Hateful Eight Experience

[Brian Drysdale]

They use a 1.25 squeeze anamorphic lenses, this is the Ultra Panavision 70 system.

 

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/ultrapanavisionspecs.htm

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

Thank you. :)

[Tyler Purcell]

Well, Tyler has an axe to grind with digital cinema and it has clearly clouded his perception of reality. I mean, I prefer celluloid over digital as well, but I would never assume that someone who makes different choices than I would must be either incompetent, lazy, or just plain stupid.

I do have an axe to grid because people are UNEDUCATED and it drives me crazy! If cinematographers knew, what they shot wouldn't last forever and was going to be down-sampled to the lowest acceptable resolution for theatrical release, don't you think they'd make changes? The problem is that everyone keeps their mouth shut about this topic. The rug is lifted up, the topic is swept underneath and nobody is the wiser. I have been in production meetings as a technical expert, trying to persuade filmmakers to shoot film so it will last forever and the moment I show them my worksheet on data loss and longevity, they flip their lid. Yet, most people still shoot digital because it's easier.

 

The problem is, everyone is nearsighted, they can only see whatever project they are working on next. VERY few people care about longevity and no... I can't think of a single cinematographer who has outwardly stated they prefer the look of digital over film. As in, the reason they aren't shooting film is because they dislike it's looks. In fact, MOST cinematographers on MOST movies comment how difficult it would be for them to shoot film, so they "SETTLE" for digital.

 

So here we are, it's been 15 years since we started shooting digitally and nothing has changed.

[Bill DiPietra]

I can't think of a single cinematographer who has outwardly stated they prefer the look of digital over film. As in, the reason they aren't shooting film is because they dislike it's looks. In fact, MOST cinematographers on MOST movies comment how difficult it would be for them to shoot film, so they "SETTLE" for digital.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff, man?!

 

Tyler, I respect your love of film as a format and you obviously have a lot of technical knowledge. But I've really reached my limit with your "anti-digital," "I know better than anyone else" and "I have information that no one else does" attitudes. We all have our opinions on things, but more often than not, your posts consist of more misinformation than actual information...topped off with utter vitriol. And when you do that, all you are really doing is embarrassing yourself, because it eventually becomes clear that what you attempt to put across as fact, is simply your opinion. A perfect example is this whole Mad Max: Fury Road, nonsense. It's like that saying, "the mind sees what it chooses to see."

 

Bitterness is fueling virtually every one of your posts. Get a grip, man.

[Robin R Probyn]

Tyler.. have you seen a film called Walter Mitty..

Edited January 16, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Tyler Purcell]

Bitterness is fueling virtually every one of your posts. Get a grip, man.

How can one NOT be bitter in the current state of things?

[Giray Izcan]

I agree with Bill, sorry... I'm a die hard film person, but shoot on digital a lot as a part of my job which is shooting commercials. I think if you want to shoot on film, shoot on film, and let others shoot on whatever they choose to shoot on instead of trying to convert anyone like a missionary or something. There are plenty of films shot on film that are crap as well i.e. The Room... You come off as someone who just started shooting on film, hence is overly excited about it. Nevertheless, good luck with your school and your projects.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Giray Izcan

[Tyler Purcell]

Hey now, I shoot digital 99.5% of the time and probably won't be changing that anytime soon.

 

I've been shooting film since 1987. ;)

[Giray Izcan]

I didn't mean that you literally just started shooting on film. I should have been more clear, so I apologize. You come off like someone who just started shooting on film.

[Tyler Purcell]

True! But it's the state of the film industry which gets me riled up, rather then "film" itself.

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

This is a big thread, and I think that there is another one about the film, so I was wondering has anyone talked about what is it in this film that warranted for it to be shot on 65 mm film or that the choice to shoot a film set in a stagecoach lodge was a farce?

[Alex Lindblom]

Well it's a dark comedy wrapped in a murder mystery, and I have to say I had a pretty good time. Goggins is really entertaining in this one, in a solid ensemble cast.

 

Saw it in digital, one interesting thing that popped out straight away was that the scan was not stabilized so there was clear gate wave, which I actually liked.

 

Now if I a dip my toes in this film digital thing. If you compare “The hateful 8” to it it's great ancestor “And then there were none” and the recent 3h BBC adaption which I assume was shot on Alexa but I'm not sure. The nature of these stories lies in the mystery “who did it” and “why”, you are never really emotional invested in the characters, it's more of an intellectual exercise.

 

That being said The Hateful 8 had me laughing, and smiling all the way trough, and I could go along with the ride even when I felt he was pandering a bit. "And then there were none", has another tone for sure, and it's a solid adaption, but the thing with digital, and I don't know why, it's just lets you observe what's going on but never includes you in it, it just leaves you cold, I don't know how to better explain it.

 

Mad Max Fury Road, is the achievement of the year, the spectacle is lost on no one. And yet you are just there observing, you don't care who lives or die, and to me, even with all it's action it felt longer then The Hateful 8. I find that really interesting since The hateful 8 is basically a stage play, and Mad Max Fury Road is pure cinema, no other art from can do what Fury Road does. And yet it's The Hateful 8 and Goggins when he gets that pistol, and realizes that the tables are turning, that gets my vote...

Edited January 16, 2016 by Alex Lindblom

[JD Hartman]

 

Mad Max Fury Road, is the achievement of the year, the spectacle is lost on no one. And yet you are just there observing, you don't care who lives or die, and to me, even with all it's action it felt longer then The Hateful 8. I find that really interesting since The hateful 8 is basically a stage play, and Mad Max Fury Road is pure cinema, no other art from can do what Fury Road does. And yet it's The Hateful 8 and Goggins when he gets that pistol, and realizes that the tables are turning, that gets my vote...

 

Mad Max, the achievement of the year? In what sense? Technology wise? The money spent to try and revive the Max Max franchise? The story was a disjointed bit of nonsense. Didn't enjoy it in the theater and won't be wasting my time watching it on cable or renting the DVD.

[Manu Delpech]

I think you either get Mad Max Fury Road or you don't, and that's not me being condescending. The story is the visuals, the visuals are the story, simple as that, there wasn't a script, there was a storyboard, what Miller does with Fury Road is tell a story completely through visuals, the mythology, the worldbuilding, there's SO MUCH and it's all told visually using cinema purely as a visual medium which it kind of is.

 

It's a monumental technical achievement and an incredible action movie, you can not like it but don't be jaded to the point of ignoring what it accomplishes. It's loud, it's heavy, it's not subtle and so what? Few people aside from McTiernan and Cameron on T2 directed action the way Miller does with Fury Road, it's an incredible spectacle on many respects, I really don't think some people realize the skill at display here, or fully appreciate it. The fact also that so much of it was done practically (and yes there's still a ton of CG, so what?) is part of the reason why it's loved so much overall. And guys, come on, a film like this going all the way, gathering Best Picture and Best Director nominations, that does not happen if you've made an okay film, the fact that a big blockbuster like this is getting so much recognition should tell you something, regardless of what you think about the Oscars or whatever.

 

"Renting the DVD", "watching on cable?" You couldn't be more obvious if you tried.

 

Otherwise, The Hateful Eight wasted Ultra Panavision 70, sure, it looks good, but this is the movie that gets to be shot on this format? They did because they could and because Bob Richardson saw those lenses by chance and knew Quentin would go for them. Django on this format would have been a marvel.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Manu Delpech

[JD Hartman]

I think you either get Mad Max Fury Road or you don't, and that's not me being condescending. The story is the visuals, the visuals are the story, simple as that, there wasn't a script, there was a storyboard, what Miller does with Fury Road is tell a story completely through visuals, the mythology, the worldbuilding, there's SO MUCH and it's all told visually using cinema purely as a visual medium which it kind of is.

 

It's a monumental technical achievement and an incredible action movie, you can not like it but don't be jaded to the point of ignoring what it accomplishes. It's loud, it's heavy, it's not subtle and so what? Few people aside from McTiernan and Cameron on T2 directed action the way

 

"Renting the DVD", "watching on cable?" You couldn't be more obvious if you tried.

 

 

 

Obvious.... really? How so? Technology for technologies sake, how boring. Just a crap-ton of stunts. A story that made little sense and left me feeling incomplete and unsatisfied.. I usually watch the DVD/BluRay version of films to learn more about the behind the scenes, the nuts and bolts of it. In this case, couldn't care less. IMHO, doesn't compare favorably to the Terminator franchise.

[Alex Lindblom]

I mean I think it comes down to the basic appreciation of what film is, the essence of it. Pictures moving in time in space, by the manipulation of the cut.

 

George Miller, manages to push a basic silent narrative for almost 2hr, personally I would have cut out all the night time scenes but that's just me, I'm sure somebody else loves them. The opening to Skyfall do the same thing maybe even better and of course shorter. And if you want to slow it down, you can go to the Once upon a time in the west opening, the same thing, pure cinema just in slightly lower tempo.

 

As I said the film left me a bit cold, but the craftsmanship is right up there on the screen to see. This is the “purest” film I seen since the first Ju-on (2000) shot for Japanese television, which does the same thing for horror but in much slower pace and it's only 70 minutes.

 

In music anyone can hear when someone takes a false note, something that seems to be sorely lacking in the appreciation of cinema. People have different tastes and you can always argue if you like it or not, but what you can't argue is if somebody can play the instrument or not. Leone, Carpenter, De palma, Trakovsky, Cameron, Spielberg, Haneke, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Miller they all can play the instrument. Yet their movies are vastly different, not only among each other, but even within there own oeuvre. Some I like some I don't, but I can always appreciate a job well done even though it may not be my preferred dish so to speak.

 

And as a final note I also prefer T1 and T2 over Fury Road, but I thought we where talking about Hateful 8, sorry for the derail.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Alex Lindblom

[Tyler Purcell]

what Miller does with Fury Road is tell a story completely through visuals, the mythology, the worldbuilding, there's SO MUCH and it's all told visually using cinema purely as a visual medium which it kind of is.

What is the story? In the future we have poisoned our water supply through fracking and it's become the highest valued commodity?

 

It's a monumental technical achievement and an incredible action movie

Why? Most of the film is shot with the vehicles at a stand still and a bunch of artists sitting in comfy chairs have re-created the scenes in their computers and made them look like they were in motion, when they really weren't. YES, there were some amazing stunts done in the film, some absolute top notch stuff that looked very challenging. However, without a story, without character development, without a screenplay, the action is simply there to waste time. I could care less if someone falls off and gets killed, who cares? That's because it's just eye candy and honestly it shares zero... and I mean absolutely NOTHING with films like Terminator 2, which is one of the best action films ever made. Why? Because T2's action only exists to move the plot forward. The bad guy catches up to the good guy after a long dialog scene and it pushes the film into a different direction. You care about the characters and you don't want them to be injured, so during the action scenes, your on the edge of your seat! Not so with Fury Road. None of it makes any difference because it's all show and spectacle. Cameron shot T2 with his eye in the viewfinder for most of the film. There is a very famous still picture of him riding in the side car of a motorbike, facing backwards with an Arri III on his lap looking in the viewfinder. Man, it doesn't get much better then that! In my eyes, that's real filmmaking. Miller sat in a comfy chair watching a monitor and screaming through the "god mic"... yea, that's what filmmaking has come down to.

 

And guys, come on, a film like this going all the way, gathering Best Picture and Best Director nominations, that does not happen if you've made an okay film, the fact that a big blockbuster like this is getting so much recognition should tell you something, regardless of what you think about the Oscars or whatever.

'Life of PI' and 'Gravity' went all the way, yet both films are completely forgettable (comparable because they're VFX driven). Here we are though, 25 years later and still talking about T2. Which by the way, was nominated for 6 academy awards including best cinematography and won 4. I bet Fury Road takes those same technical achievement awards and disappears into obscurity.

 

Otherwise, The Hateful Eight wasted Ultra Panavision 70, sure, it looks good, but this is the movie that gets to be shot on this format? They did because they could and because Bob Richardson saw those lenses by chance and knew Quentin would go for them. Django on this format would have been a marvel.

Yep! So sad... Only ONE person I know loves it. But she loves obscure cinema and the shock factor so I get it.

[Bill DiPietra]

Otherwise, The Hateful Eight wasted Ultra Panavision 70, sure, it looks good, but this is the movie that gets to be shot on this format? They did because they could and because Bob Richardson saw those lenses by chance and knew Quentin would go for them. Django on this format would have been a marvel.

 

This is why I wasn't too upset when I saw that projection was completely off and decided to walk out of the theather. I got the impression - mostly from what I'd been hearing - that Tarantino really didn't take advantage of the grandeur of the Ultra Panavision format.

[Manu Delpech]

Terminator 2 is probably the best action movie ever made. I just disagree on the entire thing though. I simply used T2 to talk about directing action. Sure, I'll put movies like Room, Creed, Steve Jobs, Spotlight, Star Wars, The Big Short, etc above Mad Max this year because they have far more depth, but I don't believe that here it matters. There is a story, sure, it's minimal, but there's a LOT that is packed in there through visuals, but then again, if you don't enjoy the film, I doubt you'll care enough to see that. Once again Tye, you talk about real filmmaking, but these are the times we are in. It's not because it is "easier" to make films nowadays that it makes them of lesser value. While we're on the subject, why don't you harp on Cameron with Avatar? (I love that movie by the way) I mean, with his virtual camera and all of that.

 

We use the tools we have at our disposition. Simple as that. Films are more disposable today I guess, but that's also because the classics are mostly behind us and have had the TIME to become what they are. It's far too early to speak of such things with recent movies.

[David Mullen ASC]

Clearly Steven Soderbergh saw something in "Mad Max: Fury Road" -- when he published the list of all the movies he saw in 2015 and all the books he read, he had seen "Mad Max" three times, more than any other film released in the year.

 

The fact that the story is so minimal and the movie is almost entirely a pure chase film with very little character development outside of what could be revealed through action, isn't necessarily a fault. Though I prefer the combination of "Mad Max 1" and "The Road Warrior" and Mel Gibson's performance in them, I think he conveyed that "haunted man" and tragic figure more clearly with minimal dialogue and his expressive face than Tom Hardy was allowed to. But as a stunt-driven action film, the new "Mad Max" has a balletic quality and physicality that is missing in a lot of modern action movies, so I think it is an impressive directorial work. It just lacks some heart that might have allowed it to become a cherished classic twenty or thirty years from now, unlike "Terminator 2".

 

Though it is not as great as Buster Keaton's "The General", there are similarities in terms of both being chase movies with a certain mechanical grace to them. I recall one friend who was also a fan of Keaton as much as I was telling me that "The General" is so perfect that it is less funny than other Keaton movies, you spend more of your time in amazement at the skill of the filmmaking and Keaton's performance than you do laughing.

[Manu Delpech]

Not to mention that Fury Road is the best reviewed movie of the year, I guess we're all crazies ya know ^^ Agree with David, it doesn't have heart or depth but it's one hell of a spectacle.

[David Mullen ASC]

While I think "Fury Road" is one of the best films of 2015, I don't disagree with some of the criticisms. I mean, why put the crew through the hell of working for months in the Namibia desert in the middle of nowhere if in post, you were just going to erase half the landscape and replace it would something closer to the look of Wadi Rum in Jordan? I mean, "The Martain" (which went to Wadi Rum) kept more of their location work intact than "Mad Max" did, and that movie is set on Mars! But at least a lot of the stunts in "Mad Max" were done for real, which I think helps the movie, you feel the dangerousness of the action and the speed of the vehicles.

 

As for faking some driving interiors using poor man's techniques, George Miller has done that since the first Mad Max movie; I don't mind that sort of old-fashioned slight-of-hand, movies have been doing that since the dawn of cinema.

[John Holland]

The trouble with "The Martian" is the Wadi Rum locations look like just where it is and not Mars . Kept expecting "Lawrence ! to pop up and rescue him .

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

:lol: LOL, John. That was funny. :)

[Tyler Purcell]

Its funny you mention 'The General' because I haven't yet seen a film that comes close to it. I have that film on Super 8, 16mm, laserdisc and DVD. LOL :) Probably seen it 200 times, tinted, non-tinted, you name it! We still haven't come near the quality of that film and it's SILENT!

 

My big beef about today's film is that action seems forced, it rarely moves the plot forward. It's like an episode of the Simpsons, where you start and end the show with everything back to normal. That's how action films are made today and people are so caught up in spectacle, they get so over-powered by the visuals, they just freak out! That emotional freakout is what causes them to like it. The film moves so quickly from scene to scene, you don't have a moment to contemplate anything. You have no time to think, so you won't catch all the obvious ridiculous stupidity spread throughout, stuff that just flat-out doesn't make sense. Remember 'Gravity' and how everyone just loved it when it came out? Yet NOBODY talks about it anymore... it was last weeks flavor, today it's Mad Max and tomorrow it will be something else. These modern films have zero staying power, they're simply here to make money and disappear.

 

Look... it's quite simple. If you throw a bunch of poop at my face, I'm going to turn your film off. I don't care who makes it, the film is being shut off and it gets a zero. If you're going to think the audience is bunch of dumb-asses and treat them as such, your film is also going to be shut off. 'The Martian' is a great example of that... the whole film they treat the audience like idiots. Yes, I know it's based on a science nerds book, but man it's all wrong. Dust storms big enough to topple space ships? Undeniably impossible. Thin wet-suit looking space suits? IMPOSSIBLE. Big glass helmets? No way in hell. Ohh.. you can turn the head of a robot, but you can't send morse code? Give me a break! Big space ship with thousands of square feet of wasted space? Yea right. 'The Martian' gets a big fat thumbs down because it tries to be clever, but fails to deliver anything but stupidity. Yes, Matt Damon's dialog was witty and worked well, there were some funny moments that sucked the audience away from the obvious bullshit. But as a movie that's suppose to be grounded in some realism, it was the stupidest thing I've ever seen. This is where 'Interstellar' worked, because they had actual scientists working on the film, developing the technology and making it hyper realistic. However, it went over people's head and people didn't like it, yet it has immense staying power. It's a film that will be looked back upon 20 years from now and maybe it will take that long to understand, like so many other films.

 

'Fury Road' has nothing, it's fluff, it's air, it doesn't move the soul or give any reason to exist other then to waste time. At least 'Hateful Eight' had dialog and told a story! Only reason Fury Road got a nod is because people don't care anymore. Most voters probably ask their kids or worse, go on google and see if other people liked it. I doubt most voters even see the movies, they're too busy watching pay television because in a lot of cases it's far better then what we put in theaters today.