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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Ingolorious Basterds on film? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Ingolorious Basterds on film? Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-13-2009 11:58 PM                        That makes me laugh, Mike. Truly pathetic on the part of the studios and distributors, especially when there aren't exactly a shit-ton of digital installations.  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 09-14-2009 12:16 AM                        Well sure, Joe, but these are the same outfits who've been playing trailers in all of our 35mm houses, advertising their digital 3D shows as if that's the only way you can see them.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-14-2009 12:17 AM                     The other problem is that at least more than a few theaters with D-cinema in every booth has a big fat satellite dish on the roof capable of receiving the virtual print without the need of shipping an external USB hard disc drive. The Carmike location here in Lawton has quite the huge dish on its roof for receiving D-cinema content. I'm sticking to my guns that there was some sort of 35mm slanted initiative in distributing Inglorious Basterds. Our local Carmike location has every ability of receiving a digital-based virtual print, whether it is shipped in on an external hard drive or beamed down via satellite directly into the SAN server. I'll agree it is a bit presumptuous for me to assume what happened for Lawton applied everywhere. Maybe some folks "in the know" knew our theater had a manager with an extensive amount of experience in handling film prints and specifically wanted the Lawton location to only receive a film print. Hell, it may even be partly due to my loud mouth. After all, it is no secret more than a few film industry people lurk around reading the posts on this very website, and I have one of the higher post counts here. I also live in Lawton-Fort Sill, USA. Film-Tech is an extremely valuable resource for knowing what the hell is going on in the trenches in film exhibition. My love for film is no secret. Maybe QT himself lurks here. I wondered about that when he had a fictional Wichita Falls, TX radio station mentioned in the beginning of the first Kill Bill movie. Who would mention Wichita Falls without having some specific interest in Wichita Falls?  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 09-14-2009 01:57 AM                     Well more power to ya Bobby in Wichita Falls way!! I no he shot it with Arri cameras and true panavision anamorphic lenses!!!  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 09-14-2009 07:15 AM                       quote: Bobby Henderson Who would mention Wichita Falls without having some specific interest in Wichita Falls? A dart in a map, maybe?  |  IP: Logged David Zylstra Master Film Handler Posts: 432 From: Novi, MI, USA Registered: Mar 2007 posted 09-14-2009 08:32 AM                     We have 50% of our 35mm projectors left and we showed all of our Basterds in digital (across 4 locations with the newest having no 35mm). The only time we were forced to take a 35mm print was IJ4 (we played 1/4 in 35mm). There a few other times we almost got 35mm instead of digital - after some digging we were told that the studio ordered too many 35mm prints and did not want to pay VPFs if there were going to be 35mm copies unused. The assumption on my part is a "digtal shortage" means "too many 35mm prints were ordered". Pure speculation on my part says if there were too many 35mm copies made then Carmike may have accepted them along with a rent reduction.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-14-2009 09:28 AM                        How sweet. After all the huffing and puffing how they want the whole world to convert to digital projection so they don't have to pay for film prints, and after promising the VP fees would help the exhibitor pay for that conversion, they turn around and say, "Wait a minute, you schlubs; if we happen to have a 35mm print handy, THAT'S what we will give you to play so we don't have to pay you a VP fee." They don't want to pay a VP fee AND on top of that, they want to stick the exhibitor with the 35mm print shipping costs! Is there no end to their freakin trechery?! Sure as hell if I were an exhibitor and had invested in however many DCinema installations, you can bet your butt that EVERY one of my digital booths that had 35mm projectors still installed, I would officially designate them to be "OUT OF SERVICE" -- in other words, non-functional, inoperative, unable to run even a single frame of film let alone an entire feature, even if I had to pull every intermittent out of them because, helloooo....that's what I bought the digital projectors for.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-14-2009 09:41 AM                        I'll disagree with Joe: if I made a film, it would be shot on film with no DI, and release prints would only be available on film. There would be no video release, either. I believe pretty strongly that movies should be seen in theatres on big screens. If the director wants them to be seen on film, then that should be his choice. I'll also disagree with Frank: as an exhibitor, I would want the best presentation possible for my customers. Some film prints look great (especially if there is no DI or a 4K or higher DI) and would be preferable to the current state of equipment. I would prefer to screen a print for those films. I'd take a copy if the lab quality is poor (which would include pretty much everything from Deluxe Hollywood) or if I'd get a beat-up print. I find the VPF thing curious. If true, then it sounds as if 35mm film actually is a cheaper means of distribution at the moment. If this is true, then why did the distributors agree to pay VPFs? And who, if anyone, will subsidize the next generation of upgrades when the current units become obsolete and/or unserviceable in ten years (or so)?  |  IP: Logged David Zylstra Master Film Handler Posts: 432 From: Novi, MI, USA Registered: Mar 2007 posted 09-14-2009 10:19 AM                     quote: AND on top of that, they want to stick the exhibitor with the 35mm print shipping costs! FYI - the delivery cost to the exhibitor is the same whether we get 35mm or digital (satellite bandwidth costs $$ and we get charged the same price for digital delivery as we do for 35mm). Basically HD or satellite delivery vs. 35mm is a wash. 35mm is only cheaper once the studio realizes they committed to buying more 35mm prints than they actually needed - i.e. they ordered 2,000 but realized too late that only 1,500 screens would show it, at this point they already spent say $2,000(?) each on 500 prints so why spend an additional $1,000(?) each in VPFs for 500 screens that could show 35mm instead of digital. Who knows, maybe it was the same crazy stuff we saw for IJ4 in 35mm - someone somewhere insisted there be so many 35mms shown.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-14-2009 01:16 PM                        I don't know about a wash -- I don't know what it costs to download,a feature (aren't most VPs arriving on physical hard drives?), but depending the running time of a film, it costs me anywhere from $80 to $120 to have a print shipped to our theatre. How much could it possibly cost to ship a hard drive?  |  IP: Logged Joshua Waaland Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: Cleveland, Ohio Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-14-2009 01:31 PM                     quote: Jake Spell ...considering how bad Carmike treats their employees I hate, hate, hate Carmike Cinemas. They are the cheapest people on the face of the planet and I wouldn't work for them again for any amount of money. They are a perfect example of how so many employers in today's world only care about the dollar and not the people who earned them that dollar. If you don't care about your employees and take care of them then you shouldn't even be in business. I worked for two Cinemarks and I had a good experience at both of them. They were not afraid to spend money on quality, newer equipment and at least paid above minimum wage. I think that the digital push was only to benefit the people pushing it. For all of the people who bought into it and spent the money to "upgrade", then I am not surprised at all that they are jerking you around. They have you right where they want you now.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-14-2009 02:36 PM                        Scott, my fantasy is based a bit more in reality, as sad as that may be. Your movie would be scratched to hell in more locations than not. I wish we could trust that film would have a good presentation, but it always makes me nervous when I go to a film theater because only 2 or 3 people in the Denver area know how to run a projection booth properly, and one of them is me!  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-14-2009 02:40 PM                        quote: Frank Angel it costs me anywhere from $80 to $120 to have a print shipped to our theatre. Frank, you do mostly rep, don't you? The shipping cost from the classics vaults are always way higher because they ship direct from LA and usually overnight. Regular run films delivered by Tech or Deluxe run us about $23 each way. I don't do digital, but I assume the same people delivering the film are delivering they HD's, so the cost is per item.  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 09-14-2009 04:40 PM                        Back to the original question, I will note that I saw this at the Warren in an auditorium that has both digital and 35mm capability...and they ran it in 35mm. And they have nothing to do with Carmike.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-14-2009 07:29 PM                        Yah, Martin, we do rep -- so you are right in that prints unless they happen to be in the New York or NJ depots, have to be shipped from LA or Burbank. BUT, we do second run and previews -- on these also cost, not as much as west coast shipping, but not the same bulk rates that commercial theatres get, but Technicolor ships with FedEx or previously by Airborne. And that has always been by weight, not by unit. I wish we could get a print to and from our door for $23. And Scott, of course you are right, I would always opt for which ever format will give me the best presentation. But what I would vigorously object to would be, after going thru the expense of installing digital, on certain titles a studio would only offer me a film print just so that they won't have to pay the VP fee and that my abilty to run digital is predicated on the studios print order and influenced, not in a small way by their incentive to avoid paying a VP fee. Besides, I though it was kind of understood that once an exhibitor installs digital, that the studio would always supply digital prints, especially give how they raved about the ability of digital to totally eliminate print shortages. With digital there would never be a shortage of digital prints or available downloads. I was not aware that they would still get to choose what format they would send on any given title. In your scenario, you are assuming you get to choose which is format is going to give you the better presentation. In my scenario, paranoid as it may be, I would be very VERY piss if a studio were taking the choice away from me and sending me a film print only because it benefits them (too many 35mm prints struck and they get to wiggle out of the VP fee) which has precious little to do with the quality of my presentation.  |  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.