|
|
This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Grosses for Fahrenheit 9/11 - 350 Million+ US, 600 Million+ Overseas
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-15-2004 03:18 AM
It's opening near me, at the small place where I've been doing some projecton until recently, on September 3rd. It's been on release in London for a while, but I've been too busy to travel further to see it, They will only have it for a week, but they don't normally hold anything for longer than that, though they often bring a film back two or three times during the next few months.
It's been reported as having broken London box office records (whatever that means, nothing specific was stated) but I've seen and heard very little about it. There were a few posters on Underground stations, but that's about all. I haven't spoken to anybody here who's seen it. I have heard from a few people in the US who've seen it, and in several cases, it has been better received by Republicans, who said it was better than they expected, than by Democrats, who said they were disappointed by it, which is rather surprising, but based on a very small sample.
Does anyone have any figures for the UK? 'Bowling for Columbine' did well here, I would have expected this one to do less well, but I don't know.
I want to see it, but I may wait until the DVD comes out. Columbine looks much better on video than it does on film. Televison news material looks pretty bad on a large screen, and to make it worse, I got the last remaining seat for the last show, in the front row, which is too close to the screen in this place anyway.
Does anyone know what format the original material for F. 9/11 was shot on? Was it just standard def interlaced video, or something desgned for film transfer.
I've heard a figure of $6m mentioned for the production budget; is this correct? If so, it's a very high budget production. There are normal feature films, and certainly many major television productions, made for a lot less than that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 08-15-2004 07:33 AM
Shot on genuine HD according to the end credits.
I thought the video to film transfers weren't that bad, given what they were starting with. But yes, this would have been the ideal sort of thing to use digital projection on, given that none of it was originated on film to start with.
I saw it at the new Odeon Wimbledon on a visit to relatives, about a week after release. It was only in one screen, and the 6pm Saturday screening was about half full. It was clearly starting to tail off a bit.
That was, I would guess, the fourth or fifth film I've seen there, and the first in which there wasn't any significant presentation fault (the print was a bit tatty around the reel ends, though - which, if it was a new print which they had from day 1, could only have been their film handling). Glad to see that they're starting to sort out the problems.
As for the $6 million, I would guess that a lot of it was spent on rights clearances for the archive stuff. The clearance rate we charge for using our copyright material in a cinema film (worldwide, 10-year licence) is £5.50 per second, which is around the TV industry average. Not that anyone has ever used any of our stuff in a worldwide distributed cinema film...
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 08-16-2004 09:50 AM
There was quite a mix of original material, ranging from NTSC VHS video to 35mm film. There was even a rather graphic (and mercifully unsharp) view through a sniper's night scope.
http://www.postmagazine.com/post/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=101686
quote:
NEW YORK - HD specialist Craig Gordon and the team at Rhinopost (www.rhinopost.tv) recently provided high def services for Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11." The facility has worked on Moore projects in the past, having provided color correction services for scenes featured in "Bowling For Columbine."
For Moore's latest project, Rhinopost eye-matched the entire project - which consisted of formats ranging from VHS to HD - and converted the entire production to a 24fps for film and HD master for exhibition.
"With various formats to contend with, each element had to be color-timed and matched to be transposed seamlessly to film," explains HD specialist/colorist Walter Lefler. If not done properly, the viewer will notice, you want to keep the viewer focused on the contents of the film rather than the technical aspects."
"Anytime you're working in video and going to film, there are numerous challenges inherent in the process," says Kurt Engfehr, Moore's editor on "Fahrenheit 9/11." "Our biggest problem were the hard deadlines we were facing. Rhino made this whole project not only work, but work smoothly. Craig Gordon, through his knowledge and adeptness, was the rock we all ended up depending on."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11
|
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