my point is... digital projection SHOULD BE FLAWLESS!!! There is absolutely zero reason for it to be anything else but perfection. Why? Because my little home theater projector, which uses similar DLP technology, works great! I understand the technology is apples and oranges, however there is really no excuse. Theaters today are absolutely no better then what I can see at home on BluRay, so why should I spend 4hrs of my life trekking to the theater, waiting in lines, sitting around people who are stinky AND paying for all of it? At least with film, you're getting an image that can't be presented at home. It's a special experience that can't be replicated/duplicated in any other environment then the cinema. Digital theater systems are pretty much the same content, whether it's seen at home or at the theater. Today with 4k BluRay and 4k laser-based home theater projectors going for reasonable prices, what's the point of even going to the cinema? Yes, at this very second the content libraries haven't yet made that push for 4k content at home, but it will happen very quickly. Considering I just learned that 'Force Awakens' was released in 2k for 2D presentations... and more than 50% of the theater projectors in this country are still 2k, no wonder the quality at the cinema looks like crap. We went from around 3k resolution in 35mm prints, to 2k being the "standard" for most films today. So.. it's not that I'm really a huge film advocate, it's that.. technology is suppose to make things better. Digital technology has changed everything and even the very early CD's, were a HUGE/GIANT leap better then anything else on the market, to the point where the masters weren't good enough. Computer technology is the same thing, every iteration is FAR superior to the previous and even though the average user may not see these changes, our current computers are vastly faster then ones of only a few years ago. Yet here we are... film technology when done right, still looks better then digital. Digital projection technology has been the same since its inception 20 years ago! We still use DLP imagers, we still use xenon lamp sources (now slowly migrating to laser) and our source material is STILL mostly 2k, which is lower resolution then the technology it replaced. So my beef with "digital" filmmaking is the fact it hasn't made cinema any better. It's just turned cinema into television and people have caught onto that, which is why most people simply don't go anymore. You can't drag them back with laser projection and 3D (both offered at home), but you can drag them back with an experience they can't get at home EVER!

I just spent a day watching 70mm prints that were out of focus, you may have read that post in the Hateful Eight section. Anyway, I asked Quentin Tarantino afterwards if he saw any problems and he said it looked great. There were a bunch of filmmakers there, hanging around Quentin and none of them noticed. Even the projectionist really didn't see the problem. Yet, I have the still image of the test pattern showing how badly out of focus it was. If the filmmakers and my very picky friends didn't notice... umm, I just don't think people really notice much! It's not film vs digital because I went right to the projection room on that Hateful Eight screening to see what was up and it was a FILM screening. It's just, we don't get very many film screenings anymore and there is no excuse for them to be bad. Now, I spent years in the broadcast industry, building facilities all over the country. I've also done display installations of various types and even the fellow broadcast engineers I've worked with, they couldn't tell the problems I saw. Once I pointed them out, they saw them too, but it actually took me using a laser pointer and circling the problems on the screen, for them to see it. So I'm not saying my eyes are better then someone else's, I'm merely saying I've been through the ringer a lot more when it comes to installations like theater systems. I know how digital cinema projectors work intimately because I've had to service them and honestly, I can tell pretty quickly if a projector is calibrated properly or not.

No theaters! IMAX has pulled all the film projectors out of LA and NY. The only theater in LA capable of playing 15/70 is the science museum. My guess is, they will get a print eventually. But they aren't really capable of showing first-run films. I went there for 'Interstellar' and it was a mess.

Well, Hateful Eight is MOSTLY dialog, even more then his other films, mostly because the location doesn't change much. Yes, it's even more dialog driven then his other films. Yes, MOST filmmakers can't stand his stuff. I actually like his stuff because I get it. He makes the movies HE wants to see and ya know what, good on him. There are only a few modern filmmakers who's entire career and success is based on personal films, he is one of the few. I'm a visual story teller, but I can appreciate his sometimes long-winded dialog scenes because they're cleverly written and generally hold my attention. Hateful Eight is no different, it has a great little story, a wonderful cast, it's very silly, shot extremely well, music is awesome and best of all, it's in Ultra Panavision 70mm. Honestly, it's a win-win, even though I don't think it's up to the caliber of Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Bastards or Django. Just go for the ride, go for the mystery and laughs. Don't pre-judge based on it being dialog driven, think of it as being a stage play shot on film.

Ohh I know... I was just saying, it's the type of lighting I like and wish to see more in movies.

Well, I bet ya just don't notice. I've been to theaters all over the country, including in NYC to watch movies and honestly, seen problems everywhere. Heck, I was just in Boston to watch 'Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation' in the biggest theater the town has which is IMAX (AMC Boylston) and it looked like poop. I mean if I hadn't gone with my dad, I would have walked out. It was blurry, it had inconsistent colors from the left to the right of the screen, the double 2k projectors were clearly out of alignment and it wasn't bright or vibrant. The credits at the end had aliasing edges on every character. I don't mind seeing issues on my $910 DLP projector and BluRay source, but I do mind seeing issues when I pay money and take the time to watch something in the theater. Film is a flawed format to begin with, so "perfection" doesn't exist. It's far easier to over-look minor things like a scratch or piece of dirt in the gate, then it is to ignore any issues with digital projection considering my measly setup at home LOOKS BETTER then 90% of the theaters I've been to. It has better contrast ratio because it doesn't have a stupid bright lamp, it has more color separation because it has a 7 seg wheel/single chip instead of only using RGB like cinema projectors. I sit 8 feet away from the 6 foot wide screen and it looks great with zero of the issues I see at almost every theater I go to. Mind you, I saw Jurassic World at the Chinese with the new IMAX 4k laser projectors and they were FLAWLESS!!! I studied the image very carefully and I was MORE than impressed. So IT CAN BE DONE!!! It's just, theaters can't afford to spend 1.5M per projector and until laser projection costs decrease, it's going to be that kind of money. So far, the Hateful Eight 70mm projection at the DGA is probably the best projection I've ever seen. Prior to that, it was Interstellar in 70mm at the Cinerama Dome. Just flawless in every single detail, perfect presentation and the way it should always be!!!!

Nobody said "better"... and I understand the reason why things are done a certain way. Lighting is a necessity of all visual mediums, but clever lighting, that looks "realistic" is far better in my eyes, then over the top unrealistic lighting, which is something you see a lot in movies of all generations.

Yep they did!

That's right Mark and Panavision made the prior projection lenses. They shipped them in HUGE cases with foam packing, no way could the lens be disturbed.

Well, I'd say 90% of the time I see digital projection something is wrong. I've seen 3 digital films in the last 2 weeks and all of them had major problems. One projector had white lines in the upper left hand corner streaking across the image on any bright spot. Reminded me a lot of analog noise one would experience on an NTSC monitor. One projector had green and red channel separation, so anything red in the movie, would overlap onto blue and green channels. Finally, during my digital viewing of star wars, the lamp on that projector was on it's way out. So it flickered for most of the show, so any bright section of the film was just like a candle waving in the wind. So yea... you wanna talk about film projection issues... I rarely see standard non-laser digital projection that actually has NO issues. The only film I saw this WHOLE YEAR that had no issues was the big theater at Sherman Oaks galleria Arclight for 'Bridge of Spies'. Funny that it was one of the few movies shot on film and it was the only digital projection that had no problems.

Man, I wish that was the case. The out of focus streak was so random (per the picture above) it had zero consistency. Plus, these are all brand new lenses and they don't share the smilebox format. A few friends of mine went to 'The Hateful Eight' premiere at the only curved screen in LA and said it was consistently out of focus on the sides, which is typical for that theater.

Today was the first public screening of Hateful Eight in Southern California and boy was it exciting. LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) decided to put together a Ultra Panavision show at their Bing screening room. Working with the wonderful Elvis Mitchell, today's screening was set into motion months ago. It was two road show films presented back to back; 'It's a Mad Mad World' and 'The Hateful Eight'. Of course, 'It's a Mad Mad World' is one of Quentin's favorite films, so he actually graced the audience with his presence. It was nice to finally shake his hand and talk about the film afterwards. Funny enough, very few people came for the 'It's a Mad Mad World' screening, it was pretty empty. Picture of the film can's: The evening started with a fantastic introduction by Elvis Mitchell. He discussed putting this show together and how exiting it was to see Ultra Panavision on their screen for the first time in a while. The overture was presented with the curtain down, unlike 'Hateful Eight' which has a title card. The 70mm print was clearly restored and had digital audio. The projectionists explained, they don't even have the capacity to run mag audio anymore. The curtain rose to a beautiful and crisp print. It was a tad bit dirty and the right side had a few cinch scratches on it, which is pretty typical from it being mistreated during the many screenings it's had over it's life. But over-all, the print was in exceptional and watchable quality, far better then I expected. The highlights were a bit yellow, but it had stellar dynamic range, deep blacks and a really nice color pallet. I had never seen the film before because I was told it was stupid and maybe at home it would be. However, in an audience full of cinephiles, laughing all together, it worked really well. I fully enjoyed the film and guessing who the myriad of cameo's were, was a lot of fun. For a film shot at the beginning of the 60's, it really held together nicely. Projection Room between shows: With all that said, the film was run A/B projectors with change over's every 2000 feet. During the 'It's a Mad Mad World', the lenses were out of focus. It was very clear to me, the issue I had seen at the DGA screening prior, was the same issue here. It's basically a blotch of fuzziness which stays in place, never in the dead center, just off to the left side most of the time. In the case of this projection, the lenses were pretty bad, I'd say a good 1/4 of the screen was flat out blurry. It really pissed me off because the projectors were working like a charm and I'm sure with spherical lenses, this wouldn't have been a problem. Between the two shows, I went to the projection room, where the guys were hustling around testing different things to fix the lensing issue. Here is a video of the test loop they were provided by Boston Light and Sound, http://tye1138.com/stuff/hatefuleight/testloop.MOV ... plus a still image of the out of focus range, clearly visible on the left side of center: This is where I met Paul Smith from D-Mation, who was kind enough to talk me through some of their issues as they were in process of solving them. He's the go-to guy for large format in Los Angeles, he helped re-construct the sync Cinerama 35mm 3 strip projection system at the Cinerama Dome. He told me the lenses are coming from Boston Light and Sound messed up. They had four lenses to test and all of them had problems. He didn't quite want to admit it, but eventually he shook his head in agreement. I was really hoping for 'The Hateful Eight' presentation, the issues would have gone away. The theater was packed, but not sold out, for 'The Hateful Eight' screening. Quentin was nowhere to be found, though his car was still in the parking lot according to my friend who knows him well, so he may have peeked in at one point and left. Here is Elvis Mitchell's introduction to the show: http://tye1138.com/stuff/hatefuleight/h8intro.mov The moment the overture card came up, the focus issues were still there. I was immediately dismayed because yet again, the print looked amazing, not a single piece of dirt or scratch marks. It wasn't quite as vibrant as the print at the DGA, that COULD be simply due to the lumens, the lamps at LACMA seemed to be less consistent then the one's used at the DGA. Projector A was brighter then B and there was absolutely more lamp related wavering in brightness, probably needs calibration. However, the projection like 'It's A Mad Mad World' was fine, just the lensing was a problem. 'Hateful Eight' was shipped on 4000ft rolls, so they required less change over. Interestingly enough, the focus issue changed as the lenses got hotter. I think the lenses cooled down between the reel changes and when they got hotter again, they got out of focus more and more. The blur spot during the whole screening changed from being just a little pocket, left of center, to eventually being a good 1/2 of the upper part of the screen. So the text cards that come up during the film were blurry! The audience loved the film, I really enjoyed it my 2nd time around and hopefully will see it again in a few weeks at the Cinerama Dome after Star Wars. I really want to see how Arclight will project it, if they will insure the lensing is OK. But this problem with the anamorphic lenses is huge and it's systemic. I've watched the movie twice now and BOTH times, there was a lens problem of one kind or another. Panavision sent out lenses to the DGA, so perhaps thats why they worked so well, but the standard 70mm theatrical experience won't have those lenses. After 'Hateful Eight' I went back to the projection booth to thank the guys and unfortunately, I got the cold shoulder. I had clearly outstayed my welcome, which is truly unfortunate because I really hadn't wrapped up our earlier conversation. The only thing I got was a business card and a hand shake. I guess what more can you ask for! Never the less, the night was good and bad. I was frustrated because the projectionists seemed to think everything was ok, but as an audience member, it was soft and down-right blurry in some parts of the image. If I were there, I would have apologized to the audience at some point and explained this is NOT the way either of these two films look. In my opinion, the blurriness is unacceptable and if this is the kind of crap every theater has to go through to project this wonderful movie, I'm really scared it will be a deterrent for future use of the format.

Ohh I have zero issues with anything. I merely thought it was cool that they attempted to use all natural, non-man made lighting sources. I was simply separating man made (gas/incandescent/LED/florescent) with the sun and burning wood. I understand that using gas to keep the wood burning at a certain color temp AND brightness is more practical. However, you don't need that much light in all honestly. I've shot a lot of stuff with candle light and 500ASA film stock without a problem. It's dark, but what do you expect! Modern filmmakers spend so much time worrying if the actors look good and not caring of their lighting is at all realistic. That's why I love guys like Roger Deakins. He tries his hardest to generate realism and when it's dark, man it's dark!

Ohh gas? Yea artificial light source.

Yep, if you need to push, you'd do that in the photochemical process, not the digitizing process.

In my opinion, "lighting" is from an artificial light source. I don't consider fire an artificial light source since it's kind of a natural occurrence, kinda like our sun.

HOLY CRAP!!!! That's what I'm doing during the week next week! WOOT! :) Thanks for that!

Yea, for me I felt like all of a sudden I stepped into the prequel's and Jar Jar was right around the corner. They could have very easily pulled a Hoggle from Labyrinth. Little person in a suit with a motor controlled face. I honestly felt the glasses were most of the problem. They reflected very strangely and it threw me off as well.

Well, I mean they did "light" a lot of the film, it was just done with practicals. Some would call that "lighting" but I call that not-lighting because the light source is physically in the shot.

I just sat down to watch Sicario tonight and I really enjoyed it. They built suspense very well and held it for long periods of time without anything happening. I thought the characters were not very kinda flat, but honestly that's reality! I thought the story being Benicio Del Toro's at the end was great and semi unexpected. The best things over-all was it's cinematography, realism and pacing throughout. The whole package was a bit different then a regular movie, the audience was taken along with Blunt on the ride. The stuff with the Mexican cop wasn't too important, but I understood where that was coming from and why it was there. My only real complaint would be Blunt's motivation, it seemed kinda weak. I also thought Benicio Del Toro should have been shot at the end by Blunt's partner. To me, that would have been the icing on the take, but meh, what can you do! Deakins is amazing with the Alexa. He's the only person capable of shooting digital and making it look like film, every single time. It was smooth (no digital crispness), had no digital noise, none of the standard issue mid tone issues or highlight clipping issues you see with MOST digital movie. Furthermore, no digital-looking motion blur! Bravo! Over all Sicario was a great film and very entertaining. I have a bad feeling it will be overlooked in this years award season, which is a real shame.