A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Hateful Eight -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[PaulDA]

Thanks to an extended run I was able to catch the 70mm version. If ever it's released I'll certainly add it to the collection.

 

[Dave H]

I have a front projector and 2:35 scope screen (9 feet wide). I plan on giving it a rental this weekend - very curious to see the visuals and content as I like most Tarantino films and haven't seen this one yet.

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

I had the chance to interview Dana Gourrier, who played Minnie Mink in The Hateful Eight. Check it out: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...rview-dana-gourrier-the-hateful-eight.346907/

 

[GerardoHP]

What about the super slow close-in on the crucifix? I never saw the general release.

If you mean the crucifix during the title sequence, it's there, but the first 2 or 3 titles are different.

 

[Thomas T]

Maybe I'm going crazy but I swear Ennio Morricone's main title was slightly different in the Roadshow cut.

 

[Charles Smith]

Other than the obvious (overture and intermission), I don't claim to be able to identify any differences between my one shot at the 70mm presentation and what's on the Blu-ray.

But in watching the Blu-ray last week I was struck by one thing that is not so well served by omitting the intermission: the change of tone at the start of Act 2, with the introduction of Tarantino's voice-overs and the flashbacks they serve. Gliding right into that without the break is not necessarily more jarring for the first time viewer, but there's something missing.

The roadshow films of the past that we all know and love are likewise, to varying extent, poorly served by omitting the break. Sometimes it's more than just a break -- it's part of the breathing life of the film -- especially when its creators have designed it with care.

 

[RolandL]

I have a front projector and 2:35 scope screen (9 feet wide). I plan on giving it a rental this weekend - very curious to see the visuals and content as I like most Tarantino films and haven't seen this one yet.

I was thinking the same thing when I saw Redbox (are there any others?) has it for rental. I also have a projector and this image will be 138 inches wide on my wall.

 

[zoetmb]

Yes, it looks gorgeous, but being the double widescreen weenie that I am, I hate the fact that Ennio Morricone's super potent overture and the CINERAMA logo are missing. Arrrgh.

Ultra Panavision as Cinerama was almost the Liemax of the day. The film should not have carried the Cinerama logo, IMO. Perhaps that would have been acceptable if it were shown in Cinerama theatres, but since there aren't any (aside from the Seattle Cinerama and Bradford), this film had absolutely nothing to do with Cinerama. Show it on a 90' deeply curved screen that's wall to wall and floor to ceiling and maybe I'd accept the logo.

I saw H8 in 70mm and it did take a bit of getting used to. The opening had some dirt and scratches and it was dim as compared to recent digital presentations I've seen. But as the film played, the scratches and dirt disappeared and every once in a while, there was a closeup on someone that just looked spectacular. I wish the sound could have been analog mag though. But would the average patron seeing the presentation have thought, "OMG, this is so much better than what I usually see"? Absolutely not. It was only better because we knew we were seeing 70mm Ultra Panavision.

But the BD definitely should have been the 70mm cut. What were they thinking?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I saw the film in 70mm last year, and it just so happened that the theater I saw it in was showing the DCP version in the next auditorium. After I finished viewing the 70mm version, I snuck into the other theater and watched a few minutes of the digital version so I could compare them.

I was surprised at how similar they were. I've seen some movies where a 35mm or 70nm print looked a lot better than the digital version, but that wasn't the case here. The digital version was very very close to its film cousin. The DCP seemed every so slightly flatter, whereas the 70mm seemed slightly more vivid and lifelike, but it wasn't night and day different. I was really expecting it to be drastically different and was shocked that it wasn't.

 

[Charles Smith]

I just remember how utterly PERFECT my 70mm showing was, and I'm sorry everyone who saw it wasn't able to experience that.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

You saw it at the Regal E Walk, right? That was a fantastic presentation.

That's part of why I was so surprised that the digital version was so close. During the 70mm screening I knew there was someone up in the booth working his ass off, so it wasn't a surprise to see it look perfect. It was a surprise to walk into an auditorium that was completely automated and see that it was 95% as good with none of the effort required.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

But in watching the Blu-ray last week I was struck by one thing that is not so well served by omitting the intermission: the change of tone at the start of Act 2, with the introduction of Tarantino's voice-overs and the flashbacks they serve. Gliding right into that without the break is not necessarily more jarring for the first time viewer, but there's something missing.

I watched the film for the first time last night, and the abrupt introduction of the narrator did really stand out for me. Not having seen the roadshow, it does make sense to me now that this would have been a smoother introduction had there been an intermission at this point.

While I would not classify this as one of my favorite Tarantino films, I did enjoy it. After all, simply average Tarantino is much better than most of the stuff put out by Hollywood today. I do wish that I'd seen the 70mm roadshow, though. We just didn't have the time over the holidays, unfortunately.

 

[RolandL]

Ultra Panavision as Cinerama was almost the Liemax of the day. The film should not have carried the Cinerama logo, IMO. Perhaps that would have been acceptable if it were shown in Cinerama theatres, but since there aren't any (aside from the Seattle Cinerama and Bradford), this film had absolutely nothing to do with Cinerama. Show it on a 90' deeply curved screen that's wall to wall and floor to ceiling and maybe I'd accept the logo.

There is also the LA Cinerama Dome and a few other Cinerama theatres overseas. But it did not play at the Cinerama Dome, Stars Wars the Force Awakens instead.

 

[Dave H]

I watched it over the weekend. Visually, very impressive and it was interesting seeing a 2:76 AR as it was the first time I've watched that on my front projection set-up, but I prefer 2:35/2:4 for scope. However, as much as I generally really like Tarantino movies, this (and Django for that matter) fell completely flat for me and a big disappointment. I didn't find it nearly as engaging as most of his other movies.

 

[Jim*Tod]

I watched this weekend and was impressed by the level of detail in the image. There is a shot where Samuel L. Jackson is drinking a hot cup of coffee and you can see the steam rise from the cup, gather under the brim of his hat, and then rise up further. I kinda wish now I had trekked up to DC to see it in 70mm back in December.

 

[zoetmb]

I was surprised at how similar they were. The digital version was very very close to its film cousin. The DCP seemed every so slightly flatter, whereas the 70mm seemed slightly more vivid and lifelike, but it wasn't night and day different. I was really expecting it to be drastically different and was shocked that it wasn't.

I'm surprised that the 70mm wasn't flatter. I only saw it in 70mm and I would have expected the DCP to have been brighter and have had more contrast, at least on a decent digital presentation system.

This probably would have been great in Dolby Vision, had they made those DCPs.

 

[Dr Griffin]

I watched this weekend and was impressed by the level of detail in the image. There is a shot where Samuel L. Jackson is drinking a hot cup of coffee and you can see the steam rise from the cup, gather under the brim of his hat, and then rise up further. I kinda wish now I had trekked up to DC to see it in 70mm back in December.

You have no excuse Jim, they were still showing it there in February!

 

[Jim*Tod]

I am hoping that MAYBE AFI will show it again at some point, though they did not do a 70mm festival last year.

 

[Dr Griffin]

I am hoping that MAYBE AFI will show it again at some point, though they did not do a 70mm festival last year.

I'll even take a 70mm blowup festival.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I know the Seattle Cinerama has it booked in 70mm starting April 15. A road trip would be tempting if I hadn't just got back from Mexico.