Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Hateful Eight’ Set for Christmas Release

Hateful Eight
Courtesy of The Weinstein Company

The Weinstein Company has given Quentin Tarantino’s “The Hateful Eight” a Christmas Day launch.

The Western will go wide two weeks after Christmas on January 8. The film will be released in 70mm — marking the widest release in the format in over 20 years.

“Beloved by filmmakers and cinephiles for its wide-scope and high-resolution image quality, 70mm stock captures nearly twice the landscape of the more common 35mm and digital styles,” the announcement said. “Because of its unique quality and its importance to the art of filmmaking, Quentin, TWC and a number of other major Hollywood directors and studios have negotiated deals with Kodak to continue production of 70mm and other film formats despite their higher costs and complexity of use.”

Tranatino began shooting the film, which stars Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Bruce Dern, in January.

“The Hateful Eight” marks Tarantino’s eighth feature and the follow-up to “Django Unchained,” which also hit theaters on Christmas Day and grossed more than $425 million worldwide. The story is set at a wintry Wyoming landscape as a storm overtakes a stagecoach on a mountainside stopover.

Producers are longtime Tarantino collaborators Richard N. Gladstein, Stacey Sher and Shannon McIntosh. Harvey Weinstein, Bob Weinstein and G. Mac Brown are the executive producers, and Coco Francini and William Paul Clark are associate producers.

Four other movies are opening on Christmas: Warner Bros.’ “Point Break” reboot; Sony’s “Concussion,” starring Will Smith; Fox’s “Joy,” starring Jennifer Lawrence; and Open Road’s “Snowden.”

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 15

Leave a Reply

15 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Vad Huff says:

    Please boycott this movie as a testament to our courageous policemen who protect us each and every day.

  2. This film went a step further.. It’s actually the 10th movie to be filmed in Ultra Panavision 70. It’s an anamorphic 65mm process.

    • Great News ! As I have long argued, the only moving picture image acquisition format, which tops any other, including 8K digital on the Sony F-65 (Wonder why they named it the F-65 ?) is the 5 perforation frame height recorded on 65 mm Eastman Type 2 emulsion motion picture negative film. It makes more sense now to acquire a moving image on 5/65 mm motion picture film than it ever did before, due to the ultra high definition projection formats now used in cinemas and on Blu-ray. For the first time, you can see the very dramatic visual difference between shooting 35 mm and 65 mm on 4K cinema projection and 1K Blu-ray due to their being enough pixels to actually bring the difference out to your eyes. Back in the days of NTSC video, film makers used to argue that 5/65mm was overkill due to the low resolution of VHS (240 lines), and regular DVD (480 lines) of “horizontal” resolution. Projecting a traditional 5/70 MM Motion Picture film print is by far superior to “any” digital cinema projection system, although with the current 4K cinema projection, the “punch” of acquiring the movie in 65 mm film should be very apparent.

  3. M. says:

    one marketing ploy after another…

    • Hi M:
      Yes I agree that stunning 70 MM cinematography isn’t enough to save a bad or absent story line, but it sure can contribute something special to a motion picture film production, which cannot be obtained using any other extend medium in the industry period. Regarding the Directors turning to 65 mm shooting, I was going to say Wally Phister, but you beat me to it. Also, I believe Clint Eastwood has or will use 5/65 in his up-coming production.

      • M. says:

        Well, I’m not sure about Pfister being a ‘top end Hollywood director’ ; he’s Chris Nolan’s DP who apparently ignored the fact that there are two ingredients which make Nolan’s films good: cinematography and Jonathan Nolan (and as Interstellar goes to show, even that is no guarantee).
        Er. Which Clint Eastwood production would that be? I’ll definitely watch that one.

        Thank you for the conversation; you definitely sound like someone who knows what they’re talking about, and familiar with the technical terms, while I’m just someone who watches movies. Re. Tarantino : as you said before, we’ll just have to agree to disagree ;)

    • It’s not a marketing ploy at all. There’s a very real and desirable visual difference in using the 65 mm wide film vs digital or regular 35 mm acquisition. Kodak lays the color dyes in thicker layers on the 65 mm width emulsion, thus the color depth and gamma curve of the image is greatly improved as a result. The end result is something your eyes can see and greatly affects what film makers refer to as the “participation effect” of watching a movie. The more vibrant the image on the screen and the Blu-ray, the more watchable the movie is. It’s something which is nearly pointless to explain, but must be seen. Do this. If you can, buy, borrow, or rent the 1080p Blu-ray of Kenneth Branagh’s HAMLET, which was shot a few years back in Super Panavision 70 and, if you can, watch that on a large screen HD TV of HD Video Projector of at 720p quality. The image will literally jump out at you in a way that digital simply does not ! Don’t take my word for it, try it for yourself.

      • D says:

        Mark, I think the term “wasting your breath” applies to your answering M.

      • M. says:

        It’s not the 4 hours of Shakespeare I’m complaining about, it’s Branagh’s interpretation of it… can’t rewatch it, not even for the crisp images. Call me old fashioned or whatever, but I prefer films which tell a story I can resonate with, not just sheer brilliant cinematography and nothing more. To me, all this Tarantino marketing himself as a lover and defender of film vs digital seems a bit too pompous… and it seems like he’s trying to distract us from the issues with the movie itself by throwing the ‘ champion of width emulsion’ stardust in our eyes….
        Nuovo Cinema Paradiso this is not, and the “participation effect” is a beautiful thing, as long as there’s something to participate into…
        The use of 70 MM film shouldn’t be the selling point of his movie. The cinematography should be complementary to the story, not the opening line of the selling pitch.
        Just my opinion, of course.

        (As a side note: Wally Pfister’s ” I’m not gonna trade my oil paints for a set of crayons.” Transcendence. Wally made all that brouhaha about him filming on ‘film’, not digital. It didn’t save the movie, though. )

        Which are the other directors who returned to 5/65 mm?

      • Hi M: Baraka is another example of the sheer power of 70 MM film making. Samsara wasn’t as good IMHO, but was also shot in 5/65mm using the tiny Panavision H.H. 65 mm High Speed Reflex portable camera. In fact Panavision is the only motion picture camera manufacturer-rental house which has updated and re-designed their entire line of 65 mm production cameras. I only suggested HAMLET because of the opening sequence in Blenheim Palace. If you’re not a Shakespeare fan, then 4 hours and 10 minutes of it can be excruciating indeed ! I will agree to disagree with you on Tarantino. Yes, I agree he’s a bit of a drama queen, but his decision to shoot 70 MM is no gimmick. In fact several top end Hollywood directors have returned to 5/65 mm.

      • M. says:

        Oh, I *will* try it for myself. With a film I consider worth watching. But this one isn’t *it.*

    • ANdy says:

      What’s the marketing ploy?

      • M. says:

        Sorry, but can’t watch Branagh’s Hamlet again. Once in a lifetime is more than enough, thank you.
        And I lost any interest in Tarantino after the whole media circus of ‘suing’ Gawker for allegedly ‘leaking’ his poorly written script. Too drama queen.
        If I want to watch vibrant images on screen, there’s always Baraka. Or Samsara. Or any of the ‘quatsi’ films. At least they’re not trying to hide poor storytelling with technical tricks.

More Film News from Variety

Loading