Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70mm Refuses To Go Away

This is topic 70mm Refuses To Go Away 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=008049

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-02-2006, 12:09 AM:

As Randy Newman once sang: "I love L.A.!"

Last week I attended a private screening of a new print of "Grand Prix."

In the next few days, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art is showing "Lawrence Of Arabia" and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is screening "Tron."

And it doesn't end there. The American Cinematheque has recently announced their second 70mm festival for this year. This time it is being held at the Aero Theatre in Santa Monica. On tap is the new print of "Cleopatra," a couple of large-format classics, and a few popular blow-ups.

6/17: Geronimo: An American Legend
6/23: The Road Warrior
6/24: Cleopatra
6/25: The Sound Of Music
6/29: Vertigo
6/30: Ghost Busters
7/01: Total Recall
7/02: Terminator 2: Judgment Day

And, of course, a couple of weeks ago, the Cinematheque ran a new print of "South Pacific" (plus a vintage print) as well as "Around The World In Eighty Days," "Patton," and "Brainstorm."

The rumor mill indicates that Fox is now restoring "Can-Can," so a new print of that should be along soon. If only other regions of the world were as lucky.

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 06-02-2006, 12:31 AM:

I'd love to experience 70mm sometime.

Why don't chains send lists into the studios stating which locations have 70mm, which auditoriums, screen size and seat count... Wouldn't that help with a rebirth?

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-02-2006, 12:46 AM:

I doubt the distributors would trust any chain with a rare 70mm print these days. These prints get dinged up badly enough as it is.

I wonder how many 70mm prints of T2 are available. I caught the 2001 American Cinematheque screening of it at the Egyptian and a rather large chunk of the chase down the drainage canal was cut from that print. Dammit! [Smile]

Won't be able to make it down for these screenings as I will be in training for a new part-time job through the 29th. Damn I miss living in LA!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-02-2006, 02:57 AM:

..plus, wonder on Touchstone's 70mm blowup of the 1990 release "Arachniphobia" - if there is any prints of that available ... along with a 70mm blowup of "E.T." - released in 1982. ..

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-02-2006, 04:33 AM:

There were 6 prints of T2 saved, one of which was a CDS in pristine condition, except for the fact that it looked like a cell chopper attacked it.

Of the other 5, none were in very good condition in my opinion, as I inspected them all when we played it years ago at GCC Northpark. I'm sure they have only gotten worse as they have been in storage and through various playdates. Most reels were a mix and match between different prints too, of which affected the mag tracks.

Universal junked all of their 70mm prints to my understanding. That would include ET and other movies such as Far and Away. [Mad]

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 06-02-2006, 04:39 AM:

Mike wrote: "If only other regions of the world were as lucky."

We, from the other regions are OK thank you, in fact we did start to show 70mm revivals in an organized manner LONG before anyone in LA did anything [Wink]

In Bradford, the past 10-12 years, we have shown most of the new 70mm prints available and we have shown 3-strip Cinerama every month since 1993. Oslo has also done very well and the Schauburg in Karlsruhe (that´s in Germany) is probably the only cinema in the world - with 70mm nearly every week.

Also, check out the 65/70mm Workgroup and contact Ramon Lamarca Marques and Brian Guckian if you want to help re-launching 70mm

Mike you are right, 70mm is not dead, it just smells funny. And I truly believe that FSTD and in70mm.com does make a difference preserving 70mm (- at least the memory of it).

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 06-02-2006, 09:19 AM:

Well during the early to mid 70's two theatres in Beverly Hills refused to let 70MM go away long before every one else.

Fox Wilshire Theatre and the Warner Beverly Hills Theatre. Up until it closed the Fox Wilshire played the most 70MM engagements in Los Angeles. Today those DP70's at located at the Warner Grand Theatre in San Pedro.

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 06-02-2006, 04:16 PM:

I have been wondering over the past few months about the idea of some kind of Body/Organization that could over see with Technical & Marketing issues with 70mm screenings in partnership with the Studios and Exhibutors.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 06-02-2006, 06:04 PM:

Andrew, if you've got time to plan a road trip, the Heights here in Minneapolis may be running a 70mm print of Sound of Music by the year's end. Keep an eye on their website, as they're probably your closest chance, unless there's something I don't know about in the fine city of Winnipeg...

www.heightstheater.com

Posted by Ian Woloschin (Member # 3709) on 06-02-2006, 06:32 PM:

I wouldn't mind showing some 70mm film, except that my 70mm reels are only twenty minutes long...that's a lot of changovers.

It's kind of a shame, I've got two DP70s, but the only time they run 70mm is when I doing the 70mm training, maybe once or twice a year, for new members, and the only 70mm film I have is an old trailer...Batman, I think.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 06-02-2006, 07:04 PM:

Do you have the authority to book prints Ian? Don't get left out, especially as you have the facilities.

quote: Paul Mayer
I doubt the distributors would trust any chain with a rare 70mm print these days. These prints get dinged up badly enough as it is.

Paul, right now, if you or anyone else has innovative ideas on tackling this topic, we'd be only too happy to post them up on the Workshop page...

quote: Ben Wales
I have been wondering over the past few months about the idea of some kind of Body/Organization that could over see with Technical & Marketing issues with 70mm screenings in partnership with the Studios and Exhibutors.

Terrific idea Ben; likewise if you want to do a note on that it can be put up on the page.

There are great opportunities here, and we're the ones who have to help make things happen [thumbsup]

A good idea is to take the attitude of "This has to be done, how do I do it". I.e. if you were asked to ensure technical quality of 70mm film handling and projection, how would you do that? How would you go about it? Who would you talk to? And so on. Likewise on the marketing side. See what comes up - it can be surprising what ideas come to light once you start really getting into it.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-02-2006, 07:20 PM:

Ian said "that is a lot of changeovers"
welcome to being a reel projectionist [Smile]

now over to mr changeover steve [Smile]

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 06-02-2006, 07:21 PM:

As far as I know, only one facility in Winnipeg still has 70mm capability in one house, and when it did show 70mm, apparently it was quite an impressive presentation.

This theatre is now an arthouse, and I don't think we'll get to see 70mm there.

On the other hand, maybe I could e-mail Landmark Cinemas and get them to give it a try!

Posted by Chris Unwin (Member # 3792) on 06-03-2006, 03:54 AM:

The First Projector I ever worked with was a cinemeccanica Victoria 10. Of couse being a 70/35 machine I had the oppertunity to run a 70mm print once or twice. I think the last one was "Lawrence Of Arabia". It was loads of fun. We did it with 2000ft reels with manual changeovers. This was when I was an apprentice so I worked with the Chief Projectionist. The quality blew me away & to this day I cannot understand why we didn't start showing way more 70mm prints industry wide!! 70mm is what the studios all should have moved toward for the bigger pictures. It sure beats the pants off of any DLP presentation I've seen!!.................Sorry digital [Roll Eyes]

P.S.- Ian, 2000ft changeovers were no big deal at all. Infact, we still do them at one of the theatres where I am a projectionist. They are one of the best parts of the job in my opinion. Makes me feel like a reel Projectionist instead of one of these "booth operators" [Wink]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-03-2006, 06:13 AM:

Except that most 70mm reels usually only run for about 15 minutes (due to the added thickness of the mag striped film). That, combined with triple-checking everything, doesn't leave much time to actually watch the film. It's still lots of fun, though, and I'd kill to get the chance to run "Lawrence" in 70mm someday.

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 06-03-2006, 08:54 AM:

Its to bad about 70mm, I didn't really appreciate it when I was young. Now there's no where to see it in my area. The Bytowne/Nelson in Ottawa used to play 70mm on it's Bauer's, But no more... I think the last time I saw a film on 70mm was about 97' in Toronto at the Eglinton, it was Ben-Hur.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 06-03-2006, 11:17 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Except that most 70mm reels usually only run for about 15 minutes (due to the added thickness of the mag striped film).

Huh? For most 70mm prints, a reel's running time is identical to the 35mm reel.

Some 70mm prints are A-B-C rolls, and have the equivalent of one-and-one-half reels of 35mm. Rollerball and Panorama Blue are two examples that immediately come to mind.

Remember the 70mm reel was designed to hold 20 minutes of striped film running at 30 frames-per-second. The reel can comfortably hold about 30 minutes of 24 fps.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-03-2006, 12:10 PM:

LOA also plays in 70mm at L.A.'s Arlight Cinema on Wednesday, June 7.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-03-2006, 09:46 PM:

quote: Thomas Hauerslev
Mike you are right, 70mm is not dead, it just smells funny. And I truly believe that FSTD and in70mm.com does make a difference preserving 70mm (- at least the memory of it).

How dumb is this industry that 70mm needs to be in the 'memory' category? It should be proudly boasting it to the world.

Idiocy. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-12-2006, 12:45 AM:

Last Wednesday's 70mm screenings of "Tron" and "Lawrence Of Arabia" have come and gone, and I'd like to say that I cloned myself and attended both. But I can't...I chose "Lawrence."

I chose "Lawrence" due to the added bonus of the Tomlinson Holman birthday party & roast. (I should have some pics posted sometime soon.)

Anyway, watching "Lawrence" this time has motivated me to mention something that I observed that I'd like to share with you because I'm curious if others have any comments on the matter. Namely, this latest batch of 40th anniversary 70mm prints are grainy and contrasty in a way I don't recall with the 1989 prints. (I hadn't even been born yet when the original '62/'63 prints were circulating, and even if I had been I wouldn't want to be commenting on this based upon memory.) These new prints were grainy and contrasty in a similar fashion as the last round of "2001: A Space Odyssey" prints were.

Maybe I've just become spoiled by the numerous 70mm prints I've seen in recent years that were struck from their original negatives, and when compared with prints struck from internegs, the difference can't help but be noticed.

Anyone have any thoughts/comments?

[To Bob Harris: do you know what film stock was used for these 2002 anniversary compared with the '89 batch? The amplified grain from the generation loss I understand, but what explains the contrast increase?]

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-12-2006, 01:27 AM:

quote: Michael Coate
These new prints were grainy and contrasty in a similar fashion as the last round of "2001: A Space Odyssey" prints were.

I had the same reaction. I saw LOA twice in 70mm back at the Century Plaza #1 in 1989 and both times the film was incredibly sharp and grain-free. When I saw the new print at the Cinerama Dome, I was surprised at the lack of quality. Of course, I attributed this to the much larger magnification of the Dome's screen, not to mention that washed-out look from cross reflections. Still, it seemed to lack the "pop" of the original. And I was somewhat bothered by the discoloration band during one reel with the desert scenes. It looked like the same shown during a few of the opticals in HELLO DOLLY (credit sequence). Now I've read that this was damage from heat buckling from the original shoot, but I sure don't remember seeing it in 1989.

2001: a Space Odyssey: When I saw this back on a Sunday morning 10am showing at the AMC Century 14, the print was superior looking to what this decade's looked like (and I've seen this new print three times now, twice at the Egyptian, once at the Aero). The AMC had not properly focused the lamphouse for this one showing; it was hot spotted with some fading out at the four corners. Still, the print had deep rich blacks with a clarity that let you read every line of the toilet instructions. While the new print exhibits a grainy redness on some of the apes' fur and the robe that Keir Dullea wears during the last sequence, these were pure and grain-free at the AMC. I have to presume this was a recently struck print at the AMC, EXCEPT for the last reel (only a couple of minutes of movie, plus end credits). This last reel had faded completely to red, and a non-matching "in 70mm" tag had replaced the "In Cinerama" logo in the credits (although there was no jump in music).

I wanted to add that the last screening I saw of BARAKA was the same thing. It just didn't look as grain-free or as rich as it did when I saw it at the SHowcase upon it's oringinal release.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-14-2006, 12:15 AM:

quote: Michael Coate
7/01: Total Recall
7/02: Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Actually, The Aero's schedule shows this as a double feature on 7/01 with a matinee of ANNIE that afternoon.

Lwrence of Arabia shows on 7/2.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-14-2006, 01:39 AM:

..saw "TRON" in 1982, in 70mm...now, that was a presentation and sound to witness... At the old Regency Theatre in SLC .. - Monte

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 06-14-2006, 10:48 AM:

Isn't it possible you guys who arenot remembering things right, are doing just that? Seems like it'd be hard to remember grain or scratches, etc, on a print you saw 15+ years ago.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 06-14-2006, 02:47 PM:

Not at all. I was part of the original THX/TAP people in the early 80's and I still remember exact problems with film & equipment by theatre. (I may not remember the NAME of the theatre; just the location.) Louis

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-18-2006, 10:42 PM:

A few days ago I wrote:

quote: Michael Coate
I chose "Lawrence" due to the added bonus of the Tomlinson Holman birthday party & roast. (I should have some pics posted sometime soon.)

The Holman pics are now posted for anyone who may have an interest.

quote: Mike Heenan
Isn't it possible you guys who arenot remembering things right, are doing just that? Seems like it'd be hard to remember grain or scratches, etc, on a print you saw 15+ years ago.

Despite the bizarre wording of your question I think I grasp what you are asking, and the answer is: If it were any other movie or film format I would say "yes, it is possible things are being mis-remembered." But with something like the 70-millimeter film format and classic well-known titles such as "Lawrence Of Arabia" or "2001: A Space Odyssey" I would say the answer is a definite "NO." And here's why.

With 70mm, the presentation is often the main attraction, and many folks, including myself, often traveled a great distance to see such presentations, all the while scrutinizing newspaper advertisements and carefully selecting which theatres to patronize. These screenings were events and as such are easier to remember than other "ordinary" trips to the movies. Plus, back in the '80s and into the early '90s when "Lawrence" had its major re-issue, a 70mm presentation had such a huge (no pun intended) advantage over 35mm in terms of having its presentation characteristics stand out...even to the average moviegoer if only on a subconscious level.

And with myself, that '89 re-issue of "Lawrence" marked the first time, I believe, I saw a "true" 70mm film; everything I saw through the '80s had been a blow-up. And my impression had already been firmly established that blow-ups nearly always looked better than their 35mm counterparts and always sounded better, and the whole experience was without question unique and special.

Anyway, I don't remember "Lawrence" looking in 1989 the way it did in the past three years with these new prints. If it had, I surely would've questioned what the big deal was with 65mm large format origination. In fact, my distinct recollection of seeing "Lawrence" at the Century Plaza in February 1989 was that the image blew away anything I had ever seen up to that point in time (and I saw the film a few additional times between '89 and '02). As I mentioned earlier, these new prints are grainy and have contrast too high for my taste. And I bring this up because, based upon everything I've read and heard and been told by Bob Harris, I believe that every print from '89 forward has been struck from the same generation element, so there should be only minor variations from print to print, not the major difference this time around.

Let me add that I really hate to even be bitching about this quality issue because I know it may seem like biting the hand that feeds to an extent, especially from someone who praises the virtues of 70mm frequently. But that's just the point. If 70mm cannot be shown to its advantage, then it has lost whatever edge it has, so it's no wonder so many folks have given up on it or believe it has no current value.

By the way, I saw "Geronimo: An American Legend" -- a blow-up from 1993 -- last night in Santa Monica and, burn me at the stake for claiming it, but I thought it looked better than that print of "Lawrence" I saw last week. And damn, I can't close this post without mentioning how awesome those gunshots in "Geronimo" sounded! You sure can't beat a contemporary mix played back in six-track mag SR!!!

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 06-19-2006, 07:44 PM:

quote: Mike Heenan
Isn't it possible you guys who arenot remembering things right, are doing just that? Seems like it'd be hard to remember grain or scratches, etc, on a print you saw 15+ years ago.

You know, I actually used to think it was possible my memory might be playing tricks on me, and that all those 70mm prints I recall from the 70s and 80s didn't really look and sound as great as I remembered.

Then last year, the Castro theatre in San Francisco did a 70mm festival, during which they played some very old prints from that era, and my memory was vindicated. Despite the fact that some of the prints had faded pink, I was still amazed by the clarity of the picture and sound. It was still miles ahead of everything in theaters today.

Ever since then, I've been more sure than ever that something important has been lost. No audio/visual reproduction system in use today compares to what once was.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-22-2006, 08:38 PM:

Well, this thread certainly is a bust. What's with you guys??!!

I'll close it(?) by listing the revised and current schedule of 70mm shows for the American Cinematheque's Aero Theatre.

6/17: GERONIMO: AN AMERICAN LEGEND (part of a Walter Hill fest and double-billed with "The Long Riders")
6/23: THE ROAD WARRIOR (7:30; magnetic)
6/24: CLEOPATRA (6:00; DTS-SV)
6/25: THE SOUND OF MUSIC (3:00; DTS-SV)
6/29: VERTIGO (7:30; DTS)
6/30: GHOSTBUSTERS (7:30; magnetic)
7/01: ANNIE** (3:00; magnetic)
7/01: TOTAL RECALL / TERMINATOR 2 double feature (7:30; magnetic)
7/02: LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (6:30; DTS)

** Gee, I wonder from where this print of "Annie" materialized considering I was told a few years ago by someone very high up in Sony's asset management department that no such prints ever existed. (I'm stating this with a heaping dose of "I Told You So" sarcasm.) The ridiculous claim was made in response to my question of why the "Annie" DVD had only a 2.0 soundtrack. Essentially, the bogus reply was Sony's way of refusing to acknowledge that they fucked up on that initial DVD release (and they did the same thing with a handful of other titles, too). "Annie" has since been re-issued with a 5.1 track.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 06-23-2006, 10:29 AM:

quote: Michael Coate
"Annie" has since been re-issued with a 5.1 track.

But only in a full screen / pan and scan version. They junked a few 70MM prints when Pixfix handled the Columbia account.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-23-2006, 06:21 PM:

quote: Bill Gabel
But only in a full screen / pan and scan version.

I got on Sony's case about that, too! And if I recall correctly, that DVD had a Dolby Digital track and, a rarity for Sony at the time, a DTS track. How idiotic to think that Sony felt the target audience for the re-issued "Annie" disc would be children not hip enough to appreciate widescreen but eager to have an audiophile format such as DTS. I guess in this case, DTS stood for Digital Toddler Sound.

quote: Bill Gabel
They junked a few 70MM prints when Pixfix handled the Columbia account.

Well, at least one print has survived. I'll make an effort to visit the booth this weekend and check the shipping labels to see where the print came from. I believe around 40 or so 70mm prints were struck for its original release (despite the claim to the contrary by the Sony rep I mentioned earlier). It may be hard to believe now, but "Annie" was Columbia's major release in 1982 and they sunk a ton of money into its production and its release, and many of the major city engagements offered reserved performances reminiscent of the roadshow days.

It still pisses me off thinking about the Sony rep telling me that no 70mm prints were ever struck for "Annie," which was meant to imply that a six-track audio master never would have been created. He claimed that any city promoting in its newspaper a 70mm engagement...was lying! It would've been easier -- and more credible -- to simply say something like, "Oh, the six-track was damaged, so we had to go with the two-track" or "Unfortunately, we could not locate the six-track and budget constraints prevented us from creating a new mix for the DVD." Instead, they tried to discredit me by, essentially, claiming: "This kid from a dumb credibility-challenged magazine has some nerve telling us what's in our vault."

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-24-2006, 03:16 AM:

the castro theater is doing another 70mm series in august. (scroll down the linked page a little bit for the titles.)

i'll probably be seeing cleopatra, the doors, south pacific, hamlet. maybe a couple more if i can fit them in.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-24-2006, 04:40 AM:

That's a great lineup at the Castro. The Paramount Theatre in Austin also has some 70mm shows set for August.

And don't forget that Thomas Hauerslev maintains a page of current and upcoming 70mm playdates on his website.

Now, on to more important matters, like: Carl...why do you write in all lower case?

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-25-2006, 02:47 AM:

because i'm softspoken?

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-25-2006, 11:44 PM:

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 06-27-2006, 04:08 AM:

Carl, thanks for that link about the Castro's next 70mm festival. I plan to make it to as many of those screenings as possible.

I have to admit, I'm actually more interested in the vintage prints from the 80s and 90s than the "NEW" ones. Maybe it's the older stocks, or the way they were printed, but there is just something about those older prints that I really like.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-27-2006, 09:01 PM:

BTW, according to Tom, that wasn't a new print of LAWRENCE. It was flown in from the east coast because he knows that the west coast print is trashed.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-28-2006, 12:40 AM:

I made it to both CLEOPATRA and SOUND OF MUSIC this weekend.

CLEOPATRA: While the print was undeniably excellent and almost flawless (the third reel was silent for almost 10 seconds; a couple of really grainy shots of Cleopatra during her coronation as queen), I really think the film bogs down in the second act. Act I is quite good, however. And here lies the problem. Cleopatra is well matched with Julius Caesar. She's a manipulative you-know-what, but Caesar allows himself to be manipulated ONLY when it suits his purpose. Antony, on the other hand, is a wimp. He's totally dominated by Cleopatra and because of this she loses any sympathy she might have had. It's basically all her fault that disaster strikes by this point in the story.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-28-2006, 01:35 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
BTW, according to Tom, that wasn't a new print of LAWRENCE.

The print was struck in 2002. What's your point?