Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ahnold's "End of Days"

This is topic Ahnold's "End of Days" in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000429

Posted by Kenn Fong (Member # 118) on 11-30-1999, 02:08 AM:

Does anyone like this picture? I haven't seen it all the way through but the portions I've seen are so damned dark in tone and look no wonder the thing is a disappointment. The customers can't seem to get out of the theatre fast enough, those who do choose to see it.

(I'll give Ahnold credit for one thing; in nearly every shot I saw, he's not in a key light.)

Millennium angle aside, I think this picture was released at the wrong time of year. I think it would have done better in summer or even as late as Halloween.

At the theatre where I work, the five-week-old "Being John Malkovich" outsold "End of Days" almost every show. And Bond did at least twice the business every show.

------------------
Kenn Fong
http://qwertyuiop.net
Screenwriter's Home Page

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-30-1999, 01:00 PM:

I am most ambivolent about End of Days. I went because it is an Arnold film. But I have mostly forgotten it.

A proffessor of mine in collage said something that may apply to End of Days. He said that a genre film is killed when the parody is released. Think monster films, then Young Fankenstien comes out. Boom no more monster films for a while. Disaster films, then Airplane comes out. Boom, disater films move to TV.

If you have seen Dogma then you know it's much smarter and hipper than End of Days. It's like the parody came out before the straight film.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-30-1999, 03:33 PM:

I'm still having problems getting over how bad the fake shaky camera looked every time Gabriel Burne walked into the shot. None of the actors seemed to be having a problem standing straight, but the cameraman was having a seizure.

The local paper here gave it an "F" (which I've never seen given to a movie before). It wasn't anything to write home about, but I'm thinking the reviewer must've been offended at something in there. I mean, there are a LOT worse movies that never got "Fs".

Posted by Erika Hellgren (Member # 22) on 11-30-1999, 04:12 PM:

I thought is was OK, probably because I never go into an Arnold movie with high expectations.

The movie didn't look too dark to me, but that may be because the projectionist that night had JUST changed and focused the bulb, and that house has the sharpest picture.

I agree with Ian, I found myself comparing the movie to Dogma as well, which is rare for me - I try my best not to compare two movies of different genres.

I think the lamest thing about the movie was the logic (or lack thereof) of the plot. I was watching Roger Ebert, and he pointed out the part where the priest says the calander was developed by the Gregorians based on the prophecy of Satan coming back every 1000 years. That's so stupid - they made a calander based on Eastern Time back when they didn't even know that the continent of North America existed?! Most of the time when I watch movies I practice "willing suspension of disbelief", but not when the writers are insulting my intelligence

Posted by Erick Ojeda (Member # 216) on 11-30-1999, 05:19 PM:

Everyone might want to kill me for this, but I would have to disagree with everyone on this subject. I actually enjoyed the film. I think Arnold did a good job with his role. The way he didn't believe in religion due to his wife and daughter's passing, and then believing again towards the end was a testimant to today's style of living. The way satan tried to manipulate Arnold's mind by making him think he could actually have his wife and child back if he just gave up the girl is also something that many christians would tell you satan would do. The movie had a lot of action, and I was not bored at all. My eyes stayed on the screen the whole time, and if a movie can get me to do that, I wind up liking that movie very much. But my number one movie for this year is still The Matrix followed by Fight Club at number 2 and Six Sense at number 3.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-30-1999, 09:13 PM:

Ian! Where are you seeing all of your movies lately? Why not at the Chinese? We are better! We are the only theatre to pass out complimentary sunglasses because the image is so bright! Kodak would not certify us for ScreenCheck because we are way too overqualified! They say that we would make other ScreenCheck theatres look bad! Same goes with THX. They are currently revising all of their techniques and practices so that they can at least compare to the quality of our smallest house! Good luck! Come visit us before the government shuts us down for unfair competition!

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-01-1999, 09:34 AM:

I liked it. Not the greatest story ever told, but fun, and a nice "throw away" piece of entertainment

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-01-1999, 11:23 AM:

The Kodak ScreenCheck Experience criteria for screen luminance are:

A: 16 to 18 footlamberts
B: 12 to 16 or 18 to 21 footlamberts
Failure: Less than 12 or over 22 footlamberts

Anything less than 12fL is just too dim, producing poor shadow detail, desaturated colors and dull highlights. The reason theatres should not exceed 22 footlamberts is that the 48hz. shutter flicker (2 X 24fps = 48hz.) becomes more noticeable at excessive screen luminance. Going to a higher frame rate (e.g., the 30fps of Todd-AO or the 60fps frame rate of ShowScan) would allow much higher screen luminance. Or a 3-blade shutter could be used, at a cost of light efficiency (not practical on very large screens).

------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243