|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Paramount kills off 35mm in the US
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-18-2014 12:30 PM
I just have an uneasy feeling about how rapidly this change is taking place, like it's going to bite the movie industry in the ass in some sort of way it never would have expected.
For one thing, it's a sheer display of ignorance for a studio like Paramount to junk 70mm film prints, unless there was a legitimate reason to do so. That act makes me think a studio like Paramount is not the slightest bit concerned about eliminating film.
When I was a kid I always thought of movie production being something totally disconnected from television. Movies were on a separate, higher level. Even though some TV shows were shot on film, I associated TV with stuff shot with video cameras. The material was lesser in image quality, but more than that it could be erased and re-shot, making the material far more temporary. A movie shot on film seemed to last much longer.
Today the boundaries between TV and movies have blurred to where there is little if any separation at all. They're all using the same digital cameras & lens systems, lights, etc. TV shows don't have budgets nearly as large and more demanding deadlines. But TV has far more flexibility than the 2 hour movie format. TV is not quite so prone to issues like sequelitis or stories always needing a happy, predictable ending. There is plenty of bad TV, but TV can be pretty great these days too.
I think the general public must still have some illusion that major studio feature movies are using some kind of "secret sauce" not available to TV shows.
Here's the big concern: no one can reliably predict how attitudes of the public can change. Right now enough of the general public still seems to think a ticket to the movies is worth the price. But with the way prices have been escalating lately, particularly in premium priced auditoriums, it might make more of the public start looking at the differences between TV and movies more closely. If the public looks close enough they won't see any magic boundary between the two mediums, they may come to the same conclusion as filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino: "it's TV in public."
Most people who participate in this forum are huge movie fans. But there are some members here who hardly visit movie theaters anymore. I know a lot of people who only watch movies at home on their TV sets. I think there can be no feature movie industry without movie theaters. So I still try to go when I can. It costs me about $50 for me and my girlfriend every time I do.
I guess I worry that the public's attitude will change enough to the point where they see a 2 hour Hollywood studio movie being no different than something someone uploaded to YouTube or a show streaming on Netflix.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 01-18-2014 01:03 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
no one can reliably predict how attitudes of the public can change. Right now enough of the general public still seems to think a ticket to the movies is worth the price.
Bobby, it makes no difference to the average person if the movie was shot on film or digital, the average person can't tell the difference. To the average person, a digital presentation means "better" even if it is not better.
At the end of the day, all that really matters is if the movie is worth watching or not. If there is a movie that is worth watching, then the average person will go and pay to watch it.
quote: Justin Hamaker
I disagree with this sentiment. With a 3 hour running time, a 35mm print for Wolf of Wall Street probably costs about 50% more than for a more typical 90-120 minute movie. Given that the remaining 35mm theatres account for such a small percentage of the total gross, it makes perfect sense to go all digital on a release that would be more expensive than normal for 35mm
Wolf of Wall Street would be the perfect movie to go all digital, this is the type of movie that would open in wide release but in a smaller number of theatres and screens. I think it opened in something like 1900 locations.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-18-2014 04:02 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
You are paranoid, 99% of moviegoers do not give a shit.
Paranoid? No. You might want to lighten up your tone from its personally insulting level to something more civil. I smell you trolling for another flame fest here.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, it makes no difference to the average person if the movie was shot on film or digital, the average person can't tell the difference. To the average person, a digital presentation means "better" even if it is not better.
You can see "digital" at home. For far less money. Netflix is digital. Amazon Prime is digital. HBO is digital. YouTube is digital. If it makes no difference why spend all that extra money to see basically the same thing at the movie theater? Most movies are mere 2K resolution, especially all the 3D ones. That's hardly any better than the 1080p you see on Blu-ray. Hell, a lot of people are still buying or renting DVDs. Or just doing the streaming thing.
That whole "it makes no difference" thing can spin around and bite Hollywood squarely in the ass. Customers can say, "it makes no difference if I watch the movie at home, plus I'll save a lot of money."
This is exactly why I say the public has some illusion about movies using some sort of better process than the average TV show when the fact is they're all using the same equipment. I can wait to see a movie on Blu-ray or even HBO and not feel like I missed anything by not seeing it in a theater.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
At the end of the day, all that really matters is if the movie is worth watching or not. If there is a movie that is worth watching, then the average person will go and pay to watch it.
Hollywood is pushing its luck in that regard too with all the sequels, remakes, franchise reboots and all the other predictable, derivative crap they keep producing. These days I hear more friends and coworkers talking about TV shows like Sons of Anarchy, Breaking Bad or Mad Men than Hollywood movies.
I consider myself a pretty big movie fan, but I don't go to theaters nearly as often as I did 20 years ago. I'd probably be going far less if I didn't have a girlfriend to entertain. Between the price of the tickets and snack counter items, I'm blowing $40-$50 on a visit to the theater. And that's not even factoring in fake IMAX or other premium priced amenities.
quote: Justin Hamaker
I agree to a point about people being less willing to pay when ticket prices hit $10. Especially in places where the average ticket price is currently at $7-$8.
That's the price for just the basics. Many bigger city theaters have surpassed the $10 mark and are going well north of it for the base ticket price. Add in the surcharges for 3D, In Name Only IMAX or other luxury amenities and the price easily goes double the minimum wage or more. Some luxury screening rooms are charging more per ticket only than what it would cost to buy the Blu-ray.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 01-18-2014 05:18 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
You can see "digital" at home. For far less money. Netflix is digital. Amazon Prime is digital. HBO is digital. YouTube is digital. If it makes no difference why spend all that extra money to see basically the same thing at the movie theater? Most movies are mere 2K resolution, especially all the 3D ones. That's hardly any better than the 1080p you see on Blu-ray. Hell, a lot of people are still buying or renting DVDs. Or just doing the streaming thing.
Bobby, at the end of the day, it is the content of the movie that brings people to the theatre, a movie can have all the quality projectors they want and all the 4K DCP files they want but if they get a bad movie or something that nobody wants to see then the customers will not show up.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Hollywood is pushing its luck in that regard too with all the sequels, remakes, franchise reboots and all the other predictable, derivative crap they keep producing.
They are not pushing any luck. Franchises, sequels and reboots have almost built in audiences and that is why they make them.
quote:
These days I hear more friends and coworkers talking about TV shows like Sons of Anarchy, Breaking Bad or Mad Men than Hollywood movies.
Sure, but you also forget to mention that Iron 3, Skyfall, Hobbit 1 and 2, Avengers, etc etc are all $1 billion plus sequels or remakes. Lets not forget that Avatar almost grossed $3 billion and that was an original production.
People will go to movies if the right movie is there.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 01-19-2014 12:01 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, at the end of the day, it is the content of the movie that brings people to the theatre, a movie can have all the quality projectors they want and all the 4K DCP files they want but if they get a bad movie or something that nobody wants to see then the customers will not show up.
It's a combination of both...
If all theaters around you offer a lousy service or are horribly overpriced you might as well wait a few weeks until it's available on some streaming service or as a rental. Or... just grab some torrent for free...
For movie theaters to remain relevant, they need to offer more than just the bare minimum.
I know that many people still linger on the merits of 35mm projection, but to be honest, I don't. The reason is simple: besides the occasional exception, where the moon and at least three other celestial bodies aligned in a perfectly straight line, it was almost always done shitty in Joe Average's multiplex shoebox theater. Unsteady, unfocussed projection, mediocre prints beaten to death after just a few runs. A mediocre 2K digital presentation will still beat the Joe-Average 35mm experience.
The biggest failure of the Digital conversion though, is the awkward resolution that has been chosen as baseline. Although 2K can look pretty OK on a modest sized screen, it surely isn't good enough for anything beyond that. And that's also something Hollywood is to blame for: They pushed the whole exhibition industry towards an all-digital distribution, before it was good enough. Now, the world is stuck with very expensive 2K projection gear, while the next TV you will buy will most likely be a 4K model...
| IP: Logged
|
|
James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1133
From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 01-21-2014 02:27 AM
To sum up what I have learned so far...
1. Paramount is the first company to stop printing 35mm prints of new releases.
2. The new technology used will not last as long as the 35mm projectors of old, which depending on how well they were made or taken care of could last 60 plus years.
3. The new technology makes archiving the movies more difficult as, unlike 35mm prints and negatives, hard drives will not be guaranteed to store well in a salt mine in Kansas.
4. The picture resolution of the current technology still is lacking compared to the finer grain print stock of 35mm, which I also must note was not being used as much at the last. 70mm print stock still surpasses this hands down.
5. (personal observation) Louder is NOT better in regards to the multi-channel sound systems that is being bandied about. I don't care how many channels it has.5.1, 7.1, 11.1, 666.1. More complexity to us, nonsensical to most customers.
Those of us who have to run with these new beasts simply try to do the best we can. I know not what the future may bring, but there is still a lot that film could do better than the new technology we have now can. But that is no longer an option for the majority of us.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11 12 13
|
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