Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ingolorious Basterds on film?

This is topic Ingolorious Basterds on film? 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=010075

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-12-2009, 10:22 PM:

From the movie review forum:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Apparently the distributor had the stipulation any movie theater that had any film projection capability at all had to show the movie on 35mm.

Is this true? Can anyone shed some light on this?

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 09-12-2009, 11:47 PM:

Bogus. We can run 35mm, but played it in 2k.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-13-2009, 01:23 AM:

I'm not making this up. The Carmike 8 here in Lawton has all 8 of its screens D-cinema equipped. Yet the theater received only a 35mm print of Inglorius Basterds.

Only 2 of the Carmike 8's houses (number 5 and number 7) have 35mm projection left in operation. The projectors from the other six auditoriums are still up there in the booth "in moth balls."

The GM there has been a good friend of mine for more than 15 years. He doesn't bullshit me on stuff like this. It would have been better for him to get a D-cinema JPEG2000 virtual print, particularly because more people on his staff would have been able to play it. But with the theater playing it only on film, and with the ever changing turnover in employees noted, only he and perhaps one other person is still able to thread 35mm. This friend of mine, the GM, doesn't trust anyone else to do it. When I saw the movie, he was repairing a projector bearing beforehand. Out of all the people I know personally, I don't know anyone who works longer hours than this guy. Carmike Cinemas is VERY LUCKY to have someone like this working for them.

Anyway, the film projection looked pretty darned good as it usually does. The audio just wasn't 5.1 digital.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-13-2009, 10:19 AM:

The experience of one theater in Lawton doesn't extrapolate to "Everyone with a working 35mm projector must play this on film".

In my early days on Film-Tech I made a statement along the lines of Cinemark 17 in Springfield was still running an original print of some movie after something like 30 weeks and it looked like new. I was immediately challenged to provide proof that Cinemark had not received a replacement print. I've been nailed on that kind of stuff more than once. As I probably should.

The 35mm print I saw was about as high in image quality as it seems to get these days. I wouldn't be surprised if they did a 4K intermediate. I suppose I could state as fact "The print I saw was 4K" but I won't go there without any actual data to back me up. [Razz]

quote:
"You must learn to govern your passions -- They will be your undoing."

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 09-13-2009, 10:23 AM:

According to IMDB, the digital intermediate was 2K... but I don't know how accurate they are on stuff like that. It is a great-looking print.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-13-2009, 10:31 AM:

Over in the Hey You Suck topic I posted about a friends experience at his Auburn (AL) Wynnsong experience with Basterds on film. It is my understanding that all Carmike's keep at least one 35mm screen (even if no one knows how to run it).

It has been my observation here that Carmike uses its 35mm screen mostly for filler. Maybe an edict came down from Columbus to put the 35mm house to use with a potential moneymaker. That said, it appears the 35mm house in Montgomery is running it digital, but I haven't been there to check.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-13-2009, 10:44 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Carmike Cinemas is VERY LUCKY to have someone like this working for them.

Indeed. Jack is one of a kind. And there are none more gracious. I serviced his theatres back in the Video Triple and Showcase days. We are still friends to this day.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 09-13-2009, 04:11 PM:

The Carmike 8 I used to work has all digital 3 35mm projectors just in case and received a 35mm print of basterds.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Carmike Cinemas is VERY LUCKY to have someone like this working for them.

Very true considering how bad Carmike treats their employees

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-13-2009, 05:53 PM:

For those who have both D-cinema and film, how do you decide what format to book, assuming that both are available? I can imagine that this might be a difficult decision to make without any way to know in advance the condition of the 35mm print that you might receive (much less the quality of the lab work).

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-13-2009, 06:05 PM:

If I made a movie, I'd want it to be shown digitally at as many venues as possible since many of today's managers and projectionsts are incompetent and would ruin my movie. I would only give film to theaters where people I know or know of worked in the booth. And I'd try to make it 70mm as well while I'm at it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-13-2009, 06:12 PM:

quote: David Stambaugh
The experience of one theater in Lawton doesn't extrapolate to "Everyone with a working 35mm projector must play this on film".

Maybe there just weren't enough digital prints so they sent a film print. I could see that happening when a movie is more popular than the studio expects it to be, and I think "I.B." pretty much exceeded all expectations.

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 09-13-2009, 06:27 PM:

Update:

I guess our booker told the distributor that our 35mm projectors were inoperable.

Having a digital shortage doesn't make sense to me. It would be easier to make extra digital copies then film copies.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-13-2009, 06:33 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Maybe there just weren't enough digital prints so they sent a film print.

There is no limit to the copies a digital print can have.

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 09-13-2009, 07:39 PM:

Maybe somebody screwed up and ordered way too many 35mm prints. How far in advance do they have to order them?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-13-2009, 11:51 PM:

Joe R: No, but there are sometimes not enough hard drives containing digital prints to serve the demand. A couple of guys at the Rocky Mountain NATO convention last week were saying they'd installed digital, but were sometimes having trouble getting "prints" so they had to use 35mm sometimes.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-13-2009, 11:58 PM:

That makes me laugh, Mike. Truly pathetic on the part of the studios and distributors, especially when there aren't exactly a shit-ton of digital installations.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 09-14-2009, 12:16 AM:

Well sure, Joe, but these are the same outfits who've been playing trailers in all of our 35mm houses, advertising their digital 3D shows as if that's the only way you can see them.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-14-2009, 12:17 AM:

The other problem is that at least more than a few theaters with D-cinema in every booth has a big fat satellite dish on the roof capable of receiving the virtual print without the need of shipping an external USB hard disc drive.

The Carmike location here in Lawton has quite the huge dish on its roof for receiving D-cinema content. I'm sticking to my guns that there was some sort of 35mm slanted initiative in distributing Inglorious Basterds.

Our local Carmike location has every ability of receiving a digital-based virtual print, whether it is shipped in on an external hard drive or beamed down via satellite directly into the SAN server. I'll agree it is a bit presumptuous for me to assume what happened for Lawton applied everywhere. Maybe some folks "in the know" knew our theater had a manager with an extensive amount of experience in handling film prints and specifically wanted the Lawton location to only receive a film print.

Hell, it may even be partly due to my loud mouth. After all, it is no secret more than a few film industry people lurk around reading the posts on this very website, and I have one of the higher post counts here. I also live in Lawton-Fort Sill, USA. Film-Tech is an extremely valuable resource for knowing what the hell is going on in the trenches in film exhibition. My love for film is no secret. Maybe QT himself lurks here. I wondered about that when he had a fictional Wichita Falls, TX radio station mentioned in the beginning of the first Kill Bill movie. Who would mention Wichita Falls without having some specific interest in Wichita Falls?

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 09-14-2009, 01:57 AM:

Well more power to ya Bobby in Wichita Falls way!!
I no he shot it with Arri cameras and true panavision anamorphic lenses!!!

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-14-2009, 07:15 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Who would mention Wichita Falls without having some specific interest in Wichita Falls?

A dart in a map, maybe?

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 09-14-2009, 08:32 AM:

We have 50% of our 35mm projectors left and we showed all of our Basterds in digital (across 4 locations with the newest having no 35mm).

The only time we were forced to take a 35mm print was IJ4 (we played 1/4 in 35mm). There a few other times we almost got 35mm instead of digital - after some digging we were told that the studio ordered too many 35mm prints and did not want to pay VPFs if there were going to be 35mm copies unused. The assumption on my part is a "digtal shortage" means "too many 35mm prints were ordered".

Pure speculation on my part says if there were too many 35mm copies made then Carmike may have accepted them along with a rent reduction.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-14-2009, 09:28 AM:

How sweet. After all the huffing and puffing how they want the whole world to convert to digital projection so they don't have to pay for film prints, and after promising the VP fees would help the exhibitor pay for that conversion, they turn around and say, "Wait a minute, you schlubs; if we happen to have a 35mm print handy, THAT'S what we will give you to play so we don't have to pay you a VP fee." They don't want to pay a VP fee AND on top of that, they want to stick the exhibitor with the 35mm print shipping costs! Is there no end to their freakin trechery?!

Sure as hell if I were an exhibitor and had invested in however many DCinema installations, you can bet your butt that EVERY one of my digital booths that had 35mm projectors still installed, I would officially designate them to be "OUT OF SERVICE" -- in other words, non-functional, inoperative, unable to run even a single frame of film let alone an entire feature, even if I had to pull every intermittent out of them because, helloooo....that's what I bought the digital projectors for.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-14-2009, 09:41 AM:

I'll disagree with Joe: if I made a film, it would be shot on film with no DI, and release prints would only be available on film. There would be no video release, either. I believe pretty strongly that movies should be seen in theatres on big screens. If the director wants them to be seen on film, then that should be his choice.

I'll also disagree with Frank: as an exhibitor, I would want the best presentation possible for my customers. Some film prints look great (especially if there is no DI or a 4K or higher DI) and would be preferable to the current state of [dlp]

equipment. I would prefer to screen a print for those films. I'd take a [dlp]

copy if the lab quality is poor (which would include pretty much everything from Deluxe Hollywood) or if I'd get a beat-up print.

I find the VPF thing curious. If true, then it sounds as if 35mm film actually is a cheaper means of distribution at the moment. If this is true, then why did the distributors agree to pay VPFs? And who, if anyone, will subsidize the next generation of upgrades when the current units become obsolete and/or unserviceable in ten years (or so)?

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 09-14-2009, 10:19 AM:

quote:
AND on top of that, they want to stick the exhibitor with the 35mm print shipping costs!

FYI - the delivery cost to the exhibitor is the same whether we get 35mm or digital (satellite bandwidth costs $$ and we get charged the same price for digital delivery as we do for 35mm). Basically HD or satellite delivery vs. 35mm is a wash.

35mm is only cheaper once the studio realizes they committed to buying more 35mm prints than they actually needed - i.e. they ordered 2,000 but realized too late that only 1,500 screens would show it, at this point they already spent say $2,000(?) each on 500 prints so why spend an additional $1,000(?) each in VPFs for 500 screens that could show 35mm instead of digital. Who knows, maybe it was the same crazy stuff we saw for IJ4 in 35mm - someone somewhere insisted there be so many 35mms shown.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-14-2009, 01:16 PM:

I don't know about a wash -- I don't know what it costs to download,a feature (aren't most VPs arriving on physical hard drives?), but depending the running time of a film, it costs me anywhere from $80 to $120 to have a print shipped to our theatre. How much could it possibly cost to ship a hard drive?

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 09-14-2009, 01:31 PM:

quote: Jake Spell
...considering how bad Carmike treats their employees

I hate, hate, hate Carmike Cinemas. They are the cheapest people on the face of the planet and I wouldn't work for them again for any amount of money. They are a perfect example of how so many employers in today's world only care about the dollar and not the people who earned them that dollar. If you don't care about your employees and take care of them then you shouldn't even be in business.

I worked for two Cinemarks and I had a good experience at both of them. They were not afraid to spend money on quality, newer equipment and at least paid above minimum wage.

I think that the digital push was only to benefit the people pushing it. For all of the people who bought into it and spent the money to "upgrade", then I am not surprised at all that they are jerking you around. They have you right where they want you now.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-14-2009, 02:36 PM:

Scott, my fantasy is based a bit more in reality, as sad as that may be. Your movie would be scratched to hell in more locations than not. I wish we could trust that film would have a good presentation, but it always makes me nervous when I go to a film theater because only 2 or 3 people in the Denver area know how to run a projection booth properly, and one of them is me!

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-14-2009, 02:40 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
it costs me anywhere from $80 to $120 to have a print shipped to our theatre.

Frank, you do mostly rep, don't you? The shipping cost from the classics vaults are always way higher because they ship direct from LA and usually overnight. Regular run films delivered by Tech or Deluxe run us about $23 each way. I don't do digital, but I assume the same people delivering the film are delivering they HD's, so the cost is per item.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 09-14-2009, 04:40 PM:

Back to the original question, I will note that I saw this at the Warren in an auditorium that has both digital and 35mm capability...and they ran it in 35mm.

And they have nothing to do with Carmike.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-14-2009, 07:29 PM:

Yah, Martin, we do rep -- so you are right in that prints unless they happen to be in the New York or NJ depots, have to be shipped from LA or Burbank. BUT, we do second run and previews -- on these also cost, not as much as west coast shipping, but not the same bulk rates that commercial theatres get, but Technicolor ships with FedEx or previously by Airborne. And that has always been by weight, not by unit. I wish we could get a print to and from our door for $23.

And Scott, of course you are right, I would always opt for which ever format will give me the best presentation. But what I would vigorously object to would be, after going thru the expense of installing digital, on certain titles a studio would only offer me a film print just so that they won't have to pay the VP fee and that my abilty to run digital is predicated on the studios print order and influenced, not in a small way by their incentive to avoid paying a VP fee.

Besides, I though it was kind of understood that once an exhibitor installs digital, that the studio would always supply digital prints, especially give how they raved about the ability of digital to totally eliminate print shortages. With digital there would never be a shortage of digital prints or available downloads. I was not aware that they would still get to choose what format they would send on any given title.

In your scenario, you are assuming you get to choose which is format is going to give you the better presentation. In my scenario, paranoid as it may be, I would be very VERY piss if a studio were taking the choice away from me and sending me a film print only because it benefits them (too many 35mm prints struck and they get to wiggle out of the VP fee) which has precious little to do with the quality of my presentation.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-14-2009, 08:17 PM:

Maybe it's a Tarantino thing. (Hi Quentin! [Wink]

)

I recall when Planet Terror/Deathproof came out wasn't it only available on film? Perhaps he said he'd just prefer it on film if it's possible.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 09-14-2009, 08:43 PM:

quote: David Zylstra
the delivery cost to the exhibitor is the same whether we get 35mm or digital

In the UK they usually arrive on the same van as the 35mm prints (NFT cinema service), sometimes in the same boxes as the 35mm print would have.

Having said that Inglorious Basterds arrived on a special delivery (in a car) the day before the first show. Being a long basterd it arrived in 2 boxes and just fits onto one tower reel.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-14-2009, 09:05 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
but not the same bulk rates that commercial theatres get, but Technicolor ships with FedEx or previously by Airborne. And that has always been by weight, not by unit. I wish we could get a print to and from our door for $23.

That's interesting. Tech ships UPS here and it is a flat rate. Do the chains up there get screwed, or just you and other small guys?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 09-15-2009, 10:11 AM:

Frank, I'd recommend you talk to TES about this...my understanding is they want to save money, too, and if they're using FedEx for you instead of UPS, it's because of something special about your scenario [perhaps UPS can't guarantee the level of service they require because of how busy they are in NYC?].

Certainly TES is using UPS for the vast majority of accounts, and from what I've heard it is working well. We (MIT) get the same $23 UPS rate for our TES bookings that everybody else gets. If you're not getting that, it's not because you are not first-run, it is something else.

--jhawk

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-16-2009, 12:01 AM:

Unless we get someone with booking knowledge here this is all speculation. If I had to guess though I'd say its either a Tarantino thing or a VPF thing. I'm leaning towards VPF as it seems a fair number of Weinstein releases we get are 35mm.

For the record, I work at a Carmike and we also got Basterds on 35.

And yeah, same problem as Lawton, only 3 people left here who can do film. I'd like to train someone else, but we just don't have film often enough to really make it practical.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-17-2009, 05:00 AM:

Good point, John - -I will give TES a call and find out if we can get stuff shipped via UPS. It would be REALLY nice if we could get that flat rate.