2:76:1 Cinema Screen Ireland (The Hateful Eight)

househero

So Tarintino has dug out a format not used in decades to film his last film The Hateful Eight. I would like to see it in all its superwide glorey, but are there any cinema screens in Ireland capable of showing a 2:76:1 format film?

Its a long time since Ben Hur was released using the same 70mm cinemascope format. In fact, the people who made the lenses Tarintino wanted to use, are now dead.

I really don't want to see it in a crappy cropped format or a painfully small projection screen. I remember going to the cinema in Nottingham when I was a boy and watching films on a gigantic screen in a theatre that held 2500 people. I want a real cinema experience again. #screw3d

DoYouEvenLift

Wonder if he's taken inspiration from Nolan's effort with the 70mm film used for Interstellar. I don't know much about this format anyway, would 70mm and 70mm IMAX screens be able to display the full image, just with a lot of letterboxing?

grimm2005

househero wrote: »

So Tarintino has dug out a format not used in decades to film his last film The Hateful Eight.

A little off topic but Quentin has said that he plans to make 10 movies and then retire, and with this being his 8th, he should have 2 more to go (hopefully!).

Sad Professor

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Wonder if he's taken inspiration from Nolan's effort with the 70mm film used for Interstellar. I don't know much about this format anyway, would 70mm and 70mm IMAX screens be able to display the full image, just with a lot of letterboxing?

Not on a 70mm IMAX screen, it would look ridiculous.

DoYouEvenLift

Sad Professor wrote: »

Not on a 70mm IMAX screen, it would look ridiculous.

Because of how much of the screen is unused?

johnny_ultimate

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Because of how much of the screen is unused?

IMAX sells itself on the extra height of the image. 2.76:1 is all about the width of the screen, so a significant portion of the IMAX screen would go unused. 70mm or otherwise, it's probably the type of screen least suited to a superwide film.

I don't think there are any native 2.76:1 screens in Ireland - and really why should there be? It looks lovely, but it's also never used, so no reason why any modern cinema, or even one that has been renovated in the last 40 years or more would be designed to that spec.

Still, there are some nice widescreens around, the Savoy being the one that springs to mind. Even if they are designed for 2.35-2.4:1, an extra wide film would still look pretty good, despite the unused space. IFI 1 is the only 70mm screen in the country though.

Honestly, as much as I enjoy seeing directors playing around with neglected aspect ratios, they also need to be aware there's basically no chance of them being screened natively in all but a handful of cinemas. Same with Xavier Dolan shooting Mommy in 1:1, although that at least shifts ratios a few times I believe so it can't utilise the benefits of side curtains.

Right Turn Clyde

grimm2005 wrote: »

A little off topic but Quentin has said that he plans to make 10 movies and then retire, and with this being his 8th, he should have 2 more to go (hopefully!).

He hasn't make a good film since Jackie Brown.

Right Turn Clyde

Slightly off-topic, but can someone tell me what's so good about seeing a film on 35mm film. I notice that Inherent Vice was being shown in The Lighthouse in that format recently. I'm very ignorant when it comes to this stuff. Most cinemas are digital these days, and I think they look great? What am I missing?

johnny_ultimate

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

Slightly off-topic, but can someone tell me what's so good about seeing a film on 35mm film. I notice that Inherent Vice was being shown in The Lighthouse in that format recently. I'm very ignorant when it comes to this stuff. Most cinemas are digital these days, and I think they look great? What am I missing?

To a certain degree it's the vinyl / CD debate. To me there's a tangibly different look and feel to 35mm (and indeed glorious 70mm) that cannot be replicated via digital. It's the colour, the depth of light and contrast, but also something more romantic and nostalgic. To me it's a rare treat seeing a film shot on film projected the way it's meant to be, and while the digital revolution brings many benefits to see celluloid disappear into the ether completely would be an awful waste. It's great to me to see a fightback, however niche, to keep film alive and kicking, both through archive screenings and the occasional new release (with PT Anderson and Christopher Nolan still fighting the good fight).

Watch this documentary for a more thorough exploration of the digital and film debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGJY_NJwwg

Right Turn Clyde

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To a certain degree it's the vinyl / CD debate. To me there's a tangibly different look and feel to 35mm (and indeed glorious 70mm) that cannot be replicated via digital. It's the colour, the depth of light and contrast, but also something more romantic and nostalgic. To me it's a rare treat seeing a film shot on film projected the way it's meant to be, and while the digital revolution brings many benefits to see celluloid disappear into the ether completely would be an awful waste. It's great to me to see a fightback, however niche, to keep film alive and kicking, both through archive screenings and the occasional new release (with PT Anderson and Christopher Nolan still fighting the good fight).

I literally came across that documentary on Rotten Tomatoes about 10 minutes ago! Looks great.

I'm definitely a vinyl man. It's difficult for some of my friends to appreciate what I get out of records, especially in this day and age. But to me it's just natural, particularly with certain types of music. Jazz, soul and house were made for vinyl, and while I enjoy the crisp sound of a new CD, it still feels like an inferior product when placed alongside the crackle and buzz of a slab of vinyl.

So yeah, I can understand why people would feel that way about film. Those slight little 'imperfections' are all part of the experience. And like the sound of vinyl, film will always look better to some people. Now that I think of it, the screen used to seem more 'alive' when I was a kid, whereas now it's just perfectly clean.

So prior to digital, would every film have been 35mm? All of those films I seen as a kid for instance. Stuff like Jurassic Park, etc. Or is 35mm a particular type of film?

johnny_ultimate

When we were going to see Interstellar a few friends commented that they'd never seen a 35mm film before - which of course wasn't true if they went to the cinema anytime prior to 2008 or 09 :P

Yeah 35mm was the dominant projection form up until very, very recently, with occasional 16mm and 70mm productions. It's only really in the last half decade or so that digital cameras have become sufficiently good quality for general cinematic use (although there were 'video' and digital experiments before that - from Chris Marker, Michael Mann, George Lucas, Steven Soderbergh etc...). It's with the RED cameras and the ARRI Alexa that cinematographers like Roger Deakins have finally considered digital as a worthy alternative (successor for some) to film. Still, there's a few still flying the film flag, which is a relief.

Right Turn Clyde

In that case I've been a fan of 35mm since I was about 5

DoYouEvenLift

I hate seeing digital taking over since it's an interior format for now. I know cinemas need to maximise profits but it's a pity they didn't wait for the technology to at least match the ones it's replacing. It was weird seeing the flickering/imperfections on film during Interstellar in 70mm imax at first but actually kind of nostalgic and then I readjusted to it and honestly think it adds to the experience.

Right Turn Clyde

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I hate seeing digital taking over since it's an interior format for now. I know cinemas need to maximise profits but it's a pity they didn't wait for the technology to at least match the ones it's replacing. It was weird seeing the flickering/imperfections on film during Interstellar in 70mm imax at first but actually kind of nostalgic and then I readjusted to it and honestly think it adds to the experience.

But is digital an inferior product in all cases, or do you just prefer film either way?

Going back to vinyl, even its characteristic 'warmth' is a defect, produced by the stylus dragging along the surface of the record. Personally, I like it, but I'd have to concede that it's not always the best representation of what the artist was trying to convey, particularly with new music where the producer may not have been thinking about how it sounds on vinyl.

Perhaps film gives a better representation of some films, if the director and DP intended it to be projected that way. But what if it's shot digitally, with digital projection in mind. Would film then be the inferior product, if it's not what the filmmakers intended?

I'm reminded of the fascination with the vinyl releases of new house and techno tracks. This generation of dance artists are producing music primarily for digital media players and software packages, yet the people that pick up the limited edition vinyl release think they're getting the more authentic product, when in fact the artist may have never even had his hands on a record, and given the budget of some of the small labels, the record would not have underwent individual mastering for that format.

shazzerman

It's all down to the idea of the "film look". Digital cameras are new tools, providing more options for filmmakers. Would Hoop Dreams be as effective if it was filmed on 35mm? Don't think so: the washed out Super 8 sells a certain look to the viewer and it is, aesthetically, the right choice. The same argument can be made for films like The Blair Witch Project.

When we come to filmmakers like Fincher and Mann, it is a somewhat different story. Fincher, in films like The Social Network, uses the digital cameras to achieve a "film look", with nicely balanced frames and images that don't deviate too much from what you might get with actual film. Mann, in something like Public Enemies (a film that, to my consternation, is admired by only one person on the planet - me), is using the digital cameras to achieve a certain look that is totally unlike the "film look". Wildly unbalanced frames during the shootouts, constant rack focusing that places a huge out-of-focus head in the foreground with the background tapering off at great distances in pin-sharp focus. Mann argues this allows the viewer a more immediate experience, and instead of the traditional gangster pic this one uses digital technology to convey the in-the-moment experience of the protagonists during their actions rather than during their more introspective moments. I find it interesting that Mann is using digital cameras to do something like this.

While I love film I still think that digital was the best thing to happen to filmmaking since the introduction of sound. Were it not for the low cost of digital there are a lot of truly exceptional film makers who simply would never have gotten a chance to show just what they could do.

Right Turn Clyde

Deleted User wrote: »

While I love film I still think that digital was the best thing to happen to filmmaking since the introduction of sound. Were it not for the low cost of digital there are a lot of truly exceptional film makers who simply would never have gotten a chance to show just what they could do.

Name a few of them.

Right Turn Clyde

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

Name a few of them.

That's not a smart ass comment by the way. I'm genuinely interested. I'd say all of the directors I'm interested in first started out with film.

househero

When I was in Asia, every nice hotel I stayed in had super wide Ltd TVs. It looked odd to my eyes, but no more so than the switch from square to widescreen TVs.

Do you think tarrintino is trying to future proof his film?

He must know that only a handful of screens can accommodate his 70mm super wide film, he's very hands on in the distribution of the hateful eight, it was part of the distribution conditions he imposed on the Weinstein Company

Right Turn Clyde

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

Name a few of them.

The Duplass brothers, Joe Swanberg, Neveldine/Taylor, Laurie Collyer, Bob Goldthwait, Garth Evans and there are dozens of others. Shooting digitally is cheap as hell and has opened up the world of cinema to a whole host of people who would never otherwise have ever gotten a chance to make their film.

shazzerman

Not forgetting films that just would not exist if digital technology wasn't available.
Kiarostami's Ten
Sokurov's Russian Ark
This Is Not a Film
Timecode
Hotel

and plenty more.

Antar Bolaeisk

It'll be hilarious if they display it letterboxed in the cinemas, everyone will be coming out complaining that the picture is wrong, even if it's explained to them before hand about the aspect ratio.

househero

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

It'll be hilarious if they display it letterboxed in the cinemas, everyone will be coming out complaining that the picture is wrong, even if it's explained to them before hand about the aspect ratio.

it will be released in standard format 2 weeks after the 70mm extra wide format apparently.

but im thinking, if he used the superwide lens while filming, there must be something there he wants to show us, so why not watch it as the director intended

DoYouEvenLift

househero wrote: »

it will be released in standard format 2 weeks after the 70mm extra wide format apparently.

but im thinking, if he used the superwide lens while filming, there must be something there he wants to show us, so why not watch it as the director intended

Not many screens available in the format apparently


2 weeks is a large timeframe for that. He's definitely trying to display that he has the power to do stuff like this after Christopher Nolan's attempts with film for Interstellar I'd say lol. Still a good thing, seeing directors methods standing out.

househero

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Not many screens available in the format apparently

.

Yes im still trying to find one near me...

Any in the UK I could fly over to easily?

Sad Professor

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

It'll be hilarious if they display it letterboxed in the cinemas, everyone will be coming out complaining that the picture is wrong, even if it's explained to them before hand about the aspect ratio.

2.35:1 films are already letterboxed in many if not most cinema screens, which tend to be only 1.85:1.

Antar Bolaeisk

Sad Professor wrote: »

2.35:1 films are already letterboxed in many if not most cinema screens, which tend to be only 1.85:1.

Really?! I did not know that.

johnny_ultimate

Cineworld in Dublin only have uniform 2.35:1 screens, so anything in 1.85:1 (or 1.33:1, as is very occasionally the case during the film festival) is pillarboxed. They don't even have adjustable curtains at the side. So yeah films being shown on screens that aren't meant for that aspect ratio aren't that rare at all.

corcaigh07

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Cineworld in Dublin only have uniform 2.35:1 screens, so anything in 1.85:1 (or 1.33:1, as is very occasionally the case during the film festival) is pillarboxed. They don't even have adjustable curtains at the side. So yeah films being shown on screens that aren't meant for that aspect ratio aren't that rare at all.

Now that you mention it, I saw "Kingsman" in Tallaght last night and the screen was cutting off some of a Sky News ticker tape at the bottom in a scene. Bugged me slightly, would have bugged me more if I wasn't already enjoying the movie!

Rabid Merlot

I trust most directors would make sure all the particulars of a scene still fit within a 16:9 ratio so the home viewer might only miss the open vista on the side of the shot ?.

I have stayed away from the script leaks on this one, has anyone read it & could they comment as to it's quality without giving away spoilers.

Mec-a-nic

Wow, film making takes a long time (or was the release date pushed back to 25 Dec 2015 for a reason?).

Anywhoo, looks like Mr T is going for a "Roadshow Release" - http://oneperfectshotdb.com/2015/11/70-millimeters-of-cool-the-hateful-eight-featurette/

70mm in Ireland - no sign of it so far, but it does appear to be planned for Scandinavia and France early next year
http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/

cowboyBuilder

For those interested, this cinema in Barcelona will be showing the Hatefull eight in this 70MM panavison ultra format ..

http://www.phenomena-experience.com/

Late January he will get it I think, it's an amazing cinema, its owned by a director Nacho Cerda - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0148511/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

Huge screen, amazing sound, its not a new release type cinema (allthough he gets films on release date sometimes -ie Star Wars) but shows films from all ages - and always in original language subtitled.


I saw Interstellar there on Monday, 70MM sound up to eleventy million ... amazing.

So if you're planning a trip to BCN in January, check it out ..

Lukker-

So the IFI has the only 70mm screen in Ireland? Anyone know what it's like?

e_e

Lukker- wrote: »

So the IFI has the only 70mm screen in Ireland? Anyone know what it's like?

Moderately big screen if you don't mind really low (even from the back row) and cramped seats.

Here's the view from the projection booth:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N_sniPBIrkQ/URjduYgj8NI/AAAAAAAABY8/vM2W2hk5aOY/s1600/Projection+Booth+photos+by+Anna+Pas+(15).JPG

Technocentral

Lukker- wrote:

So the IFI has the only 70mm screen in Ireland? Anyone know what it's like?

Great screen, really like it.

Nerdkiller1991

I got around to messaging the IFI's Facebook page last night about when they'll get a film print. Here's what I got.

Patrick of IFI wrote:

Hi, I'm afraid it's not going to happen on the release date. There's a very limited number of prints in the UK and Ireland territory (1). We're hoping to get it on a tour later on. If we possibly can, we will. Patrick

Let's hope at least they will get it eventually.

jaykhunter

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

I got around to messaging the IFI's Facebook page last night about when they'll get a film print. Here's what I got.

Let's hope at least they will get it eventually.

Thanks for sharing. So who has the irish film print?

Johnnio13

I see VUE cinemas in the UK have backed down from their complaint about the premier in London. No Chance of free popcorn refils here!
Press Release:
Vue, alongside Odeon, will be screening the film. Vue Entertainment have commented, “We’re excited to be showing the highly anticipated eighth film from Quentin Tarantino, The Hateful Eight, at Vue cinemas across the UK from Friday the 8th of January. To celebrate the launch, Vue are offering all customers that see the film during opening week an unlimited popcorn refill. With an all-star cast, thrilling soundtrack and magnificent visuals, The Hateful Eight is a big screen experience that should not be missed”.

johnny_ultimate

jaykhunter wrote: »

Thanks for sharing. So who has the irish film print?

Odeon Leicester Square in London.

expectationlost

thejournal had an article http://www.thejournal.ie/hateful-eight-irish-cinemas-2532178-Jan2016/ on this based on guardian article

Cineworld had made us aware that they were very unhappy that The Hateful Eight had been booked into the Odeon Leicester Square for an exclusive 70mm Ultra Panavision presentation, and specifically that they would therefore not be able to play the film at their Picturehouse Central venue. Due to the special facilities required for the unique 70mm Ultra Panavision presentation we needed the largest theatre and screen possible in the West End and the Odeon Leicester Square was the natural choice. The technical elements and costs involved with this special presentation meant that this would need to be the exclusive West End venue. The Odeon Leicester Square seats 1680 and Picturehouse Central only seats 344 so clearly this was not a viable alternative.

Cineworld had every opportunity to book the film in their other cinemas across the country on the same basis as other exhibitors and declined to do so. This is despite the fact that there is no dispute over the financial terms for this release.

We feel very sorry for Cineworld’s customers and in particular their Unlimited cardholders who will be denied the chance to see the film at a Cineworld cinema using their Unlimited card - a result of this Picturehouse issue relating to a single London West End cinema. As far as the general release is concerned we will be booking more sites with other exhibitors to compensate for Cineworld’s lack of support for a film that has already been given 5 stars and declared as Quentin Tarantino’s masterpiece by The Guardian.

If Cineworld change their mind by tomorrow morning and decide to book the film in the proper way along the lines of the other exhibitors we would be happy for them to do so.

huh? can't follow this at all

irishash

expectationlost wrote: »

huh? can't follow this at all

It means I will have to pay extra to see the movie as cineworld are not showing the movie over a percieved slight by the distributors.

That_Guy

irishash wrote: »

It means I will have to pay extra to see the movie as cineworld are not showing the movie over a percieved slight by the distributors.

It's all a bit annoying really. Still, I think I'll wait for the IFI to get their hands on a 70mm print.

e_e

Heads up: I saw it in screen 2 in Dundrum and while I really enjoyed the leather reclining seats the film was projected onto a 1.85:1 screen which meant the obligatory black bars at the top and bottom. Definitely see it on a 2.35:1 or wider screen if you can. I'll be definitely seeing it again in screen 1 of either IFI or Lighthouse (and once more if it comes back in 70MM).

Also the picture was a little dim (especially around the edges of the frame) as some of the house lights were still on. Not sure if that's just the way the screen was as ushers came in throughout and nothing changed really.

merisi

The issue is with the projector required for 70 mm - the IFI have the only operational one in Ireland - rather than the screen which can be masked down to suit the aspect ratio, which is commonly done anyway as cinemas have to deal with ratios from 1.33:1 (for old films, mostly) to 2.35/2.40:1. Clearly, the wider the screen the better, but with only one screen equipped with a 70 mm projector (Screen 1 in the IFI) there's no choice there.

I recently saw Le Mans in 70 mm at the IFI. The print was loaned by the Swedish Film Institute and had actually deteriorated quite badly. Also, Le Mans was actually shot on 35, so the 70 mm print was a blow-up.

A much better example was a restored 70 mm print of Lawrence of Arabia that I saw in England a while back. It was stunning.

reubenreuben

Just to add to this, I saw 2001 space odyssey in 70mm at IFI. Picture extremely detailed and great sound too.

Hope they get the hateful eight too

reubenreuben

Just to add to this, I saw 2001 space odyssey in 70mm at IFI. Picture extremely detailed and great sound too.

Hope they get the hateful eight too

Mebuntu

I saw TH8 in the Roadshow Ultra Panavision 70 version at the Odeon Leicester Square. Prior to the screening we had to endure nearly half an hour of excruciating ads and trailers in various aspect ratios on the full size screen. However, the situation was rescued by the curtains then closing before the main feature which was introduced from the stage by (presumably) the manager.

The curtains reopening reminded me of the good old days (when cinema was cinema) at the Savoy and Adelphi as well as the Cinerama cinema in Talbot Street and the (subsequent) Plaza up beyond Parnell Square. The picture was fully masked (unlike what I have seen in crap cinemas like Dundrum).

We were told that the interval would be exactly 12 minutes and it was.

The visuals and framing in TH8 whether outdoor or indoor were quite masterful and I thoroughly enjoyed the proper widescreen cinematic experience after all these years. If the blu-ray is in 2.76:1 I'll definitely buy it.

Classic Rock Man

Mebuntu wrote: »

I saw TH8 in the Roadshow Ultra Panavision 70 version at the Odeon Leicester Square. Prior to the screening we had to endure nearly half an hour of excruciating ads and trailers in various aspect ratios on the full size screen. However, the situation was rescued by the curtains then closing before the main feature which was introduced from the stage by (presumably) the manager.

The curtains reopening reminded me of the good old days (when cinema was cinema) at the Savoy and Adelphi as well as the Cinerama cinema in Talbot Street and the (subsequent) Plaza up beyond Parnell Square. The picture was fully masked (unlike what I have seen in crap cinemas like Dundrum).

We were told that the interval would be exactly 12 minutes and it was.

The visuals and framing in TH8 whether outdoor or indoor were quite masterful and I thoroughly enjoyed the proper widescreen cinematic experience after all these years. If the blu-ray is in 2.76:1 I'll definitely buy it.

Too bad its utterly wasted: 85% of the money is shot inside a cramped cabin.

e_e

Classic Rock Man wrote: »

Too bad its utterly wasted: 85% of the money is shot inside a cramped cabin.

But the point is that the 70MM adds more texture to the film's interiors.

Like one little detail that blew me away (that I really haven't seen in a digitally shot film) is Major Warren taking a sip of coffee and the steam rises and bounces off his hat. It's little things like that that make the film's world feel all the more lived in and tactile. It's not like 70MM would have added that much more the the wide shots of snow and sky. Even watching the DCP both times it felt far more visually rich and immersive than all digital movies I'd seen recently.

jaykhunter

Reading through this, the Lighthouse have a 70mm projector, but not a 70mm print OR a 2.76:1 screen? So we'll never get to see it as intended unless we leave the country?

Zillah

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

I literally came across that documentary on Rotten Tomatoes about 10 minutes ago! Looks great.

I'm definitely a vinyl man. It's difficult for some of my friends to appreciate what I get out of records, especially in this day and age. But to me it's just natural, particularly with certain types of music. Jazz, soul and house were made for vinyl, and while I enjoy the crisp sound of a new CD, it still feels like an inferior product when placed alongside the crackle and buzz of a slab of vinyl.

So yeah, I can understand why people would feel that way about film. Those slight little 'imperfections' are all part of the experience. And like the sound of vinyl, film will always look better to some people. Now that I think of it, the screen used to seem more 'alive' when I was a kid, whereas now it's just perfectly clean.

So prior to digital, would every film have been 35mm? All of those films I seen as a kid for instance. Stuff like Jurassic Park, etc. Or is 35mm a particular type of film?

In my opinion this has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with nostalgia. If you were born years later you might be nostalgic about SD v HD, VHS vs DVD, or CDs vs MP3, or books vs Kindle, or handwriting vs moveable type, or any older format vs the newer one.

It's a coincidence of when you were born, and the positive emotional associations you have with it from your youth. Which is all fine. But it makes me want to slap people who think there is some objective qualitative difference that makes the older format superior.

I used to think computer games were better back in the old days. I've learned to not go back to those old games, because it isn't the industry that's changed, it was me. A 12 year-old is very easy to impress.