The Hateful Eight (2015) (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

It was 2.35x1.

Hopefully, the BD will have both the roadshow and theatrical versions.

Not my digital showing. It was 2.76:1

 

[Reed Grele]

Not my digital showing. It was 2.76:1

You were lucky.

Even the clips on the Tonight Show were 2.76x1.

I guess it depends on the theater.

 

[Mark Booth]

We need a campaign to encourage Tarantino and Weinstein Films to only release the Roadshow version of the film on Blu-ray. Or, at the very least, both versions on the same disc viewed via seamless branching.


I did my part by tweeting:


https://twitter.com/markbooth/status/683772358700576769


Mark

 

[Wayne_j]

It was 2.76 at my theater.

 

[Charles Smith]

70mm BEAUTIFUL at the Regal-Times Square.

Everything perfect.

I'm pecking at my phone on the train, so more later.

 

[Reed Grele]

70mm BEAUTIFUL at the Regal-Times Square.

Everything perfect.

I'm pecking at my phone on the train, so more later.

The last time I saw a movie in Times Square was in 1986 at the old Criterion theater, which had been cut up into little pieces, with small screens, and seats angled away from the screen. The print was in the worst condition imaginable! It literally looked like it had been run over sandpaper several times. A solid white image would have looked like a bar code! I kid you not.


Anxiously awaiting your review with bated breath.

 

[DP 70]

I am going to the Odeon in London tonight screening the only 70mm print in the UK. I am sitting in the second row so it should look great when the Cinerama Logo comes on.

 

[Bryan^H]

I noticed some obvious "lens flare" inside 'Minnie's Haberdashery' after dark mainly around Kurt Russel's character. Not sure if it was intentional, but it felt a little like John Carpenter's "The Thing".

 

[Charles Smith]

Go to the Regal E-Walk, I know the projectionist there and he's working hard at keeping it looking really good. By all accounts, the only thing lacking there is screen masking. He's reported no issues with focus or scratching.

It was, in a word, magnificent.


This was the first time I've been to any of the contemporary theaters in NYC, and Auditorium 12 at the Regal is mighty impressive. As soon as I saw the screen and the seating, I knew I'd come to the right place. (Would the Village East or Lincoln Square have been equally as good as far as those things go? I have no idea. And there was no need to have any concern about it.)


The most important element, however, was Peter's recommendation re the projectionist, and holy cow, the presentation was perfect from beginning to end. The picture filled the large, slightly curved screen horizontally, and only a few times during the film was I reminded that there was no masking. Because everything else was so superb, it just wasn't a distraction.


Attendance was light at the 7 pm showing, but everyone wanted to be in the center, so in spite of the empty real estate to the sides, we were still fairly packed in. But it was comfortable, and I was aware of only one apparently very popular and entitled young twenty-something (who was fortunately way off to my side) who texted off and on throughout the movie. Not bad, I guess, for all the reported horrors of audience misbehavior that I'm usually able to avoid at the times I go to movies.


It's funny, but it didn't even hit me till several minutes into the film that there had been no ads, no trailers, no announcements, no warnings, no nothing, before the overture began. Of course it had been greatly hyped as a roadshow presentation, but I guess I'd subconsciously failed to anticipate this level of purity actually being achieved. What I would really love to know is how this presentation affected, or impressed, or failed to impress, the average moviegoer in these audiences. Did they notice or care? Did they appreciate the differences from the norm? How many of them walked out wishing there could be more such releases? I hope that Tarantino & Co.'s repetition of the word "roadshow" throughout all the advertising and in the program book, and even on the theater listings, puts the term into the consciousness and vocabularies of enough people that it helps to reinforce their impressions and create a demand.


To my eyes there wasn't even the slightest hint of damage or wear to the film. Image and focus and sound throughout were perfection itself. Interestingly, the static image over the overture allowed me to observe the very slightest -- and I do mean MINIMAL -- evidence of film weave, and I immediately recalled RAH saying in one of the MY FAIR LADY threads that our impressions of 70mm roadshows having been "rock solid" back in the day are false. I can't even stress how near-undetectable it was. It was actually nice to see it, and once the film proper began, it was completely undetectable. I believe I had a smile on my face for the whole three hours, just eating up the look of that large format film being presented so expertly.


I only wish QT (or whoever made the final decision) had had the courage to do a fade-out on the identification of the overture -- or at the very least, keep the handsome red and black image on screen but fade the word out after a few seconds. The intermission worked fine, but as a strictly timed ten minutes or so, there's still hardly enough time for even the more agile members of the audience to run out and visit the restroom, grab something at the concessions, and get back to their seat before the curtain (ha!) goes up on Act 2. I wager that in the roadshow environment of the fifties and sixties, those intermissions were much more generous, like live theater ones. Of course I understand the difference between having two showings per day, and four or five.


And excuse me for failing to remember, but was there Exit Music? If not, I wonder why. How much expense would that have added to the budget? Maybe it wasn't considered because of the mandatory long end credits that have plenty of music anyway, none of which existed back in the day. Most of my audience sat through those credits, though, so a token minute or so of Exit Music would still have been appropriate and welcome.


As to the movie itself, I had my usual great time on the Tarantino thrill ride, and I was glad that I already knew one thing going in -- that there's a change in directorial approach for the second half -- because I was prepared for whatever that might be, and wasn't going to let it bother me. (I don't think it would have, anyway.) I think Tarantino made the RIGHT choice with Ultra Panavision 70, and that the film is beautifully composed throughout. I didn't think there was a dud composition anywhere, and the actor close-ups are just incredible. Of course his choice of format required venues that can properly portray it, and I can well understand how some of the chosen theaters must have been a disappointment. I'm very very thankful for where I saw it. This could only have been bettered at the likes of, say, the Cinerama Dome, but ONLY if it were just as perfectly and expertly presented.


EDIT: I almost forgot the obligatory report on program book centerfolds. All of the ones there last night were the Kurt Russell.

 

[Charles Smith]

Intermission! The vantage point from my seat:

Perhaps someone can explain how this film handling system worked. Is it a platter system like those for 35mm? I know the reel(s) were to include ten minutes black film which would be kept running through the intermission.


People have reported hearing the projector running in some of the theaters. I can certainly remember that in some theaters over the years, but from my seat in this theater, I heard nothing.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Hi Charles - I saw "Hateful Eight" at that very same theater, and I also had a phenomenal experience with the projection. My only small nitpick had nothing at all to do with the projection, but just how the theater wasn't prepared for a sold out crowd, and hadn't allotted enough time between showings to seat the crowd. I imagine that wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't sold out, so I'm glad to hear that you didn't have any issues with that.


I think the Regal was definitely the way to go over the other NYC theaters you mentioned. The Lincoln Square theater has some nice screens, but they're contractually obligated to show Star Wars on the largest of them, so Hateful Eight was never going to screen in their best auditoriums. And Village East is a small art house theater. Because Regal wasn't showing Star Wars, that allowed their best screens to go for Hateful Eight. I think we got lucky in that regard.


I read somewhere that the prints were built in advance and sent out complete and on a platter, so that it would be a similar system to 35mm. I didn't hear the projector running when I saw it there either - it looks like they've got that booth soundproofed pretty well.


There was no exit music at the screening I saw. The ushers were coming in to clean during the end credits, and pretty much the exact second the last credit ended, they were letting the new audience in. It was really that tight, with less than 10 minutes between the scheduled end of the movie and the starting of the next showing. They were still letting people in from a holding area on another floor when the movie was started when I went.


A fantastic experience to be sure.

 

[lark144]

I was planning on going to the 42nd Street Regal today to see THE HATEFUL EIGHT in 70mm but now they are showing only the standard version, and in fact the only venue in NYC that still has 70mm is the Village East so that is where I went today.


I recently sprained my ankle, & what I didn't realize is that the Village East only has stairs, and since the film was on the second floor and the restrooms are in the basement, it was pretty painful.walking up and down all those stairs. This is not a complaint, but rather a heads up to anyone who is thinking of going there and has a problem with walking stairs.


The only other problem I noticed in terms of the presentation, was 2 big black scratches in the center of the reel just before the intermission, during the flashback in the snow. It was one of those scratches that sometimes happen when you're re-winding a film that's on a platter. Although it didn't ruin the film for me, it was there and it was a bit distracting, although the rest of the image was pristine. In general, this was a very clean print. A lot of it was simply stunning, and I would heartily recommend anyone who's in the area to see this film in 70mm at the Village east. I think the format really enhanced my appreciation of the film.


Other than that one reel, I thought the presentation was stunning. It was really wonderful to see all the different qualities of the lighting in terms of the snow storm in all that great detail. Breathtaking. And even though the second half mostly stayed inside that cabin, there was a real attempt to create images that brought out the scale and specificity of the set. What a great set! And I loved the music. I don't see the music selling a bunch of CDs on its own, but it was perfect for that film and those images.


I generally don't like Tarantino's films but I Loved THE HATEFUL EIGHT! and I'm so glad I saw it in 70mm!


And I wasn't going to see this film, but an old friend of mine who knows my taste in films saw it at the 42nd Street REGAL yesterday and told me I needed to see this film. So I did. And I loved it. I think it's one of the best films of the year.

 

[Reed Grele]

I wonder what's going to become of all those 70mm prints???

 

[Tino]

Chopped up and included with the Blu Ray?

 

[Charles Smith]

Reed, you need to revisit your plans for installing those projectors!

 

[lark144]

I also wanted to say that I was wary of the three hour running time, as I have found previous Tarantino films to be overlong in that the same basic idea was repeated over and over, but the pacing and tension of THE HATEFUL EIGHT is so expertly done that the entire film, including intermission, felt like it took about 85 minutes.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Intermission! The vantage point from my seat:

Regal-1.jpg

Regal-2.jpg

Perhaps someone can explain how this film handling system worked. Is it a platter system like those for 35mm? I know the reel(s) were to include ten minutes black film which would be kept running through the intermission.

People have reported hearing the projector running in some of the theaters. I can certainly remember that in some theaters over the years, but from my seat in this theater, I heard nothing.

Yes, the Regal was set up with a platter system for this run. Same as 35mm but with 70mm parts and requiring special timing of the decks to accommodate the weight of the print. The platter theatres received their prints built up in advance, otherwise they would also have had to locate 70mm splicers, makeup table, rewinds, and the like.

 

[steve jaros]

Saw the Roadshow 70 mm version (Bow Tie Annapolis Mall) and really enjoyed it. Tarantino does a great job exploiting 70 mm to go small, depicting action within a single room. And as usual, his dialogue was engaging. The three hours flew right by. The only dragging part was the intermission. Too long, IMHO.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Regarding the movie's ultrawide aspect ratio and use of 70mm, I know that some people thought it was a mismatch of format to content, but I agree with Steve and others here - Tarantino uses the frame really well. Whether its the long, unbroken opening shot that the credits roll over with all of the snow and the wagon approaching slowly that make you feel cold just looking at it, or the wide interiors of the cabin that place you in the center of the action, I thought photographically it was very well done. I liked that an actor could be in closeup in the foreground, and then in the background to the sides you could see the other actors and what they were up to, and how they were reacting to whoever was speaking. Because the camera's view was so wide, and the set relatively small, I think it did a fantastic job of really giving a sense of being trapped, and I think it upped the tension. I don't think 1.85:1 would have been as effective here. Granted, to film this wide with such enclosed spaces is an unusual choice, but I think Tarantino makes it work.

 

[sleroi]

I agree the film wouldnt work at 1.85, but I think it wouldve worked at 2.35. The shot of the cross was awesome, but after that I dont think he took full advantage of the extra wide frame. Dont get me wrong, he designed a great set and shot it well, probably better than most directors would have done. I guess I just expected more, with all of the effort to ressurrect a dormant format.