This is topic Movies still being released 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=011865
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 08-19-2015, 12:41 AM:
 
A theater near me still runs 35mm in two of their five auditoriums. They say they are really having a hard time getting movies and it seems that some movies are now not even being released on film now. I know the end is probably near soon. So for now, I would like to start a thread to list which new movies are actually being released on 35mm film prints. The feature info and attachments threads don't always have this information.

The theater nearby me is currently showing on film:

Cinderella
San Andreas
Tomorrowland

What other movies currently in release out there are available on 35mm film and what upcoming movies will be available on 35mm film? Please list them here. Thank you.
 
Posted by Fredrik Sandstrom (Member # 8171) on 08-19-2015, 04:34 AM:
 
So far, the following 2015 releases have been reported here and on other forums as being available on 35mm:
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 08-19-2015, 09:13 AM:
 
I know of at least two theaters running "Straight Outta Compton" in 35mm.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-19-2015, 11:43 AM:
 
It'd be interesting to know how many 35mm prints are being made of these titles. Anybody have a source for that info?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-19-2015, 12:44 PM:
 
Apparently it's about 10 per title (US).
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 08-19-2015, 12:45 PM:
 
A friend of mine stated that his theater is receiving copies of Trainwreck, Mr. Holmes, and Vacation in 35mm in the next few weeks and that Paramount didn't make any known copies of M:I Rogue Nation in that format.
 
Posted by Timothy Eiler (Member # 383) on 08-19-2015, 05:35 PM:
 
quote: Matt Russell
A friend of mine stated that his theater is receiving copies of Trainwreck, Mr. Holmes, and Vacation in 35mm in the next few weeks and that Paramount didn't make any known copies of M:I Rogue Nation in that format.
I been running 35mm print of M:I Rogue Nation since it opened nationwide
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 08-19-2015, 10:21 PM:
 
That's good to know, maybe he just didn't get it in his area (Branson, Missouri). Any word on if Ant-Man got a 35mm? It'd be strange if it didn't, since all of Disney's other movies this summer got one.
 
Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 08-23-2015, 05:27 PM:
 
There is also a 35mm print of IRRATIONAL MAN making the rounds.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-23-2015, 06:24 PM:
 
If it's down to a dozen or fewer prints, who is getting them? Studios only care about money so who is out there that makes enough money that Hollywood takes notice but has not converted OR perhaps has but insists on getting a film print if any are made (and will be thoroughly pissed if told there are none but was lied to).
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 08-27-2015, 12:45 PM:
 
I think "McFarland USA" and "Run All Night" are a couple others that got prints.
 
Posted by Fredrik Sandstrom (Member # 8171) on 08-28-2015, 06:06 AM:
 
Can anyone confirm Trainwreck, Mr Holmes, Vacation, McFarland USA and Run All Night?

No offense to Matt and Shawn, but for my list I prefer stronger testimony than "A friend of mine stated", and "I think". [Smile]
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 08-28-2015, 11:43 AM:
 
I had 35mm back-up print of McFarland when I did a big press screening
last year prior to its' release. So I can confirm there's at least one print! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 08-28-2015, 04:20 PM:
 
The friend I contacted about that hasn't responded since then, but I know for sure that AFI Silver has a 35mm projector and they're currently showing Mr. Holmes, so it's quite possible they got at least a back-up print to show in 35mm. As for Trainwreck, it was shot in 35mm so there has to be some prints out there somewhere. Vacation I have no idea about, there could very well be no 35mm prints, but knowing it's Warner behind it, they quite possibly could have made some prints. I'll update if I get anymore info on those three.

Update: I know none of these were stated above, but I did get word from a member of Kodak's management team that there are prints of Entourage and Ant-Man getting around. As for Trainwreck and Vacation, they had no idea yet, but knowing they have partnerships with Universal and WB to make prints, it's very likely those two have/are getting prints.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-28-2015, 06:47 PM:
 
quote: Matt Russell
...it was shot in 35mm so there has to be some prints out there somewhere.
Not necessarily. Shooting on film, scanning the camera negative rolls and then doing the rest of the post and the distribution all digitally is not uncommon.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 08-31-2015, 02:06 PM:
 
Fredrik - I thought I saw those two movies listed in the showtimes for some 35mm-only theaters, but it was too long ago and I'm not sure which ones. Sorry I can't be more specific.

You can also add "The Boy Next Door" to your list; that had some prints out and Technicolor had it listed on their now-defunct check frames page.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 09-02-2015, 04:41 PM:
 
I forgot to mention that both "McFarland USA" and "Run All Night" have "prints by Fotokem" in the end credits. That's the only lab still making 35mm prints in the US as far as I know, and I don't think it's referring to the DCPs.

Also, the manager of the Fine Arts Theatre Palace in Maynard, MA, which just went digital, confirmed that they showed "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." in 35mm.
 
Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 09-03-2015, 02:44 PM:
 
Does anyone have any idea or consensus as to what the last title to receive an SDDS track was?
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 09-03-2015, 04:01 PM:
 
Ok so far these are CONFIRMED to be additions to the already mentioned films in 35mm:
Not too shabby for the year where 35mm prints were to "cease existence". [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 09-08-2015, 05:10 PM:
 
quote: Sean Weitzel
Does anyone have any idea or consensus as to what the last title to receive an SDDS track was?
Sorry for the late response, the last SDDS that was known of was Surf's Up in June 2007. Spider-Man 3 also had a SDDS track the month before that came out.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 09-08-2015, 07:07 PM:
 
No, "Surf's Up" was only the last 8-channel SDDS release. There were plenty of 6-channel releases after.

Here is Internet Archive's most recent capture (June 9, 2013) of the release list on the now-dead SDDS site. Going by it, "47 Ronin" was the last one, but I've seen the SDDS logo in later releases' ads and end credits, so who knows.
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 09-08-2015, 07:47 PM:
 
Oh ok thanks for pointing that out, I thought 6-channel was gone before they got rid of 8-channel but glad to see it still went on for a little whiles longer!
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-14-2015, 02:33 PM:
 
We're showing a newly released indie horror/thriller film on 35mm at a festival next month. When I saw 35mm and 2015 on the schedule I thought this was a typo and asked our programmer for confirmation. He confirmed - it's a new movie, shot and released on 35.
 
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 09-15-2015, 06:01 AM:
 
That looks fantastic!!! Hope it does well!
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 10-23-2015, 07:51 PM:
 
"Unfinished Business" also has a "prints by Fotokem" credit.

Not sure, but I think "Project Almanac" got some prints too.
 
Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 10-23-2015, 11:09 PM:
 
At our festival this year we had TWO new releases that were shot and printed on 35mm:
- Son of Saul
- Too Late
I know Son of Saul is getting a theatrical run in December, hopefully some of those screenings will be from the print which is very pretty
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-24-2015, 02:10 PM:
 
And apparently the next installment of the "Planet of the Apes" franchise will be shot and released in Ultra Panavision 70. Those lenses may end up having some extra usefulness after all...
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 11-07-2015, 12:36 PM:
 
"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2" is another one with a "prints by Fotokem" credit.

I read on another forum yesterday that "Spectre" is supposedly showing in 35mm in some theaters in California. Anyone know for sure?
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 11-08-2015, 03:08 PM:
 
Add to the list:
Pan
Crimson Peak

Don't know about Spectre, sorry, and if someone in southern Cal has a 35mm, I'd love to know about it.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-08-2015, 03:30 PM:
 
I'm showing Son of Saul tomorrow, and the print looks beautiful - very, very, sharp, detailed and contrasty. Our print (#8a) is on 2383 stock with a year mark of 2013, so I'm guessing that the Hungarian lab which printed it must have been using print stock that they had in storage for a couple of years. Interesting and relieving to note that FotoKem are not the only remaining lab in the world that can do 35mm release printing, and that someone can still do laser subtitling of 35mm prints.

Not only is it a rare example of a new movie shot and released on film, but also one intended for projection in 1.37. The positioning of the credits and subtitles within the frame indicates that it was shot to protect for 1.85, but the leaders, labels on the Goldberg boxes and everything online I can find about the film state that it is intended for projection in 1.37. The backup DCP we've received (this is a festival screening) also has a F-137 tag.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 11-12-2015, 09:28 AM:
 
Add "The Intern" to the list. That starts playing tomorrow at the all-35mm Pacific Sherman Oaks 5.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 11-23-2015, 11:57 AM:
 
Yep, and keying right off of that (thanks Shawn) the same theater opened Mockingjay Part 2 on opening day (11/20) in 35mm.
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 11-29-2015, 10:31 PM:
 
There are 35mm prints of The Martian and The Peanuts Movie going around, I can't confirm locations though.
 
Posted by Fredrik Sandstrom (Member # 8171) on 12-15-2015, 03:11 AM:
 
Imdb claims 35mm prints for Spectre and Brooklyn. Can anyone confirm?
 
Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 12-16-2015, 07:41 PM:
 
I am still hoping for one more year on 35mm film. We are a very rural, low grossing drive in theater here in South Central Indiana. There are 3 drive in theaters in my area this summer which ran 35mm and we all had a very good year. Top hits are always on film except for Fox and they had no real big hits this summer to want to put on film. The other kind of movie on 35mm will be the Turds they try to save by putting it everywhere they can find a screen to put it on. Not sure if there will be film in the spring, but who knows.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-17-2015, 01:07 AM:
 
Did Star Wars get any 35mm prints?
 
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-17-2015, 02:39 AM:
 
quote: Steve Wilson
I am still hoping for one more year on 35mm film. We are a very rural, low grossing drive in theater here in South Central Indiana.
*waves from the West Coast* I grew up nearby in Bedford (and we to school at IU Bloomington). Nice to see a fellow Hoosier 'round these parts!
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 12-17-2015, 09:05 AM:
 
Sony Classic's is releasing 35mm prints of 'Son of Saul' notably for it's film festival engagements; as well it's opening tomorrow at the Nuart theater and Film Forum. (LA/NYC)
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-17-2015, 10:22 AM:
 
Jonathan-
I've done several special 'press' and 'preview' screenings of SOS, the most
recent one being just over a week ago. All were 35mm (change-over).

Within 10min of the last reel, the print was picked up to go to another
screening somewhere up in Canada.

SOS also had several 35mm runs at the Telluride Film Festival back in
September, although it didn't play in the theater I work at there.

I've heard there are DCP's of this title out there, but almost everyone I
know who has run it has done so in 35mm.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 12-17-2015, 12:08 PM:
 
I know that AFI's EU film festival earlier this month was 35mm, as well as the Charlottesville UVA Film Festival - it's the Middleburg Virginia that I'm not sure of - I had tix, but at the last minute couldn't make the screening (that could have been 35mm, but I was under the impression that all the sites for the movie screenings only did DCP). Nor am I aware of how the Hungarian Embassy/Naval Heritage Center in Washington DC earlier this week was projected either.

question is the second NYC theater - Lincoln Plaza Cinema - 35mm or DCP? I can't seem to find info regarding that bit of information.
 
Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 12-17-2015, 12:18 PM:
 
Thanks Daniel Schulz. Good to know you are from my area of the world. Always good to know a few people!
 
Posted by Rick Cohen (Member # 6140) on 12-17-2015, 01:46 PM:
 
Star Wars The Force Awakens, according to a source, had "very, very few 35mm prints struck." Just one print in the LA market which I am aware of.

Zero drive-ins are showing Star Wars on 35mm, including three drive-ins in the south which were open year-round last year, but closed this year early in the fall due to the lack of 35mm print availability.
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 12-17-2015, 02:22 PM:
 
Does anyone know if Hateful Eight is also getting 35mm prints or is it 70mm only?
 
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 12-17-2015, 02:33 PM:
 
I was cheeky on my facebook page yesterday asking if anyone would show up if we re-opened for SW, pretty warm still, but the biggest drive-ins in Ontario which are still open took a pass anyway, 4 weeks is a long commitment when that arctic weather could come at anytime...
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-17-2015, 08:02 PM:
 
quote: Matt Russell
Does anyone know if Hateful Eight is also getting 35mm prints or is it 70mm only?
There are a limited number of 35mm prints.
I know of at least one theater here in San Francisco that is getting one.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-17-2015, 10:24 PM:
 
Presumably the New Bev will play one too, at some point.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-18-2015, 09:58 AM:
 
Think QT will have his own private 70mm copy of H8?
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-18-2015, 02:15 PM:
 
More than one, probably. When the roadshow run is over, I imagine that a small number of the prints that survived essentially undamaged will go to the usual suspect archives if they want them (e.g. Academy, UCLA, etc.), but the rest will be shredded and the PET recycled, just as happened with most release prints. If Tarantino wants any for his personal archive, I can't see Weinstein having a problem with this. It's not as if there would be a piracy risk (and besides, anyone attempting to steal a print from his personal collection would probably end up being attended to "with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch"): I'm not even sure if any scanners capable of running 5/70 release prints exist. They certainly do for 5/65 pre-print elements, but even those are such rare and expensive items that your average pirate gang will simply not have access to one. So if he does want a print or two for his personal archive, Weinstein will probably be only to happy, as it will reduce his recycling bill.
 
Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 12-18-2015, 08:15 PM:
 
Too Late is getting a 35mm only release.

http://deadline.com/2015/12/john-hawkes-starring-thriller-too-late-gets-exclusive-35mm-release-1201668561/

Following in the spiritual footsteps of Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight, the crime thriller Too Late, starring John Hawkes as a troubled private investigator hired to find a missing woman with whom he has a messy relationship, is getting a special 35mm-only theatrical release this spring nationwide. No DCP bookings will be scheduled.

Framed as a story in five acts, Too Late was shot in the 35mm Techniscope format with each chapter comprised of a single 20+ minute uncut shot, approximately the length of a projected film reel. It will open in Los Angeles on March 18 and March 25 in New York City, followed by expansion to other U.S. markets. The filmmakers partnered with Michael Tuckman’s mTuckman Media for the 35mm-only release, with the Alamo Drafthouse theater chain already onboard to exhibit the film. Alamo Drafthouse in Austin is also the home of the annual Fantastic Fest, where Too Late screened earlier this year.

Written and directed by Dennis Hauck in his feature film debut, Too Late also stars Robert Forster, Crystal Reed, Joanna Cassidy, Jeff Fahey, Dichen Lachman, Natalie Zea, Rider Strong, Dash Mihok, and Sydney Tamiia Poitier. Hauck produced along with Taylor Feltner and Alexandra Barreto under Hauck’s Foe Killer Films banner with Vanishing Angle’s Matt Mille and Erich Lochner co-producing.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 12-19-2015, 02:45 PM:
 
It is possible that "Macbeth" got prints, as it has a "film laboratory" credit for Cinelab in London, despite being shot all-digital, as far as I know. It could have been some other film work, of course. I never got a response to the email I sent the lab last month.
 
Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 12-19-2015, 03:25 PM:
 
It would be nice to know how many 35mm Star Wars prints there are. I would imagine if we could get one in late March, we might run it on opening night. I would imagine this movie will not hit a Red Box unit for a very long time to come.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-21-2015, 07:48 PM:
 
Rick Cohen mentioned one 35mm of "Force Awakens" in LA, and that is at the Vista Theatre, where they're playing it in film by "request" of the director. Nice.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-21-2015, 11:41 PM:
 
The Vista looks seriously nice from their website. I've driven past it many times when the 101 has been gnarled up and I've gone from the 10 up Chavez and Sunset to bypass it, but I had no idea that it was almost as old as the Egyptian and in such great shape inside. If they've still got Star Bores in 35mm in early January I might try to catch a matinee.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-22-2015, 01:44 PM:
 
Being out of the way for me, I've only been there for one show, and that was years ago.

It was definitely film done right, though, and I doubt that's changed. A little smallish but you can always sit closer.
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 12-22-2015, 02:08 PM:
 
QT no doubt has it in his contract (like other stars/directors) that he gets 35mm (now 70mm) prints of his movies. I've seen his film lists and he has prints of all of his movies, including an extended print of Death Proof, the Cannes version of Kill Bill, etc.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-23-2015, 10:59 AM:
 
"In the Heart of the Sea" opens at Sherman Oaks 5 on Christmas Day, the third week of release for that film. I wonder where that print has been? SO5 is starving for new material, and for the Christmas break they're putting Inside Out back in and matinees of Pan.
 
Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 12-25-2015, 07:17 PM:
 
One of my fellow drive in theaters has told me he was converting because he had been told that Disney was not producing any 35mm prints on their movies. Can anyone confirm this to be true!? Thanks
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 12-25-2015, 08:55 PM:
 
That's really strange Steve, because basically every Disney movie this year has gotten a 35mm print (McFarland-Star Wars). Unless Disney comes out saying 2015 was the last year, I highly doubt it.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 12-25-2015, 09:11 PM:
 
Pixar's projection page doesn't list any 35mm specs for "The Good Dinosaur", only digital 2D and 3D. This is a first for them. Maybe there were no prints period, or not enough to bother writing any up (the latter I find hard to believe). I haven't heard of any places that showed it in 35mm.
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 12-26-2015, 01:34 AM:
 
Well, this website does infer that there indeed are 35mm prints of Good Dinosaur since detailed instructions are given, so there must be some prints out there.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 12-26-2015, 06:03 PM:
 
Thanks for that. It would have been nice if they'd linked to it from the main menu.

Interesting that most of the images and the checklist are about "Inside Out".
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-27-2015, 06:34 PM:
 
...which may confirm intention to release "dinosaur" in 35, but in reality never did. (Every one of those images look like "Inside Out" to me.)
 
Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 12-29-2015, 09:16 PM:
 
I am still hoping to get one more year out of 35mm, but I am not too confident on it as I have been in past years. I could have used one more good year of fundraising to manage to cough up the cost of a good used machine. We changed the way we do business in a controversial way and it was a huge financial success! My problem is, I should have started 3 years ago and I would be there by now. We lost a very few movies this year to not being on digital. However, the loss of a movie or two would never be enough to pay for digitals upkeep! So did I lose or did I just survive a less expensive year.
 
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 12-30-2015, 11:34 AM:
 
Good to see you Steve. I have to ask, what did you change in your business that was "controversial"?
 
Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 12-30-2015, 06:28 PM:
 
Hey Dave Bird! Good to see you too. We stopped the Flood out outside FOOD! Food sales jumped 40 percent and pop sales tripled. Our food sales averaged 90 to 110 percent of ticket sales. I used to average 55 percent. We have really good food and a very large variety of the best products I can find.
 
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 12-31-2015, 12:57 PM:
 
Good for you Steve! We also source the best we can, cook fresh and charge accordingly. That said, our equipment (which I am about to replace and add to) was limited, and you may recall that we are not always at the theatre (my now college aged daughter as well as a couple other very good people mostly run things), and so thus far we've had a fairly basic menu, and we keep things very, very clean. I would say your 50%-ish of tickets is right in our ballpark.

But without stirring up any of the old "outside food" debates, I'm betting we as owners are the most squeamish about raising prices or establishing these policies and I often think that we'll eventually at least post some "no outside food" signage. Do you offer a "permit" or do any "enforcement"? I don't see a real downside, I never thought we made any money off the cheapskates who really would have a problem, and really what I would expect is that these things end up convincing the garden-variety people who still sneak a little in to realize the importance of buying some on site as well.

But either way, right now I'm looking at what type(s) of food equipment to replace the old char-grill with that would let us expand our offering a bit while not slowing us down at the rush.
Cheers, and Happy New Year!
 
Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 01-02-2016, 06:21 PM:
 
We do a Food Permit and 100% of it goes to our digital fundraiser! We will always put 100% in that account, because I think it will cost that much per year for all time to keep up with the expenses of digital in the long run should we survive.
 
Posted by Fredrik Sandstrom (Member # 8171) on 01-03-2016, 10:46 AM:
 
Here's my list of 2015 releases that have been confirmed having had 35mm prints. Now's a good time to make additions to it. No rumors, only facts. (Hence you will note that Spectre is not (yet) on the list, as I have not seen a report of that definitely having played in 35mm anywhere.)
 
Posted by Tony Ratcliff (Member # 1196) on 01-04-2016, 03:23 PM:
 
Thanks for the comprehensive list Fredrik.
But I wonder if the list is different for Europe and the US.
Because at least two of the titles on the list - Hotel Trans 2 and Peanuts - I was told by the studios reps that there were no 35mm prints made. Maybe they were wrong??
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 01-04-2016, 03:58 PM:
 
The Peanuts Movie I know for sure got 35mm, I got an email from Deluxe a few months back that said Fox is distributing 35mm copies of Peanuts (as well as The Martian).
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-04-2016, 07:39 PM:
 
Tony: I doubt if the studio know for sure; too many factions.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 01-06-2016, 08:10 PM:
 
Point Break is opening (being moved to?) the Pacific 5 in Sherman Oaks on Friday. The other 4 screens are still In the Heart of the Sea, Mockingjay part 2, The Intern, and Inside Out.
 
Posted by Jay Glaus (Member # 6011) on 01-08-2016, 04:54 PM:
 
Does anyone know any place that either Peanuts and/or Martian played in 35? As far as I knew from a very reliable source there was no 35 on either.
 
Posted by Rick Cohen (Member # 6140) on 01-08-2016, 09:02 PM:
 
Jay,

The 35mm list is most likely international. I do not believe there were any 35mm prints in the USA for either Peanuts or The Martian, but there could have been some internationally.

In the case of Star Wars, you could probably count on one hand the number of 35mm prints, although nobody at Disney is either willing or able to answer how many actual prints there are.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-10-2016, 09:04 PM:
 
Just seen that Son of Saul got the foreign language Golden Globe - its director pushed for a 35mm release, and many of the festival and other pre-release gala screenings were done on film at his request. It's probably also the first new film to be shot in 1.37 (all the way through - I'm discounting The Grand Budapest Hotel, because it includes shots in three different ratios, although the bulk of the footage is 1.37) to win a major award in many years.
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 01-10-2016, 11:14 PM:
 
quote: Leo Enticknap
and many of the festival and other pre-release gala screenings were done on film at his request.
Yea- - between August & December I did a crapload of S-O-S screenings
at various venues- - all 35mm. All change-over, of course.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-11-2016, 12:02 AM:
 
^ would you happen to know if the Middleburg Virginia Film Festival's two screenings were 35mm.

I had sent Landmark E Street (DC) a Facebook message if their engagement of 'Son of Saul' was going to be 35mm, they said no, but as of a day or so ago, the Washington Post advert for the E Street engagement DID say it would be 35mm exclusive engagement - guess that changed at the last minute.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-11-2016, 12:47 AM:
 
I wonder how many of the places playing the 35mm prints have 1.37 lenses and plates? I've noticed that on both the prints I showed, the subtitles were positioned very high on the frame, so they're obviously expecting some venues to play it in 1.85, either in error or out of necessity.

The two prints I showed both arrived uncued, too - I had to scribe cues onto both of them.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 01-13-2016, 05:35 PM:
 
"Creed" starts playing at the Pacific Sherman Oaks 5 in 35mm this Friday.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 01-26-2016, 01:13 PM:
 
"The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" is another one with a "prints by Fotokem" credit.
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 01-26-2016, 05:53 PM:
 
There are apparently some 35mm prints of "Hateful Eight"
I know one is still running in San Francisco, and I ran one
at a special screening recently.
 
Posted by Jay Glaus (Member # 6011) on 01-27-2016, 01:14 PM:
 
Rick,

Never thought of the international scope of things, but that's probably right.

I keep wondering to myself how long film can continue to hold on, but that seems to be a question that is difficult to answer.
 
Posted by Brian Alter (Member # 9318) on 02-05-2016, 03:12 PM:
 
Kelly's Reichert's 2010 film MEEK'S CUTOFF was shot in 1.37, fyi.
 
Posted by Brian DeCiancio (Member # 1422) on 02-22-2016, 05:49 PM:
 
An email from Paramount today indicates that both Daddy's Home and Zoolander 2 have a limited number of 35mm prints available.
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 02-22-2016, 11:42 PM:
 
I got an email from Fox yesterday that said there are 35mm prints of Kung Fu Panda 3, but it didn't indicate as to whether or not it's for the domestic and/or international release.
 
Posted by Rick Cohen (Member # 6140) on 02-23-2016, 12:20 PM:
 
One of the last multiplexes showing all 35mm is Pacific's Sherman Oaks 5 in Sherman Oaks, CA. Their lineup this week (February 19-25) is:

Creed
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2
In the Heart of the Sea
Inside Out
The Intern
Point Break

None of these movies were even released in 2016, and one even dates back to June 2015. The Intern was September 2015. The others were released in November or December.

If 'In The Heart Of The Sea,' 'Point Break,' and 'The Intern' are the "go to" movies for even a sub-run 35mm multiplex, that is a very bad sign for the current state of 35mm availability. It isn't as if Pacific doesn't have the booking muscle to get newer 35mm prints, there just are not any newer 35mm prints to be got.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 02-24-2016, 05:40 PM:
 
Rick, you have to keep in mind that Pac5 is in the shadow of Arclight Sherman Oaks, and all "new" 35mm releases are usually week 3 before they get their print, so they don't compete with each other. Having said that, it's been over a month since their latest print (Creed) and they are seriously starved for new film. Seriously!
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-24-2016, 05:59 PM:
 
quote: Tyler Purcell
What doesn't need to happen is what I saw at the Vista... a two week old 35mm print of The Force Awakens that was completely destroyed. When I say destroyed, I mean it was to the point of being unwatchable. Sold-out showing on tuesday at 2:00, everyone wanted to see it on film. Yet, the experience was god awful. Again, it comes back to actually caring MORE THAN EVER! The print was poorly made...
What?! FotoKem are now the only remaining lab in the country (that I know of) that offer a commercial 4/35 release printing service (not sure if Janice Allen/Cinema Arts and/or Colorlab still do, but they serve archives and arthouse distributors almost exclusively - I'd be astonished if the Star Wars prints weren't from FotoKem), and all the prints I've handled from them in the last couple of years have been beautiful. The only glitch I've ever seen with a FotoKem 35mm print made recently is the cue dots scribed in the wrong place (one perf too high and thus invisible through a 1.85 plate) on one reel of Inherent Vice.

I'm really surprised to hear that they made a poor quality print of a major blockbuster for playing at a well-known Hollywood venue. I'm also surprised that it was handled so poorly once it got there.
 
Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-24-2016, 06:07 PM:
 
Leo: The way I read this is that the THEATRE destroyed it, not anything that was the lab's fault.

Going back six years, the only major issues I ever saw were on the ads, where they had some film fog that made it into the soundtrack and image area.

I'm sure bigger glitches were out there, but no prints that I can recall running myself.

And of course, the horrific, wild color timing, with no attempt to group reels by color trend, colors all over the place. And seemingly passing everything, even if it was 50 points (literally, I went and measured that one it was so bad) too green (Twilight Fall 2009 or Spring 2010).
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-24-2016, 10:41 PM:
 
"Made" as in, made up into a platter roll. Sorry, my misread.
 
Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 02-26-2016, 03:28 PM:
 
I have a new release 35mm coming out in March. I am not able to give you any details as I was sworn to secrecy! Sorry, but there is some 35 still coming out.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 03-03-2016, 09:56 PM:
 
Our favorite holdout, Pacific 5 Sherman Oaks, opens Mad Max Fury Road tomorrow on 3/4/2016 (will anyone go see it at this point?), and, more notably, "How to Be Single," since it has the distinction of being the first 2016 release to show up around here on 35mm. But even it's been out for 3 weeks already. Why does Pacific keep that place open, I wonder, with Arclight Sherman Oaks right around the corner preventing it from getting new releases, yet the prices aren't exactly second-run.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 03-04-2016, 12:38 PM:
 
^^ I for one am happy it's still open....

I bet they have a lot a regular customers who love the place.
 
Posted by Justin West (Member # 920) on 03-04-2016, 02:05 PM:
 
Whoa, Steve, you're really going out on a limb, here...don't risk spilling any beans about a movie being released on 35mm in March, nope that would jeopardize all that work you've put in to keep 35mm on screen! [Wink] Breaking news: there are 12 wide releases in March, probably topped by "Batman V. Superman" which will be released by WB...a studio that still released some 35 in 2015. I'm no rocket scientist, but...
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 03-15-2016, 06:00 PM:
 
Hail, Caesar! apparently got a limited 35mm engagement.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 03-23-2016, 01:34 AM:
 
GCC Pacific Sherman Oaks gets Batman vs Superman in 35mm.

What other theaters around the country are getting 35mm prints?
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 03-23-2016, 01:42 PM:
 
I just caught that, too, Eric. Very cool, not just because it's 35mm, but because Pacific might not actually want to run this place into the ground. This is the first first-day-of-release print they've had since we've been watching them all this time. Also, there are extended hours shows on all screens for the holiday weekend. Haven't seen that either.

The Vista theater that ran Force Awakens in 35mm will have this title opening in digital on Thursday night.

As far as B vs S being an on-film title, we should also note here (so people can search for the other relevant threads) that this film is also on 5/70 and 15/70 film. Although good luck finding one of those screens near you!
 
Posted by Rick Cohen (Member # 6140) on 03-25-2016, 01:57 AM:
 
Four drive-ins which have not made the conversion to digital are opening Batman V Superman in 35mm.

Locations are: Motor Vu Drive-In in Idaho Falls, Idaho, Stone Drive-In in Mountain View, Arkansas, Route 34 Drive-In in Earlville, Illinois. Holiday Drive-In in Mitchell, Indiana, has also received a 35mm print, even though they just recently converted to digital this past week.

There are roughly 30 drive-ins left which are still using 35mm, most of which are still closed for the season. Almost 90% of all drive-ins have already been converted to digital. It is still unclear if there will be enough 35mm available this year for those 30 drive-ins to remain viable. Some of these might have stay closed permanently if there is not enough 35mm available to sustain them.
 
Posted by Max Hayman (Member # 8726) on 04-05-2016, 07:38 AM:
 
Picturehouse Central in London, UK have Batman vs Superman in 35mm

-
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 04-08-2016, 04:03 AM:
 
Kodak has posted a map of theaters showing BvS in 35mm and 5/70mm.

Some locations are missing; the Sherman Oaks 5 for example.
 
Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 04-08-2016, 04:30 AM:
 
quote: Max Hayman
Picturehouse Central in London, UK have Batman vs Superman in 35mm
What lab is still making prints for the UK? I know FotoKem is the only one for North America now but surely they aren't sending stuff internationally?
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-08-2016, 01:11 PM:
 
If Brian Pritchard's listing of UK labs is complete and accurate, Cinelab is the only UK lab that offers a commercial, color release printing service.

I wouldn't be surprised, however, if the B v. S print that City Screen are showing is an imported one. This happened very frequently when I worked in UK cinemas, especially with mass multiplex titles, for which many hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of prints were made for the US market.

The telltale sign that you had a US import would be that the print arrived on 4" cores rather than the more common (in Europe) 3" ones. The plastic sides that clipped into these cores to form the US shipping reel that went in a Goldberg case were removed, and then the reel, still on the 4" core, would be put in a plastic "can" and into the hideous green Rank "kneecapper" cases, or, if you were lucky, cardboard cartons, that were (and maybe still are) used to move prints around Britain. If the British Board of Film Classification certificate card was spliced onto the front of reel 1 (i.e. the footage was not continuous), that was another indication.

Occasionally the British distributor would reprint individual reels locally, if needed. For example, all the reel 2s of The Mummy were British prints, because a violent scene was re-edited so that the show could have a 12-certificate, but the others were all imported. So the reel 2s looked great, but the others looked slightly softer and less contrasty from having been ultrasonically cleaned and rewashed after their US booking. Those reels stank of perchloroethane when I opened the cans, too, because the rewashing hadn't been done very well, if at all.
 
Posted by Sascha F. Roll (Member # 9043) on 04-08-2016, 01:53 PM:
 
Is SR-D the only digital soundtrack on those BvS prints?
 
Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 04-09-2016, 12:25 AM:
 
Thanks, Leo! I should have known you would be the one with the answer to that question.
 
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 04-09-2016, 11:41 AM:
 
quote: Shawn M. Martin
Kodak has posted a map of theaters showing BvS in 35mm and 5/70mm.
So I count 20 theatres that ran BVS on 35mm. Is US film distribution really down to numbers like that?
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 04-09-2016, 10:47 PM:
 
The unbelievable irony that KODAK lists the film releases, and nowhere to be found on the BvS promotions.

The Arclight 70mm runs closed after 2 weeks. If you didn't look at their website, you'd never have found out that it was 70mm. Completely omitted from newspaper listings.
 
Posted by Rick Cohen (Member # 6140) on 04-13-2016, 01:02 PM:
 
Jack,

I am surprised there are still that many. Some of those locations will never make back the print cost. I think it has more to do with jerking off Christopher Nolan by showing him there were 20 prints of Batman V Superman in circulation. Even though those locations were some of the lowest grossing theatres in the country, since they have not converted to digital. It certainly was not about making a profit.

How many of those 35mm BvS locations had access to a digital projector, but showed it on 35mm by choice? My guess would be zero.
 
Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 04-13-2016, 01:58 PM:
 
The Sherman Oaks 5 is keeping the same lineup starting Friday. That includes 1 daily showing of Heart of the Sea. That film opened December 11th 2015 and tanked. Box Office Mojo stopped tracking it February 12th. And it is still playing.

Do you think they sold 1 ticket to that film in the last month? The theatre is still showing Mad Max but I can understand somebody wanting to catch that on the big screen.

I appreciate that Pacific is keeping the place open and that the place still projects film but why are they doing so? It has to be a money loser. Is it just to keep a competitor out of the neighborhood?
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 04-13-2016, 04:44 PM:
 
"Far from the Madding Crowd" has a "prints by Fotokem" credit.
 
Posted by Steven Schoelen (Member # 8985) on 05-05-2016, 04:16 PM:
 
pacific sherman oaks opening captain america: civil war and green room on 35mm
 
Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 05-05-2016, 04:33 PM:
 
Steven, where do you see that listed? Fandango and Google have zero listings for any shows at the Sherman Oaks 5 tomorrow.

And for today's listing it appears only 4 screens are operating.

Is it closing? Converting to digital?
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-05-2016, 04:38 PM:
 
After Civil War, I wonder if that's the end for 35mm releases, for I heard reports from a local booker that he sees no more film releases for the rest of the year .. and maybe forever.
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 05-05-2016, 06:40 PM:
 
quote: Monte L Fullmer
After Civil War, I wonder if that's the end for 35mm releases, for I heard reports from a local booker that he sees no more film releases for the rest of the year .. and maybe forever.
Even if they kill off 35mm releases in the US, I highly doubt it will be gone globally. I've gotten news of new prints in the past where they point to an international release only.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-06-2016, 12:53 PM:
 
I called Sherman Oaks and they advised Captain America is DIGITAL.
 
Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 05-06-2016, 12:56 PM:
 
They seemed to be only operating 4 screens last week - so that must have been for conversion. Fandango only list showtimes through Sunday.

And....Heart of the Sea has finally reached the end of its run at the SO5. Mad Max continues....
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-10-2016, 12:06 PM:
 
Just informed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Star Trek will be available on 35mm.
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-10-2016, 04:46 PM:
 
"Nice Guys" is also apparently being released in 35mm, since
I got both a DCP and 35mm back-up print for a press screening.
 
Posted by Alexandre Pereira (Member # 9295) on 05-10-2016, 11:01 PM:
 
Nothing coming through in Canada - the Deluxe CCDI depot has not had anything in months. Although I paid to have Fury Road shipped up from LA to play it in 35mm. This was after the initial run on DCP. It was worth it. Now I just need some more decent pictures with 35mm prints to run.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-14-2016, 10:01 PM:
 
Jim, is your print marked as some sort of special studio vault copy or does it seem like a release print? If the latter and you don't think it's a secret, what print number? (Might give some indication as to how many they make. Or it might not.)
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 05-14-2016, 11:36 PM:
 
Is Green Room actually 35mm at the Sherman Oaks 5?
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-15-2016, 08:58 AM:
 
quote: Steve Kraus
what print number?
Hi Steve-

My "Nice Guys" print has already shipped back to the distributor.

I do have a record of the print number, but I won't be back to that booth
(where my notes are) until later this week & I can check then.

I know they were rather adamant about getting the print shipped back
right away because "they needed it", but I don't know if that meant they
wanted to put it into distribution, or if it was heading for another preview
or press screening somewhere.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 05-15-2016, 03:21 PM:
 
Shawn, I don't see that title on Fandango. Titles: Captn USA, BvS, How to Be Single, Mockingjay 2, MM Fury Road.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 05-17-2016, 10:23 AM:
 
Since Pacific's Sherman Oaks 5 has been our last local 35mm holdout, and we're getting inconsistent information on the venue, I did something really radical: watched a show there. For prime time on a Sunday night, to have less than 3 dozen patrons across 5 screens doesn't strike me as healthy for the future of this venue. And it's a kinda cool place with the balconies and all. So I took peeks in all the auditoriums throughout the evening, and this is what I found (note that all screens are, in scope, between 25 and 30 feet wide):

Screen 1 - Batman vs. Superman (12 patrons) in 35mm, presentation quality B-. Brightness acceptable, clarity OK, screen alignment not the best, print had a couple of dark scratches in the mid areas and flashing horizontal green scratches in the right 10%. The brief scenes I saw had awful color, presuming too much digital color manipulation and poor print timing.
Screen 2 - Mockingjay - NO SHOW!
Screen 3 - Capt USA Civil War (15 patrons) - Digital from the NEC (DLP) projector installed for this run, almost too bright for this size of screen because darker scenes looked gray. Otherwise loud, clear, clean, and enjoyable.
Screen 4 - How to Be Single (2 patrons!) in 35mm had rich film-saturated color, only minor scratching. Pretty clean image considering how many weeks it's been there.
Screen 5 (the one without a balcony) - Mad Max Fury (5 or 6 patrons) in 35mm also had great color but was scratched UNBELIEVABLY with a downpour of rain lines across the entire width of the picture. Repacing the gate with a sheet of sandpaper wouldn't have been much worse. Asking people to pay $10.75 to see that is what gives film a bad reputation. Long live FilmGuard, they needed some.

Currently Fandango lists only 4 titles; hopefully Screen 2 is getting a digital retrofit so they can get some business in there.

4-word summary: NO NEW 35mm THERE.
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 05-17-2016, 12:04 PM:
 
Sad that they're treating those late prints so badly- I'd almost move to Sherman Oaks to work there and run film for as long as they keep showing it there!

Saw "The Nice Guys" in digital last night BTW and a Christie platter and projector console play a key part in one scene. A film ambiguously finds itself back in the can right after it's done playing.
 
Posted by Rick Cohen (Member # 6140) on 05-20-2016, 07:14 AM:
 
Warner Bros. has a limited number of prints available for The Nice Guys opening on May 20.

Sony has a limited number of prints available for The Angry Birds Movie opening on May 20.

Paramount will have a limited number of prints available for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 opening on June 3.

Thus far in 2016, Disney, Fox, and Universal have released none of their movies on 35mm in the United States.

As of May 20, there are only 11 drive-ins currently open and operating on 35mm without a digital projector, while the remaining 300 drive-ins are now equipped for digital. Another 17 drive-ins are sort of "in limbo," where they have not converted to digital yet, and have not reopened for the season on 35mm either.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-20-2016, 10:36 AM:
 
I know we are converting one Drive-In in June to digital but they are opening with film this year.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 05-20-2016, 03:28 PM:
 
Looks like Sherman Oaks 5 got one of the 35mm prints of Angry Birds, opening today with a full schedule. The other screens (1 digital, 2 35mm, 1 not showing) appear to be continuing exactly as I described in my previous post.
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-20-2016, 05:41 PM:
 
quote: Steve Kraus
what print number? (Might give some indication
as to how many they make. Or it might not.
Turns out the print I had was #001. [Roll Eyes]
I guess that doesn't help answer your question!
I either had the first one they made- - or the only one.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-23-2016, 11:00 AM:
 
LOL Thanks Jim.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-23-2016, 12:38 PM:
 
The Leicester (MA.) drive-in opened last weekend with Batman vs. Superman and Mad Max Fury Road, presumably on film. The second screen is "opening soon." For some reason, concessions do not open until next weekend (?).

It sounds as if the pickings are getting rather slim for 35mm-only theatres that show current material.... [Frown]
 
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 05-23-2016, 03:34 PM:
 
I couldn't imagine opening a theatre today with only 35mm capability even with a drive in being an added draw, if you can't get any product you're dead in the water unless you want to show rep or discount product. At $28 a carload it seems a little bit steep, good for families but poor for anyone on a date or just two-three people.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-23-2016, 04:30 PM:
 
Agreed, completely. I do not know anyone involved with the venue and cannot presume to know what their intentions are. They seem to be in a tough place. They are only open seasonally, and then only on weekends. I hope that the owners and managers can find a way to make this work, either by building an audience for classic films at a drive-in (good luck) or by raising capital for a D-cinema installation. Or (sniff, sniff) maybe the land is just better used for some other purpose.... [Frown]
 
Posted by Matt Miller (Member # 9259) on 05-24-2016, 04:45 PM:
 
quote: Rick Cohen
As of May 20, there are only 11 drive-ins currently open and operating on 35mm without a digital projector, while the remaining 300 drive-ins are now equipped for digital. Another 17 drive-ins are sort of "in limbo," where they have not converted to digital yet, and have not reopened for the season on 35mm either.
Hi Rick. Do you have a list of those 11 drive-ins you mention that still only have 35mm? Also, do you know if any of the remaining 300 kept their 35mm projectors after adding digital or were they all removed? Thanks.
 
Posted by Rick Cohen (Member # 6140) on 05-25-2016, 10:58 AM:
 
Matt,

Yes, I do have a list that I can share off the board. Please contact me through the Transit Drive-In Facebook page.

My guess is that most, but not all, drive-ins have either removed or disposed of their 35mm equipment. My advice would be to contact each drive-in through the Facebook page or website and ask them.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 06-01-2016, 11:02 AM:
 
As Rick noted above, there are a few 35mm prints for TMNT; Sherman Oaks 5 will replace its first-run "Angry Birds" in 35mm with Mutant Turtles, starting Friday June 3. Batman V Superman and the very beat-up Mad Max Fury Road continues in 35mm, and the newly digital screen continues X-Men Apocalypse. One screen remains dark. Interesting that they didn't move "Angry Birds" over to it. Working on a conversion? Projector broken? Who knows.
 
Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 06-01-2016, 12:11 PM:
 
RE Sherman Oaks 5: Are we sure Angry Birds isn't Digital? Captain America played in Digital for 2 weeks then was replaced by Angry Birds while BvS and MM kept on in 35mm. During that 1st week of Angry Birds on Sunday the 4PM-ish screening was replaced with 1 showing of Captain America (Disney 3 week obligation being fulfilled?). So if those were on same screen it would be digital would it not? During that week only 3 screens seemed to be operating. The following week added X-men with the previous week's lineup. If TMNT replaces angry birds this week it surely must be digital. If it were 35mm would't they have gotten rid if BvS or Mad Max? Angry Birds is the #3 film right now. I think the Sherman Oaks 5 currently has 2 digital screens, 2 35mm, and one being converted.

Thats my theory!
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 06-01-2016, 04:00 PM:
 
I'm not going to have time to go back and check it out anytime soon, and your theory is certainly plausible, Mark! However, I disagree that Angry Bird replaced Captain America, because they opened X-Men and had both going at the same time. So X-Men had to have been digital. When I went 3 weeks ago and looked in every room, there was clearly digital capability in only one venue, and the "dark" room had 35mm and no audience (see longer post on previous page). Running only 3 screens was very brief but didn't seem to have resulted in a second digital conversion.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-01-2016, 06:09 PM:
 
Why is the Sherman Oaks 5 a film holdout? It is a corporate theatre in a major market, not a small-town mom-and-pop cinema. Is Pacific really that hard up for cash? Is someone there a film-lover who wants to keep the medium alive? Is the lease about to expire?

I love film as much as anyone here and hope that it never goes away, but I can't imagine playing first-run titles in 2016 without D-cinema capability. The lack of title availability would be a killer, especially for a multi-screen venue. Are people really still showing up to see a scratched print of Mad Max on weekday afternoons?
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 06-02-2016, 07:59 PM:
 
Scott, great questions all. Since Pacific Theaters' management isn't here with us, any answers we give are only based on presumption. Here's what I presume: Sherman Oaks 5 isn't a lease but is fully owned by Pacific, so it's cheap to hang onto; it's weak but has just enough of a market hold to persist for awhile, and the venue is uniquely appealing since 4 of the 5 rooms have balconies; and, perhaps most significantly, it's servicing the same neighborhood as Arclight Sherman Oaks that plays to the upscale market with "flawless" presentation and ticket prices nearly double that of SO5. And Arclight is owned by the same parent company. An oddity, to be sure.

Pacific's other local venues have been digital since roughly 2010 or shortly thereafter, I think.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-03-2016, 02:19 AM:
 
They're obviously not holding out as a deliberate policy, or else they'd be advertising far and wide that they still play 35mm in a bid to appeal to the "film forever" crowd.

There has to be a reason why they aren't willing to invest in a digital upgrade, but are willing to keep the place open playing the very restricted range of new releases that are still available on 35mm. Lease about to expire has usually been that reason for other smallish 'plexes in this situation.

However, with so much used digital equipment now on the market, they could probably convert the whole place using used but OK Series 1 gear for $100k-ish (which wouldn't have been an option during the initial conversion period): not much, given the ongoing operating costs of such a site.

Maybe there's some weird factor involved unique to that site, e.g. asbestos lining in the walls that they can't disturb, or very restrictive building codes in that particular city?
 
Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 06-03-2016, 02:48 PM:
 
This "Sherman Oaks 5" is an ex-GCC structure. The building was known, during the GCC days, as cinemas 3 - 7. Cinemas 1 & 2 were located across the street, and technically they (1 & 2) had a different street address, on Van Nuys Blvd. Those two were the originals, and the 5 were added later, though I can't recall the year. (I'm refreshing my memory from my old GCC Directory, from October 1998). Looks like 1 & 2 are demolished now, for a parking structure. My guess would be that these 5 screens, now as part of Pacific, are living out the term of the lease.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 06-04-2016, 03:07 PM:
 
Well, that sounds like a reasonable explanation, particularly if there was a long lease like 10 or 20 years involved.

Yes Paul, the parking structure for a pharmacy occupies the former footprint of "1 & 2" which, back in the day, was where I first heard Cinema Digital Sound on a secret (unadvertised) trial run. I remember telling my buddy, when the movie finished and he asked me what I thought about the sound there, that it was better than normal and all movies ought to sound that crisp. It was years later before I found out why it was so good.
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-29-2016, 05:43 PM:
 
quote: Bill Brandenstein
the parking structure for a pharmacy occupies the former footprint of "1 & 2" which, back in the day, was where I first heard Cinema Digital Sound on a secret (unadvertised) trial run.
Care to divulge the title?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-29-2016, 11:13 PM:
 
There was a CDS Demo Film.,it was set up at a Syufy Dome theater in Vegas for Showest one year. It was fairly impressive...

Mark
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 06-30-2016, 07:30 PM:
 
Edward Scissorhands, I believe, in practically a pre-release run of CDS, which was unannounced at that screening (perhaps in case of difficulties?).
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 06-30-2016, 10:38 PM:
 
Edward Scissorhands was advertised in CDS and has the logo in its end credits- Days of Thunder also played in CDS a few months before that.

Star Trek VI and Newsies were shown unadvertised in Dolby Digital as a test for that format.
 
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-01-2016, 05:41 PM:
 
quote: Paul H. Rayton
My guess would be that these 5 screens, now as part of Pacific, are living out the term of the lease.
Sherman Oaks (1,2) opened as a twin. Then they opened a triplex (3,4,5) across the street. It was damaged in the Northridge earthquake. GCC built a new 5 plex with 4 V-5's and one V-8 (only setup for 35mm no mag). It was a GCC than AMC and now Pacific. I opened the GCC Sherman Oaks 3-7 theatres.
There was no CDS material or equipment in the twins booth when I was there.
 
Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 07-02-2016, 11:17 AM:
 
films presented in Cinema Digital Sound

One of the last Film Notes for the Reel People discusses CDS.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 07-02-2016, 09:17 PM:
 
"Zootopia" has a "prints by Fotokem" credit.
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 07-08-2016, 04:18 PM:
 
Saw a 35mm print of SECRET LIFE OF PETS in a booth when I stopped
in at a theater to check some equipment the other night.

I took a quick peek at the shipment and there were no lab stickers
on the box, although the leaders say "Color By Deluxe" on them &
markings that indicate the film-out rendering was done by e-film in
Hollywood, on an Arrilaser recorder.

Also a note in the box that this print and all future 35mm
releases from Universal will move from Deluxe/Technicolor to
"Vision Media Management" in Lebec, CA.

Theater owner also told me he had been offered the new
GHOSTBUSTERS in 35mm also.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-10-2016, 02:53 PM:
 
quote: Jim Cassedy
Also a note in the box that this print and all future 35mm releases from Universal will move from Deluxe/Technicolor to "Vision Media Management" in Lebec, CA.
Since Technicolor and Deluxe pulled out of 35mm print wrangling, Warners' and Sony's archive prints have shipped to us direct from their studio lots, but all other studio prints have come either from Vision Media Management, or HFC in Valencia.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 07-23-2016, 03:18 AM:
 
Went to Sherman Oaks 5 tonight to avoid traffic and smoke from a local forest fire. The lineup is now:
Screen 1 - 35mm Ghostbusters, scope, SRD. Tends to look yellowish but otherwise very good, lovely film color and contrast, with loud dynamic sound. Masking and illumination were great for a change, and only the opening "Pacific Theater" snipes were flawed (started with scope, end portion was flat projected scope).
Screen 2 - digital "BFG"
Screen 3 - NEWLY digital, "Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates"
Screen 4 - 35mm "Secret Life of Pets" with gorgeous color and brightness (so much better looking than DLP) but had plenty of specks, plus light markings during one reel, and the sharp image was slightly smaller than the flat-ratio masking. Ugg. Worse, the Dolby reader must be broken because the sound was analog, and you could see through the port that the LED wasn't lit and the film wasn't threaded through it. Ugg.
Screen 5 - 35mm "Angry Birds." No show!

Attendance is still tepid. The evening show for "Ghostbusters" had maybe 20 people, and "Pets" had 15. How do they keep it going?
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 07-23-2016, 09:26 AM:
 
You might be interested to see this program sheet that I later found displayed down at the lobby:

-
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-25-2016, 04:29 PM:
 
I was working at the Aero in Santa Monica on Saturday, and the smoke from that fire made for a gray sky all day and evening - and that was 30-40 miles south of the fire! Interestingly, the skies were clear and blue on Sunday, and the fire was still going on - the wind must have shifted.

Interesting that the Pacific is actually advertising the fact that a screening is on 35mm. I'm guessing that enough of their regular audience want to see 35mm that they now consider it a selling point. Or maybe they're only flagging it up because of the "no trailers" issue.

We have several box loads of 35mm trailers if they'd like any, but they are all for movies made between around 2000 and 2010!
 
Posted by Ronan Nissenbaum (Member # 9526) on 07-27-2016, 02:02 PM:
 
Does anyone know of anywhere in the UK or mainland Europe that shows new releases on 35mm? I tend to be in London from time to time and would love to see some new film prints. Here in Dublin the Light House Cinema gets about one new print a year and they always seem to be from Warner Bros.. Interstellar in 2014, Inherent Vice in 2015, and Batman v Superman in 2016.
 
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-29-2016, 09:25 PM:
 
quote: Bill Brandenstein
Attendance is still tepid. The evening show for "Ghostbusters" had maybe 20 people, and "Pets" had 15. How do they keep it going?
I'm seeing this more and more - almost no one in the theater. A theater cannot make it just filling up perhaps 3-4 shows a week. This does not portend well for the future of movie theaters. In places where real estate is cheap and plentiful, they might survive for a time, but in big cities, I think more will disappear even though there's been a recent renovation boom.

In NYC, we've lost 32% of the theaters and 18% of the screen count since 2001. Although we are getting an Alamo Drafthouse 7-screener in Brooklyn that's supposed to open sometime this summer and the Regal Market Line 14 on the lower east side of Manhattan in 2018.

The first quarter of 2016 was a "record quarter" for AMC, yet if you break down the earnings report, they're only averaging 105 tickets per day, per screen. Net earnings per location per day is only $808. Net earnings per location for the quarter was only $73,506. But the Dalian Wanda Group must be happy because they're bidding $1.2 billion for Carmike which would make them bigger than Regal.
 
Posted by Phil Tucker (Member # 9576) on 08-01-2016, 05:40 PM:
 
Hello, I am new to the forum and this is my first time posting here. I am very glad to be here!

Curiosity got the better of me, so I made a visit to the Pacific 5 Theater on Saturday after learning about it from this thread. As others have indicated it is an older theater, a bit run-down by today’s standards yet still capable of delivering a satisfying movie-going experience. I was told that they have three 35mm projectors in service. Indeed, three films (Pets / Birds / Ghostbusters) were being project from release prints according to the card in the lobby. I watched “Secret Life of Pets.” I noticed some light wear and a few brief emulsion scratches but overall it looked gorgeous and relatively clean.

There were maybe 10 other people in the theater. I struck up a few conversations and made some unscientific observations based on an extremely small sample. Surprisingly, none of the patrons I talked with were aware of the 35mm projectors or even seemed to care. That is not what brings them in the door. Rather, they perceive the theater as a friendly, local movie house where they can catch a flick that has been in release for several weeks at a reduced price, far away from the crowds found in larger movie houses. Agreed.

Pacific 5 doesn’t seem to be advertising the fact that they are using technology from the photochemical era. I suspect they may think of it as a liability more than an asset. But I can’t help but wonder, if the “New Beverly” crowd knew about it, how many more seats would be filled? I have to believe, here in Los Angeles, there are plenty of people who would show up if they knew about it.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-01-2016, 05:49 PM:
 
No doubt it would attract more people with better publicity - but advertising is expensive so it's tough to get the word out, and in a big city with dozens of first-run multiplexes competing for the moviegoers, and the stupidly-short video window, times are tough for anybody running much behind the break.

Welcome to the forum!
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-01-2016, 06:46 PM:
 
quote: Leo Enticknap
I'm guessing that enough of their regular audience want to see 35mm
I would imagine they get people either way. Before we were 100% digital, we would get people who only wanted to go if the movie was playing in digital. I don't recall ever having anyone asking specifically to see it in 35mm.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 08-05-2016, 01:43 PM:
 
Silver Cinemas at the Golden Triangle Mall in Denton, TX actually advertises they are showing 35mm film in the showtime description section for a movie on Fandango. (This is the section that usually states "Real 3D" or "Dolby Atmos" or "Luxury Recliners", etc.)

They have three digital houses and two 35mm film houses. They've had a dry spell lately, not being able to get any 35mm films, and only operating their three digital houses, with the two 35mm film houses dark. But last week they got the Turtles on 35mm film.

I remember about 6 months ago, the Sherman Oaks 5 did the same thing on Fandango, advertising their shows were 35mm film, but they've seemed to stop providing that info on Fandango. The listings now just say "Standard Showtimes" for all titles and showtimes.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 08-17-2016, 10:19 AM:
 
I don't know if the "Secret in Their Eyes" remake from last year got prints, but in the end credits there is a "35mm Laboratory Services" credit for Labodigital, a lab in Mexico City. As far as I know, this movie was shot 100% digitally. Also, strangely, there is an SDDS logo in the credits, and it's the only sound logo.
 
Posted by Simon Wyss (Member # 6218) on 08-19-2016, 04:00 AM:
 
Is it any wonder that cinema is not attended by adults with all the childish or at least for-children movies?

The Secret Life of Pets
Ice Age 5
Zoomania
Finding Dory
The Jungle Book (for about the twentieth time)
Star Trek Beyond
and so on and on

Friends, society has (become) turned infantile. I have lived different times, times when films were made for grown up people. Although I am quite far away from America I pity the development in Silicon Valley and on Silicon Beach. Mama Clinton is being prepared for taking over command. Horrible!
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 09-02-2016, 01:59 PM:
 
"The Finest Hours" has a "prints by Fotokem" credit.
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-02-2016, 03:28 PM:
 
The 3D and CGI work in Jungle Book is spectacular. This is not so much a children's film as a family film, in the traditional sense of the word. It is entertaining for both children and adults, even adults who don't have children.

There are actually still a lot of "adult" oriented movies, but they do not play theatrically for very long. Honestly, adults (without children) do not go to the movies much anymore, so the studios do not specifically cater to them. Most adults around here who do care, have elaborate home theatres. The rest wait for cable tv, if they are interested at all.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-02-2016, 11:40 PM:
 
quote: Simon Wyss
Mama Clinton is being prepared for taking over command. Horrible!
Not wanting to veer this too much towards politics, but the documentary Hillary's America has now been playing for well over a month at one of the larger screens at my local neighborhood 12-plex. The first time I tried to see it, I was turned away because the screening was sold out, and had to make an advance booking to get in the second time, which was also almost full (for a 9.30pm showing on a Wednesday evening!)

So it seems that some adults still do go to the movies!
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 09-15-2016, 02:32 PM:
 
The last confirmed 35mm, Ghostbusters, turns 2 months old today. It's still playing at Sherman Oaks 5 (along with Secret Life of Pets of July 8, and Angry Birds - if anyone shows up for it - from May 20). Their two digital screens have rotated some new titles weekly for one-week runs, including flops like "Ben Hur", "Nine Lives," and "Disappointments Room," and have one of them split so 3 titles are consistently offered on the 2 digital screens.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 10-10-2016, 10:26 AM:
 
Golden Triangle in Denton, TX is advertising WAR DOGS on 35mm film...
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 10-12-2016, 09:25 PM:
 
"The Accountant" is playing in 35mm at at least one venue here in
San Franciso.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 10-26-2016, 10:28 PM:
 
"Warcraft" has a "prints by Fotokem" credit.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 11-17-2016, 07:07 PM:
 
Since "Fantastic Beasts" has some 70mm prints opening tonight, I'm mentioning that here for the record.

And in case anyone is keeping score, Sherman Oaks 5 is still running the same 35mm prints as in September. That makes 4 months running for "Ghostbusters," and longer for the others, that is if anyone actually buys a ticket.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-01-2016, 10:28 AM:
 
Golden Triangle is running "Sully" and "Suicide Squad" on 35mm film. I'm hoping they get a hold of one of those 35mm prints of "The Accountant".

Sherman Oaks is still offering "Ghostbusters", "Pets", and "Angry Birds".
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-01-2016, 10:41 AM:
 
quote: Bill Brandenstein
And in case anyone is keeping score, Sherman Oaks 5 is still running the same 35mm prints as in September. That makes 4 months running for "Ghostbusters," and longer for the others, that is if anyone actually buys a ticket.
Seriously, why are they even staying open?
 
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-01-2016, 01:06 PM:
 
Wish I could buy that sherman oaks theater and turn it's fortunes around.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-01-2016, 09:27 PM:
 
Tyler, I seriously wish you could.
quote: Brad Miller
Seriously, why are they even staying open?
Well, as someone speculated previously, perhaps due to a 20-year lease. They're certainly keeping it open only on the cheap, and it's certainly convenient enough as a neighborhood theater in the dense Sherman Oaks area. The digital screens are getting new content weekly, but rarely opening week, which is usually whatever tanked nationally at the box office the week before (e.g., this week it's "Rules Don't Apply," which last weekend was 2016's worst opening). Meanwhile, the 35mm screens are 4.5-6 months without new film, and the prints probably look awful.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-01-2016, 11:17 PM:
 
The really perplexing thing to me is what they don't at least put some used series 1 digital projectors and servers into those screens. The equipment and installation cost would probably be no more than $15-20k, and though they might not be able to play the latest SMPTE DCPs, 99% of mainstream studio DCPs are still 2K Interop, which such equipment would cope with just fine. That would instantly mean that these screens would no longer be restricted to playing movies that are several months old and weren't even mega-blockbusters when new, and therefore that the conversion would probably pay for itself in a week or two. If this theatre is going to stay open for more than a month, I can't figure out why doing this wouldn't be profitable.
 
Posted by Frank B. McLaughlin (Member # 6683) on 12-02-2016, 07:45 AM:
 
Believe it or not some theater leases contain a provision that should the exhibitor close the theater prior to lease end a higher rent would apply during the closed period. Remember shopping center landlords are looking to the theater to draw people who just might patronize some of the other shops.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-02-2016, 12:57 PM:
 
quote: Leo Enticknap
The really perplexing thing to me is what they don't at least put some used series 1 digital projectors and servers into those screens.
Depending upon the lease, it is possible that any permanently installed equipment (which might or might not include projectors and sound systems) might become property of the building/landlord. Maybe it is cheaper for them just to lose money by not selling tickets than to lose more money by installing equipment permanently in a building where the lease will soon expire. I worked for at least one place where the owners were loathe to upgrade anything because the landlord would eventually end up owning it.

But, yes, on the surface, it is hard to believe that this place is able to stay in business with so few titles to show. I am all for having a few theatres that try to be "temples of cinema" or whatever (sort of like what the New Beverly is trying to do) that eschew D-cinema as a matter of principle and make a point of showcasing how great film can look, but there is no evidence to suggest that this place particularly cares about that.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-02-2016, 04:01 PM:
 
Since they have the 35mm equipment, how about running some retro 35mm prints?
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-02-2016, 04:21 PM:
 
Eric, you wouldn't want to do that because it's a platter-only house with dubious maintenance, resulting in quickly-scratched prints. It would be fun to see how nasty "Angry Birds" looks now.
 
Posted by Fredrik Sandstrom (Member # 8171) on 12-05-2016, 04:38 AM:
 
quote: Shawn M. Martin
"Warcraft" has a "prints by Fotokem" credit.
Does this actually mean anything? Shawn has reported three titles having this credit this year that have not received any reports from anyone having actually seen a print. These are Warcraft, The Finest Hours, and Zootopia. Can anyone confirm the existence of prints of these?

Apart from those, these are the titles this year that are confirmed as having had prints. It's a significant drop from last year. But there's still four weeks to go of 2016 of course. [Smile]

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (also 70mm)
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (70mm only)
Ghostbusters
How to Be Single
Kung Fu Panda 3
Star Trek Beyond
Suicide Squad
Sully
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows
The Accountant
The Angry Birds Movie
The Legend of Tarzan
The Love Witch
The Nice Guys
The Secret Life of Pets
War Dogs
Zoolander 2
 
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-07-2016, 09:41 PM:
 
I've noticed the Dolby Digital logo on several recent movies also, and wonder if they had film prints made or not. Haven't seen SDDS or Datasat (DTS) in a while, guess those have gone the way of Vitaphone.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-08-2016, 11:58 PM:
 
SDDS probably has gone the way of Vitaphone, but Dolby digital and DTS/Datasat are still there. All the 35mm prints of new release films I've seen in the last year or two have had SR-D on them. I forget who, but someone bought the rights to the DTS film system from Datasat, and works with FotoKem to offer new audio encodings and timecodes now. We played a new 5/70 print of the last (three-image) reel of Napoleon at TCM earlier this year, which was DTS and had an audio serial # higher than that of The Hateful Eight. So it is hanging on.

As for Vitaphone, I've often thought that it would be cool (though admittedly, somewhat pointless) to recreate a show using selsyn-locked turntables and newly cut discs. It wouldn't be particularly difficult or expensive to cut new lacquers (that would be good for a few plays) from preservation audio masters, and kinda fun to try to get the changeovers right. You'd probably need to use a slightly inauthentic approach - e.g. cut 12" discs at 45 RPM - because turntables that can take a 16" record are a lot rarer, but it would still be fun to do.
 
Posted by Simon Wyss (Member # 6218) on 12-09-2016, 01:52 AM:
 
Oh, no, not pointless at all! As with the 4-to-3 image aspect ratio, 16 frames per second or hand cranking old sound systems can be used any time again. I find it on the contrary important that our heritage lives on. How else than by continuing to live older techniques should we be able to preserve them? You are so right to suggest having fun with Vitaphone, in its original or another form. A few years ago I made fresh sound tracks of the variable density type. Not everything was simple, an appropriate film stock was missing above all. Yet, the client was happy. Still have the light gun and wish I could enhance it one day.
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-09-2016, 05:06 PM:
 
I'm curious if anyone has a current count of the number of first run or discount theatres still equipped with 35mm equipment on at least some screens. Looking at the list of movies on the last page, I don't see how a 35mm theatre could still be make enough to cover expenses.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-10-2016, 12:36 PM:
 
Golden Triangle has Jack Reacher 2: Never Go Back on 35mm film...
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-10-2016, 07:04 PM:
 
Agreed with Justin--I don't see how anyone could survive with only 35mm capability and a mainstream first-run booking policy at this point. It might work for a seasonal or weekends-only venue in a small town, but probably not for anyone else.

I know plenty of venues that have kept 35mm when adding D-cinema, but their bread-and-butter programming is all DCP at this point. Film is just for festivals and special events.
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-12-2016, 09:14 PM:
 
"SING" is available in 35mm. I know someone who's booked a print.
(I've already run this about half-a-dozen times for various private
press & preview screenings, but only the DCP version. )
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 12-12-2016, 10:36 PM:
 
I know it's getting a IMAX 70mm release, but has anyone heard news of 35mm Rogue One prints?
 
Posted by Matt Miller (Member # 9259) on 12-13-2016, 01:11 AM:
 
Thought I'd add my own story to the speculation surrounding the Sherman Oaks 5. Some of you may remember earlier this year when my company Vanishing Angle released our film TOO LATE exclusively on 35mm. We tried to book the Sherman Oaks 5 but they seemingly had no interest.

Granted we were a smaller independent film, but we did well enough to get held over for three weeks at the Sunset 5 in West Hollywood and two weeks at the Village East in Manhattan. And this was when all 5 Sherman Oaks screens were still running 35mm. They had been playing Mad Max and Jurassic World for about nine months at that point, but they still preferred to keep grinding those prints than take a small risk on our movie. We even had 35mm prints of our trailer that they could have run on all their screens in the preceding weeks.

That location still has potential and it's a real shame that it's wasting away.
 
Posted by Anthony Benavides (Member # 9597) on 12-13-2016, 08:33 PM:
 
Hey everyone! Long-time lurker turned active poster.

I work for the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema down here in Laredo, Texas. (150 miles away from San Antonio and another 200 from Austin)

If anyone is familiar with our programming, we do tend to do a lot of 35mm screenings of older prints not so much new releases.

We are expecting to receive a print of Nolan's "Dunkirk". It's interesting to learn that studios are still making prints. I was under the impression that they were only made for special releases like "Dunkirk".

From my own experience and dealing with our booker, since the industry has adopted a "preservation" stance on a lot of older titles it's harder to get prints.

My venue's only advantage is that we are the only location (with the exception of the Austin venues) that runs Reel-to-Reel. As a result, we tend to get our requests for film 90% of the time.

Wonder what the process of getting a new release print is like for the booker and on the operations side of things (which I can't really speak to - higher ups and big wigs, etc.) is it even worth it?

As a younger projectionist who has just started handling film, It would be great to have some semi-regular new releases in 35mm.

-Ant
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-13-2016, 10:50 PM:
 
I'd be interested to know how one is able to "qualify" for a new release title in 35mm, too. I'm guessing that you have to not have any digital projection capability in the auditorium you want to book, and also have a history of grosses for new mainstream releases that would make it worth the studios' while to have a print struck for you, and incur all the overheads involved in that process.

For repertory and arthouse titles, the main requirement is to convince the distributors that still handle significant numbers of 35mm prints (e.g. Park Circus, the studio archives and the major nonprofit archives) that you're capable of taking good care of them.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-14-2016, 05:56 PM:
 
Following on Jim's post, IMDB lists nothing for "Sing" so far as film prints goes, but Moana credits FotoKem even though "Printed Film Format" is DCP. Interesting, Moana also claims an SDDS "mix."

What's to believe?
 
Posted by Fredrik Sandstrom (Member # 8171) on 12-15-2016, 07:31 AM:
 
I wouldn't put credence in any piece of information on imdb unless it can be confirmed by another source. For what it's worth, imdb claims 35mm prints for at least the following 2016 titles that have not been reported here. If someone can confirm any of these exist, that would be nice.

10 Cloverfield Lane
13 Hours
Arrival
Finding Dory
Hail, Caesar!
Ice Age: Collision Course
Jackie
Kimi no na wa.
Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates
Silence
Trolls

In particular, Ice Age is suspect in that prints are claimed to come from DeLuxe, on Fuji Eterna stock, which is discontinued.
 
Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 12-15-2016, 02:07 PM:
 
Was told by Universal that there were no prints made for HAIL, CAESAR, though that doesn't necessarily mean there were no prints for international markets or for copyright deposit.
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-18-2016, 07:52 PM:
 
quote:
Following on Jim's post, IMDB lists nothing for "Sing"
...<edit>...
What's to believe?
Well, I wouldn't put my money on IMDB. I've done at least half
a dozen or more advance preview & press screenings for this flick,
over the past few weeks, and had a 35mm back-up print for most
of them. It has since been shipped to a theater for opening this week.

" Exhibit A" -
-

"Exhibit B" -
-

"Exhibit C" -
-

. . . case closed.... [Razz]
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-19-2016, 01:56 PM:
 
Jim, that makes my heart sing! [Smile]
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-19-2016, 02:34 PM:
 
That's kind of cool to see how film shipping and prints look these days compared to our final film days in 2010.
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-19-2016, 04:07 PM:
 
I didn't think of it till I saw your comment, Mike, but it seems that now,
almost every print I get is shipped in new, or almost new "real" reel
shipping cases, and not those horrible plastified corrugated box-things
they were using for the last decade or so.

Also, I notice most of them are on actual plastic reels, and not those
super cheap split-reels a lot of the studios were using for a long time.

I have no idea who made this print, since I could not find any lab ID
info anywhere on the print or leaders.

The only negative (no pun intended) thing I've noticed is that on the
last two prints I've received, whoever packaged them was really cheap
on the amount of tape they used to hold down the ends of the film leaders.
My last two features, but especially this one, arrived with the leaders
loose and badly intertangled inside the cans.

It took a bit of careful effort to extract and untangle them without
doing any damage.

. . . now, if only they'd go back to using paper reel-bands....
 
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-19-2016, 04:52 PM:
 
With such a small number of prints to handle, I'm sure they take great care to make sure they are handled with as gently and professionally as possible. Especially considering those prints will likely play at multiple theatres and be in circulation for a much longer period of time.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-20-2016, 02:55 PM:
 
Finally a bit of good local news: Sherman Oaks 5 is opening "Sing" in 35mm tomorrow. Nice to see they got a print, and got it on opening day. Bye bye to "Angry Birds" at last!
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 12-29-2016, 09:21 PM:
 
quote: Fredrik Sandstrom
Does this actually mean anything? Shawn has reported three titles having this credit this year that have not received any reports from anyone having actually seen a print. These are Warcraft, The Finest Hours, and Zootopia. Can anyone confirm the existence of prints of these?
A couple weeks ago I actually emailed a guy at Fotokem and asked if they struck prints for these three movies (in 2012 I'd contacted him with a similar question about another movie). He still works there as far as I can tell.

Have yet to receive any response. Ignored, spam filter, new email address, Christmas break?

Don't know why a "prints" credit for the only US company still making prints in the US would be in a movie's crawl if they didn't make prints for it.
 
Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-31-2016, 01:08 PM:
 
quote: Shawn M. Martin
Don't know why a "prints" credit for the only US company still making prints in the US would be in a movie's crawl if they didn't make prints for it.
I wouldn't read too much into that - I see the DTS or Datasat logos in the end credits for movies that do not have DTS/Datasat soundtracks all the time. Some production companies are better than others about updating their order forms for the end credits rolls, and I think a lot of the title houses just have a stock end-of-credits block of graphics.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 01-01-2017, 10:36 AM:
 
Very good point; I didn't think of that.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 01-01-2017, 03:53 PM:
 
Disney's latest "Jungle Book" had "Fantasound," with the original 1940s logo, in the credits crawl!
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-01-2017, 08:19 PM:
 
Any of the following on the end of a 20-teens DCP credit crawl would make a good April fool...

-

-

-
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 01-02-2017, 11:43 PM:
 
"The Magnificent 7" (2016) has a Deluxe logo in the credits.
 
Posted by Kristo Nalo (Member # 9748) on 01-03-2017, 05:42 AM:
 
No matter what happen I will watch all the upcoming movies this year. [Smile] Can't wait to see the Transformer and Spiderman. So many choices I'm so excited about that.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 02-02-2017, 12:18 AM:
 
Sooooo......Will SING be the last movie to get 35mm prints?
 
Posted by Sascha F. Roll (Member # 9043) on 02-02-2017, 02:11 AM:
 
The New Beverly is screening "La La Land" in 35mm in attendance of the film maker.

The new Aki Kaurismäki movie "The other side of Hope" was shot and edited on film and will have it's world premiere in the competition of "Berlinale" (Berlin International Film Festival) - projected from a 35mm print.
 
Posted by Fredrik Sandstrom (Member # 8171) on 02-03-2017, 02:53 AM:
 
quote: Sascha F. Roll
The new Aki Kaurismäki movie "The other side of Hope" was shot and edited on film and will have it's world premiere in the competition of "Berlinale" (Berlin International Film Festival) - projected from a 35mm print.
It will actually premiere today in Finland. I will attend the 35mm screening today; there's another one tomorrow and a few more in the coming weeks, but the regular theatrical run will be digital.

I was pleasantly surprised that this got a 35mm release; that hasn't happened for a Finnish movie in a couple of years as far as I know, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing it tonight.
 
Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 02-05-2017, 12:51 PM:
 
The Market Square 5-plex in Madison, WI will be running SULLY in 35mm for 9 more days before switching its last two screens to Digital. I went yesterday and it was a great experience. Good, clean print, good SR sound (they didn't have SR-D on any of their screens and haven't received Datasat disks in a good long while, but the SR track sounded refreshingly nice - good lab work all around), and a nice bright image with good focus. I used to drive up there every every few months - I believe this was the last screen running new movies on 35mm within driving distance of Chicago. Sad to see it go.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-05-2017, 04:37 PM:
 
I don't suppose you got photos of the operation there, did you?
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 02-07-2017, 04:51 PM:
 
Golden Triangle is advertising FANTASTIC BEASTS on 35mm film starting this Friday 02/10/17. (A prior post in this thread mentioned this title was 70mm only as far as film prints go...)
 
Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 02-08-2017, 11:31 AM:
 
I regret that I didn't get any pics, but I'll try and go back one last time and see if they're willing to share. Very simple shoebox of a booth, originally with all Century SAs and Strong platters.

Update: It looks like SULLY is closing on Thursday and being replaced by FANTASTIC BEASTS on 35mm, so that will likely be the last title shown on film. My question: where on earth is the SULLY print going to next. Pulled for repertory use or is it actually going to another venue?
 
Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 02-10-2017, 09:41 PM:
 
The Park Avenue cinema in Meadville, PA opens SING in 35mm today. They report that the print looks brand new and is listed as print #11.
 
Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 02-16-2017, 04:00 PM:
 
All 5 screens at Market Square are now running DCP [Frown]
 
Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 03-16-2017, 07:01 PM:
 
The Secret Life of Pets enters its 9th galant month in 35mm at Pacific's Sherman Oaks 5, followed closely by Ghostbusters. When will it end?

I think everyone should go online and buy a ticket (1st run prices!) to Friday night's show to celebrate. Then stay home and stream it.

Seriously they better get 3 prints of Dunkirk when it comes out.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 03-16-2017, 11:56 PM:
 
Much as we'd tend to sympathize with your point of view, Mark, S.O.5 won't. Arclight Sherman Oaks, just down the road a short ways, will get Dunkirk in 70mm and shut SO5 out. In fact, you'll be hard pressed to find any release there in earlier than its 2nd or 3rd week.

I'm sure many of those 35mm shows are threaded up but never run.
 
Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 03-17-2017, 12:26 PM:
 
Well knowing Nolan's aggressive push to give his movies film presentations whenever and wherever possible I would not be surprised if the SO5 gets Dunkirk in addition to the Arclight. They are both run by the same company as Pacific is Arclight's parent and there have been times when they have played the same film day and date in the past. In fact I think recently both played Batman Vs. Superman at the same time with it showing in 35mm at the SO5. Also a WB release like Dunkirk.

When Interstellar came out my local neighborhood sub-run Admiral Twin played an advance 35mm engagement. It was so successful that the management flipped the entire theatre to first run and built a business case to remodel it into the 4-plex first run movie house it is today. Off-topic I know, but just showing that Nolan seems to want to book his films anywhere still capable of running film.

I am always rooting for the Sherman Oaks 5. Not because it is a great theater, but more so because it is an oddity and a relic of the past in all its GCC glory.
 
Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 03-17-2017, 03:06 PM:
 
There were four new films at SXSW this year that were shown on 35mm:
- MOST BEAUTIFUL ISLAND
- PERSON TO PERSON
- PORTO
- MR ROOSEVELT
 
Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 03-29-2017, 01:45 PM:
 
Sherman Oaks 5: today and tomorrow it appears only the 2 digital screens are operating. No showtimes listed being Thursday. Conversion happening?
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 03-31-2017, 10:04 AM:
 
Or they might be merely reflecting on the schedule what's been happening in reality for recent weeks: nobody was showing up to see those old 35mm titles.

Their schedule reporting's been wonky in the past, so I'm not sure what to make of it now since Fandango has listings for the next three days. And it's 2 digital screens only, with 5 titles divvied up between 6 shows!

What's sad is that no major studio release has had 35mm support for all this time, which is just how things is, right?
 
Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 03-31-2017, 10:08 AM:
 
Lion, John Wick Chapter 2 and T2: Trainspotting all got 35mm prints. At least in the U.K.
 
Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 03-31-2017, 11:30 AM:
 
There are prints of THE LOST CITY OF Z and BABY DRIVER, though both are the personal prints of the filmmaker for festival and one off screenings, not for regular distribution.
 
Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 03-31-2017, 01:54 PM:
 
I have the feeling if the S.O. 5 is only operating the 2 digital screens with listings only through Sunday this must be the final weekend of the place unless they are about to do some sort of overhaul.
 
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 03-31-2017, 08:46 PM:
 
Once in awhile, I get the opportunity to take a ferry ride and run 35mm at a Pacific NW art museum. Last night, during the presentation of a 1949, Japanese, black & white, subtitled film, the AV manager told me that, of the 9 previous shows they'd presented, 6 had been provided on DCP, following some level of restoration.

Kind of looks like even these opportunities will become less frequent.
 
Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 04-06-2017, 12:51 PM:
 
Sherman Oaks 5 update: looks like 35mm is gone. Starting Friday it looks like 3 of the 5 auditoriums will be up and running digital with 6 move-over titles spread over 3 screens. We'll see if it expands to 5 screens but it seems like Pacific is keeping it open as a move-over house from the Arclight. I think they should day and date some family titles with the Arclight since this is an easy place to bring kiddos to.

And I know this won't happen but I hope they keep 35mm capability in place of the Nolan's of the world (I guess there is only 1) who insist having 35mm prints.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 04-11-2017, 05:22 PM:
 
Yes Mark, you called it right: all 5 screens are now digital. Since the rooms are narrow and have only one port window, plus they didn't exactly do 35mm well, I wouldn't expect even one screen retained 35mm capability.

Meanwhile, "Sing" seems to be the last major studio release with any significant 35mm support. Time to cue up funeral music?
 
Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 04-28-2017, 05:05 PM:
 
Looking at the staggered showtimes at the SO 5 it looks like only 4 of 5 screens are open.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-03-2017, 09:30 AM:
 
Auditorium 5, which is the auditorium upstairs with no balcony at the Sherman Oaks, appears to be dark this week. All four other auditoriums are running staggered digital shows. I'm pretty sure a few weeks back after the digital conversion I observed that all 5 screens were running movies... Maybe they were not all digital?
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 05-03-2017, 12:00 PM:
 
Mark, Eric, I agree that the schedule appeared to have 5 screens just a few weeks ago. However, if Auditorium 5 were still film, they'd continue to have that title (whatever it was) on the schedule just as they'd done for months past other film releases over the past year. So, this makes me wonder if they installed B-stock digital projectors and one has a problem.

I'm not enamored enough with the situation at present to go see another movie there... it's not all that convenient. But a look through the porthole would be conclusive.
 
Posted by Rick Cohen (Member # 6140) on 05-10-2017, 10:27 AM:
 
Paramount is distributing a limited number of 35mm prints for Baywatch on May 26.
 
Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 05-11-2017, 11:24 AM:
 
OK, where do I have to go to see BAYWATCH on 35mm?
 
Posted by Rick Cohen (Member # 6140) on 06-01-2017, 11:53 PM:
 
There is at least one drive-in showing Wonder Woman on June 2 on 35mm. It seems the only studios still striking 35mm prints for wide releases are Paramount and Warner Bros., and even then only for tentpole summer movies. It should also be noted that those studios both have production deals with Christoper Nolan. Dunkirk is expected to be available on 35mm to any theatres equipped and willing to show it that way.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 09-15-2017, 10:23 AM:
 
Golden Triangle is running a 35mm print of Wonder Woman
 
Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 09-15-2017, 02:11 PM:
 
May not be accurate but IMDB claims Mother! has 35mm Vision prints.
 
Posted by Fredrik Sandstrom (Member # 8171) on 12-18-2017, 06:27 AM:
 
It's time for my annual list. What films were released on film in 2017? Significantly fewer than any previous year for sure. I only have these confirmed:

Here are some on which there have been vague or conflicting reports. Confirmations are appreciated! These are 35mm unless noted otherwise.
 
Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 12-18-2017, 11:46 AM:
 
You can add:

GOOD TIME
PORTO
THE MEYEROWITZ STORIES
WAIT FOR YOUR LAUGH

I can confirm that there are 35mm prints of PHANTOM THREAD as well as 70mm.

When I asked the studio they said they were not making prints of THE FLORIDA PROJECT, though that doesn't mean there couldn't have been a one off for the director.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2017, 01:49 PM:
 
Makes me curious, as a small town theater owner, IF we were still running film, how long we'd have to wait to get prints and if we could get any at all.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-23-2017, 01:34 AM:
 
Was looking up showtimes tonight for "Coco," for which Fandango had a "35mm" option. Except there's no link there (if there ever was).

Check out Pixar's web site which provides confirmation.

quote:
Technical Specifications

Coco and Olaf’s Frozen Adventure are formatted for playback at 2.39:1. Olaf’s Frozen Adventure is 1.85, and is presented pillarboxed within the 2.39 frame (black bars on the sides) to preserve its aspect ratio.

The whole image is important to the story, so be sure you’re showing the entire 2.39 image, side-to-side and top-to-bottom, and that focus is sharp across the entire picture. Your theater sound system should be tuned to 85dB (C-weighted) on all screen channels using pink noise. The correct fader setting on Dolby systems is 7.

35mm Film Specifications
Lamp Levels

Projection lamp levels that are set too low have a disastrous effect on the picture. When projected at the SMPTE standard of 16fL open gate, the image is sharp and colorful. At lower levels, the colors become muddy and gray. The picture has less snap to it and feels lifeless. Important details in the darker areas will disappear if the light levels are too low.
Projection Lamp Levels
Sound

Dolby Digital EX
Datasat
Cyan dye analog Dolby SR

Datasat discs are included with every print.

Perfect Projection Checklist

Do a Run-Through of the Built-Up Print
Confirm that you are running Flat Format (1.85:1)
Confirm Projection Light Level (16fL open gate)
Confirm Sound Level (85dB), Dolby/DTS Faders at 7, SDDS at 0
Fresh Lamp Life (70% of rated life remaining)
Full Framing (no image cut off)
Sharp Focus Across Entire Image
Sharp, Tight Masking That Doesn’t Cut Off Picture
Check and Clean Aperture Plate
Check Cleanliness and Operation of Entire Film Path

Reels

Here are the first and last frames of each reel of Coco. These are provided to help you identify the reels in case you receive a print that is mislabeled or incorrectly cut. The numbers above each image show the lengths of the first and last shots on each reel, in feet and frames.

If you need a reel or an entire print replaced, call (877) 272-3870. Replacements will be sent overnight. This service is provided by Deluxe Entertainment Services and is available 24 hours a day.

Click a thumbnail for a larger view.
I'd like to call for a replacement print for the crap digital show we just saw at a Regal cinema.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-23-2017, 11:51 PM:
 
I'm bummed / pissed that Disney/Pixar has done away with the extras that used to come with their movies. The trading cards, the custom card of projectionist instructions, and so on. They make all these billions, you would think they could keep a little thing like that. But, I guess they surmised out that most people don't care about that kind of stuff.
 
Posted by Fredrik Sandstrom (Member # 8171) on 12-24-2017, 03:10 AM:
 
quote:
Olaf’s Frozen Adventure is 1.85, and is presented pillarboxed within the 2.39 frame (black bars on the sides) to preserve its aspect ratio.

[...]

be sure you’re showing the entire 2.39 image

[...]

Confirm that you are running Flat Format (1.85:1)

Wow. Could you possibly provide more contradictory instructions?
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-24-2017, 10:49 AM:
 
quote: Fredrik Sandstrom
Could you possibly provide more contradictory instructions?
Especially since many theater staff-people don't know their aspects
from their elbows, especially when you start throwing numbers at
them. All they know is "S" or "F" and don't even really understand
what that means or what the difference is.

<WARNING: Rant Ahead!>

Last week I had to make an "emergency" trip down to a theater
that was going to be running a locally produced low-budget movie.

Their projection-dweeb received the drive, for which the CPL was only
"My DCP" and NOTHING else. No aspect ratio, or sound info, etc.

The poor kid had no idea what to do with it. "I can't find the title"
he kept repeating to me.

The film-maker was there too, and even he had no idea, and couldn't
tell me the correct aspect ratio. At one point he said "I think It's 1:85
Cinemascope" I had to put it on screen to determine the correct AR.

... and then I ran into the 2nd "gotcha" - - The DCP only had 2ch audio.
The back-up blu-ray he brought had 5.1. I tried explaining this, but the
filmaker-guy insisted I use the DCP because "it's better quality".
(quite frankly, at that theater, and on the size screen they had, it would
be difficult for average viewers to tell the difference between the two.)

It was obvious to me the DCP had been made from the blu-ray, but whoever
made the DCP didn't transfer the audio info properly. But the film-maker
insisted I use the "better" DCP.

After the show, their audio-guy was upset because I "played the wrong
audio". He insisted I had done something wrong, because "the DCP was
made from the blu-ray (ah HA!) and so it should have been identical.

I don't think I convinced him the fault was theirs. The film-maker himself
was "OK" with things, simply because he cared more with how it looked
than how it sounded.

This is the 2nd time recently that I've had to deal with a situation like
this. The problem is that now "anybody" can make a DCP,even if they
have no friggin' idea of what they are doing.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-25-2017, 07:25 PM:
 
What Jim describes happens all the time now at "film" festivals. It's like home-made DVDs all over again, but, arguably, worse.
 
Posted by Alexandre Pereira (Member # 9295) on 12-25-2017, 08:29 PM:
 
I receive a lot of blurays here at the Kingsway Theatre - many with only L and R audio. I never play the blurays directly - way too much of a nightmare. The blurays are converted to DCP using DCP-O-Matic and if there is no 5.1 audio I blend L/R and drop it by -6 db to form a centre channel - that seems to work with my CP500 and the audio system in the main room.
I also scale the video to flat or scope - most of what I get is in 16:9 - including the annoying top and bottom bars that I crop to form scope.
I do this for the sake of presentation but I do not provide the DCP to the distributor or the film maker.
 
Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 12-25-2017, 08:30 PM:
 
Perhaps in the cause of honesty in advertising, there should be a ruling that you can only use the tern "film" in connection with a festival when actual film is being shown. All others to be known as MOVIE festivals.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-04-2018, 11:09 PM:
 
Jim's experience is one that I went through multiplied many times over at every festival I worked in my last job.

In fact, Jim had a lucky break: at least "My DCP" ingested at all! If "My DCP" had been supplied on a "My Passport" hard drive, fresh off the shelf of the "film" maker's local Office Depot, complete with EFI partition, crapware partition and an HFS+ partition on the remaining space, not much would have happened when it was hooked to the screen server or TMS for ingestion.

quote: Kenneth Wuepper
Perhaps in the cause of honesty in advertising, there should be a ruling that you can only use the tern "film" in connection with a festival when actual film is being shown. All others to be known as MOVIE festivals.
I hear where you're coming from, but the boat has sailed on that one: "film," "movie" and "video" have become effective synonyms, meaning any form of moving image recording, in everyday speech. By the same token, you're never going to stop news reporters referring to cellphone "footage" of some spoiled brat celeb having a screaming meltdown on a plane (I had no idea that flash memory cards could be that long!), and the practice of "CC-ing" someone in an email will likely be with us forever, despite the fact that actual carbon paper hasn't been used since the detectives in 1940s film noir thrillers bashed out their homicide reports, slowly and with two fingers, on a mechanical typewriter (the xerox machine was invented around the time they hung up their badges and retired!).
 
Posted by Cobi Fox (Member # 10476) on 05-20-2018, 01:58 PM:
 
Here is a partial list of movies that have come out in 2018 (so far) that have have been distributed on film.
As you can see, this list is depressingly short, but film is still hanging on.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-20-2018, 03:55 PM:
 
Phantom Thread is also available on 35mm and 70mm, though that may have actually been a 2017 release, officially.

And there is the current 2001 70mm roadshow.
 
Posted by Cobi Fox (Member # 10476) on 05-21-2018, 08:44 AM:
 
According to IMDB, Incredibles 2 will be released on 35mm.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 05-22-2018, 12:16 PM:
 
If you believe Fandango, and you probably shouldn't, the upcoming big tentpole movies with multiple formats include 35mm in the "See it in..." list. Of course, I've never found one where you can click "35mm" and have it link to anything, but here in LA that's to be expected since the only remaining film presentations are the boutique 70mm ones.

The fact that nobody on this forum is seeing standard-issue theatrical titles in 35mm any longer means that film is dead to the everyday public, and has been for some time.
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-22-2018, 03:45 PM:
 
Kodak has an ios (and possible android) app, along with a website that identifies film screenings 35mm/70mm. You have to register, but it is free to use.

Reel Film Website
 
Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 07-26-2018, 10:57 PM:
 
According to director Chris McQuarrie's twitter, Mission Impossible: Fallout is opening on 7 screens in the US on 35mm film. They are as follows:

Courtyard Cinema - Mackinaw City, MI
Leicester Drive In - Leicester, MA
Parkhill Cinema - Tarboro, NC
Palatka Cinema - Palatka, FL
Point Drive In - Northumberland, PA
Hollywood Theater - Litchfield, MN
Mill Theater - Milbank, SD

He also went on twitter to mention that he's had a personal 35mm print of the film made, and hopes to show it in LA at some point in the future.

I guess Paramount REALLY wants to make sure this film is playing in every theater imaginable. None of these cities are major areas, and the closest one to me is still 3+ hours away. I'll stick to our 2K Xenon IMAX for opening day tomorrow.
 
Posted by Bill Hall (Member # 10520) on 07-27-2018, 07:31 PM:
 
I wonder if there are any prints of Airport or Waldo Pepper or Titanic out there. Nice movies but one wonders where all the film went ?
Thank you
 
Posted by Cobi Fox (Member # 10476) on 10-31-2018, 05:21 PM:
 
IMDb claims that there are 35mm Kodak Vision prints of Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-31-2018, 06:35 PM:
 
Good grief...why?!
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-31-2018, 06:57 PM:
 
Enticknap's Law. Simply put, it states that the sh!ttier the movie, the more likely it is that good quality prints of it will survive and be readily available; and that the better the movie (or at least, the more popular and/or critically acclaimed), the less likely you are to be able to get hold of a decent film print of it.

The most dramatic example I ever encountered was a 70mm, six-track SR mag print of Howard the Duck in January 2017, that looked and sounded like it had just come out of the lab in 1986.
 
Posted by Craig Hardy (Member # 10648) on 11-01-2018, 12:17 AM:
 
I'm new here and haven't read all the pages of this interesting thread but I just read a long article on the subject and learned the film vs digital battle is not as settled as some might believe. Skipping over all the usual details about film maker's opinions about how the two methods capture light, color and other subtle qualities of the scene, it seems there are still serious questions about archiving. Today's film properly stored is now expected to last several hundred years. whereas digital medium is susceptible to damage, accidental erasure, etc. The driving force, as usual in any enterprise is cost. Supposedly digital is 90% cheaper than analog and instant worldwide distribution is seen as a huge advantage. But mixed in with all the dollar signs is another factor: constantly evolving digital formats.
About 1893 Thomas Edison and George Eastman ordered up som strips of cellulose nitrate 35mm wide, decided on 4 sprocket holes per frame, put an emulsion on it and filmed a few minutes of a Harvard-Yale football game. Today someone could bring that film out of the vault at NFL Films (I believe in NJ) and run it in today's projector. Not advisable of course, but you get my point.
NOW,picture the reaction of a Hometown,USA exhibitor when he's told the digital projector he paid $150K for a year of two ago needs to be "upgraded" before it will run a current release?
About 70 years ago my physicist dad said to me, "You realize, Craig that not all progress is forward!"
Leo Lukowsky, a retired North American sales director for a French movie camera company, had a column in a technical photography magazine where he answered reader's questions re all things photographic. About 1985 a reader wrote, "Leo, why do you keep talking about film when video has replaced film?" His reply was classic: "Video has not replaced film, but since rust is cheaper than silver I guess it's here to stay..."
Folks, I hope I'm not off topic for this thread and let's see how long film will still brighten our lives!
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-01-2018, 03:57 PM:
 
quote: Craig Hardy (my emphasis)
Today's film properly stored is now expected to last several hundred years. whereas digital medium is susceptible to damage, accidental erasure, etc.
That is what makes the pragmatic aspect of the issue (what approach is most likely to save your content in some form, any form?), as distinct from the ethical one (if it was originated on film, we should save it on film, right?) a lot more complicated than it might seem.

Storing film properly is a lot more cheaply said than done. Like ongoing data migration, it can be achieved by writing lots of humongous great checks, at regular intervals, forever. Film vaults cost money to build and maintain. I ran a small moving image archive between 2001-07, and its vault (with a capacity of around 20,000 2,000 foot cans) cost around $50k a year in electricity and maintenance of the HVAC plant needed to keep the temperature and humidity within the SMPTE specs for acetate film. For the mega archives, that bill is in the millions. If you don't believe me, ask for a quote from Hollywood Vaults or Iron Mountain to look after, say, 100 2,000 foot cans of 35mm for a year. The amount they'll want will be significant.

A typical feature film in 4K DPX files will be around 40-50TB. Storing those long term will cost a significant amount, too, but Moore's Law is pushing that cost down. Moore's Law does not apply to film vaults. In fact, the opposite is true: since I moved to Southern California in 2012, the cost of a kilowatt hour of electricity sold to businesses has gone up by 30-40%, and as far as I'm aware, there has been no real change in the energy efficiency of HVAC technology.

By the way, film is subject to accidental erasure, too: Cinemtheque Francaise, 1959 ... Henderson's, 1992 ... a lot of it has gone up in smoke, even while in the care of people who were trying to prevent that from happening.

I am not advocating tossing out film and relying on digital surrogates of film-originated content for long-term preservation, but pointing out that (a) just because film will last a long time stored optimally does not mean that doing so is cheap or easy, and (b) that the math involved may result in film originals being lost in the future, even with all we know about preservation best practice.
 
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-01-2018, 07:14 PM:
 
And let us not forget about a certain film distribution center in California that dumped thousands of prints of films into the Pacific Ocean, because they couldn't be bothered to archive at least ONE decent print of certain titles that even then, were irreplaceable. (This was sometime in the 1980's IIRC).

I was told that absolutely NO attempt was even made to contact studios, collectors or film archives before the dumping happened. That, in my opinion, was the real "crime" committed. (Of course the environmental aspect of all those prints (can and reels included) being dumped into the ocean to rot away and leach all kinds of nasty stuff is a whole 'nother issue.)
 
Posted by Craig Hardy (Member # 10648) on 11-01-2018, 07:28 PM:
 
Leo, you've been pretty seriously involved in preservation!
I heard years ago that the National Archives only recognizes silver image on film as archival. Just checked, and that's still true.
A neighbor was a Kodak field service technician for 31 years--serviced the little microfilm rigs at banks, and then in later years things were more centralized: couriers took bags of canceled checks to central location where they went down a conveyor belt past camera. Said it got sloppy: checks dumped out of bags and travelled past cameras still wringled--parts of check in focus and parts not in focus, but they were fulfilling the law requiring all checks photographed at end of each business day!

You're the expert, but from my observations it seems moisture is more of a killer than temperature. I inadvertently stored some Kodachrome movies and slides in attic for 20yrs and they were still fine. They'd seen a lot of NH summer temps, but were always dry.

Nitrate: friend with theatre gave me some to dispose of and I was looking forward to some excitement out in open field but it was the slimy kind and only burned about like kerosene on newspaper. Been told if you open up a can and see white powder, look out! Any subtle thing like moon changing phase or Aunt Ida's birthday coming due can cause to go violently.
Dad taught me when I was very young: being inert, nitrogen doesn't like to stay combined with anything.
When I was very young and starting out I thought "safety film" meant safe from exposure when handling--the paper backing on 127 roll film. Found out true meaning years later.
A local video transfer outfit had no means to deal with 35mm and heard that I did. It was a nice little 7 minute demonstration of a folding boat. Their lady customer had found it in her attic where it'd been since the '20's. They'd never heard about nitrate. I snipped of a little piece and had them step outside with me where I took lighter and demonstrated. They were impressed. I called Kodak with code on edge of film--1922 stock.

Oh well, I'm just taking up space here with my ramblings, so better sign off. Keep up the good work, sir!
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-01-2018, 08:48 PM:
 
I saw a post elsewhere that Orson Welles' NETFLIX release The Other Side of the Wind is being shown in 35mm.
 
Posted by Cobi Fox (Member # 10476) on 11-01-2018, 09:17 PM:
 
Star Wars: Episode IX will be released on 20 December 2019. It'll be distributed on anamorphic 35mm, standard 70mm, and IMAX 70mm film prints, all of which will be Kodak Vision 2383 film stock.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-01-2018, 10:22 PM:
 
quote: Craig Hardy
I heard years ago that the National Archives only recognizes silver image on film as archival. Just checked, and that's still true.
The problem with substantive dye coupler color emulsion (in which three photosensitive layers are converted into visible dyes by the developing process) is that the developing and fixing almost, but not quite completely, stops the chemical change that you need to induce to make the emulsion visible and no longer photosensitive.

How quickly that reaction continues thereafter is largely determined by the atmospheric conditions in which it is stored. That is why the combination of low temperature and low humidity is important. These conditions also slow the decomposition of nitrate and acetate film base, too, so b/w should be stored cool and dry as well as color. Theoretically, b/w polyester can be stored at much closer to room temperature and humidity, though I don't know if this is actually done anywhere.

Kodachrome is a unique case, because the color dye couplers are non-substantive. The dye is not physically present in the film before it is processed: the chemical processing after exposure actually introduces the dye, which sticks to three receptor layers (the couplers). So the color dyes are far more stable after processing than they are in substantive emulsions, because there is no continuing chemical reaction after processing is done. The down side to Kodachrome is that it is a very, very high contrast reversal emulsion, which means that you lose a huge amount of image information in any analog duplication process. Projecting the original slide or Super 8 reel looks beautiful, but a huge amount of image information is lost if you try to print an interneg from it, and then more prints.

For this reason, separation elements were considered the gold standard in preservation masters for color footage for a long time. This involves making separate b/w negatives or fine grain positives for each of the three primary color records and storing those, because the b/w emulsion is far more chemically stable.

The problem is that it is very difficult to recombine them well, especially if they have shrunk at different rates in storage. There was a spate of cases in the 1990s when attempts to make new color internegs and then prints from separation masters produced very poor results because of this. I'm guessing that nowadays the seps would be scanned rather than recomined photochemically, which may mean that this preservation route is back in fashion again. I don't know.

A big variable with nitrate decomposition is the quality of the cellulose pulp used to manufacture the film base. This is why elements from the 1890s to the 19-teens are sometimes discovered in astonishingly good condition, but many from the 1930s and '40s have rotted to mush. As film base production grew to an industrial scale, cheaper and more acidic wood pulp was used as the feedstock.
 
Posted by Cobi Fox (Member # 10476) on 11-02-2018, 03:00 PM:
 
IMDb says that Ralph Breaks the Internet will be distributed on 35mm. It says the release prints are on Kodak Vision 2393 film stock. Since Vision 2393 was discontinued a few years ago, this either means the information is incorrect, or that Fotokem has some older film stock on hand. Doubtful, but not impossible, I guess.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 11-04-2018, 11:56 AM:
 
I would not trust IMDb at all for information like this - it's user-submitted and the people doing it don't have a clue. The stuff from Ralph Breaks the Internet was almost certainly added by somebody who looked at the specs for the first Wreck It Ralph and thought "hey, they must be the same" - they have no idea what Kodak 2393 is, much less that it's been discontinued. Same for Star Wars Episode IX.

This is why you still see stuff like SDDS added for a bunch of new movies.
 
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 11-04-2018, 06:47 PM:
 
IMDB's auto fill section has old data in it. Nobody is typing in the film stock numbers, they just select "printed format" and it automatically puts in that film stock number. IMDB's data is completely irrelevant as generally it's inputted long before the movie has been finished and/or the distribution has been figured out.
 
Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 11-04-2018, 07:15 PM:
 
This may all be true, but "Ralph" is also showing up on Fandango as being available in 35mm.

But I can't get it to show me even a single venue in that format.
 
Posted by Cobi Fox (Member # 10476) on 11-04-2018, 09:12 PM:
 
Perhaps only a few select venues outside of your area are showing it on 35mm, so Fandango isn't showing them to you.

Also, I just gotta get this off of my chest, but this movie's gonna be a major cringefest. The trailer suggests that it's going to be loaded with old memes. I wouldn't be surprised if it's received about as poorly as The Emoji Movie for this reason.

The first film was perfectly fine by itself. No sequel, especially not a bad one (trust me, this can't be a good movie), is necessary. But Disney's gotta get them box office dollars, so...
 
Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 11-05-2018, 11:47 AM:
 
Anyone hear about a 70mm release of Nutcracker? It was suppose to get a 5 perf and 15 perf release, but the film was suppose to be out friday and no word on prints.
 
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-05-2018, 06:14 PM:
 
In a somewhat ironic move, it is rumored that NetFlix, of all people, is going to strike a few 70mm prints of their release Roma, which will open in limited engagements on the 14th, two weeks ahead of its streaming debut. The picture was shot on the Arri Alexa65 and is being presented in black & white. It'll be interesting to see how it looks, if indeed they go through with it.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-05-2018, 07:50 PM:
 
So this is a b/w movie that they're making 70mm prints of? Unless Kodak has done a special batch of 2302 in 70mm, they will not look good, because b/w printed onto color stock always suffers from contrast loss and a very slight tint (usually red, sometimes blue).

AFAIK, Kodak does not offer 2302 in 70mm as part of its regular product line, but their website does not say so definitively.
 
Posted by Erik Bakhshi (Member # 10652) on 11-07-2018, 03:06 PM:
 
Mark- That is very interesting indeed. I ran a screening for ROMA a few days ago and Alfonso Cuaron (The Director) was very adamant that we screen it in 4k & ATMOS. They studio wasn't going to book the show unless we confirmed those specs. He said he approached the visual look embracing the digital format and wanted 0 grain to give it a "present day" feel, while the BW brings the "Memory" feel. My question is, will making film prints introduce grain to the image even though it was shot digitally?
 
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-07-2018, 05:06 PM:
 
There's no real way around the introduction of at least some grain, as well as other film artifacts, if they do in fact print to 70mm.

Again, this is a rumor floating around on-line, although in view of what Leo has noted about the non-availability of 70mm b/w print stock, it was likely started by someone in a marketing department somewhere at NetFlix who had no idea if such a thing was technically feasible. We'll see if it happens on 12/14, but personally, I'm not holding my breath.
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 11-07-2018, 06:25 PM:
 
quote: Erik Bakhshi
I ran a screening for ROMA a few days ago and Alfonso Cuaron
(The Director) was very adamant that we screen it in 4k & ATMOS
I too ran a screening of this back in August with the director & some
of the cast in attendance. While I didn't meet Mr Cuarón personally,
"The Studio" was very adamant about presentation quality and even
arranged time (very early in the friggin' morning) to have their "QC
Specialists" come in and make sure we were meeting their standards.

I did another private private screening here in SF about 2 weeks ago &
they sent the same tech guys who were at the show I did in Colorado.

So, at least for the press & private screenings, they seem to be quite
interested in checking quality. Although I haven't had a chance to sit
and actually WATCH the flick, from what I've seen it's got a great "look",
and IMO the sound mix is absolutely amazing in some spots.

It wouldn't surprise me if it were nominated for an award.

Mr Cuaraón also told some great stories during one Q&A about drinking
with Guillermo del Toro in Spain, which sounds like great fun! (and I
rarely drink, but I'd sit down with those two any time!)

-- of course it would help a lot if I understood Spanish! LoL [Confused]
 
Posted by Erik Bakhshi (Member # 10652) on 11-08-2018, 01:25 AM:
 
Mark- Ah that makes sense, thanks for the info. I doubt they will make the 70mm prints as well but we'll see!

Jim- Yes from my experience as having Netflix as a usual client in our room, they almost always bring in a technician for quality tests and book the theater hours ahead of time for full run thrus, (even though we all know its going to run just fine..) The film does look and sound great, I was able to sit through it from start to finish. There is a scene in the final reel taking place on a beach where the ATMOS sound design in probably the best I've seen in a film, let alone in a film with no musical score at all! It was all atmospheric sounds, dialogue, and and music within the scenes if I'm not mistaken. We'll definitely be seeing some of this film come the awards shows.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-08-2018, 07:21 AM:
 
Is it possible that this is just confusion regarding the Alexa65, a digital camera, and someone going "Oh, 65mm? Maybe they will make some 70's!" ?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-08-2018, 08:31 AM:
 
quote: Leo Enticknap
So this is a b/w movie that they're making 70mm prints of? Unless Kodak has done a special batch of 2302 in 70mm, they will not look good, because b/w printed onto color stock always suffers from contrast loss and a very slight tint (usually red, sometimes blue).
Indeed! I can remember way back to the John Wayne movie In Harms Way which was B&W scope and I saw a 70mm print if it at the Chicago Theater on release. It definitely leaned towards being somewhat blueish. I was only 7 or 8 years old then but that stood out to me even then.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-08-2018, 09:16 AM:
 
Janus issued some new 35mm prints of The Wages of Fear on 2383 a few years ago, and the one I saw at least was totally unwatchable - it had a purple tint throughout. If I'd been a paying customer, I would have asked for my money back and gone and bought the BD (which looks fantastic, and which I would have used for that screening if it had been my decision). Towards the end of my time at the Egyptian I played a print of Monsieur Hulot's Holiday, most of which was on 2302, but the last reel was on 2383, just so that one friggin' shot (in the original release, the 60-70 or so color frames in each print were hand-painted) could be shown in color. The difference in color balance at that changeover was hideous. Of course what would have stuck in the audience's memory is the fuzzy pink beach in the last reel, not the crisp and silvery one in the first 80 minutes or so of the movie.
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 11-09-2018, 10:44 AM:
 
Not to get too far off topic, but I thought they did a great job of
"black&white on color film stock" on "The Artist", right down to
replicating a bit of 'bromide bleed' in the opening titles and in a few
scenes elsewhere in the film.

I recall at the time somebody telling me that the reason they printed
The Artist on color film stock was that "you can't do Dolby Digital®
on black & white film". I took that explanation with a grain of salt
and was unable to verify it one way or the other, even when I asked
a couple of people I work with at Dolby. (who, in their defense, were
all 'digital cinema guys', & so they weren't too familiar with filmstuff)

I now know that explanation was hogwash, since I've since handled
several 35mm prints on B&W stock that had Dolby Digital® tracks.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-09-2018, 11:15 AM:
 
The problem with SRD on B&W prints is that the current polyester-base print stock sheds over time, and the track eventually becomes unreadable. Most of the "Good Night & Good Luck" prints had unplayable SRD tracks after the first month or so of screenings. That is the most recent B&W title that I can think of that had an SRD track and lasted a while in first run.

Film Guard helps this somewhat, and some projectors are worse than others about shedding. No doubt, such a print would last much longer on a modern Kinoton than on a straight-gate Simplex.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-09-2018, 06:17 PM:
 
Agreed with both Scott and Jim. One example that sticks in my mind was a re-release print of Throne of Blood that I played at the Egyptian. I had no idea before receiving that print, but apparently, the movie was originally mixed in a primitive 2.0 stereo mix, which was reproduced on the SR and SR-D tracks on that 2302 print. The print was physically in pretty good condition: it had been plattered once or twice, but carefully, and apart from some very slight speckle on the first and last 20 feet or so of each reel, it looked near new. The SR-D error rate, however, almost never went below 6, and dropped out so often (including during the "human dartboard" scene at the end, in which the sound of the arrows being fired and Toshiro Mifune's screaming was interrupted by pops and silence) that I had to play the SR instead.

quote: Jim Cassedy
Not to get too far off topic, but I thought they did a great job of "black&white on color film stock" on "The Artist", right down to replicating a bit of 'bromide bleed' in the opening titles and in a few scenes elsewhere in the film.
If you're trying to reproduce the look of artefacts like that, or of tinting and/or toning (e.g. Desmetcolor), then of course color stock is OK. But for movies that are actually supposed to look grayscale (of which both The Wages of Fear and M. Hulot's Holiday are two classic examples), giving them a slight hue totally kills them, IMHO. Granted, 99% of the audience won't care, though.
 
Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 11-10-2018, 03:17 AM:
 
quote: Tyler Purcell
IMDB's auto fill section has old data in it. Nobody is typing in the film stock numbers, they just select "printed format" and it automatically puts in that film stock number.
No - it provides both a drop-down menu of already-existing choices that are featured on the site, and a blank text bar to type in whatever. One can select/type in "35 mm" as a Printed Film Format, and then add "(Kodak Vision Premier 2393)" in the attribute box - or add something else, or leave it blank.

I've been submitting things there for 15 years and it's never, ever worked the way you describe. The garbage is there because someone is specifically choosing to add it.
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-10-2018, 04:55 PM:
 
quote: Leo Enticknap
The most dramatic example I ever encountered was a 70mm, six-track SR mag print of Howard the Duck in January 2017, that looked and sounded like it had just come out of the lab in 1986.
SR?
 
Posted by Sascha F. Roll (Member # 9043) on 11-10-2018, 04:56 PM:
 
SR in 1986? I doubt that.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-10-2018, 08:57 PM:
 
Good point - SR wasn't officially released until 1988. Just checked my notes from that print examination again, and there were definitely SR stickers on the leaders, and those leaders were definitely part of the same print. Maybe the mag tracks were re-sounded after the initial release, though I can't imagine why anyone would go to the expense of doing that for a movie that was such a box office disaster and disappeared so completely without trace afterwards.
 
Posted by Erik Bakhshi (Member # 10652) on 11-11-2018, 11:45 PM:
 
It looks like that print of ROMA is actually happening. Spoke to one of the guys from Dolby today who mentioned working on the 35 and 70 prints, and yes it is going to be on color stock.
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-19-2018, 01:07 PM:
 
quote: Leo
Just checked my notes from [the "Howard the Duck"] print examination again, and there were definitely SR stickers on the leaders, and those leaders were definitely part of the same print.
FWIW, the Hollywood Theater in Portland, Oregon, a few days ago screened a 70mm print of "Howard the Duck" and the crew there have indicated their print was Dolby A. I can't say if it was the same print the Cinematheque ran, but at this point I can't imagine there being too many screenable, bookable copies available.
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-14-2019, 11:37 AM:
 
Leo... Do you recall if the title (the on-screen billing or on leader or enclosures) was "Howard the Duck" or "Howard: A New Breed of Hero"? Was the print struck and sounded in Europe? These details might offer a clue to help resolve the "A" vs "SR" matter.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2