my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Has anyone seen a 70mm blow-up print of "E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL"? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Has anyone seen a 70mm blow-up print of "E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL"? Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 01-09-2008 06:52 PM                     quote: Claude S. Ayakawa Warner Home Video is well known for altering the original title cards from their old movies when they release them on DVD. Claude, such as...? Warner, as far as I can tell, has never tampered with the title of "Superman." I think John's point was that "Superman" (1978) is similar to "Star Trek (II): The Wrath Of Khan" (1982) in that the on-screen billing is, simply, "Superman" whereas the movie's promotional material typically refers to it as "Superman: The Movie."  |  IP: Logged Ron Keillor Expert Film Handler Posts: 166 From: Vancouver, B.C. Canada Registered: Jul 2003 posted 01-09-2008 11:18 PM                     Spielberg has been published stating that the film was shot for the 1.66 ratio! quote: Michael Coate was the last to post That might account for the odd reel in the 70mm print at the Park, Vancouver BC that was definitely printed in a ratio that differed from the rest of the print (reel 4, I think). The projectionist coped with that by masking the ports as the distrib wasn't interested in replacing the reel!  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 01-10-2008 01:40 AM                     quote: Spielberg has been published stating that the film was shot for the 1.66 ratio! But weren't there a number of films shot 1.66 and protected for 1.85? I saw several films at the Chinese Theatre in Hollywood projected at 1.66 (Interview With the Vampire, Robobcop, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves). I made the assumption (perhaps incorrect) films were shot for 1.66 because this is how they would be shown in Europe.  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 01-10-2008 01:45 AM                     quote: Spielberg has been published stating that the film was shot for the 1.66 ratio! Are you referring to the 1990 interview with film critic Gene Siskel? If so, I think that was a case of someone being in a situation where they were expected to recall information on the spot, which I think is one reason interviews often contain questionable information. Having been on both ends of the interview process, I know that it is unreasonable to expect people to recall on the spot exact details of past experiences. I'm not claiming Spielberg is wrong or misremembering. Maybe he's screened the film for himself numerous times in different ratios and prefers 1.66:1. Maybe the Amblin screening room was only set up for 1.66:1 (for spherical presentations). Maybe he's confusing 1.66:1 with 1.85:1 (after all, they really are not all that different from one another). Who knows. Anyway, my point, I guess, is that according to the film's DP, Allen Daviau, "E.T." was shot with a 1.66:1 hardmatte but composed for 1.85:1. (Daviau shot two and 1/4 other films for Spielberg using the same technique.) I think Thomas Hauerslev has some frames from a 70mm print; maybe he'll post them or provide us with a linky. Then, if you wish, you could scrutinize the image, even measuring it if you feel it necessary, and drawing your own conclusion as to what the film's ratio is or should be. But keep in mind that I don't think the labs ever really had a standard for blowing up spherically-shot films, so the ratios are all over the place. Even the numerous video versions of "E.T." that have featured a letterbox presentation have each had a slightly different ratio, falling somehwere between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1. In the end, I think as long as the ratio is close to what it's supposed to be, things will be fine.  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 01-11-2008 12:23 AM                     Ron Keillor... Please look over your recent post. What and whom are you quoting???  |  IP: Logged Bruce McGee Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1776 From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular. Registered: Aug 1999 posted 01-11-2008 12:45 AM                     I saw it in 70 and mag sound at the fabulous Columbia Theatre in Atlanta, GA in '82 along with a full house. The image was razor sharp. Anybody else ever go there?  |  IP: Logged Jerry Axelsson Expert Film Handler Posts: 107 From: Stockholm, Sweden Registered: May 2005 posted 01-12-2008 01:35 AM                     I like your comments about "E.T.". Thanks to those which have responded. Does someone know for certain if new 35mm OR 70mm prints where done for the 1985 re-issue or for other matters before the 20th aniv. re-issue? Keep up the good work guys!  |  IP: Logged Blaine Young Master Film Handler Posts: 477 From: Kirkland, WA, USA Registered: Sep 2006 posted 01-14-2008 01:05 PM                     There were no 70mm prints for the 20th Anniversary re-issue.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.