Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Polar Express largest 70mm print order in cinema history

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Large Format Forum » Polar Express largest 70mm print order in cinema history (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Polar Express largest 70mm print order in cinema history

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-24-2005 09:27 PM

Considering the same printer at CFI is used for 5 perf or 15perf 70 makes it a bit of a milestone as the same constraints are involved

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 02-15-2005 10:16 PM

quote:
Star Wars used 250 70mm prints in the 1970s.
Bullshit.

At first I was going to criticize your response for not providing any useful information, but it seems that you're entirely correct.

Although I don't have specific information regarding the first Star Wars release, an article in the July 28, 1982 issue of Variety quotes the following 70mm print run numbers. The thrust of the article is that 70mm print numbers were smaller than they could have been because of the lack of theaters to play them in.

The 11 early summer 70mm films of 1982 were released in a TOTAL of 282 prints.

The widest print run was 68 prints for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Others:
Grease 2: 8 prints
ET: 31 prints
The Thing: 7 prints
Poltergeist: 37
Rocky III: 25
Blade Runner: 10
Firefox: 5
The Road Warrior: 3
Tron: 41 + 2 added later
Star Wars: (8/13/82 rerelease): 4 (rejuvenated from existing prints)
Empire Strikes Back (reissue): projected to print 40 70mm prints
Revenge of the Jedi: Fox predicting 100+ prints, "duplicating the record original print run of The Empire Strikes Back in 1980"
Raiders of the Lost Ark (reissue): 12
Pink Floyd: 20-30 (projected)
Yes, Giorgio 2 (projected)
The Tempest 2 (projected)
Annie: initially 14 prints, 28 additional after first five weeks.

So if 100 for Empire was the record, the first Star Wars had to have far less.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 02-25-2005 05:47 PM

quote: Martin Brooks
I was going to criticize your response for not providing any useful information...

Well, I figured my one-word post stated everything that needed to be stated, and I believe anyone familiar with my posting history (or articles published elsewhere) would understand why I posted in the manner that I did.

But in the event my earlier post appears vague to anyone, allow me to summarize.

I suspect that the person who made the claim that the original Star Wars had 250 70mm prints, (a) didn't bother to research the data and conjured up the title from memory, and (b) remembering "250" sounded right, confused one Lucasfilm production (Star Wars) with another (Indiana Jones). Common sense would clue one in that there weren't 250 70mm-Dolby houses in service in the '70s.

From VARIETY, 16 May 1984.

quote:
Paramount's "Indiana Jones And The Temple of Doom" premieres across the U.S. [and Canada] May 23 with the largest number of 70m[m] prints ever released for an opening.

Two hundred and forty-three 70m[m] prints will be distributed for the film's opening, far surpassing the 164 released for Lucasfilm-20th/Fox's "Return of The Jedi" in 1983 and MGM/UA's record 169-print 70m[m] launch of "Brainstorm" last fall.

And, for those of you curious about which theatres all of those expensive prints were booked into, I invite you to check out one of the latest new articles posted at From Script To DVD:

http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/indiana_jones_70mm_engagements.htm

Discuss article here if you like. (Or start up new thread in another forum since, technically, this is not a 5-perf 70mm discussion forum. Always good to keep the moderators happy. [Smile]

) Some may find the article a trip since it's somewhat nostalgic and many of the theatres and companies mentioned are no longer in business. Enjoy!

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-25-2005 10:23 PM

[Dragging this thread further off-topic...]

I'm kind of surprised to see Moyer's West 11th [Movieland] in Eugene listed as a 70mm venue for Temple of Doom. Gonna have to check with my local sources on that... [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 02-28-2005 01:58 AM

quote: David Stambaugh
Dragging this thread further off-topic...

OK, OK. Let's move the Indiana Jones portion of the discussion over to the Film Handler's Forum.

http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006983

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 03-27-2005 09:35 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Seems to me that one of the Star Trek films had a 200 plus 70mm release print count but I don't remember which one it was.

quote: Michael Coate
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

The 70mm print run on "Star Trek IV" was 135.

| IP: Logged

Robert Harris
Film Handler

Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003

posted 05-03-2005 06:51 PM

I love Michael Coate's response.

With 250 70mm prints created from the original rolls of Oneg, in addition to timing prints, separation masters, etc., the Oneg of Star Wars would have been trash by about 1977.

No one seems to be mentioning the huge print order for Far and Away. I seem to recall seeing the sounding logs at Goldwyn, which were many pages thick, although I don't remember the exact number prints.

RAH

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 05-05-2005 04:49 PM

Darren showed a print of Far and Away at York last year and it looked almost virgin (the film, that is: I couldn't speak for Nicole!). It certainly can't have been shown very much in the decade since the film's release.

| IP: Logged

Andy Summers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 397
From: Bournemouth Dorset United kingdom
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 07-21-2005 03:36 PM

I read somewhere that “Polar Express” the characters looked more like Zombies of CGI proportions, so I decided to rename it

“Zombie Express”

PS don’t get me wrong I like Bob Zemeckis’s films like “What Lies Beneath” “Cast Away” “Forrest Gump” “Back to the Future trilogy” “Romancing the Stone” and “Death Becomes Her” dame funny one too.

But CGI characters looking like they had the life sucked out of them, no well

I may get “Zombie Express” on DVD later in the year presented in “Zombie Vision”
God help me!

| IP: Logged

Kyle McEachern
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 165
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 07-21-2005 05:41 PM

Next time you decide to review a movie or post an opinion about its look (especially to the point of giving it a stupid name), try maybe WATCHING the movie first.

Just a thought.

| IP: Logged

Andy Summers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 397
From: Bournemouth Dorset United kingdom
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 07-21-2005 06:29 PM

I saw a review of it on DVD and thought I will give it a miss, so that’s pissed on your fireworks….

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-21-2005 06:45 PM

Maybe Any should take a holiday from filmtech as he doesn't seem to be taking the hint on decorum here

| IP: Logged

Andy Summers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 397
From: Bournemouth Dorset United kingdom
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 07-21-2005 06:57 PM

Gordon, I was just reflecting my own, view, was it out of order if so I’ll edit it…..

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 07-21-2005 07:13 PM

Stand your ground, Andy. There is ALWAYS someone to whine about something (ME included)! [Wink]

I get bitched at alot...but it's *MY* opinion and yours should be yours.

OBTW: Please use spell check and learn the difference between "hear" and "here". (see, that's me whining) [beer]

Thanks!

| IP: Logged

Andy Summers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 397
From: Bournemouth Dorset United kingdom
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 07-21-2005 07:26 PM

Phil

That’s creaked me totally up, you devil, [beer]

hear, hear, well come on guys it’s only a movie, man I’ve seen some real
turkeys before, but “Zombie Express” tops the billing… [puke]

PS this is best works of GCI making “Tom Hanks” look like a Zombie perhaps they should have used this in “Death Becomes Her” as they where walking Zombies too….

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.