Hateful Eight Experience

[Tyler Purcell]

Since it is QT, it is an automatic genius masterpiece I guess.

Yep and there in lies the problem. I agree with you on the review as well. Upon finishing my much anticipated first screening, I was left dismayed. I haven't spoken about the story because I didn't want to post anything until the film had been out for a while. Plus, since it's a "who done it", not much of it can be talked about without spoiling the very little plot there is. So I'll write something more detailed next week once everyone has seen it. :)

[Tyler Purcell]

Take a look at this list. Not all the directors of these movies were stopped after these movies failed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs

Right, but MOST of those directors already had a career prior to making those bombs.

 

My point is that, the audience does have a very discerning taste and it's important as a filmmaker to find what that is and focus on it. Making something that's safe, isn't a bad idea.

 

On that list, there are two truly wonderful films... 'HUGO' and "John Carter'. Both have their minor flaws, but both are actually really good movies. I have no idea why 'Hugo' didn't do well, its a cinematic masterpiece with a great story. 'John Carter' was a bit too much for people. Campy sci-fi is not really a money maker, even though I'm a fan of that genera when done right.

 

Funny enough, Renny Harlin is on that list twice... bad boy! LOL :)

[Guest]

I have no idea why 'Hugo' didn't do well, its a cinematic masterpiece with a great story.

 

Well did you notice the marketing campaign for HUGO completely left out the entire George Melies angle which was a huge part of the movie. The studio knew this would never sell with the general public. Then again, why did they green light the script then? When the movie was done did they watch in surprise as the whole George Melies story line unfolded?

 

R,

[Guest]

I do love lists of big budget box office bombs. These movies were green lit by the very same execs who will say, Richard your movie has no chance on Feb 26th. I would hand them this list and say....what the hell do you know?

 

R,

[Giray Izcan]

I thought the discussion was about Hateful Eight...

[Guest]

I thought the discussion was about Hateful Eight...

 

After 80 posts be thankful it is still at least film related. By now we're usually talking about who built the pyramids or it's a political debate by now.

 

R,

[Giray Izcan]

You have a point haha.

[Robin R Probyn]

And were the pyramids built by slaves or union members .. or are they the same thing.. discuss ..

[JD Hartman]

Well, that maybe the big difference here. I'm a full-time filmmaker and until you actually try to make a living doing what you love, its hard to judge. You learn very quickly to be pessimistic and pragmatic, rather then passion taking everything over. Also, I'm not a journeyman going from job to job performing a particular task. I do a wide gamut of tasks during a given week, everything from story development to coloring and everything in between.

 

Now, I love telling stories, who doesn't. However, it's experience that pushes me to say what I say. Do you continue making products that nobody cares about, that very few people will ever see, which pulls cash and time away from your non-industry job? OR, do you compromise and make a product that is suitable for a wider audience, one that potentially could make money, one that may allow you to make films for the rest of your life? You get to a certain point in your path as a filmmaker where you have to sit down and have that discussion. I had it a few years ago after I had spent three years producing a feature documentary that was an instant hit at film festivals around the world, winning awards and being seen by some top people. What did we get from it? NOTHING! We told a wonderful story that had never been told before, we had an all-star cast and it's a great little movie. Yet, nobody cares because it's not main stream enough. So here I am five years later, having invested three years of my life making the thing and never seeing a dime back.

 

That story is very typical and if you have a full-time job doing something outside of the entertainment industry, it's truly impossible to know what it feels like for your film to be a failure. When you have job/financial security, these things matter much less. When you're so broke from making a film, you're literally begging for a gig just to put some money in your coffers. That's when passion kinda goes out the window because no matter how much passion you have, it can't put food on the table.

 

So when people talk to me about being passionate... it kinda grinds my gears. Nobody would go through the experiences I went through, they would have given up years ago. Yet here I am, still passionate to a fault, prepping two short films and a feature, as if nothing ever happened. I just want people who haven't had this experience to realize there is far more to filmmaking then being passionate.

 

+1 to the above.

[Tyler Purcell]

Well... it looks like my fears about Hateful Eight's projection were well founded: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/3y7a2b/post_hateful_eight_70mm_show_reports_here/

 

A lot of people are complaining about projection issues throughout the country, especially at theaters that don't normally run film anymore. The focus issues I experienced haven't been as wide spread as I predicted. However, I think most people just don't know what it's suppose to look like.

 

Never the less, issues are wide spread from a projectionist loading the film backwards, to several audio out of sync issues, to the projector not having a frame matte, so the bottom and top frame edges were seen. It seems like most of the digital-only theaters, framed the film improperly on the standard 2.35:1 screen, so there was a big black bar at the top of the screen. Some of the comments led me to believe the theater owners were so scared of the film not working, they actually ran digital backup's in sync with the film. One theater go'er saw overlapping images because the projectionist forgot to turn the digital projector off. Another theater couldn't even make the film projector run, so a lot of people simply walked out.

 

Obviously, the film has been running for one day, today is the 2nd day and I'm sure a lot of these bugs will be worked out. Funny enough, the Arclight Hollywood, Sherman Oaks and LaJolla have zero issues, the feedback has been stellar. So it CAN be done, it just requires a projectionist with half a brain!

[Bill DiPietra]

Just heard about some significant focus issues at the AMC Lincoln Square Cinemas here in NYC, too.

[Jay Young]

I'm headed to see it Tuesday in supposedly 70mm, I'll believe that when I see it.

 

I haven't read all the posts, but I'll say; I like long dialogue scenes, and long dialogue driven plots.

I would love to do a version on Dune myself, in the long form.

I like a big action film just as much as an art film, and I really don't pay much attention to how much it cost to make as usually the first 99% of the budget is to pay the top bill talent, then to pay for the story that the director wrote, and then if you have any money left, to pay for the top bill actors entourage. At least thats how I read budget reports these days.

 

I'm glad QT has enough finances or personal wealth to launch a project he is passionate about.

[Manu Delpech]

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.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Manu Delpech

[Bill DiPietra]

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.

 

Yeah, that was basically my fear. Here you have an actual 70mm roadshow - something that hasn't been done in decades - which, by definition, was always a classy thing. I understand this isn't the 50s, but I would have preferred it if another film-maker had come up with this plan.

 

I have a ticket to go see it tomorrow night but feedback like this makes me want to just pass it up. I'm sure Richardson's cinematography is gorgeous, but how much can one truly appreciate it if the film itself is as mediocre as so many have said?...

[Manu Delpech]

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.

[Bill DiPietra]

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.

 

All true and I do plan on going. Thanks.

[Bill DiPietra]

Some gorgeous images on the Kodak website...

[Tyler Purcell]

This is why I haven't posted a review because I think it's better for people to figure it out on their own. It's such a mixed bag and with the right audience, it can be very funny, to the point where even though it's not great, at least it's entertaining. Plus it shows you what a film SHOULD look like, it's disrupting because it looks so much better then anything digital. No bells and whistles, 50's technology still looks better!

[Freya Black]

I wonder if Quentin deliberately made it a bit stage-y so that they wouldn't have to move the huge 70mm camera around so much. I don't think he really needed to write it that way however as I think a lot of his films would be easy enough to shoot on 70mm but people do talk all the time about how difficult it is to work in 70mm because of moving the camera. I suspect it's over stated.

 

On another note, isn't it amazing how much Kodak has changed since the new guy got there. I wish they hadn't taken away the film tools but they are suddenly promoting all the Kodak films a lot more and doing a lot more exciting and modern things!

 

I mean Kodak now have a sound cloud account! :o It seems like the sleeping giant has finally awoken!

 

Freya

Edited December 27, 2015 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

...ah except none of the "Read More" links actually work on the new Kodak page! :wacko:

 

Freya

[Manu Delpech]

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

[Mark Dunn]

people do talk all the time about how difficult it is to work in 70mm because of moving the camera. I suspect it's over stated.

 

It is. There's been a hand-held 65mm. camera since 1960. It weighs 24lb. loaded.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Mark Dunn

[Jeremy Cavanagh]

It is. There's been a hand-held 65mm. camera since 1960. It weighs 24lb. loaded.

Would this have been the camera Arthur C Clarke describes in his book, The Lost Worlds of 2001, being used by Stanley Kubrick to follow the bone thrown in the air that cuts to a satellite in orbit in the finished film of 2001?

[Freya Black]

It is. There's been a hand-held 65mm. camera since 1960. It weighs 24lb. loaded.

 

 

Aside from the 500ft mag (how long is that!), that looks completely practical.

Is it still available to rent because it looks like it would work to me?

 

Freya

[Manu Delpech]

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)