Is this the swan song for wide release film projection (a little

>>64703055
Does anyone how much made money the 70mm screenings made? Did the theaters make a substantial profit?

>>64703055
Yet everybody who has seen it in a proper 70mm screening claimed that it looked and sounded great.

I didn't see one of the 70mm ones, but I still loved it.

>>64703367
I saw it, projectionist probably messed up, it was shaky for 30min, otherwise it was great

nah i think it's the start of a little revival. I know Nolan's dick got really hard at what Tarantino was doing so he's probably gonna try it in the future himself.

>>64703280
the flick did $15 million first week lmfao

What's the big deal about film anyway? Why doesnt tarantino just use digital, it would be so much easier to do big events

>>64703280
The local arthouse theater showing it set their gross record over whatever period the 2-week run was. Tickets were $16 so it depends on how much of the take went to the Weinstein Company or whoever.

>>64705504
Film is a more traditional/nostalgic format. Digital has greater resolution etc. at this point but it's all about the film vs. flick argument.

The real question is why Tarantino chose to use a 4x-35mm-resolution panorama format for a movie largely set in one room.

>>64703898
That's really good for only 100 theaters.

>>64703866
how do you know that