|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Is 70mm Gone For Good?
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 12-23-2003 05:22 PM
Although my fondest film-going experiences involved 70mm films (from West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus and Exodus in the 60s to blowups such as Star Wars, Close Encounters, Apocalypse Now, Alien,, etc. in the 70s; Altered States, Heaven's Gate, Raiders, Blade Runner, ET, Brainstorm, The Right Stuff, The Abyss, Born on the Fourth of July in the 80s; Terminator 2, The Doors, Last of the Mohicans in the 90s, etc.), IMAX and special venues aside, I don't think there is the slightest chance of 70mm making a comeback for the following reasons:
- while studios will spend over $100 million on a film, $20 million each on A-list stars and $50 million or more on marketing, they will not spend the extra money on the prints.
- cinematographers do not like the bulkier 70mm equipment and the limited lens selection.
- films are now largely marketing exercises to promote cable presentation and home video.
- now that the studios only really care about opening weekend, since the "big-films" sell out anyway, you won't get the differences in grosses between 70mm houses and 35mm houses like those experienced in the 70s and 80s.
- When Ron Howard shot "Far and Away" in 65mm, no one could tell the difference between that and a blow-up 35 to 70mm print. If that film had been successful, maybe 65mm origination would have survived.
- Exhibitors will not spend the capital to re-equip for 70mm at the same time that they're contemplating how to fund digital projection. (They probably wouldn't do it even if digital projection was not an issue.)
- Most exhibitors don't seem to care about "film done right" for 35mm (and the studios don't seem to care much either). So why would they care about 70mm?
- 70mm complicates the issue of putting the popcorn kid in the booth to run the projectors.
- There has been a trend against high image quality. I've never seen so many films shot so grainy. So if a director is purposely going for that effect, what good would 70mm do? Make clearer grain?
- IMHO, a much bigger positive change to image quality would be to bring back 3-strip technicolor production. Of course, this also goes against current trends of producing films with desaturated color.
So for all of these reasons, as well as the many other reasons already stated in this thread, I don't see 70mm ever coming back, regardless of the merits of the format. The differences in picture quality are simply not obvious enough to the average patron. In order to compete against HDTV, theaters are going to have to come up with something even more extraordinary, IMO.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 12-23-2003 08:08 PM
Far and Away was the first 70mm first-run film I had ever seen. It was the first time I had ever been to a movie where the audience applauded afterwards.
I thought the image was incredible, with the lush green Irish coastline, and the wide shots of the land race.
Coincidentally, after being so impressed with the image quality and overall experience of that movie, I attended the CES in Chicago very shortly after seeing the movie (it was very fresh in my mind).
A bunch of companies banded together to give a home theater demo on the show floor. One of Theo K's opulent theaters was setup in the middle of the show floor, and they were using (I think) a Vidikron CRT firing onto an 8-foot wide screen. If I recall correctly, they were using an Elite Series Pioneer DVD player (were line doublers in use back then?).
Even though we were stuffed into this theater like sardines, the experience sold me on home theater. I caught the bug and the idea of replicating the "theatrical" experience became a hobby. I am finally now to the point of getting a dedicated room set up so that the picture can rival the sound I already have achieved.
When I first started in this hobby, my wife thought it was a little strange and perhaps a little embarrassing, because no one else was doing it. Now, it's pretty mainstream to have a surround system, and quite a few people are installing larger screens and asking me about how to upgrade their TV and stereo for better sound.
It's odd that the film largely responsible for hooking me on movies is also not very highly regarded here. It makes me wonder what other 70mm presentations would have done to me... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I've seen 70mm presentations of Ben-Hur, Cliffhanger, Gone With the Wind, and Alien and they have been very good (even though the latter ones were blow-ups from 35mm). All but Cliffhanger were at a classic movie theater, so I hesitate to judge the medium based on those experiences alone.
I've also seen the IMAX DMR version of Star Wars Ep. 2, and while it's cool and the quality was good, there was a premium price and I had to travel over an hour to see it.
The IMAX DMR process has a better chance of seeing growth than 70mm, since it allows theaters to have a large auditorium to show special-interest IMAX films and then mix in the DMR films when they are available. I would choose a DMR film over a standard 35mm presentation if my local theaters had that capability, and if they did the presentations right. (I'd even be willing to pay the $3 premium admission)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!
Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 12-24-2003 12:53 PM
(1) Are 35mm blowups satisfactory or is it necessary, in your opinion, to actually originate on 65mm?
If the budget allows, shoot in 65mm!!! However with today's stocks, even blowups from 35mm anamorphic and , yes, Super 35 would be definite improvements, most notably in brightness and sharpness.
(2) Which of today's directors have sufficient clout to ask for -- and get -- a 70mm release? Have these directors expressed an interest in the format?
All of the directors in the 'clout list' you mentioned earlier in this thread could get it done if they so chose. Of those listed, only Cameron and Howard have ever openly expressed interest.
(3) Were there any movies in 2003 that were worthy of a 70mm release? Try to name at least five movies that would have really "shown off" the *visual* superiority of the format. Remember that sound is no longer an issue.
Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King
Open Range
Master & Commander
Timeline
Pirates Of The Caribbean
Under The Tuscan Sun
Winged Migration
Matrix: Reloaded/Revolutions
LXG: League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Last Samurai
Seabiscuit
to name a few... I could probably go on
(4) Would it be necessary to hire "real" projectionists or do you believe that 70mm (without mag stripes) is no more complicated than 35mm? In other words, could part-time managers, usher/projectionists remain in the booth if 70mm was revived?
If they were PROPERLY trained, I believe ANYONE can do 5/70. Remember that there are operators out there that can't do 35mm properly!!
(5) It has often been cited that 70mm presentations have proven themselves at outgrossing 35mm houses with the same title. Does anybody have data regarding how well the dCinema houses performed at the box office, as compared to 35mm houses with the same title(s)?
Though I do not have the data to show whether or not digital outgrossed the 35mm screenings of a given title, there would be some differences in the logistics of it all that lean in 70mm's favor, mainly the fact that you can run the 70mm print in much larger houses and on much larger screens than you can with any of the currently available digital cinema formats: To equal that with digital you would have to be running multiple showings in smaller houses.
-Aaron
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-24-2003 01:31 PM
If the distributors don't care about having quality operators to run their 35mm prints, then why would they care about it with their 70mm prints?
Related topic: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the quality of projectionists (in general) seems to have improved in the last year or so? I deal mostly with "first run" (whatever that means in this context) art house titles with an occasional mix of assorted repertory prints and mainstream titles. Except for the repertory stuff, at least half of the prints that I handle have previously visited 1-2 other theatres and these have usually been plattered or run on large reels. It's been a very long time since I've seen a print that required major surgery in order to be made runnable. Most are in pretty good shape, with, at most, a little dirt, maybe some lab splices that no one removed, and leaders that aren't properly spliced on. Even the repertory stuff seems to be in generally good shape. At least for the films that I deal with, things were generally much worse several years ago. I haven't seen truly nasty emulsion scratches, perf damage, missing leaders, or significant missing footage in a long time.
Has anyone else noticed this or have I just been lucky? (Note that I'm not saying that the present situation is "good," just that it seems to be improving.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-24-2003 02:02 PM
quote:
Are 35mm blowups satisfactory or is it necessary, in your opinion, to actually originate on 65mm?
35mm/70mm blowups are not necessary for medium to small sized auditoriums. However 35/70 blowups should be a mandatory requirement for any oversized theater screen. The UA Galaxy 9 in Garland, TX claims to have the largest indoor movie screens in Texas. I don't care. I'm not watching a 35mm print on a screen 80 feet across. 70mm prints should be the only thing used on a such a screen, even if the movie shown is some routine comedy or other genre not normally associated with 70mm. In some respect, I really have to come down hard on the theater chains themselves for building such giant theater screens without making any effort to pressure Hollywood into booking 70mm prints on them. Pretty damned stupid.
Origination on 65mm is another matter. It does take film imagery to a much better level of quality. Take the opening images of the Himalayan Mountains in "Baraka." The intense levels of detail shown in 5/70 simply cannot be achieved in 4/35 at all. Naturally you're not going to do a run-and-gun indie picture in 65mm. But any movie trying to be epic at all or just insisting on very high picture quality as part of the artistic vision needs to use the larger gauge. Some of it is a matter of style. Use still photography as an analogy. A sports photographer can get away with using a 35mm SLR and blast up the grainy look of his 1000asa film on the big pages of ESPN magazine. But it would be laughably stupid to do the same thing for a photo spread in a classy magazine or coffee table book meant to have very smooth, boldly colorful imagery with razor sharp detail.
quote:
Which of today's directors have sufficient clout to ask for -- and get -- a 70mm release? Have these directors expressed an interest in the format?
Lots of directors have the clout to get a movie made in 70mm. If fellows like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Ridley Scott and many others simply mentioned 70mm the format would be used without any debate.
But it doesn't necessarily take tons of clout or directorial fame to get a movie made in 70mm. Kenneth Brannaugh is respectable, but not a houseold name. Yet he shot a four hour version of "Hamlet" in 70mm. Who besides art movie fans and tech heads have head of Ron Fricke? He filmed "Baraka" in 70mm. Steve Lisberger? His first theatrical effort, "Tron" was shot in 70mm.
quote:
Were there any movies in 2003 that were worthy of a 70mm release?
Here's just a few I can name from memory that would benefit from the much sharper image capability of 65mm.
"Return of the King"
"The Last Samurai"
"Open Range"
"Master and Commander"
"Cold Mountain"
"Pirates of the Carribean"
"Seabiscuit"
"X2: X-Men United"
quote:
Would it be necessary to hire "real" projectionists or do you believe that 70mm (without mag stripes) is no more complicated than 35mm?
Any big theater, even if it doesn't have 70mm, needs a real projectionist --or at least someone who has that as his primary job instead of running downstairs to pop popcorn and tear tickets. 70mm sans mag stipes (DTS or similar time code only) should not be much more difficult to use than 35mm. But it will take serious training to handle since the two formats "behave" differently. 35mm/70mm dual format projectors are more complicated. Theater chains need to consider such training programs a sound investment. That's not just for the sake of 70mm either. A theater large enough to justify 70mm will have a more seats and more potential refunds to hand up if the show get botched.
quote:
It has often been cited that 70mm presentations have proven themselves at outgrossing 35mm houses with the same title. Does anybody have data regarding how well the dCinema houses performed at the box office, as compared to 35mm houses with the same title(s)
I wouldn't know the improved grosses on D Cinema features versus 4/35. But I would expect a significant increase with all the silliness that surrounds the "digital is perfect" hype. One of the big things that helped 70mm in the 1980's were the big logo boxes you would see in the stack ads which separated the 70mm booked theaters from all the other ones only showing 35mm. Many customers went to the 70mm theaters. Most probably didn't understand what 70mm was, but they figured it must be something that makes watching the movie better and didn't want that hollow feeling of having settled for something less.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic