Manu Delpech

Wanna bet some would go as far as to ruin the screening on purpose? ^^

Sorry Bill, this is disconcerting to say the least, I know the screen at my showing was set for scope, but there was no problem and it was plenty big. I think the projections going wrong are what most will remember rather than all the ones going right. Like I told Tyler, the whole thing is a huge bet, there's no way on earth there wasn't going to be any problems. The Weinstein Company and other people involved should have been more thorough in their approach even though I guess they can't check every single location. As long as it lays the path for Chris Nolan and maybe others, it's all good.

Nolan is shooting on 65 mm according to the press release, no 35 mm. IMDB is not to be trusted this early. And not a lot of BvS is shot on 65 mm, just select sequences. I don't see though how it constitutes nonsense, just because it's a superhero film does not mean it's automatically crap. Pinocchio is not happening, it's been reported a while ago.

I'd argue that I would have liked something like Django to be shot on Ultra Panavision 70, that would have been insane. I don't really think this is quite the right project for the format, it's just that Bob Richardson saw the lenses by chance at Panavision, was intrigued, knew Quentin would go crazy for them, had a backup plan for 65 mm spherical, it all went well, they just shot Ultra Panavision 70 because they could on this one. Now, what's pretty cool is that Rogue One uses those lenses right now, albeit on the Alexa 65 mostly, but still, and Tarantino did allude in an interview with PT Anderson he gave a few days ago that Nolan is, I quote, "right behind him", which I guess means that the rumored Nolan WWII film in Dunkerque is going to be shot on 65 mm, and that the infrastructure now being there for a more important 70 mm expansion, Nolan will use it. But yeah, shooting what amounts to a stage play on one set with just a few vistas at the beginning sounds like a waste, even though Tarantino addressed that by saying he could play on the foreground and background, but I don't know, it seemed more to me like he was rationalizing his format choice.

I'm not sure we can use the moving constraint as an excuse since the camera was always on a crane for the whole film (if I'm not mistaken and remember the AC article correctly)

They just updated their website so i think a few kinks have to be worked out, it looks so much cooler now.

I swear to you the experience alone is worth it. You can totally appreciate it while completely disliking the film. You might end up liking it, who knows.

Okay, came back from my little trip to see it. Only one print here in France, it was running for the third time here at the Kinepolis Lomme, introduced by François Carrin from In70mm.com. There were some black bars top and bottom obviously since the screen is a regular scope one, but that wasn't a problem. Flawless projection & print in my opinion, I was impressed by the stability and sharpness. The close-ups are truly spectacular, it was very warm and vivid, I'd use the term sparkly too if that's even a thing, there you go, it SPARKLED ^^ I'd only remembered seeing bad film projections till then (a good one was The Hangover Part 2 before my movie theater switched completely to digital) so this was something else ! The whole experience is great, the overture, the intermission, the room was packed. They used a synchronized digital projector to sync the subtitles with the image, more distracting than anything. So yeah, with guys who know what the hell they're doing (Mr Carrin told us the projectionists and tech guys had been on this for three weeks), you get something great. It just looked super crisp. The movie itself is a total dud for me and I'm a HUGE Tarantino fan. It's so long, too long, some reviews like the BBC one nailed it on the head. Quentin spends 30 frickin minutes in the stagecoach before they make it to the haberdashery, and from here on out, like Tyler and many others have said, it's basically a stage play with one set. So the opening is too long, it feels like it's spinning its wheels, the dialogue never ends (which is hilarious considering it's one of Quentin's trademarks), it's overindulgent, it doesn't advance the story. It's super repetitive (that door gag, just kill me please), everything is spelled out (Agatha Christie style) for the audience, with even a Tarantino voice over explaining the whole situation just after the intermission, presumably for the ADD folks out there. I was a bit embarrassed when at intermission, Mr Carin (who was showing off some film relics and talking about the process for those who were interested) asks me in front of 40 other folks what I think of the film. I feel like saying "it is SO not clicking with me, it just dragssssssssss" but I just go "Oh I think the beginning is a bit too long", everyone else around was like "oh it's great !" (film is dividing a lot, and you definitely get why), he tells me it picks up after intermission, and yeah it does. The second half is incredibly bloody, jolly good fun but that doesn't go anywhere (what the hell is up with this ending?!), like a review said, it's like Tarantino has nowhere to go but to escalate the violence. We get great makeup effects for sure (courtesy of The Walking Dead's Greg Nicotero), blood everywhere, tensions running up high but it doesn't resonate. It just feels like Quentin wanted to have some fun, do his stage play with his band of favorite actors delivering his trademark dialogue (although it never works here), do his little thing without restraint and with questionable morals (too much use of the N word, which never bothered me in Django, context is everything, the running gag of punching the woman). The performances are fine, Bob Richardson's cinematography is GORGEOUS, but man, couldn't Django have used the Ultra Panavision 70 mm more than this? I'm enthused about the experience but a bit confused that this is the movie that comes out of it. This definitely comes right next to Death Proof as Quentin's worst film. I'd actually call it a plain bad film, like Death Proof. I love all his other stuff.

They're all terrific. Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac (simply one of the best actors around these days), Adam Driver (incredible talent), Harrison.

I don't think that Johanna Hoffman's line in Steve Jobs at Jobs himself in the third act of the movie "You don't care how much money people make, you care what they make" has been more appropriate than in this context :D

I'm very excited to see it, but mostly for the visuals, I think it's going to lack some depth but it's a revenge/survival story and the source material (having really happened in real life) is just that, Inarritu actually added the bit with his son to make it more emotional. Very excited to see it (won't be until late february here, sigh.... and yes I know about the hum hum, but I'd rather see it the way it's meant to be seen on the big screen) but it definitely seems like Joshua says to be style over substance, and I definitely agree on substance over style, well, you didn't really phrase it that way. If you can get the two, then you have something special. I get it about long takes, i get the point, and Chivo talked about it in the AC article, but it tends to get very showy. Steve Jobs is phenomenal, additionally, it looks fuc*** great as well. And yes, Apocalypto is awesome.

Those two CG characters were done on mo-cap for a specific reason. JJ said so: " “I wanted to do the creature as a puppet originally, but once we figured out the things that she was required to do, it felt like [performance capture] was the way to go,” Abrams said. Maz is one of the few creatures in her court who is not a real-life, practical effect, and Abrams said the digital artists had a high standard to meet to make her blend in. “Maz needed to look and feel and be just like one of those creatures. And given her mobility, and given the role that she played, it became clear that that was one creature where we should use the tool of CG,” " Same thing for Snoke, but it'd be a spoiler to say why. It's not about money or anything, the people who don't like the CG on those two characters are simply reacting to the fact that all of the other creatures in the film or most of them are done practically, so the two CG mo-cap characters stand out more but they do not look awful in any way, they look perfectly fine. Maz has a very detailed model and felt like she was in the scene (probably because Lupita was there), Snoke works too, but I won't say more on him because it goes into spoiler territory.

Read the AC article and Chivo initially wanted it to be a film/digital hybrid shoot, shooting everything but dusk and night on film, but they had problems with X-rays (surprised me) at airports and labs, so they shipped back the film equipment to Panavision and got the Alexa 65. No film footage made it in the final cut, it's explicitly said in the article. Chivo also estimates that 13 % ( :D ) of the film was shot with the Alexa 65.

JJ also spoke of Terrence Malick as an influence, I'll just say I definitely felt that with Rey on Jakku, the quieter moments.

Hum, Rian is only directing Ep VIII, writing it and writing the treatment for Ep IX, Colin Trevorrow is directing Ep IX. Rian is going to do a fantastic job, he's been working on the movie for a year and a half, and has been in close collaboration with JJ. No doubt that JJ will remain heavily involved, even as a producer.

Interesting, why did Claudio Miranda drop? Thanks for the infos, was film even considered? Why the switch? I know that Dan Mindel always pushes for 35 mm anamorphic.

Kind of a shame they switched over to Alexa for this one, it really shows. Still looks good as Claudio Miranda is the DP, but yeah.

From Creative Planet Networks article: "Of course, the absence of movie lights doesn’t mean there wasn’t “lighting.” Lubezki worked with key grip Ray Garcia on some rather elaborate setups to shape, diffuse and cut the light. “For day interiors, we would generally shoot near windows,” Garcia says. “I would build shadows and try to [diffuse] direct light without affecting ambience. We would usually throw thick diffusion on any openings in ceilings or walls. Once we placed diffusion on a ceiling or a wall, we treated it like an aperture and we could let more or less light in as needed.” Day exterior work was generally staged with the sun as a backlight. Garcia would then control any light that would bounce back onto actors’ faces, flying grid cloth rags of about 20’ x 40’ in trees to act as negative fill and take away the shadow of the camera and crew. Then he’d follow along next to the camera with cards to direct light back onto actors’ faces. “I aged and painted all the cards to resemble the environment,” he explains. “We never wanted just white or the look of unbleached muslin for the bounce. It had to look completely natural.” Chivo also used some lightbulbs to enhance a campfire scene: "One of the aspects of the production getting attention is the fact that it was shot almost entirely in natural light. Lubezki added some light bulbs to enhance a campfire, but he notes, “Even then, I kept dimming them and dimming them. If you’re shooting at [EI] 1280 or 1600 and wide open, you don’t need that. The real firelight and flicker is wonderful for the scene."

Shot on Red Dragon.

I assure you that all of you are in the absolute minority, but hey, do as you wish.

Are we still going on this? Satsuki's comment didn't settle it? Back to Star Wars please. If we could also respect what Lucas did, and his contributions to the saga, no matter how much he may have messed up on the prequels, it'd be real nice. The original trilogy is just, you know, composed of three of the greatest works of science fiction of all time, but I guess it's easy to forget.

What a negative thread, jesus.

Thx ! There'll be an article in AC too (February issue)

And also offering the possibility to see the full Roadshow version in a DCP, because many won't be able to see it in 70 mm.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/exclusive-the-weinstein-company-making-changes-to-the-hateful-eight-release-123 Uh oh "Your options to see THE HATEFUL EIGHT are about to open up just in time for the holidays, as The Weinstein Company is in the process of altering their rollout for Quentin Tarantino's latest film. Confirmed by multiple sources, the studio is set to allow a small number of theaters in select cities to show a DCP (Digital Cinema Package) version of Tarantino's Road Show cut of THE HATEFUL EIGHTas of Christmas Day. As it previously stood, that edit of the film - complete with overture and intermission - was only going to be shown in 70mm, with digital presentations coming on-board in early-January for the wide release, but even that plan has been shifted now with the movie moving up on the calendar from its initial January 8 release date to January 1. How exactly did we get here? The Weinstein Company's goal was to have THE HATEFUL EIGHT in 100 theaters for Christmas Day, helping to retrofit a number of venues to be able to project 70mm as Tarantino intended. However, they also insisted that the theaters pick up the cost of the 70mm prints, which is rather expensive. As a result, many prospective locations balked at showing the film, believing that they'd end up in the red once the film's run was done, unable to sell enough tickets in their moderately-sized houses to justify the cost. A number were still game to press on, but TWC's target was effectively cut in half, with 70mm showings being cut down to about 50 theaters. In the hopes of boosting those numbers up once again and making the film a bit more accessible to those who would like to see the Road Show cut, the DCP option surfaced. The number of locations that will be showing the film in that way is still being finalized, but what I'm hearing is that it'll be around 50 in order to hit that 100 theater total they'd wanted originally. On January 1, the multiplex version will kick in, offering audiences the option to see a slightly different cutof the film, with no overture nor intermission in tow, thus shortening the exclusive window the first wave of theatergoers will have all to themselves. This obviously wasn't the plan for Quentin Tarantino or The Weinstein Company, but once those 70mm venues didn't come close to matching what they had hoped for, a new strategy needed to be employed... and this is it. Although this has yet to be confirmed, we expect an announcement of this change very soon."