Quentin Tarantino's ‘Hateful Eight’ Script: He Wanted 70mm, and Other Details of the Bloody Western

Quentin Tarantino's 'Hateful Eight' Script: He Wanted 70mm, and Other Details of the Bloody Western

TheWrap obtained a copy of Tarantino's script that's making its way around Hollywood

Quentin Tarantino had planned to shoot his next movie, a tense, contained and very bloody Western centered on bounty hunters and titled “The Hateful Eight,” using 70-millimeter stock, a rare and expensive high-definition film, according to a copy of the script obtained by TheWrap.

The movie opens on a sprawling Wyoming vista, and Tarantino sets the scene: “A breathtaking 70MM filmed (as is the whole movie) snow covered mountain range.” But the story quickly shifts indoors, and stays there — in fact, the script reads more like a tense stage play than a sweeping Western film.

Tarantino has angrily scrapped plans to make the movie because the script leaked, and Hollywood assistants are now promulgating a link anyone can use to download a PDF of the script that will no doubt end up online in the coming days. Tarantino accused agents for one of the three actors he had met with for parts — Bruce Dern, Tim Roth and Michael Madsen — though he seemed to suspect it was Dern's team at CAA.

CAA denied it was the culprit, and the WME-repped Tarantino said he would still happily work with Dern. Interesting side-note: Tarantino said he was scrapping the project, for now, after Harvey Weinstein said he would be more mindful of the violence in his films

The script is an ensemble Western with obvious parts for Madsen and Dern, as well as Tarantino stalwarts like Samuel L. Jackson and Christoph Waltz. Jackson and Madsen would likely both play bounty hunters returning human plunder to a town called Red Rock in exchange for hefty rewards. Their characters, a former major in the Union army and a man named John Ruth, dominate the first two of the script's five chapters.

Also read: Quentin Tarantino Scraps ‘Hateful Eight’ Over Script Leak: ‘I Gave It to Six Motherf—ing People’

They run into a Southerner named Chris Mannix on the road, and three of them, along with their driver — a living prisoner and three dead bounties strapped to the roof — arrive at a haberdashery to take shelter from an oncoming blizzard. Yet the proprietors, Minnie, Sweet Dave and her other colleagues, are nowhere to be found. In their place are four men, a Southern general (likely Dern), an alleged hangman, a Frenchman named Bob and a cowboy named Joe Gage.

Mistrust, coffee and violence ensue.

We won't say where it goes from there, but Tarantino makes frequent references to it being shot in 70-milimeter, a format recently used by Paul Thomas Anderson in “The Master.” The choice makes a great deal of sense for a sprawling Western, a genre Tarantino was going to revisit after the success of his most recent film (and his first western), “Django Unchained.”

Yet this one is set almost entirely in two settings – a stagecoach and the haberdashery. That is a much smaller canvas than Taratino usually works on, but the bloody, sharply written, typo-filled script is vintage Quentin. There's a little Russian roulette, some vomit and frequent duplicity.

The five chapters are “Last Stage to Red Rock,” “Son of A Gun,” “Minnie's,” ‘The Four Pasggengers” and “Black night, White Hell.” Here's an image of the one section Tarantino crossed out, so as not to ruin anything. Oswaldo is the hangman and Domergue a prisoner.

  • jhs39

    The choice of 70mm does not make a great deal of sense for a sprawling western or any other film because no modern movie theater can actually screen movies in 70mm and almost all of the older theaters that could screen them are gone. Most people see movies in multiplex theaters. Multiplex theaters cannot screen movies in 70mm, which is a dead format. The 1960's is the last decade where it was in wide use. Why shoot a movie in a format that 99% of the audience will never get to see the movie in?

    • hupto

      Because of the higher resolution. Even transferred to digital, it will still be crisper and more vivid and detailed. Plus there are indeed quite a few theatres left (mostly in big cities, granted) that can still run 70mm. However, I do agree with Shaw that shooting in 70 is a bit silly if most of it takes place indoors.

      But then again, this is a guy who got all hissy-fitty because a few people read his script and so now he's going to publish it! Yeah, that'll show ‘em!

      • jhs39

        If he wanted higher resolution he could use a format that's currently in use like Imax. I live in Chicago, which is generally considered a big city. There is exactly one theater left in Chicago that can actually screen 70mm film–the Music Box. The Master did not screen there.

        • hupto

          This is true as far as it goes, but the IMAX cameras are enormously bulky…and very, very expensive to rent. Plus they film in the 1.44:1 aspect ratio, which would defeat his desire for a very wide screen.

          • jhs39

            That may be true except he can't get a very wide screen shooting in 70mm today because modern multiplex screens are much smaller than their counterparts from the 70mm era. Screens in modern theaters are much too small and not nearly wide enough to screen a movie in 70mm the way it was intended, so either the edges of the picture will be matted out (which was done with The Master) or the picture on screen will be very narrow, like watching a wide-screen movie on an old television.

        • Xavier Montaine

          I agree with the two who have replied to you. I saw The Master in 70mm and in digital. I appreciated both and 70mm films can and are transferred to IMAX and projected that way with a great deal of success, do your homework on Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight. Also both 70mm (actually 65mm film stock, projected natively in 70mm) and IMAX are quite similar, though not the same aspect ratio. They are both taller as well as wider. A lot of people don't mention the height increase for both formats, they just mention the width.it's also true that there are certainly different lenses used, other creative aspects mentioned above about the differences in depth of field, the increased contrast ratio, increased resolution in the film stock that carries over to any digital transfers and the composition of each and every shot is inescapably different when shooting on a film stock that is almost twice the canvas size, different aspect ratio (not just wider) than 35mm or any of the digital equivalents being used instead, such as the Reds or Alexas

        • Has a beer/Cheets on his wife

          You are incorrect.

          The Master screened at the Music Box four times.
          The first was a charity screening one-off event, and the remaining times were during their 70 mm festival last February.

          • jhs39

            The Master never played at the Music Box during its commercial run. No movie that has a wide theatrical release ever plays at the Music Box until long after its out on home video.

        • joeybot

          From what I understand IMAX cameras are super noisy. They had to loop everything they shot with IMAX for The Dark Knight. So, for a movie that's mostly dialogue…

    • hsmoke

      An education for you: a film shot with 70mm looks different than that shot with a 35mm camera. The relationship of the lens, its depth of field and exposure to the film is different. (For example, you can have wider shots with shallow depth of field than you can with 35mm.) It is an aesthetic choice no matter how the film is projected (which is all digital now anyway).

      • jhs39

        If you screen a 70mm film digitally it isn't in 70mm anymore. The Master was shot in 70mm but it only played in a handful of theaters that way. For people who saw it without the special projection equipment it looked just like any other film. Some critics chose to see the movie both ways and write about the difference–and there was apparently a noticeable difference. You cannot watch a movie in 70mm on a modern digital projector–you need a special film projector that only older movie theaters have.

        • hsmoke

          Um, no. It won't look like any other film. But if you don't understand what I wrote above regarding depth of field and lens angle, it's not really worth it to explain it to you further. There is some merit to your insistence about 70mm projectors – only with true 70mm do you see a 70mm film in all its resolution. But in any resolution there is a different set of qualities a 70mm-shot film has.

          • jhs39

            I guess you know more than Paul Thomas Anderson, then, who admitted that most people would never actually see his movie in its desired format. When you transfer a 70mm film for digital projection it becomes a 35mm film. 70mm wasn't created to give director's more tools to play with in terms of depth of field and relationship of the camera to the lense because filmgoers and studios don't care about any of that. If was created to make big budget spectacle films like Ben Hur and Lawrence of Arabia bigger and bolder, but as soon as those types of films fell out of favor so did the format. If you watch Lawrence of Arabia in a reissue screening with a digital projector it's been converted to 35mm and lay people cannot tell that it was shot with 70mm cameras.

            Again, people who saw The Master in 70mm and digital noticed a very strong difference in the image projected. I don't remember anyone saying “but the digital version still looks interesting because of the depth of field and the relationship of the camera to the lense.”

            Maybe you think you can tell the difference between a 70mm film projected at 35mm and an actual 35mm film but you are one of the very few people who can.

          • hupto

            I've seen such shot-in-65mm (to be completely accurate) films as LAWRENCE and MAD WORLD projected in their new digital restorations and I can state unequivocally that the level of visible detail is not only far beyond digital transfers of 35mm-originated films but sometimes also beyond that of their 70mm parents (e.g., Guinness's eye make-up, the lettering on a theatre marquee). If you can't tell the difference, that's on you, but don't assume likewise for everyone else.

          • jhs39

            Digitally projected versions of It's a Mad Mad World and Lawrence of Arabia are not the equivalent of the 70mm projected versions because you saw them on a screen that was a fraction of the size intended for 70mm exhibition. Modern movie screens are much smaller than the ones used when 70mm movies were made. If all you care about is higher screen resolution there are much more practical ways to achieve that than filming in 70mm.

          • Mice

            I find both your arguments funny, because I will probably end up watching most movies on Bluray, DVD, or digital download anyway.

          • http://www.facebook.com/gerard.kennelly Gerard Kennelly

            last time i actually watched a movie in the cinema
            iron man 3 –may
            desolation smaug –dec

          • FilmmakerMike

            jhs39 – You are missing most of the points that hsmoke is making. He is correct. “Downconverting” to 35mm does indeed diminish the quality from the original 70mm. However, projecting in 35mm does not erase the unique look of 70mm lenses, like its depth of field. You will still have a unique image that would not have been possible had you filmed in 35mm instead. Additionally, you will always end up with a better looking film if you shoot it on the highest quality format to begin with, regardless of what lower resolution format you ultimately choose to exhibit it with. Hence, a project shot in 4K but shown in HD will still look better than if it was shot in HD to begin with. Whether the audience can tell the difference is completely irrelevant – there are 1,000 decisions that a filmmaker makes that individually would go unnoticed by the audience, but taken as a whole they obviously have a major impact. Additionally, smart filmmakers who are trying to make “epic” films to last the ages are already thinking ahead to 8K, which is a format that is similar in size to 70mm.

          • jhs39

            I'm old enough to have seen a number of films that were shot with 70mm cameras projected with 70mm projectors. I can tell you unequivocally that the digital version of The Master which screened in multiplex theaters looked nothing like a 70mm film. I can also guarantee without any doubt whatsoever that if you saw the The Master with digital projection without knowing anything about it in advance you would not be able to tell it was shot with 70mm cameras.

          • joeybot

            Dummy, if you downsize a movie from 70mm to 35mm is doesn;t look like a simple 35mm film. Lioke if you blow up 8mm film to 35mm, it doesn't suddenly look like a beautiful 35mm film, does it? Plus the depth of field stuff he was talking about that you’ skipped over, which goes toward the look of the film.

          • jhs39

            If you upscale an 8mm film to 35mm it will look like crap because 8mm doesn't have enough resolution to be blown up to the higher gage film. But the reverse doesn't apply the way you seem to think. To make this as simple as possible to understand–let's say you have a Blu-ray disc and you decide to use a computer to transfer the content to DVD–do you think you are going to end up with some kind of super DVD because the source is a Blu-ray? The DVD has limits on resolution, color saturation and amount of data that can be encoded that do not change regardless of what the source is. A DVD can't look better than the limits of its capabilities, regardless of the original source. Digital projection in theaters was made to mimic 35mm film. It was not made to mimic 70mm film because people no longer shoot movies in 70mm. The screens in modern multiplex theaters aren't even large enough to screen 70mm the way it was intended when filmmakers were still using it.

          • joeybot

            Film has grain, and when you shoot 70mm and squeeze it down to 35, you minimize stuff like that. I can see that with some of the new cameras…1080p looks good, but shooting 2.5k and then making a 1080 file of it looks better…you minimize the flaws and blemishes of the original, larger file. And it's not like 35mm film is created equal. I've seen first prints and then I've seen the copies made, they don't look as good. And forget DVDs, let's try digital files. You can rip a DVD of a movie and make a 5 gig file out of it, and you can take a Blu Ray of the same movie and make a 5 gig file out of it…and that will look better. They're both 5 gigs, but the source was better on one, and therefore the output shows it.

          • jhs39

            You don't seem to realize that 70mm was intended to project a larger image image. When you shoot a movie on 70mm and then project it on a small multiplex screen you are completely defeating the purpose that the format was created for in the first place.

          • joeybot

            I do realize that, I know what 70mm is for. It doesn't discount what I said.

          • jhs39

            But what you said doesn't justify shooting a movie in 70mm when 99% of the people in the country will never be able to watch it in 70mm.

          • joeybot

            Again, it can. You are only looking at a screen size, as someone who has used large format stuff a few times, I can tell you that it can look better shooting large format and then transgferring it to a smaller format can look better…minimal grain, richer, etc. That's why some movies used 65mm to shoot effects sequences until digital came along, they were able to scan it better…35mm film wasn't as good. And how do you know he intended to crop it? Maybe we wanted a super wide picture…he wanted it to look like one of those 60s movies that are super wide.

            There are several reasons. I don't know if they're Tarantino's or not. My guess is he wanted the aspect ratio.

          • @-j-h-3-9-

            Do you think Paul Thomas Anderson knows more about filming, marketing, or directing then Quentin? He has two oscars (not for acting). Have you seen a Tarantino written and directed movie that hasn't sold? excluding my best friends birthday which was never officially released. Furthermore do you think the common consumer cares what mm this film is shot in? If they did you think it would be posted at the theater, or on the box . . .

        • perc2100

          And FWIW the few theaters that were able to properly screen THE MASTER were _TOTALLY_ worth it. That film looked absolutely incredible in 70mm, and I would love to see a QT western in 70mm

    • A.L. Hern

      Because a 65mm negative scanned to a 4k digital file is far sharper and more vivid than a 35mm negative or 2k 24-fps video is, that's why.

      • jhs39

        If 70mm is so superior it's peculiar that no Hollywood film has been shot in the format since 2001: A Space Odyssey. That means Martin Scorcese, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and James Cameron, to name just a handful of directors, have never made a film in 70mm. Maybe you should contact them and make them aware of the error of their ways.

        • hupto

          Ron Howard, FAR AND AWAY. Kenneth Branagh, HAMLET. Ron Fricke, SAMSARA. Just off the top of my head.

          • jhs39

            I forgot about the Ron Howard bomb Far and Away but Hamlet and Samsara are not mainstream Hollywood movies. Kenneth Branagh shot Hamlet in 70mm as a gimmick and the movie ended up being a financial disaster. I saw the movie in 70mm and it looked great–but that's about the only good thing you can say about it. But the theater where I saw Hamlet is gone. There were still at least three theaters in Chicago at the time Hamlet was released that could screen movies in 70mm. Now there is just one but it isn't a first run commercial theater.

            Hamlet came out 20 years ago. Since then the theater chains that own nearly all of the first run theaters in the country closed most of the theaters capable of screening 70mm films in favor of newer multiplex theaters and many of the ones that are left are arthouse theaters like the Music Box in Chicago that don't show first run commercial films.

            For a theater to be able to show 70mm films it likely had to be operating as a first run theater in the 1960's when the format was popular. Most of those theaters have been torn down or split up into smaller screens that would not accommodate a 70mm print even if they still had the projectors.

            My argument against shooting a movie in 70mm is that almost all the theaters that can project that format are gone, and digital projection does not accurately represent what a 70mm film is supposed to look like. Tarantino is imagining a massive Lawrence of Arabia style sweep to his images based on the script content that has been leaked but modern multiplex screens aren't large enough to accommodate the type of image he is envisioning. 70mm was made for palace theaters and all the arguments about depth of field and resolution can't change that undisputable fact.

          • Grouchy

            The “undisputable fact” is that you have been proven wrong in every assertion you have made in this entire discussion.

          • Grouchy

            The “undisputable fact” is that you have been proven wrong on every assertion you have made in this entire discussion.

          • jhs39

            I must have missed the part where I was proven wrong by anyone in this discussion. Since some people are finding this so hard to understand I'm going to try one more time to make this as simple as possible. Modern motion picture screens are much too small to exhibit a 70mm film the way it was intended to be seen. They aren't tall enough or wide enough. In the mid 1960's when 70mm was popular Todd-AO Corp recommended that screens have an aspect ratio of 2.7-1 with an optimum size of 34”x 92'. Multiplex movie screens typically have an aspect ratio of 1.78-1 and tend to be in the 28'x53' to 35'x60' range. Multiplex screens aren't the right size or shape to screen 70mm movies unless you want to watch a narrow picture on the screen that would be similar to watching a letter-boxed movie on an old analogue television.

          • Xavier MontaineCt

            jhs39 were you aware that IMAX (analog and/or digital) is 70mm? There are IMAX auditoriums that were re-renovated with analog and digital projectors that can be switched out easily according to what type of projection is required, what media is being projected. Also, films shot in 65mm for 70mm projection like Tarantino is talking about, can be and are transferred to the IMAX digital 70mm format. There are a lot of IMAX auditoriums in multiplex movie theaters all over the US. So it doesn't make sense what you keep insisting upon. Unless you're George W. Bush, stating false information over and over again, does not make it true. Eat some crow and do your homework. Start with the Wikipedia pages on 70mm and IMAX.

          • jhs39

            The native aspect ratio for the Imax version of 70mm is 1.43:1. It's completely different than the version of 70mm that was used for feature films.

          • Natasha Fatale

            you hold yourself up as some kind of expert when in reality you're just pontificating in your arm chair.. You're no expert so stop trying to act like one

          • joeybot

            I'm not sure he's looking for Lawrence of Arabia sweep in his movie that's mostly set in a bar with eight characters.

            Who cares what your argument is, you can have your reasoning, and Tarantino has his. Since he can get people to put up millions of dollars and has a track record and you're jhs39, then you lose.

            Why not complain about shooting in IMAX since it plays in a bunch of regular theatres too.

  • Henry Rychlicki

    Every days a new ball game. ^^=

  • wantsthetruth

    can we get the full script?

    • http://www.facebook.com/gerard.kennelly Gerard Kennelly

      www script shadow com

  • meowththatsright

    no one cares, QT is a hack.

    • Evelz6

      Says the guy no one gives two f***s about.

      • meowththatsright

        QT go home.

        • Ben sona

          Yes, please go home. We don't need him trying to rip off the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The man is a totally dork!

    • joeybot

      Conservatives always seem to hate Tarantino. Because they're lame. And you seem really stupid.

      • meowththatsright

        Projecting much?

        I'm liberal as f ck and QT is a hack. Only tweens like his work. If QT wasn't a hack, why does he use elevator music in all of his tense scenes?

        Does he hate his own movies and purposefully try to ruin the immersion?

        Or does he look at it like, “hey, it's just a movie! let's have fun! who cares about being an artist! haha hooray yippee!”

        QT takes great concepts and bastardizes them.

        To recognize this doesn't define your political stance you psuedo-intellect reddit-teir queefboy. Go back to your SJW crowd and cry about raising minimum wage and gay marriage retard.

        • joeybot

          So you're as liberal as it comes yet you use stuff like gay marriage retard right? OR you're just a nerdy internet troll. It's not like I can't see the other stuff you post, idiot. Of course a chimp like you can't see what Tarantino's doing, I'm not surprised.

          Oh yeah you super liberal, let me also mention I'm not THAT liberal, so if I were in a room with you, I'd ram your teeth down your little coward throat.

        • rebuttal

          Political beliefs make no difference on the topic. You are clearly insane, or ignorant to think Tarantino is a hack who is just for tweenys. He has gotten multiple Oscars, writes and directs classics that are independently produced.

          Directed: Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, True Romance, Sin City

          Wrote: Natural Born Killers, Four Rooms, True Romance, Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, my best friends birthday

          Produced: Dusk Till Dawn, Hostel, Hell Ride

          These are not all of his films simply my favorite

  • Mike White

    Got links? I'd like the PDF.

    • http://www.facebook.com/gerard.kennelly Gerard Kennelly

      www script shadow com :)

  • Guest24

    anybody managed to get the full script?

    • Remix

      I'll give you a hint: Anonfiles.

      I liked it. I'll have to read it again, but it's very reminiscent of the space Reservoir Dogs went down in.

      • Woop DeDoo

        “it's very reminiscent of the space Reservoir Dogs went down in.”

        aaawww, sh–… I was just saying the other day that Dogs is his best movie mostly because it's his least irreverent film

      • shismo

        Any way you can email it to me? :) shismo123@hotmail.com My virus protection won't let me get it, and it's also been removed from a buncha places. Grattitude!

    • http://www.facebook.com/gerard.kennelly Gerard Kennelly

      www script shadow com :) :)

  • Doesitreallymatter?

    This turned into a thread comparing 35mm to 70mm…

  • Woop DeDoo

    I feel really bad that the thing leaked. Tarantino is (for the most part) a good man. I met him.

  • PaoloRM

    BLOOD PORN, requires ZERO imagination or creativity, and attracts morons. The best Tarantino can muster.

    • TwiggyB

      You forget, he's breathing LA air!

  • A.L. Hern

    You — and Tarantino — should know, Lucas, that large-format films are actually shot on 65mm negative, then printed in 70mm for release.

  • Joe

    This is a real violation of Tarantino's rights. The script was never meant to be publicly released and the Wrap putting up snippets shows bad judgement.

  • TwiggyB

    Sounds like Reservoir Dogs & Unforgiven.
    Time to find that PDF file and get busy a readin'!

  • anpn

    Tarantino wants to use 70mm because PTA used 70mm. I think it's kind of sweet that Tarantino views PTA as the only director better than him. I think it's sweet because it's true.

    • jasonca

      throw a stone in Hollywood and you will hit a better director than Tarantino.

  • Ben sona

    70 MM? This guy doesn't have an original thought in his head. First his buddy PTA uses it on the Master so know he has to do it.