"The Hateful Eight"

[VinegarBob]

Not meaning to invalidate the problems you have with the film, but I thought I'd offer up some 'solutions' to the things that were spoiling your enjoyment of the film as a whole. Maybe, if they make sense you can enjoy it more next time round.

In a blizzard, in the vast frontier of the old wild west, 4 characters randomly meet up at the same time and either know or know of each other, ensuring there is already complicated past between half the cast. (Russell, Jackson, Goggins, Dern). That's really far fetched to me.

I don't think the meetings are entirely random. From what I recall of the details everyone is trying to get to Red Rock on the same day because that's the place and date Daisy Domergue is due to be hanged, and all the people involved are heading there for that reason - or a reason related to that (Warren was on his way to Red Rock to drop off a few bounties when his horse died on the way there).
I imagine back then that there would be a single trail leading from one town to another, with perhaps a single way point in between towns that are farther apart in order for people to rest and re-stock their supplies, so it made sense to me that Minnie's haberdashery was the well-known, and probably only, way point between the last big town - where most of the characters probably knew of each other from - and Red Rock, and that consequently they would all converge there at the same time. I can't remember exactly why the general was in the haberdashery, but if it's just a coincidence then one person being there by coincidence is okay with me.

Spoiler 1
[spoiler]Dern's completely racist general wouldn't give Jackson's bounty hunter the time of day after they meet, but then almost out of nowhere and without true justification allows him to sit and talk to him. This sets up the centre piece scene where Jackson reveals his past with Dern's son. I just couldn't believe that the general would sit there and let Jackson finish his slow burning antagonistic speech before pulling out his gun. He should have reacted so much sooner and not let a ni***r say another word about his son once he knew where it was going. I don't buy that he was in shock or needed to hear what happened. He's a racist proud southern general, not some weak fragile old man. Again, the only reason for this whole scene is it serves as a distraction for coffee to be poisoned. Great scene dramatically, but shoehorned in story wise for me.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Very reasonable, but remember the general is under strict instructions from Jody Domergue on pain of death to be compliant and quiet.[/spoiler]

Spoiler 2
[spoiler]The whodunit section was actually enjoyable up until the point where the most suspicious characters proved to be the villains of the piece. I was hoping for more fun with red herrings, but surprisingly in a 3 hr film, QT seemed to just want to move that part of the film on without fully committing to the murder mystery genre he was paying homage to.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]The only problem I had with the mystery stuff was how Tarantino structured the reveal of the core set-up. I actually think showing events chronologically would have been more effective in this film.[/spoiler]

Spoiler 3
[spoiler]Also it's established quite early that while Russell believes it necessary to bring outlaws in alive in order to let the hangman have their day, Jackson has no problem killing them as the bounty is the same dead or alive. He proves this by immediately shooting Channing Tatum at the first opportunity. Why is it then that after Russell's death he doesn't immediately kill Jason Leigh's character? It would make sense to do so in a lot of ways. The only reason I can think of for not killing her is that it retains the tension in the story. As a side point, I can accept that by the end the decision to go to the trouble of hanging her makes sense, however before he was shot and dying Jackson's character as established would have just killed her as it was the easiest and most sensible thing to do from his perspective.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Also reasonable, but Daisy was chained to Ruth on the floor, and Warren's character is established as one of someone who enjoys making his adversaries suffer before killing them if possible, so keeping her alive and having her watch her accomplices die one by one by his hand while effectively helpless is consistent with this. Shooting Jody, on the other hand makes sense because he was a direct threat to Warren at the time - and had just shot Warren's nuts off.[/spoiler]

[Stewball]

Haberdasheries are places which sell clothes/hats, right? I didn't see any in Minnie's haberdashery.

My knowledge of that word is from Kramer's Gonorrhea enactment in Seinfeld. Never heard that word before that.

The Mirriam-Webster site says searches for this word spiked after The Hateful Eight was released. It concluded with this which I think pretty well nails it:

"Perhaps Tarantino was referencing the little-known 19th century sense of the word recorded by slang lexicographers Farmer and Henley, who defined the word ​haberdasher​ as '(humorously) a publican' (someone who runs a pub). Or perhaps he simply liked the way the word sounded."

We're then left with the question, what is a republican? Is Tarantino trying to tell us something, hmmmm? Was Minnie practicing crony capitalism in a clandestine outpost for President Grant? The closest thing to good guys in this is a semi-honorable bounty hunter, and a would be sheriff, i.e. cop, i.e. "murderer". I hope that clears things up.

[philamental]

Not meaning to invalidate the problems you have with the film, but I thought I'd offer up some 'solutions' to the things that were spoiling your enjoyment of the film as a whole. Maybe, if they make sense you can enjoy it more next time round.

In a blizzard, in the vast frontier of the old wild west, 4 characters randomly meet up at the same time and either know or know of each other, ensuring there is already complicated past between half the cast. (Russell, Jackson, Goggins, Dern). That's really far fetched to me.

I don't think the meetings are entirely random. From what I recall of the details everyone is trying to get to Red Rock on the same day because that's the place and date Daisy Domergue is due to be hanged, and all the people involved are heading there for that reason - or a reason related to that (Warren was on his way to Red Rock to drop off a few bounties when his horse died on the way there).
I imagine back then that there would be a single trail leading from one town to another, with perhaps a single way point in between towns that are farther apart in order for people to rest and re-stock their supplies, so it made sense to me that Minnie's haberdashery was the well-known, and probably only, way point between the last big town - where most of the characters probably knew of each other from - and Red Rock, and that consequently they would all converge there at the same time. I can't remember exactly why the general was in the haberdashery, but if it's just a coincidence then one person being there by coincidence is okay with me.

I'm always happy to discuss opposing opinions, Rumplesink. Overall, your theory on the 'why' they met (all paths lead to Red Rock on that date) is the explanation that most rational people would agree on so even though I find it far fetched (based on the additional details below) I would have to concede that side of the argument.

However it's the 'who' angle that make the whole thing farcical in my opinion making the 'why' hard to take. Russell and Jackson met at some formal function I believe. Jackson and Goggins hadn't met but Goggins knew Jackson by detailed reputation from his time in the confederacy. Similarly, Goggins had a family member that served with Dern if I recall correctly, and of course Dern and Jackson know each other by reputation as well. Individually each prior relationship is believable. Simultaneously, all four of these people meeting in a blizzard 'randomly' is forced story telling in my opinion. A more palatable way to tell the same story would have been for goggins to just be a racist redneck without any prior history or knowledge of Jackson or Dern.

Spoiler 1
[spoiler]Dern's completely racist general wouldn't give Jackson's bounty hunter the time of day after they meet, but then almost out of nowhere and without true justification allows him to sit and talk to him. This sets up the centre piece scene where Jackson reveals his past with Dern's son. I just couldn't believe that the general would sit there and let Jackson finish his slow burning antagonistic speech before pulling out his gun. He should have reacted so much sooner and not let a ni***r say another word about his son once he knew where it was going. I don't buy that he was in shock or needed to hear what happened. He's a racist proud southern general, not some weak fragile old man. Again, the only reason for this whole scene is it serves as a distraction for coffee to be poisoned. Great scene dramatically, but shoehorned in story wise for me.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Very reasonable, but remember the general is under strict instructions from Jody Domergue on pain of death to be compliant and quiet.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]While I understand that, if he can abandon his commitment to those instructions at the perfect dramatic moment (ie when Jackson just finished his lengthy remarkable speech), why couldn't he have done so earlier when it made more sense for his character?[/spoiler]

Spoiler 2
[spoiler]The whodunit section was actually enjoyable up until the point where the most suspicious characters proved to be the villains of the piece. I was hoping for more fun with red herrings, but surprisingly in a 3 hr film, QT seemed to just want to move that part of the film on without fully committing to the murder mystery genre he was paying homage to.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]The only problem I had with the mystery stuff was how Tarantino structured the reveal of the core set-up. I actually think showing events chronologically would have been more effective in this film.[/spoiler]

I think that's a fair point. It would be interesting to see how well that would have worked.

Spoiler 3
[spoiler]Also it's established quite early that while Russell believes it necessary to bring outlaws in alive in order to let the hangman have their day, Jackson has no problem killing them as the bounty is the same dead or alive. He proves this by immediately shooting Channing Tatum at the first opportunity. Why is it then that after Russell's death he doesn't immediately kill Jason Leigh's character? It would make sense to do so in a lot of ways. The only reason I can think of for not killing her is that it retains the tension in the story. As a side point, I can accept that by the end the decision to go to the trouble of hanging her makes sense, however before he was shot and dying Jackson's character as established would have just killed her as it was the easiest and most sensible thing to do from his perspective.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Also reasonable, but Daisy was chained to Ruth on the floor, and Warren's character is established as one of someone who enjoys making his adversaries suffer before killing them if possible, so keeping her alive and having her watch her accomplices die one by one by his hand while effectively helpless is consistent with this. Shooting Jody, on the other hand makes sense because he was a direct threat to Warren at the time - and had just shot Warren's nuts off.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I hadn't really considered that viewpoint. Not currently sure if I would agree or disagree with it. When you say Warren (Jackson for those following my naming convention in this thread) is established as someone who enjoys making his adversaries suffer before killing them, are you referring to the killing of Dern's son? If so, I think it's deliberately unclear whether the details of his story are completely or even partially true. I've seen some observers suggest that while he may have killed him, the explicit provocative details of the story were made up to enrage and provoke Dern into his reaction. It's a theory I agree with, which would mean there is less of an argument to explain why Warren generally shoots first and collects bounty later with respect to wanted men/women, but lets Daisy (Jason Leigh) live.[/spoiler]

As I started by saying, it's the farcical plot details that I can't resolve against the rest of the film. Epic score, length and photography. Tarantino's sharp, witty dialogue. Star studded cast with some exceptional performances. And then a plot more suited to a Rob Schneider film. It's possible (and probable) this is exactly what Tarantino wanted to do. He might listen to my criticism but not even attempt to defend the plot's absurdities saying I'm missing the point. When I first watched Basterds, one of the things I struggled with was [spoiler]the Hitler assassination, which my brain initially refused to accept as it's so blatantly inaccurate historically.[/spoiler] However on second viewing I had mentally readjusted and enjoyed the film thoroughly. Maybe Hateful Eight is meant to be viewed as having a ridiculous plot and we are just supposed to enjoy the ride? My gut feeling is I won't be satisfied taking that approach but stranger things have happened on second viewings.