quote:

---

As part of the game, the two directors have “aged” their movies, adding scratches, dust and dirt to the prints. “That’s part of the lurid quality,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “It feels like it’s a popular film that’s been screened a bunch of times. The texture, all the scratches, makes it look really creepy, like you’re watching something you’re not supposed to, where anything could happen at any moment.”

And since the old grindhouse films were often missing reels, both filmmakers have purposefully cut out a segment of their movies. “My whole thing is to play with the audience,” said Mr. Tarantino. “I guarantee you, when it pops up ‘Missing Reel,’ the entire theater is going to scream. They might very well be screaming my name: ‘Quentin, you bastard! We hate you!’

“And then the next reel starts, and all of the sudden, people who don’t like each other suddenly like each other now. ‘What happened to that guy?’ The only way to do a missing reel is, it’s got to be something you can’t wait to see.”

---

The article indicates the Weinstein Brothers are "readying the largest promotions push since it's founders" left Disney.

[ 01-28-2007, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Mark Lensenmayer ]
 

---

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 01-28-2007, 10:37 AM:
 
All you film handlers are encouraged to really "handle" this one. Won't be a problem for me - I bow to no man in my ability to goober up a once-pristine print in jig time!
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-28-2007, 12:49 PM:
 
Guess after 40 years around this biz, I still have something to learn. (?)

Were there really places where whole reels were "often missing"? I recall one or two cases where the depot might have sent two cans with the same reels (1,2,3) in them... but never a whole reel missing from an otherwise complete print.

Scratches and dirt?... I suppose... especially on prints we got at the drive-in (back in the '60s & early '70s). Those things had seen a lot of use, but the dirt (and oil) was mainly at the ends. You knew a changeover whas coming up, because the picture was pretty bad. 15 seconds or so after the changeover, everything looked pretty good again.

I saw more than a few union booths, where the projectionist was proud of the "cookie tray oil catcher" he'd put under the XL's. More than a few reel ends made it into those trays!

Still, getting 3 months out of an acetate print (Star Wars), 3-5 times a day... guess that wasn't too bad. It still looked pretty good, too... but cracking between the sprocket holes made them a bit unreliable at the end.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-28-2007, 01:52 PM:
 
Jack; you just made for case against reels; the situation locally as I grew up.

The only film I ever heard of that "lost" a reel was a surfing movie back in the late 60's. Louis
 

---

Posted by Dennis Udovich (Member # 1066) on 01-28-2007, 03:40 PM:
 
This film sounds like it could be a lot of fun!
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-28-2007, 08:49 PM:
 
All the push for the "perfection" of digital projection and QT throws a wrench in the whole thing. If this has a digital release, it's going to look very weird to see scratches.

Looking at a couple of pictures here, it looks like the Greco Factor will be VERY high with this film.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-29-2007, 02:08 AM:
 
Went to the local Regal tonight... watched "Epic Movie". Won't bother to say what I thought of the value I got for my $8.75, but we did get there about 10 minutes before the end of the "first look".

I sat there, through commercial after commercial, wondering how people could find positive about enduring this experience. Even knowing I was watching a video projector, I had just about convinced myself that it wasn't TOO bad... then the projector started and we sat back to enjoy 275 trailers before the feature.

Maybe I'm getting old and crabbby... but give me the trailers. I'd rather watch them than a hundred car, shampoo and tv cable channel spots... geez!
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-29-2007, 07:36 AM:
 
When "Kill Bill 2" went into sub-release, it played here locally at a sub-run house. They played "Kill Bill 1 & 2" back to back at the Jumpers Hole Cinema in Glen Burnie, Maryland.

I have to say that was the ideal situation to watch these films in and "Grindhouse" sounds like it will be a cool experience.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 01-29-2007, 09:54 AM:
 
I dont think they're trying to remember the theaters (and the experience of watching them there) in the 70s that played Star Wars... more so stuff like "Truck Stop Women" and "Death Race 2000" and "Blacula"... theaters where maybe the projectionist didn't run a reel in order to get home a little earlier, etc. Having handled a bunch of "grindhouse" prints, I can attest to them being in pretty poor, but runnable shape (with a little work).
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-29-2007, 10:24 AM:
 

quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

All the push for the "perfection" of digital projection and QT throws a wrench in the whole thing. If this has a digital release, it's going to look very weird to see scratches.

---

An even bigger test may be Rodriguez' movie, which was shot digitally.

On a side note, when asked about which movie would play first, Tarantino said that in Austin (Rodriguez' town), it would be PLANET TERROR, and in L.A. (Tarantino's town), it would be DEATH PROOF. But as far as the rest of the country's concerned, it's projectionist's discretion! Advertising has since implied that PLANET TERROR would be first everywhere, but wouldn't it be cool if that wasn't the case?
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 01-29-2007, 10:27 AM:
 
I ran both "Truck Stop Women" and "Death Race 2000" back in the 1970's at the Town & Country Drive-in in Coalton, OH. Both print came in in excellent condition, and left in excellent condition.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-29-2007, 06:23 PM:
 
I say we intermix the reels and run them out of order intentionally to further create art.

We could also have (insert local multiplex theater name here) pre-screen all of the prints once to make sure they are super crapped up!
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-29-2007, 07:05 PM:
 
Will each reel end with a "parade of cue marks," with a mix of lab cues, Clint Phare cues, grease-pencil cues, punched cues, and giant slashes scratched across the entire frame?

How much does everyone want to bet that Brad will refuse to show this one?
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-29-2007, 07:27 PM:
 
The missing reel thing reminds me of a story that John Frankenheimer told about how he went to see THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE in Greece (I think). They skipped a reel in the middle of the movie, and when he went to tell the staff about the mistake, the projectionist said, "Oh, I did that on purpose. The movie plays a lot better without that reel, and we can squeeze in an extra showtime!"
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-29-2007, 09:09 PM:
 
To tell you the truth, I don't like this whole concept....it's supposed to be "art" but sound to me like one big fart instead. It's just another really annoying way they get to piss on film....making it seem as if this is the way you tell if something is film or digital, by all this garbage and not by how you really can tell film, but how spectacular the film image can looked on the big screen; hell, even in the grindhouses film rarely looked this ridiculously bad. I used to run commercial subrun and watch many a film in the 40 douche street theatres in Times Square where they would play day and date with first run around the corner on Broadway. They were perfectly watchable presentations. Hey, Quentin....here's a "concept" --- make a film in 70mm and call it "Roadshow." Or make one with video cameras and put it through low rez pixilation and low bitrates and call it "VD Artifax" ....ooops, sorry, they are doing that one already.

I say, send the thing back to TES and demand replacement reels.
 

---

Posted by Mark Thomas Walker (Member # 4149) on 01-29-2007, 09:50 PM:
 
Last year in Barnet someone (not naming names) made up 'The Constant Gardener' with reels 4 and 5 out of sequence. No one complained until the third day, when I'd come into work and noticed the problem myself. A few people had mentioned that the film 'was like tarantino or something'.

Also, i am going to hear no end to this QT film complaint from FOH...
 

---

Posted by Sam King (Member # 4029) on 01-29-2007, 10:00 PM:
 
Am I the only one dreading the customer complaints? Sure opening weekend will be all the comic book fans that know this is "part of the show" but wait until the seniors on the weekdays, or the couple on a date the 3rd weekend where the boyfriend wants to impress his girl by yelling at the manager about how we skipped a reel and scratched up the film. Even after you tell them it is supposed to be this way (like sound pops in some of the Woody Allen films) they still say, oh we should have posted a warning or something.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 01-29-2007, 11:19 PM:
 
I'm going to wait until I see it to judge it. Part of me-a big part in fact-wants to agree with Frank. However, if anyone can pull of something like this its these two. I guess we'll see.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-30-2007, 06:02 AM:
 
This would be a perfect movie to be released exclusively in DLP.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-30-2007, 08:33 AM:
 
I am looking forward to this. We need something to get people to come in the doors (even if they do end up complaining).

I liked 'Snakes on a Plane' and I like the sound of this whole 'Grindhouse' thing.

Our industry needs another kick in the pants.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-30-2007, 09:37 AM:
 
As soon as I saw the trailer for this movie, I knew everyone on Film-Tech would hate it. This isn't a critique on the industry. They're not saying this is what film looks like, or this is how most theaters are. This is supposed to recreate the experience of going to the worst of the worst theaters back in the day. They've described these theaters as places that smell like urine and have rats running around with a bunch of drunk guys sleeping in the corner. They've talked about how audiences won't get the entire experience because they'll be seeing it in a nice comfy multiplex where they don't have to fear for their lives. The prints in these place were probably illegal copies of some foreign exploitation movie that had played around the world forever at theaters just like these.

The whole point of this is to recreate an experience which doesn't exist anymore. And Tarantino is one of the biggest advocates for film out there. He thinks that all things digital are evil. So I don't really see this movie as being some sort of slam on the industry or a sneaky way to get people to go digital or anything like that. They're just playing around with form a little bit. These guys know what they're doing. They haven't let us down yet (SHARK BOY doesn't count).

And there aren't going to be any customer complaints. Anyone seeing this movie will know what they're getting into.
 

---

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 01-30-2007, 11:16 PM:
 
I'm with ya Mike. Lighten up, boys.

Since we're swappin' horror tales here, worst print I ever saw was one of The Evil Dead - surely a veteran of many a grindhouse and DI, though I saw it at the quasi-respectable Somerville Theater. Pure sausage meat.
 

---

Posted by Justin West (Member # 920) on 01-31-2007, 12:14 AM:
 

quote: Mike Schindler

---

They've described these theaters as places that smell like urine and have rats running around with a bunch of drunk guys sleeping in the corner.

---

quote: Justin West

---

Man, I long for the days when a guy could relieve himself, freely, from the comfort of his theatre seat! Ahhh.

---

So YOU'RE the one that kept peeing on seats at Westlake, weren't you!? At least some guys had the courtesy of using their soda cups. Only some...
 

---

Posted by Mark Thomas Walker (Member # 4149) on 02-01-2007, 06:14 PM:
 
"They've described these theaters as places that smell like urine and have rats running around with a bunch of drunk guys sleeping in the corner."

-I know there were some dodgey theatres around but can anyone really believe a place like this existed, apart from sex movie houses? seriously? And do you know anyone that played these dodgey films there? I cannot fathom 'QT' as i refuse to be a sycophant.
 

---

Posted by Justin West (Member # 920) on 02-01-2007, 11:32 PM:
 

quote: Mark Thomas Walker

---

but can anyone really believe a place like this existed, apart from sex movie houses?

---

Sure...check out any musty inner city hardtop back in the 1970s...well, not all of them but some were like that here in the States...

As for peeing at the Westlake, I didn't soak any seats there! But, I agree with you: those patrons who did use a soda cup were being today's version of "courteous!"
 

---

Posted by Alex Grueneberg (Member # 2652) on 02-16-2007, 03:15 PM:
 
I must admit the new trailer to this film is very cool. As much as I hate scratches and burns and everything else they threw its fun to see it being brought to the publics attention.
 

---

Posted by Paul Burt (Member # 3743) on 02-23-2007, 04:13 PM:
 
I went to the New Amsterdam theater on 42nd St. NYC in the 1970s to see some horror double bill. As I recall, the films were old and scratchy, lots of wet splices and jumpy images. The theater was dirty and creepy with raincoated guys in the corners. It was an experience you can't have these days. The theater is now a Disney showplace after a major renovation, and last I heard was playing the Lion King for the ten thousandth time. I can't say I miss those days, but I can see why Rodruiguez and Tarantino would want to revisit them. Good sleazy fun.
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 02-24-2007, 06:14 PM:
 
We are running a trailer for this with Ghost Rider.

I've heard 2 complaints about that 'scratched up preview we have running.' They dont even think to notice that the ones before, and the ones after it are perfect.

Even FilmGuard wont help this one!

I might bring my old Clint Phare to work IF we get Grindhouse.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 02-24-2007, 06:54 PM:
 
This is going to need a notice on the front of the screen door. I can see the complaints now. Could be as stupid as The Aristocrats complaints.

Is anyone going to run this with an intermission? Good way to increase concession spend.

What I worry about is if a lot of cinemas here will get it on digital and the 'effects' will look stupid.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-14-2007, 03:09 PM:
 
aintitcool.com is reporting that Robert Rodriguez was at SXSW discussing GRINDHOUSE. He revealed that they were having trouble getting an R rating from the MPAA. However, he said he wasn't too concerned about having to make cuts because he could literally just cut out the offending footage and join what was at the head and tail of that footage with a splicing tape effect.

He also said that he was considering the idea of releasing the movie on DVD as a Special Edition which will be remastered from a "newly found" print, with no scratches or missing footage or anything.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-14-2007, 06:00 PM:
 

quote: Mike Heenan

---

stuff like "Truck Stop Women" and "Death Race 2000" and "Blacula"... theaters where maybe the projectionist didn't run a reel in order to get home a little earlier, etc.

---

quote: Justin West

---

Man, I long for the days when a guy could relieve himself, freely, from the comfort of his theatre seat! Ahhh....

---

JUSTIN!! ROFL!!!
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 03-15-2007, 01:02 AM:
 
IMDB Grindhouse FAQ

quote:

---

Contrary to rumors on the net, the missing reels idea in Death Proof and Planet Terror were not true staples of Grindhouse moviegoing. While many Grindhouse films would be missing frames, they were hardly ever missing entire 20 minute reels. The concept for this came from a film Quentin owns which has a missing reel. He found he enjoyed watching the film with a chunk of the film's plot missing because it created an interesting mystery about what actually happened in that part of the film. This idea was then transferred to the two Grindhouse double features.

---

quote: Quenty-poo

---

“I guarantee you, when it pops up ‘Missing Reel,’ the entire theater is going to scream."

---

quote:

---

-Do NOT run Filmguard®™© on this print EVER!!! (Trailers are OK).

-Use an old, dull CIR splicer or even scissors to build it if you can. If you have some white opaque splicing tape to use with it, then that is even better, especially if it leaves behind 4 dots when peeled away. Also make random splices here and there and remove some frames. Manually scratch in as many different reel change cue marks as you can think of all over the frame for the last 20 seconds of each reel.

-Build it up loosely straight onto a platter at slow speed with little to no resistance from the build-up table, making sure the edge of the platter deck rubs against the film the "wrong" way and that the roller feeding on to the deck is at least 2 inches lower than the deck itself. Print must be really loose.

-Build it onto a platter deck that is on the other side of the theater from where it needs to be. Move it by yourself to the proper platter. Be sure to drop the print. No big deal, just drag the print over to the proper platter and reassemble there. Stepping on the film is OK. Keep in mind that it does not matter if you cut and splice it back together out of sequence. After the print is reassembled, add in the trailer pack which did not go through these fun steps.

-When playing the movie, do NOT play it in 5.1 or better digital sound. Play it in optical mono. Be sure the high frequencies are cranked way up so that they can clearly hear all of the dirt on the print.

-Have any old xenons laying around for emergency spares? Do they flicker like crazy in addition to being insanely dim? PERFECT! Put one in your lamphouse for the duration of this movie (do NOT focus the bulb). Turn down the power supply as much as you can.

-It's time for a new aperture plate to be cut just for this movie. Be sure to get Nervous Ted from downstairs to do it for you. Just give him a file and the plate and tell him to make the hole look pretty and that he has 6 minutes to do it or else he will be fired (he can file downstairs in the lobby). Whatever the result, that is the aperture plate to be used with this film. Firing Ted is up to you, but it might add to the fun.

-You might want to "accidentally" bump into the lamphouse a few times during each showing. It may go off-center a bit, but that's OK. DO NOT correct it until the movie leaves this auditorium.

-Use a lens with the wrong throw distance if you can. Twist it a bit as well. And older lens with scratched/nicked/burned glass would be perfect.

-Try to find an old blown low frequency driver to install in your center channel speaker.

-Crossovers. Who needs 'em?

-Do not allow the theater staff to clean the auditorium for the entire time that the movie is there. Try to find a ton of cockroaches that you can let loose into the auditorium if they don't appear on their own.

-Finally, crack open the projection port so that the audience can hear the projector, especially since you will be making your loops WAY too big each time this show runs.

---

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan

---

Is anyone going to run this with an intermission? Good way to increase concession spend.

---

quote: Paul Gordon

---

This would be a good film to cut single frames into....

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Wouldn't it make more sense (and be less visible on screen) to cover the same number of perfs on each side of the cut? I would think that 4-perf or 8-perf tape would be more desirable than 5-perf.

---

boy is this the wrong thread for this, but what i do is cover 4 perfs on one side and one perf on the other side, choosing the darker or busier frame as the "one-perf" side.

this has never been a problem with neumade tape, though i'd be a little wary of trying it with some "slip'n'slide" brand of tape.
 

---

Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 03-30-2007, 10:26 AM:
 
All the joking aside, is anybody really going to treat this print any differently than all the others that come through our booths?
 

---

Posted by Brett G. Sherris (Member # 3543) on 03-30-2007, 12:53 PM:
 
As far as I'm concerned, I think it would be great fun on Weinstein/Dimension's part to have a contest..."Most Creative" presentation of GRINDHOUSE. In other words, how the projectionist/cinema augments the print/theatre to most enhance the aesthetic of the grindhouse experience.

We're doing a one-off showing of the film was part of our summer late-nite horror/exploitation series, and I know that I will be considering entertaining ways to make the experience more fun for the audience.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 03-30-2007, 01:50 PM:
 
You could play the film in mono through the centre only. Although if it has any other format on the print then Tarantino and Rodriguez are pretty stupid.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-30-2007, 02:11 PM:
 
Oh geez that just made me realize something. Are they going to mix the tracks to simulate a mono auditorium complete with blown speakers??? I hope not. That would generate more complaints than it would be worth.
 

---

Posted by John Stewart (Member # 989) on 03-30-2007, 02:56 PM:
 
We premiered the film Wed night here in Austin and don't worry about the soundtracks. They are hot and plenty clean. The print arrives in 4 cans and as Part 1 reels 1 - 6 and Part 2 R1 - 6. The first film looks terrible as expected with all the fake scratches and white dirt and hair printed in. Also included is some "blank" leader included at the end of the 1st feature. I was lucky since this print had been plattered before so I didn't have to worry about where to cut.

Otherwise, it's a 3 hr 10 min. blood bath.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 03-30-2007, 03:25 PM:
 
So whilst the picture has been 'scratched' the soundtrack is perfect? Kinda ruins the illusion.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-30-2007, 06:29 PM:
 
I'll definitely see Grindhouse at least once at our local Carmike. The experience should be at least a little surreal with all those Christie and TI DLP promos giving way to a scratched up, faded and jittery movie. I'm sure there's going to be at least a few confused comments like, "...um, so this is 'digital cinema'?"


However, the temptation is definitely there to watch this movie in a really crappy theater or at least one that isn't well maintained. The Central Mall 12 might be a good choice since they have cheap projectors and play most movies in the glory of mono. On top of that, shootings and other crimes have occurred at this theater! Hooray for the criminal element! They can copy some of the acts of violence happening on screen right there in the auditorium, Rocky Horror style. The old Vaska theater in town has seen better days. It doesn't have any of the trappings of a movie theater chain, so it might be an even better viewing choice to fit that "grindhouse" style. You also don't have to worry so much about getting shot or beaten up there. Just have to wait for the movie to go 2nd run.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-30-2007, 06:43 PM:
 
Good point, Caleb.
 

---

Posted by John Stewart (Member # 989) on 03-30-2007, 09:13 PM:
 
The first "film" looks worse than any of the old prints I ever saw back in the 70's. Well, almost. Tons of white hairs, dirt and scratches which would have to be in the negative rather than "grindhouse" wear.

But the 2nd film looks great for super 35. Rodriguez had a remote control for the audio and played it plenty loud. Didn't need the monitor on in the booth. Ugh but the house was full and they screamed all night.

Yes, the audio was very good and clean and LOUD!

John

John
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-30-2007, 09:31 PM:
 
That's really cool, John. What would you say Rodriguez had the fader set to for the movie?

Are there any other cool tidbits like that that you can share about the premiere?
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 03-30-2007, 11:04 PM:
 
Did people go to the toilet or for food/drink at the end of the first feature and during the 'trailers'?

Can't believe no-one has pointed the sound thing out to either director. Also apparently the film is in scope (could cheap productions afford widescreen in the 70's?) so running out of format is something to add to the list.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-31-2007, 02:13 AM:
 

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan

---

You could play the film in mono through the centre only. Although if it has any other format on the print then Tarantino and Rodriguez are pretty stupid.

---

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan

---

Also apparently the film is in scope (could cheap productions afford widescreen in the 70's?) so running out of format is something to add to the list.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Yes Scope was indeed used on "cheap" productions in the '70s. Specifically...Techniscope...

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Carmike and a number of other theaters listing show times for this coming Friday have the movie listed as being on film.

---

Is length a possible reason for this? I noticed that the running time given is 192 minutes (according to Variety, PLANET TERROR is 86 min and DEATH PROOF 87 min.). Odd, since the previews indicate its 2 and a half hours.

Of course, those scratches, dirt, etc, were "artistically" placed, I'm sure, and must be seen as the directors originaly intended!

Are there any curtained theatres that will be closing and opening between previewes, the two features, etc? DId grindhouses even have working curtains?

As far as the sound goes, Variety reports that PLANET TERROR is "Accompanied by the built-in sound of projector noise."
 

---

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 04-03-2007, 04:48 PM:
 
Even though with digital projection both movies will still look "bad"... it would be kind of funny seeing Grindhouse that way. It would feel inappropriate to me.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-03-2007, 05:49 PM:
 

quote: Paul Linfesty

---

Is length a possible reason for this?

---

I would doubt it. Digital cinema servers like the Doremi DCP-2000 can hold at least 3 or 4 full length high bit rate JPEG2000 movies, so the problem is certainly not on the server end to say the least.

Many "virtual prints" are shipped on 300GB external hard disc drives with USB 2.0 connections. Perhaps Grindhouse might have gone over that 300GB limit, forcing the need to use larger, more expensive discs.

Bear in mind, I don't know for sure if Grindhouse really doesn't have any digital virtual prints. The initial appearances in advance of Friday's opening tend to imply this is a 35mm-only release.

I expect at least a few dunderheads among viewing audiences to gripe at projectionists for messing up this movie. It would be funny to tell them, "we're not showing it on film, it came that way when we downloaded it digitally from the Internet!"

 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 04-03-2007, 09:45 PM:
 
I don't think it was the length. Pirates was 150 minutes and that fit on a drive just fine. Worst case since it is two movies they could have sent out two drives. I think it might have to do with the studio though, I'm not sure if Mirimax has a distribution deal with AccessIT or not.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 04-03-2007, 10:10 PM:
 

quote: Dustin Mitchell

---

I don't think it was the length. Pirates was 150 minutes and that fit on a drive just fine.

---

Of course, there is a bit of difference between 150 minutes and 192 minutes.

quote: Dustin Mitchell

---

I'm not sure if Mirimax has a distribution deal with AccessIT or not.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

apparently there isn't any digital cinema version of Grindhouse

---

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan

---

Also apparently the film is in scope (could cheap productions afford widescreen in the 70's?) so running out of format is something to add to the list.

---

As for 2 perf 35mm, It is still used today, Its biggest advantage of all for low budget film making is that on location, a standard 10 minute reel lasts for 20 minutes! so production stock costs are cut by up to 50% and it fills the big scope screen. The Australian film called THE CROP was filmed this way and is one of at least 2 films, that I know were shot in this process, over the past few years here in Sydney.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-06-2007, 03:04 AM:
 
Wow, that is REEEALLY low budget -- I know the pornos that were made in that weird forward<->reverse system with each physical reel actually containing two reels -- double images in each frame, both printed in opposite directions. When the reel finished playing in one direction and it was Tails Up, it actually was Heads Up and ready to play in the other direction; you just took it off the takeup spindle and put it back on the top feed spindle and you were ready to go after the other projector played out. Quite ingenius, actually, but my understanding was that at least the O neg was shot normally in only one direction (how would you edit a negative roll that had desperate images in opposing frames?). Although the release prints had a pretty miniscule film geography, they still could counter that a bit by reduction printing it down to the smaller forward<->reverse release print from a larger, standard negative.

I ran a bunch of these years ago (these were prints you didn't really didn't want to see coming in with leaders not attached or attached to the wrong reel. Talk about confusing -- each Heads leader was the Tails leader for the reel printed going in the other direction; same on the other end.

Another quirky thing was that you really had to pay close attention to what you were doing -- no medicinal herb smoking. Focus was especially knarly because with every reverse of the reel, the focus would be slightly off (the emulsion was now on the other side of the base, either closer or further way from the lens). Picture focus you could compensate for, but there was nothing you could do about the fact that the sound was also out of focus half the time and soundheads don't have any easy way for refocusing the slit lens for each reel.

You also had better be paying very close attention to your threading instead of gawking at what's going on on the screen because there was no room for error with these prints when it came to framing. Out-of-frame on a forward<->reverse print and you'd be getting the wrong reel altogether and everything would be upside down and backwards, not that diehard porn fans care much one way or another. Those horny Aggies would probably just have stood on their heads to watch upside down porn without so much as a howdy-do.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-06-2007, 11:45 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Are they going to mix the tracks to simulate a mono auditorium complete with blown speakers??? I hope not.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

apparently there isn't any digital cinema version of Grindhouse

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

This appears to be correct. Two all-digital exhibitors have confirmed for me that they will be screening "Grindhouse" in 35mm.

---

A third all-digital exhibitor has confirmed for me that "Grindhouse" is not available in a D-Cinema version. However, another exhibitor, Carmike, is advertising a digital presentation on their website at a number of locations (as of Friday morning), including the Summit 16 in Birmingham, AL; the Royal Palm 20 in Bradenton, FL; and Carmike 15 in Columbus, GA. These are probably errors and I bet the web listing will be corrected in a matter of time. But then, maybe Carmike, with their 1600+ digital screens, is being given special treatment.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-06-2007, 07:17 PM:
 
Well, now I have confirmation that Tarantino has absolutely no concept of exhibition. Evidently, he's drawn wildly incorrect conclusions from movies he's seen on VHS.

I saw some of the Kurt Russell title today at one of my theatres. It was just like watching a rough cut WORKPRINT, except with M&E tracks. There are Rivas-style perforated tape splice marks ON EVERY CUT I saw (and some during the shot with no frames missing-as in a cut that was made but changed back, again, in editing).

Mr. Q.T. has released A WORKPRINT and thinks that B-pictures were exhibited that way!

I don't care how cheap the picture was, release prints simply were not made off of workprints!

And, the on-screen "announcement" that some reels are missing is completely unrelated to anything in reality on two levels: that reels would routinely be missing to begin with (as previously discussed), and that there would be a snipe to ANNOUNCE that reels were/are missing!

What the hell is this kid thinking?
 

---

Posted by John Plasket (Member # 2201) on 04-06-2007, 11:57 PM:
 
The rumors appear to be true...
Carmike Cinema 5, State College, PA



I won't actually see it until tomorrow... but it seems as though the world is making slightly less sense.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-07-2007, 12:31 AM:
 
just because there is a DLP listed on the marquee does not guarentee that the movie is presented that way.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-07-2007, 01:16 AM:
 
Incorrect format listings are nothing new, and those DLP listings for Grindhouse at a few Carmike locations are very likely errors.

Speaking of errors, there's another one that often shows up in Carmike's show time listings. In many digital cinema engagements they often show the Dolby Headphone logo as an icon to denote 5.1 digital surround sound. The audio is LPCM 5.1, not Dolby Digital. Many of theaters didn't have Dolby Digital processors in the first place. Many had DTS players removed from the booth racks as well.

That kind of gets back to the overall visual problems I have with Carmike's web site re-design. It isn't as good as the old version they trashed a few months ago. The old version was a little more accurate with the sound format logos.
 

---

Posted by John Plasket (Member # 2201) on 04-07-2007, 02:44 AM:
 

quote: Darryl Spicer

---

just because there is a DLP listed on the marquee does not guarentee that the movie is presented that way.

---

quote: John Plasket

---

Did I forget to mention that this is on the actual marquee, not the website? I'm guessing that whoever had it put there might have known something about how the film was going to be exhibited.

---

Considering that the theatre in question has digital projection on each of its screens, the DLP notation was probably already present on the marquee from the previous week and whomever had marquee duty for this week failed to remove it.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-07-2007, 10:21 AM:
 
How about someone who WORKS at one of these Carmikes jump in here...

FWIW, the Rave (75% DLP) and the Carmike (100% DLP coverage) in Allentown are running it in 35mm. The other two Carmikes near me aren't even running it.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 04-07-2007, 02:06 PM:
 
Bobby Henderson said:

"I expect at least a few dunderheads among viewing audiences to gripe at projectionists for messing up this movie"

Right on. Very first show yesterday one of the floor managers asked me to come down and speak to a patron. This idiot asked about the "missing reel". When I explained the facts to him, he said "well, it said to see the management". Obviously, this fool couldn't read, either, and was looking for a freebe, which of course, he didn't get.
 

---

Posted by David M. Leugers (Member # 2968) on 04-07-2007, 02:43 PM:
 
I know what the directors are going for, but it is a real insult to the pros in the booth. I have not seen a buggered up film in ages, probable decades ago. It is taken for granted that when I finally get to see a popular film that has been out for over a month with hundreds of showings the print will still look pristine. Maybe if they compared it to seeing a film in school on a poorly maintained and operated 16mm shredder...
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-07-2007, 03:18 PM:
 
Perhaps one of the purposes of making Grindhouse is for sales people to use it as an example of "film" when comparing to digitally originated and digitally projected movies.

 

---

Posted by John Plasket (Member # 2201) on 04-07-2007, 07:36 PM:
 
REPORT FROM THE CARMIKE 5: That was definitely film. I couldn't see back into the booth, but I could tell. Score one for the analog crowd (i.e. me).

To make things more confusing, the list of showings on the theater door listed DLP for every one except Grindhouse.

Also:

quote: David M. Leugers

---

I have not seen a buggered up film in ages, probable decades ago.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Perhaps one of the purposes of making Grindhouse is for sales people to use it as an example of "film" when comparing to digitally originated and digitally projected movies.

---

quote: John Plasket

---

That was definitely film. I couldn't see back into the booth, but I could tell.

---

Lemme guess...the scratches and missing reel were the giveaway?

quote: John Plasket

---

To make things more confusing, the list of showings on the theater door listed DLP for every one except Grindhouse.

---

I fail to see how your observation makes the situation more confusing. It would seem to me that if the notations near the doors indicated DLP for everything except "Grindhouse" then they got it right. No DLP notation = 35mm film presentation. (So it appears they have a correct presentation notation near the theatre doors and on the website but not on the outside marquee.)
 

---

Posted by John Plasket (Member # 2201) on 04-08-2007, 12:14 AM:
 
Good point. I guess it's mostly the fact that they're telling me two different things, combined with a near-total takeover of DLP at that particular theater. And maybe just a bit of gun-jumping.

(Also, I forgot to mention that the door showtime sheet was absent when I took the picture of the marquee, most likely because it had not been printed for the week.)
 

---

Posted by Mike Perju (Member # 1482) on 04-08-2007, 01:15 AM:
 
Mike,

In this case digital lost (again)!!! Mr. Rodriguez's picture falls apat a numerous times during his segment, even though the Genesis camera was a great improvement over the HDF-900. (It had the same problems Apocalypto had as far as I was concerned).
I still can't believe someone would vouch for digital after the visual disaster "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" was, never mind if they were a DP! (It still looked bad on DVD, for fuck's sake!!!)
 

---

Posted by Alex Grueneberg (Member # 2652) on 04-08-2007, 02:56 AM:
 
Day 2, two prints in our largest auditoriums (420). Not one complaint, and I caught wind that a few customers even mentioned to a floor manager that it made them realize how good our other films really look!


This is exactly what I had hoped for. Bringing film projection to their attention, and film done right and wrong.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-08-2007, 03:18 PM:
 
I haven't seen the film yet so I can't say if it sucks but I was thinking they should chop about 10 min or so from each movie... a lot of Corman's old films tend to be on 4 full reels, and most "grindhouse" films I've had in my collection were around 90 min or so. Sicne each film had a missing reel, that would put the true RT of each one at just under 2 hours which is another anti grindhouse thing it has going.
 

---

Posted by Mike Perju (Member # 1482) on 04-09-2007, 12:33 PM:
 
Mike,

In the movie, they should quote "Missing Footage" instead or "reels". There really isn't a 20min. gap in the story anywhere, more like 5 to 10 mins. tops.

Mike
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-09-2007, 03:19 PM:
 

quote: John Plasket

---

Good point. I guess it's mostly the fact that they're telling me two different things, combined with a near-total takeover of DLP at that particular theater. And maybe just a bit of gun-jumping.

---

quote: John Plasket

---

To make things more confusing, the list of showings on the theater door listed DLP for every one except Grindhouse.

---

That comment also grabbed my attention. The guys AccessIT and Christie will often install flat, non-illuminated metal signs on the auditorium doors featuring logos for AccessIT, Christie and Texas Instruments. They're more of a permanent fixture, not something that would be removed and replaced from one show to the next.

Some newer Carmike locations have LED text displays above each auditorium entrance (instead of or in addition to back-lit mylar boxes). The info on those boards is easy to change, although you're pretty limited on the number of characters you can show.
 

---

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 04-09-2007, 03:58 PM:
 
As I may or may not work at this theatre in question, I will try to clear up a few of these issues.

First, that "DLP" on the marquee was an error. A staff member forgot to take it down from the previous week. It was not a ploy, but a human error that has been taken care of. Grindhouse is playing in 35mm. Second, the time sheet being referred to hangs in the front doors of the building. Indeed, everything else is playing in digital. That's why all other features have "DLP" next to the titles. Third, only one auditorium still has operational 35mm projection. You can tell because there are two projection ports. All other auditoriums are DLP only. Because all auditoriums are digital capable, there are the DLP placards mounted outside of each one.
 

---

Posted by David M. Leugers (Member # 2968) on 04-09-2007, 10:38 PM:
 
I have been going to see movies since I was a little kid starting around 1958 and I have NEVER seen a film that was missing a reel. Has anyone? I haven't seen the film(s) and I might even like it. But I wish some producer would have the pull to make a film shot in 65mm with 70mm roadshow quality prints. THAT would get me back into the theatres a great deal more...
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-10-2007, 12:09 AM:
 
Well, I would agree this missing reels is a very rare occurance, until it happens to you. Coincidently, just as this thread is going full steam, I got a print of FIRE in on Saturday from Zeitgest (sp?) and it had two count 'em, TWO missing reels. Well, actually not missing but duplicated. Two R2s and two R3s. So yes, does happen. To bad there wasn't a nice note in the can -- REELS MISSING or more precisely, REELS DUPLICATED, so I didn't have had to pull my hair out trying to figure out what the hell was going on....and of course it was a foreign print so no normal freakin ID markings at all in the leaders, most of which were not from the original print in the first place and two which were not even attached. Makes it more like a evil mind-game jigsaw puzzle than simply prep-ing a print.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-10-2007, 11:10 AM:
 
After thinking about it I do remember a movie I ran back in the mid 80's. It was a Kung Fu movie called The Jackie Chan Connection. Now that was probably not the original name. Anyway, I don't know if it was a missing reel or a huge missing chunk of the film but that movie just abruptly ended. We tried to get a replacement for it but the distributor said that it was the only copy they had. Let me tell you it looked like the only copy they ever had. When I inspected the film it took me two hours to just get a couple of the reels to play without problems. I had to repair sprocket damage and redo splices. One of the reels I did had a whopping 150+ splices in it. I hated that movie and to this day I have never encountered anything as bad as that was. Old Kung fu pictures were the biggest pain in the ass to run and it was bad enough that they had to run through a Ballantyne pro 35 projector.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-10-2007, 01:46 PM:
 
Now that Darryl mentions it, the "grindhouse" setting I remember in Denver in the early 70s was kung fu movies. There was a theater that ran different kung fu movies, all day long, for one admission price. You could stay all day if you wanted and see as many as you could stand. Some of those prints were very trashed.

[ 04-10-2007, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: David Stambaugh ]
 

---

Posted by Webster Colcord (Member # 1955) on 05-02-2007, 06:34 PM:
 
CGW.com article

Here's a link to an article about the VFX for Grindhouse, and they mention the film damage effects specifically.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-02-2007, 09:17 PM:
 
Very good, Webster. I didn't see your part, but as I said earlier, Tarantino just released a work print for his effort -- and that NEVER was the case in the "grindhouse days".
 

---

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 05-02-2007, 10:35 PM:
 
Allright - actual grindhouse days - see if you can beat THIS:

Mid-70's - the very heart of Washington DC, the deserted downtown after dark, specifically office-hive L'Enfant Plaza.

The theater, once modern and hopeful but closed for years since nobody lives anywhere nearby. There's no street-presence because it's completely buried in the lower level of a "mall" where nobody goes after lunchtime except as far as the subway entrance. The last mainstream feature they played (I was there) was the first run of KRAKATOA EAST OF JAVA. The mall is connected to a couple of hotels but nobody has any reason to venture into the underground Morlock-haunts where the theater is, certainly not after dark.

But wait! An Asian entrepreneur (in those pre-imported-video days) decides to rent the place Saturday nights, advertise in the Chinese-language paper, and run Hong Kong action pix. And it works!

I forget how I first heard of it, but I'd park as close as I could without getting towed or carjacked (hopefully within running-for-my-life-distance of the doors), late Saturday night, for a triple-feature chop-sockey fest (8pm-10pm, a jillion trailers, 10:30-12:30, more trailers, 1a-3a), doubly subtitled in English and Mandarin. The audience is half-Asian, half-black, and very vocal ("Whoah! Git him! KICK HIM IN THE HEAD! YEAH!"), the concession stand specializes in squid jerky (I'm not making this up, you know) and friends, it's a complete transport to another world for hours.

Heck yeah, I liked GRINDHOUSE!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-03-2007, 11:01 AM:
 
Except for the location and the last film...I'd would have said the K-B Crystal. It did gang buster business on the "twilight" shows to avoid having to hit the rush hour but it was deserted for the 9:00 shows.

I never went to the L'Enfant.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Alex Cross (Member # 3520) on 05-03-2007, 07:17 PM:
 
Over the pond here, in good ole Blighty, we are having to run these films as 2 films, and not a double bill. Even though we've been playing a trailer, specifically saying it was a double bill. We had a rather abrupt memo saying that these trailers must be removed and returned immediately! How well/badly did it do on it's release over there?

Alex
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 05-04-2007, 03:25 AM:
 
Boxoffice Mojo
$24 million in the bank with a $67 million production budget (and another $30 million in marketing)...not good.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-04-2007, 02:36 PM:
 
Which just goes to prove, people don't like paying for bad presentation values, even when it's done tongue-in-cheek. (exhibitors of modern grindhouse operations -- i.e., all those in the You Suck thread -- take note.

You think in 20 years someone will make a movie containing all the lousy artifax found in old, poorly maintained and badly run digital booths?
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-04-2007, 03:15 PM:
 

quote: Alex Cross

---

Over the pond here, in good ole Blighty, we are having to run these films as 2 films, and not a double bill. Even though we've been playing a trailer, specifically saying it was a double bill. We had a rather abrupt memo saying that these trailers must be removed and returned immediately! How well/badly did it do on it's release over there?

Alex

---

Isn't that not legal? Neither one of the directors agreed to have them released/exhibited separately.
 

---

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 05-04-2007, 05:05 PM:
 
After the release bombed in the US, Weinstein said they will probably release them as two different films, adding some footage to both to bring them to a fuller running time. He indicated that "Death Proof" would be released first, followed by "Terror Planet" some time later. To do this, clearly the end credits would have to be restruck. The US release has a 'combined' end credit sequence for both films, and the fake trailers too.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-05-2007, 02:19 AM:
 
Looks like North America is the only territory to play them as a double...Australia is going to split them too.

They're doomed.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-05-2007, 10:16 AM:
 
When this thing comes out on DVD it'd be interesting to be a fly-on-the-wall in the living rooms of people who can't understand the "distressed film" look of the movie. I'll bet video stores get a ton of angry phone calls.
 

---

Posted by Michael Moore (Member # 3867) on 05-06-2007, 08:19 PM:
 
I went to watch it, and found the concept irritating, annoying, maddening, and aggravating; I got up and walked out.
 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 05-06-2007, 08:43 PM:
 
Well, then, sir, I certainly hope Sicko... is superb filmmaking (barring the normal out-of-context interview clips thrown in, of course).
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-07-2007, 12:03 AM:
 
Guy has a great name all his life then some celebrity comes along and takes it for all time.

Happened to someone I knew in Sydney. Great name for his first 20 years of his life...then a cartoon came on television. His name? Bart Simpson.

There's also a middle-aged reporter on Network Ten in Australia who might have thought the same thing until J.K. Rowling took his name for the lead character in her little books. His name? Harry Potter.


 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 05-07-2007, 03:59 AM:
 
One of the lead characters in the classic film "Troll" was also named Harry Potter.
 

---

Posted by Michael Moore (Member # 3867) on 05-07-2007, 08:02 AM:
 
I get the Michael Moore thing from people all the time. I certainly do not care for his movies much , I projected bowling and Fahrenheit, I never watched more then five min at a time of each film, I just did stuff in booth. I will treat Sicko the same if I project in our little theater.
 

---

Posted by Alex Cross (Member # 3520) on 05-11-2007, 05:13 PM:
 
Further to my previous post, I now hear unofficially that the UK are not getting a theatrical release. Straight to DVD supposedly...

Alex
 

---

Posted by John Caswell (Member # 4024) on 05-11-2007, 06:22 PM:
 
I've heard last week that it's getting a theatrical release, as two separate films, but it won't be til September.
 

---