Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » 70mm Print Runs (Page 5)

 
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Author Topic: 70mm Print Runs
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 11-10-2002 11:21 AM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Lawrence of Arabia's restoration got the 5.1 treatment with the dreaded hard center dialogue. Lawrence of Arabia ushered in the SR 70mm releases.

Are you talking about LOA's 1989 release? This is the first time I saw this listed as a 5.1 release. And would the mag version even be considered 5.1 (unless it was a mid-90's print of 2001?)

(Steve, weren't you the one who criticized in another thread the use of the 5.1 term as a non film term used by the home vidiot crowd?)

Also, 1986's STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME was the first 70mm film with SR encoded prints, which showed at L.A.'s Cinerama Dome and Village theatres.

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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


 - posted 11-10-2002 03:50 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Steve Guttag wrote:
quote:
Most 70mm films after TOP GUN were split surround. Even films like HOFFA were split surround. Lawrence of Arabia's restoration got the 5.1 treatment with the dreaded hard center dialogue. Lawrence of Arabia ushered in the SR 70mm releases.

I am pretty sure that Temple of Doom was NOT a split surround film.


Steve,
Lawrence in split surround, in 1989? My source for it being a single surround remix was one of the restoration producers.

My source for Temple Of Doom being a split surround mix was one of the re-recording mixers on the film. Until being told this a couple years ago I was under the impression it was a single surround mix. (Naturally, it is possible the mixer is remembering incorrectly.)

I realize you have handled many of these titles in question and have a wealth of knowledge and experience on the topic, but I will respectfully disagree with you regarding most post-Top Gun 70mm releases being in the split surround format. In looking over my list of 70mm releases I would estimate the number of single surround titles after 1986 outnumbered the split surround ones by at least a ten to one margin. Of course, my sources may be incorrect so I welcome any additional input you may have.


 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 11-10-2002 04:32 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with Steve about the advertising fanfare on technical stuff seems to be lost these days, even when it comes to 70mm releases. The ad hype even with "digital projection" seems pretty weak too. Alas, TI's DLP logo isn't quite as a cool looking as "70MM". In light of so many mistakes, many ads just don't show any kind of technical information anymore about a movie. The newspapers and ad agencies don't want to bother with it anymore.

Back in the 1980's, there were all those cool horizontal logos that could spread across the entire stack of theater listings. I don't see that anymore. I was really disappointed to see the 70mm banners missing in the ads for the new 70mm DTS version of "Lawrence of Arabia." I would have liked something kind of like this:

It really seems like there is more pomp and circumstance going into DVD releases. There's actual specific hype about the audio and video quality with Tuesday's "Episode II" DVD release. Some similar stuff is going on with the extended cut of "Lord of the Rings" and its DTS-ES 6.1 track. Maybe Hollywood is getting more bang for their buck in advertising such technical stuff for DVD.


 |  IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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


 - posted 11-10-2002 04:45 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Bobby,
Nice job on the Lawrence art. But you misspelled "industries" in the copyright line.

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 11-10-2002 05:32 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Got it corrected. Good thing I saved the original multi-layer Photoshop file and kept the text editable. Couldn't overwrite the old JPEG file on Brad's server so I had to upload another with a slightly different file name.

 |  IP: Logged

Lionel Fouillen
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 230
From: Belgium
Registered: Nov 2002


 - posted 11-10-2002 05:50 PM      Profile for Lionel Fouillen   Email Lionel Fouillen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I always loved that very 70mm logo you reproduced. Wait! You forgot the words "the splendor of"

 |  IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002


 - posted 11-10-2002 06:06 PM      Profile for Claude S. Ayakawa   Author's Homepage   Email Claude S. Ayakawa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
" 'C' 1962 Columbia Pictures Industries. All Rights Reserved " is off centered. It should be centered between the title "Lawrence of Arabia" for better balance.

-Claude

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 11-10-2002 06:57 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
How to treat the copyright notice is a judgment call on both style and function. To center the copyright notice under the film's title would make the copyright notice actually function as part of the film's title. Can't have that.

I would have set the copyright notice even smaller if I could, but the type would have become illegible.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 11-10-2002 07:20 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I am curious, though. What happened to the TM that originally accompanied that particular 70mm logo?

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 11-10-2002 10:16 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I guess the little TM symbol didn't survive in rezzing down the image to a 540 pixel width. What I put together isn't a real ad anyway (just illustrating a point in editorial context) so there's no harm in the TM thingie missing.

I think that 70mm logo is pretty much the favorite 70mm logo of most folks (well, at least its my favortite), and unofficially considered the official logo for 70mm. Paramount first used it on "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". I don't know if Paramount is actually the company that developed and trademarked that 70mm logo. I just call it the "Paramount 70mm logo" for shorthand. If someone knows the real trademark holder of that 70mm logo, please tell me.

Other studios developed different logos. Fox had their own logos, but they did use the Paramount style 70mm to promote "Die Hard." Many newspapers around the country had ads featuring whatever 70mm logo art was laying around and stuck it on any show. The NY and LA ads at least had some kind of a system going in relation to specific distributors.

When getting down to really picky points I should have used a different 70mm logo, mainly the one Columbia-TriStar used on its 70mm ads in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Columbia-TriStar's "official" 70mm logo has a lot of similarities to the Paramount 70mm logo. The "70mm" element is set in Antique Olive Nord and Frankensteined into the "Paramount" design. I like the "Paramount 70mm" logo more, so I used that instead. Artistic license I suppose. What do the film distributors care anyway? Most see 70mm as a dead format anyway.

I would add a GIF image showing the Columbia 70mm design. But for some odd reason, the insert image item is no longer available in the response box.


 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 11-10-2002 10:48 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I agree that the first one used by Paramount is the best. The lighter radiating lines it uses keeps the emphasis on the 70mm, while some of the later ones just look too cluttered with harder-to-read fonts and much thicker lines. The Paramount one you chose for the LOA ad is just cleaner and states its case well. It's too bad this release of LOA doesn't have the ad support of the re-release in 1989.

 |  IP: Logged

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 11-11-2002 07:13 AM      Profile for Daryl C. W. O'Shea   Author's Homepage   Email Daryl C. W. O'Shea   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I would add a GIF image showing the Columbia 70mm design. But for some odd reason, the insert image item is no longer available in the response box.

I think that the 'insert image item' got removed in an attempt to unhack part of the ubb. You can still upload pictures by clicking on the upload button to the left.

 |  IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

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


 - posted 11-11-2002 05:18 PM      Profile for Martin Brooks   Author's Homepage   Email Martin Brooks   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm unaware of any U.S. 70mm screenings of Supergirl. I believe a 70 was shown at its London engagement.

I believe the following are missing from list:
Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade (1989)
Days Of Thunder (1990)
Dick Tracy (1990)
The Hunt For Red October (1990)
Alien 3 (1992)
Baraka (1992)


My lists come from a variety of sources, including newspaper ads, Variety articles and listings, other journal articles and the lists that Dolby used to publish. Although Dolby's lists were frequently inaccurate, they tended to err by stating that something was in a better format than it was actually released in, not the other way around.

Out of the above list, I only saw Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and the Hunt for Red October in 70mm and I don't remember them being in split surround, but I could easily be incorrect.

I believe I saw Dick Tracy in CDS 70mm digital, so it's possible it did have split surround, at least in digital format.


 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 11-11-2002 05:40 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Here's that Columbia-TriStar 70mm logo:

Not quite as good looking as the Paramount one.

 |  IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999


 - posted 11-11-2002 07:41 PM      Profile for Bruce McGee   Email Bruce McGee   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I saw faded 70 prints of Doctor Zhivago, and The Sound of Music at the Columbia Theatre on Peachtree Street at North Avenue in Atlanta Georgia in 1983-84. Even faded, it was a hell of an experience.

The projector was a Vic 8. The screen was HUGE and the image was razor sharp. ET ran there, too.

The FOX Theatre in Atlanta also runs 70.

The biggest thrill for me was watching a print of OKLAHOMA! running thru the big V8 at 30 frames per at the Columbia.


 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.