|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Rocky Horror Digital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 08-25-2012 09:47 AM
quote: Scott Norwood
What would cause this to happen? It is tough enough to consistently make money (or even break even) when showing these titles in 35mm. Will any more people come to see them in DCP format? I doubt it (actually, attendance may go down when customers realize that they are just seeing a glorified HD-quality picture). Yet the cost to the exhibitor to present DCPs is higher than it was for 35mm. As a business proposition, this seems like a loser for exhibitors.
I think this is a very important point, for repertoire cinemas only, I am not talking about the rest. Many of us enjoy the look of film projected and may not bother if it is a DCP. Moreover, repertoire cinemas had something quite exclusive when the repertoire titles were on 35mm but now on DCP every multiplex can screen them, will this affect repertoire cinemas? And let me say that I also quite enjoyed the all digital Prometheus, not as a film but its images, when seen in a digital IMAX theatre, quite amazing. I just do not want to lose the experience of seeing film. Even if this is limited to some selected theatres for repertoire titles I would love it to continue.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 08-25-2012 11:28 AM
Scott, all I can tell you is that at my currently location, a town of just over 50,000 people about an hour east of San Francisco (and a surrounding area population of about 100,000 more), we've been doing very good business with our "retro" cinema presentations. Part of that success, based on the feedback we get from our audience, is because I regularly give welcoming speeches to our audiences (when a show sells at least 50 tickets) where I highlight some of our upcoming repertory titles. And when we do show these older titles, I always play them in our larger auditoria, so they always get the best quality presentation I can give them.
Last night, during my speeches, I could audibly hear from right in front of the screens the excitement when I tell people our theatre is going to be playing Raiders of the Lost Ark for a week on the IMAX screen in two weeks, or that we will be playing Lawrence of Arabia for one night on October 4th on our 60ft screen. The "wow!" when I mentioned the double feature of Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein, and the "really!" during the mention of our 50th Anniversary screening of To Kill a Mockingbird.
Now, granted, some of those are NCM Fathom events through TCM and won't be of the greatest quality, but after all the shows we have done the past twelve months of Fathom events and one-off shows off DCPs (Ghostbusters, the first two Godfathers and The Untouchables come to mind first), our audience now know to expect these at our theatre, and are primed to enjoy more.
Create a demand for classic cinema then advertise the hell out of it through any means necessary, and you will have an audience that will want more. And that, Scott, is what would cause that to happen.
Fox kept making new 35mm prints for theatres that played Rocky Horror for years and years and years, because the demand was there.
That's how our business works.
Supply and demand.
No demand. No supply.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-26-2012 08:52 AM
Manny--agreed completely on the people who like film's imperfections. This is an insult to those of us who try to avoid them.
I also agree that the general public would likely not be able to tell the difference between film and a DCP. They might also not be able to tell the difference between a Monet painting and a photographic reproduction of that painting. Does that mean that art museums (musea?) should take down real paintings and replace them with reproductions? After all, the reproductions are cheaper, less fragile, and easier to replace if damaged. I believe in the idea of showing films in their original format. While it has become more difficult to determine the "original format" in recent years, pretty much every theatrical motion picture made before 2005-ish was made and intended to be shown on film. That is how I believe that they should be shown.
Edward--I am glad that you are having success with your repertory series. My experience with such things has been mixed. Last October, I ran mint-condition prints of Psycho and Frankenstien as a double-feature, and the theatre didn't get more than 100-ish customers per show. Not bad, but not as good as it should have been. Oh, well.
[ 08-26-2012, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 08-26-2012 11:03 AM
quote: Scott Norwood
I believe in the idea of showing films in their original format. While it has become more difficult to determine the "original format" in recent years, pretty much every theatrical motion picture made before 2005-ish was made and intended to be shown on film. That is how I should believe that they are shown.
I believe in that as well. We have had this discussion many times here in film-tech. The main difference is that the Monet paintings won’t degrade that much by repeated showings whereas film prints will (although many projectionists have told me that if properly handled prints will last for many screenings in very good shape). I suppose that it is important to keep the production of film and the running of film labs for the preservations of the entire cinema heritage. In this setting, it seems possible the survival of film screenings (at least of classic titles or in repertoire cinemas) for years to come, although no new prints are produced of many restorations. There is a wealth of expertise out there and plenty in this forum. It would be great if repertoire cinemas could network and work together and with the studios to maintain film exhibition for new generations and those of us who enjoy it. It would be great to have some cinemas around the world with competent cinema projectionists (there are many in this forum) being in charge of projection booths capable of handling several formats, 70mm, 35mm, digital and different sound systems. I know this is something that would not work for a multiplex or a small city but for big cities, maybe. It would be great to create a business model that could accommodate different options. I have no desire to see a film on its first weekend (contrary to the majority of the audience), I prefer to wait and see a film in the best possible conditions. For instance, I will wait until I can see The Master in 70mm, as its director intended.
I do not enjoy film imperfections either but would appreciate it if those who have nothing but praise for digital projection acknowledged as well that it can have its imperfections as well, one of them is looking too clinical or too cold (very subjective, I know) or becoming obsolete too son (2K, 3-D, higher frame rate, ...). When I saw the 4K screening of Samsara I thought it looked perfect but lacked the warmth of the 70mm prints of Baraka I have seen in the past.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-26-2012 03:36 PM
Scott -- the problem I have with your analogy is that, well, it's just wrong.
A Monet painting was intended to exist as the one and only original. Whereas something like "Lawrence of Arabia," for example, was always intended to be duplicated and sent out to theatres. They did not go around road-showing the one, the only, the original print. You saw a copy and I saw another copy. If you saw it three times in your life, chances are that you saw three different copies of it.
With your analogy, it appears that you may be suggesting that the correct thing to do would be to screen the original work print. I know that's not what you're suggesting. I just use it to point out why the analogy doesn't move me.
The film business is different from the Art World because not only are duplicates permissible, the whole industry DEPENDS on exhibition of duplicates -- and never the original -- so it is therefore perfectly acceptable -- even preferable -- to replace one compromised duplicate with another pristine duplicate.
And, yes -- I do consider a digital copy of a film to be a duplicate of the film -- the fact that it's not on film does not change the content, nor does it rob a film of whatever artistic or entertainment merit it possesses. The medium is not the message.
For me, "original format" means the following:
Theatrical presentation
Original Cut of the film at the time of its initial theatrical release -- not a director's cut -- or even a cut with censored scenes restored
Correct Aspect Ratio
Correct reproduction of the Original Sound Track
If you can get me a pristine film print of it, that's just great. But I'm happy to screen or watch a DCP. I don't care if it's on film or not, as long as it's going to allow me to put on (or experience) the best possible show. The medium is not the message. As far as "medium" goes, I do want to see it projected onto a screen -- so the screen itself would be the medium.
I would argue -- and have been arguing for some time now -- that screening a DCP of a classic actually brings us closer to the original than seeing a film print of it. Not just in terms of the condition of the print, but the number of generations from the OCN is reduced as well.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic