We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Yamete Onii-chan • 8 years ago

Um, no.

I live outside the USA, and there is literally no way for any theatre to adapt to 70mm unless if you're the son of a corrupt dictator.

It's too expensive.

Digital has been a blessing for global cinema and I think that this elitist push for 70mm by assholes like Tarantino and whatever is literally ignoring the social conditions of the world outside the United States.

Art should be accessible to everyone as much as it could. That's why I don't mind seeing cinemas with smaller screens for poorer small towns as it's cheaper.

beema • 8 years ago

Corrupt dictators tend to have tons of illegitimate children though!

Flag On the Moon • 8 years ago

If you're corrupt enough you can retroactively make the good ones legit.

Battlecar Compactica • 8 years ago

--Roose Bolton

Dont Flag Me Bro • 8 years ago

In typical mohdian "post first, think later" fashion, he has once again
not even bothered to read the article before spouting another ignorant
opinion.

No one is arguing that 70mm should replace digital or 35mm. It's a both/and argument, not either/or. No one who wants 70mm as one of a few options is ignoring the social conditions of the rest of the world. So mohd, will you for once please go against your ingrained "must be the first poster!" habit and take the time to craft a coherent argument before making yourself look stupid?

Find me a dictator who isn't corrupt and get back to me.

Yamete Onii-chan • 8 years ago

Emperor Reinhardt von Leuengramm?

Oh my GOD mohd are you asking for trouble

RatedBlechs • 8 years ago

Connie Chung!!

She'll do anything for a man who can sing "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head" in a rich, creamy baritone. Anything.

Jean-Luc_de_Lemur • 8 years ago

Well, they do it in Western Europe. I know that’s a different ballgame than in Southeast Asia, but after seeing Lean’s films in 70mm I don’t want to go back.

D.R. Darke • 8 years ago

There are, at best, a couple hundred theaters capable of doing 70mm justice, Jean-Luc_de_Lemur (according to http://redballoon.net/ ) - more then half of them in the US. Australia has 24, Canada has about 30, Europe has around 100, and Asia has one - in Hyderabad, in the middle of India (one of the biggest theatrical film markets in the world!).

I don't want to discourage directors who want to shoot epics from shooting in 70mm - but that's mostly because they'll look awesome when transferred to 8K video a decade or so from now.

Penelope Rockatansky • 8 years ago

I like art to be exclusive.

Flag On the Moon • 8 years ago

If I can't brag to people about how great it is, how can I be sure it's great?

stevelevets • 8 years ago

And how can you be great if they can see it?

Guest • 8 years ago
radioactive badger • 8 years ago

Right. There's tons of great art all over the world that can only be seen in that one particular spot. Whether it's because it's part of an edifice or the prestige is too great to allow outside of it's home/adopted country or it's too fragile for travel anywhere. The possession and the curation of such work is inherently elitist (even if a movie is both low budget and popular it's already elitist considering the millions of dollars and specialized training required to put together a movie), but it's not elitist for things to exist and to continue maintaining their existence is not elitist. For one thing, prints and photographs very much exist, so we all know what the Mona Lisa looks like. It's like conserving a forest. When protecting a forest we're not just protecting how it was, but allowing it to flourish. I don't think conserving art and the technologies to create and display art are any different from protecting the environment, and by prizing all of this it also generates interest in finding, retrieving and preserving stray parts, and also it could lead to an interest in manufacturing new equipment. Likewise as the article pointed out, the revival of 70mm has enriched movies that were never intended to be projected in 70mm. Even without a full revival of 70mm projection, continued interest in the technique still makes movies in general better. The next step requires innovation in manufacture, transportation and preservation of film and equipment so that it can be enjoyed more widely, and/or means of simulating 70mm via digital projection.

SgtMakak • 8 years ago

Also, The Hateful Eight will be shown in 35mm and digital...

Boris Delores • 8 years ago

yeah idk why everyone is acting like it's exclusively being shown in 70mm..

SgtMakak • 8 years ago

FUCK YOU AND YOUR OPTIONS!

Ham • 8 years ago

QT has announced that the 70mm version will be an extended cut.

stevelevets • 8 years ago

By making it such a noticeable aspect of every trailer, the implication is pretty strong.

Herald • 8 years ago

You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you.

illnevergetmorehope • 8 years ago

I'm so annoyed that Bernini didn't build one of his glorious statues in my hometown. The bastard!

battybrain • 8 years ago

Yet it's not an A or B thing. Tarantino isn't ONLY releasing it in 70mm. You're going to be perfectly capable of seeing Hateful Eight at any theater that wants to screen it.

The argument is to make 70mm more commercially appealing, and thus spread it out (which, btw, if it worked well enough, would probably lower the cost as well).

the lies of minnelli • 8 years ago

That's a big part of why I think this thing is just a bullshit stunt from a mediocre, elitist filmmaker who knows he can get away with whatever he wants. 70mm films were designed to attract people away from TV but there's no way Hateful Eight doesn't work just as well on a standard cinema screen and, by extension, a HDTV in someone's home.

madchemist • 8 years ago

Tarantino output is mediocre? I officially banish you to watch nothing but Marvel movies for the rest of your existence!

the lies of minnelli • 8 years ago

You're just trading one mediocrity for another, only one isn't obsessed with the n-word.

George_Liquor • 8 years ago

Nudibranch?

AspectRatio • 8 years ago

Narcotraficante?

Dayv! • 8 years ago

Although... isn't Tarantino doing a different cut of the film for 70mm? I can't help but feel there's a bit of a (probably unintended) slight to audiences who'd want to see it in 70mm but can't, since one would assume the 70mm edit is his "preferred" version.

I'm curious to see which version ends up as the primary one when it comes to home video releases.

nikmarov • 8 years ago

There will be 6 minutes absent from the non-70mm version. Considering the entire thing is 3 hours long, I don't think that's a big loss - my assumption is that the 70mm version will simply let some shots last for a bit longer so that the viewers can appreciate all the detail they won't be able to see in the digital version. I certainly don't believe there'll be any important plot details or dialogue missing.

Yawantpancakes? • 8 years ago

If that's the case, why even see it in 70mm? To see a 3 minute sunset or something?

If someone wants to see this movie in 70mm, great. I feel it's not really essential.

6EQUJ5 • 8 years ago

If you want to see a real film as opposed to a glorifed DVD, it is essential.

Yawantpancakes? • 8 years ago

My point is, some people don't care. In this case, I would watch a Sci-Fi spectacle like the new Star Wars on 70mm. Not the new Tarantino movie that's like his other movies where dialogue is basically the show. I don't need 70mm to hear the dialogue.

Wednesdayware • 8 years ago

Great point. Tarantino films aren't really drooled over for the cinematography.

Cerusee • 8 years ago

Because it will look a lot better.

Dayv! • 8 years ago

Thanks, that's more detail than I'd seen on this before. It still makes me wonder which will be the "definitive" version in the long run.

faux real • 8 years ago

Maybe it'll make no difference to cinematic illiterates, but I for one look very much forward to that six minute closeup of Jennifer Jason Leigh's feet.

Maudib • 8 years ago

Tarantino has been waiting his whole life to vividly capture every sensual feature of his actress' feet. He's only settling for 70mm to set up for higher gauges of film. He won't be satisfied until every moist speck of toe jam and erect bunion is smothering his vision.

battybrain • 8 years ago

I don't know anything about that, but either way, trying to make it into some first world privlege complaint session seems like a big reach to me.

Dayv! • 8 years ago

I agree. There's a kernel of complaint there, but turing it into an issue of economics and inequality is probably a bit much.

hanshotfirst1138 • 8 years ago

It's proving hugely expensive here on the US too. Film distribution as a whole is insanely more expensive than digital, hence the switch to it. I'd love for Tarantino to be able to save it, but let's be realistic.

Dr.RoButtNik • 8 years ago

But that's fine because "Theatres should recommit to the glory of 70MM" doesn't mean the same as "Every theatre in the world should stop having digital projection"

Ham • 8 years ago

Although that is indeed QT's directive at the New Beverly Cinema, the rep house he bought some years ago. First thing he did was have the digital projector removed.

peejjones • 8 years ago

New Beverly is a fun place to see a movie. Was in town a couple years ago and caught a double feature of Wrath of Khan and The Thing

Ham • 8 years ago

I attended a week-long Joe Dante retrosepective, which climaxed with a four-hour presentation of The Movie Orgy, which was only possible due to its being preserved on DVD. Obviously this was before they went 100% film, and now that'll never happen again.

Killface Chippendale • 8 years ago

Have you read Silver Screen Fiend? There's a definite virtue to his decision to go film-only there. It's a bastion of the old guard.

Domhnall Trump • 8 years ago

But that's still just a specialised niche cinema that's serving a specific, under-served audience. If he bought AMC and then refused to show films that weren't released on film, it would be a different story.

Ham • 8 years ago

Yes, but what's the point in restricting what that already underserved audience gets to see? Aside from the hipster cred of attending a thematically 'pure' venue? My dream rep house would have as many different presentation methods on hand as possible. Super-8? CD-ROM? Boom, it's up on the screen.