Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: EX on "The Exorcist" re-release

This is topic EX on "The Exorcist" re-release 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=001494

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-29-2000, 05:17 AM:

I for one was very impressed with the sound work on such an old film. In particular the EX encoding! I was hearing 3 VERY discrete channels of surround. It actually made the purchase of the SA10 seem worthwhile. Now if only more sound mixers would take advantage of the format and mix it aggresively.

Opinions from others who have screened this in EX?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-29-2000, 05:37 AM:

...MY...GOD...!!!...

A film...in...EX???...(clutches heart)...so...glad...I...lived...to...see...

...it. (thud).

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 09-29-2000, 05:53 AM:

Well it was about time! finally we get to see if it works!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-29-2000, 06:10 AM:

Page 48-50 of the October 2000 issue of Film Journal International has an article by Patrick Artiaga and Graham Edmondson of Dolby about Surround EX. It lists the following US productions as having Surround EX:

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
Bats
Gladiator
Minority Report
Mission to Mars
Pitch Black
Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace
The Bone Collector
The Exorcist - The Version You've Never Seen
The Fight Club
The Haunting
The Legend of Bagger Vance
The Perfect Storm
Toy Story 2

Pictures produced outside the US having Surround EX encoding include:
The Art of War
The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc
Chicken Run
The World Is Not Enough
Avalon

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-29-2000, 08:11 AM:

I don't care what sound format its in, it made 8.2 million dollars from 664 locations! I can't wait until we get it on Friday the 13th.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-29-2000, 08:38 AM:

As noted in another thread, re-releasing "blockbusters" from the past with new prints could be a "goldmine" for both distributors and theatres. The key is PROMOTING the advantage of seeing them again on a BIG screen with picture and sound quality not attainable at home. The best home theatre systems pale in comparison to "film done right" in a theatre.

Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 09-29-2000, 04:07 PM:

John wrote:

>>"The key is PROMOTING the advantage of seeing them again on a BIG screen with picture and sound quality not attainable at home."<<

Yeah! We want 70mm, we want 70mm, we want 70mm...!

Posted by Tom Kroening (Member # 201) on 09-29-2000, 05:53 PM:

That re-release of rear window was a great idea, but it didn't get promoted well enough. You could actually see all the details in the windows vs on tv.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 09-30-2000, 06:11 AM:

Nothing does it better than 70mm! Keep asking for 70mm prints when you book film. It will put presure on the studio's to make prints. Another thing of cause your chain will have to install 70mm in the booth, but that's another problem i guess.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 09-30-2000, 05:44 PM:

212, iceman. -What a way to go !

/p.

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 10-04-2000, 07:11 PM:

I just thought I would share my dissapointing experience when I went to see "The Exorcist."

I was all excited to see it in digital, and went to a Mann 12 just south of Boulder CO off US 36. It was in a house equpited with SRD and ran in analog. I was dissapointed, but oh well. I let the manager know that there was a problem and hopefully it was fixed for any future showings.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-05-2000, 03:01 AM:

That really sucks! You should've traveled just a bit farther south.

Posted by Rick Long Jr (Member # 541) on 10-11-2000, 10:25 PM:

This maybe a stupid question, but how do you know if a film is in fact EX encoded? Looking at the list of titles that John posted, and knowing that almost all of the SA-10's I've installed are not being used (or being used at the wrond times) It would be great to be able to tell the theatre's I deal with what to look for. Sorry if I am a little out of the loop on this, but I haven't seen any indication on any films as of yet.
Thanks!
RLJ

Posted by Steven Gorsky (Member # 603) on 10-12-2000, 12:56 AM:

One way someone mentioned on these boards was the DTS disc will have a 5 digit serial number, but the best guarantee is to look for the Dolby Digital EX logo near the end of the credits.

Steven Gorsky

------------------
Projectionist

Disclaimer:
Anything expressed in this post is my personal view/opinion, and not necessarily the view of the company for which I work.
Any technical questions are for my personal knowledge only.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-13-2000, 01:45 AM:

It would be pretty sad if we had to look at the credits to find out though. It should be marked on the leaders and tails without exception (along with the intended ratio).

The credits are not failsafe. I just finished a print of 'Snowday' which proudly proclaimed to be in dts in the credits...

...it wasn't.

All info needed for correct presentation of the title should be included on the leaders. The operator should not have to just take a guess...I'm sure the director wouldn't want it any other way.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-13-2000, 12:04 PM:

If the Exorcist looks and sounds better than the video release that I got last year, it will be worth the viewing. I was appalled at all the negative dirt, weaving in the gate, and pops and cracks on the soundtrack. I look forward to seeing it again in a theater with a load of people.

Before my time, the studios reissued films like crazy. I have a trailer for Dracula (1931) that was re-issued by Real-Art sometime in the 1940's.

Theaters need some good product to lure the jaded public out of their houses and back into the cinemas. Too many people just wait for the video release and skip the theatrical run entirely.

I, personally, would LOVE to see a re-issue of "To Kill A Mockingbird" (1962) uncut. I'm afraid that certain sectors of society would ban this film due to the unflattering portrayals of certain persons.

I'm not talking about the Redneck Southerners!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-13-2000, 12:32 PM:

Bruce--the problem with "Mockingbird" is that it's PD. It hasn't been available in 35mm for regular theatrical booking for quite a while (it's normally only available in 16mm). There have been quite a few bootleg (but legal) video releases of it as well; the "official' Universla release apparently only was done fairly recently.

There _is_ a nice 35mm studio print of TKAMB that is used for special screenings. I've seen it and it is very, very good. Apparently there is some restoration work being done on that title right now (though I have no idea if it will lead to a full-blown reissue or not).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-13-2000, 05:40 PM:

Roger Ebert's "Movie Answer Man" column has a letter from a 17-year-old complaining that when she went to see the re-release of "Exorcist," that her experience was ruined by other teens laughing uproariously at the scary parts. There are several other comments from other people saying the same thing.

(Read it: http://www.suntimes.com/index/answ-man.html )

This behavior from kids has bugged me for years. The more ugly something is, the more the kids laugh at it. Why is this? Don't they realize that Exorcist is a "serious" movie and not some slasher flick? Ooops, I forgot I'm talking about TEENAGERS.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-13-2000, 10:09 PM:

Now, now, Mike. You were a teenager once, too.

Sometimes, people laugh when they are nervous. Besides, "The Exorcist" actually has a plot, something teenagers aren't used to. And if you don't care about a plot, you must admit; the film can be slow.

I agree with John W. Prints should be marked "EX" (or whatever) right on the leaders. The distributors are using all kinds of computer-generated labels and bar-coding to stick on reels and cans; you'd think they would get their act together and put on what format the film is in. I'm also tired of looking at a print and trying to guess if it's 1.66, 1.75 or 1.85 based on what country it's from.

Oh, I forgot; we're at the end of the pipe, and shit flows downhill. We have to change our exciter lamps, wait for prints, wait for ELR's, and play; "Guess the sound and ratio."

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-14-2000, 12:38 AM:

Teenagers have been fed garbage in their horror flicks for years so they are used to laughing at them.

They don't know any other way.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-14-2000, 09:01 AM:

I hate to say this but...

I saw this film in early 1974 at a drive-in. I laughed my head off on the first viewing. The gore looked kinda cartooney to me, and I was raised on them.

The guy sitting across the car from me was plagued by nightmares for weeks. He thinks the Roadrunner series is too violent.

Of course, it might have been different if the couple in the pick-up truck in the next space had not been naked and making lots of funny noises...

Later, I saw the film alone. It scared me but good.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 10-14-2000, 11:06 AM:

Well at least you guys in the US get to see all the re-releases. I was to young to see THE EXORCIST when it first came to the silver screens. Only seen it on Laser-Disc. THE EXORCIST probely WILL NOT get re-released in Denmark, because no one gives a damn about ''old'' films getting re-released. Only concern is to get films that sell tickets = more concession sales.

The GREASE re-release no one wanted overhere, and that goes for REAR WINDOW as well!

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-14-2000, 01:52 PM:

Let me assure you, Martin, no one wanted the "Grease" re-release over here, either!

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 10-14-2000, 06:35 PM:

As to figuring out the aspect ratio from the leaders of films, you can with major studio, "standard" American releases. The info printing on the leader (PICTURE HEAD, SOUND START, countdown numbers, etc.) will be printed in the appropriate aspect ratio. In oter words, a Scope print will have tall, skinny lettering while a Flat print's will appear normal. As for foreign and independent releases that may use ratios other than 1:1.85 and 1:2.39, you're kinda on your own.

-Mike

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 10-14-2000, 06:40 PM:

I have a terrible time getting the other projectionists to play a lot of the films mentioned above in EX. It's usually me who has the good sense to either look on the internet, or just look at the teaser posters in the lobby!!!

I would like to just grab these other guys by the neck & shout WHAT DO YOU THINK WE GOT THIS THING FOR? TO ADD COLOR TO THE RACK?!!!

------------------
"Trying is the first step towards failure!"
-Homer Simpson

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 10-15-2000, 12:57 AM:

>>The info printing on the leader (PICTURE HEAD, SOUND START, countdown numbers, etc.) will be printed in the appropriate aspect ratio. In oter (sic) words, a Scope print will have tall, skinny lettering while a Flat print's will appear normal.<<

The above will only apply for a Scope print made from a Super 35 or a 65mm negative as the leaders get 'squeezed' during the printing process. A film shot anamorphically will have leaders that appear normal and unsqueezed.

Aaron

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-15-2000, 01:17 AM:

Aaron, you beat me to that one...

I don't think anyone here needs info on the leaders to simply tell if a film is flat or scope (at least, I hope not ). I was referring to the many other flat ratios.

As for re-releases, they need to be done properly. Grease was nothing short of an embarrassment and as such Paramount should have been ashamed to put it out in the marketplace. It deserved all (or how little) it got. The image was pretty darn poor considering it was only 20 years old and the 'Digital' mix was hopeless with the musical numbers being so clear against the dialogue that it sounded rediculous as well as being a terrible mix.

It sounds like Warners have learnt from Paramount's lesson with The Exorcist and deservedly it is playing its ass off.

One more thing with the Grease thing. We took it day one of release here. It was to play for a minimum of five weeks, but it did so poorly that Paramount renegged and agreed to lose it at three weeks. This must have been hard for them as it totally ruined the 20th anniversary video release which ended up taking place in what would have been our week six.(!)

and they wonder why...

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 10-15-2000, 01:43 AM:

:::shudders:::

Ugh. I remember that re-release of the wretched film. (Grease)
I'm not sure how many weeks we kept it, but I do remember that on the opening night for it, we had to run it in interlock for two shows. It was a bonafide madhouse.
The TV commercials had something to do with that - in combination with a lot of people being stupid. For at least a week before we got the print, the phone was ringing off the hook. People kept calling us, all in a panic because they were under the impression that theaters were going to be running the re-release for only one day.
I wish.
Second night that we had the film, we half expected that an interlock would be necessary...
Wrong answer. Only a small handful of people showed up for each showtime. Go figure.

(Just my opinion here) ...I think that Grease is a lousy musical, and one of the worst films in existence. I just do not understand the cult following it has.

~The Purple-Tressed Booth B*tch

------------------
In some cultures, what I do is considered normal.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 10-15-2000, 05:05 AM:

Ok ok.. i admit i like GREASE!

So what's so bad about that?

As a matter of fact i'll have a drink to that. LONG LIVE GREASE!

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-15-2000, 07:39 AM:

Oh, I'm not a saying "Grease" is a bad movie. I mean, it's nowhere near one of my favorites, but I don't actually dislike it. I just mean the re-release was poorly done, from the promotion campaign, to the poor quality "restoration" job (a word which the ad people use a little too loosely.) And it was filmed in real 'scope, so there was a decent size image to start with.

Identifing film from the USA is not a problem. Try telling what ratio a film is when the leaders are something you've never seen before (some don't even have frame lines), and it's released by a French production company, but the name of the film is in Italian.