Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Joker from WB to be released in 5/70mm

This is topic The Joker from WB to be released in 5/70mm 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=012445

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 06-20-2019, 04:09 PM:

Just got word from on high that this is happening. Looks like WB is back with some 70mm releases.

On a different note even 35mm prints of Once Upon a Tine in Hollywood is in limbo at least for the Grand Lake.

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 06-21-2019, 03:26 AM:

Just heard from our Booker Emagine Willow Creek in Plymouth Mn is on the list.
We are still waiting on word from Sony on 70 on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 08-01-2019, 07:19 PM:

Several of the sites with the BL&S H8 equipment were going to run the Joker in 70mm but heard that Warners has pulled the plug on that. Not sure what that means to locations that have there own equipment and staff to run 70mm.

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 08-07-2019, 09:21 PM:

We got the confirmation today from our Booker,Emagine Willow Creek in Plymouth Minnesota will be playing The Joker in 70mm

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 08-07-2019, 09:40 PM:

Looks like the San Francisco CineMark Century 9 won't be getting a 70mm print of the 'Joker' in Oct 2019.

Saw a 70mm film trailer at the head on the 70mm print of 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood' yesterday at the Drafthouse New Mission in SF and the trailer was flat not scope. At the end It said coming in 70mm.

I guess like a few other 70mm films from a few years ago It was not filmed wide screen scope full 70mm. Seems like a waist to me not using the whole image.

Was the 'Joker' movie filmed in part on 65mm or Is It just another blow up to 70mm film print?

I think Warner Bros is cutting back on the 70mm showings in the USA because the cost involved of hiring a trained 70mm projectionist and finding good 70mm projectors plus the movie may not be such a big hit? The trailer looks very strange.

Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 08-07-2019, 09:57 PM:

Terry,

According to imdb, the film was shot entirely on digital cameras a finished in 4K resolution. The digital cameras bit I'd buy - Arri Alexas and an Alexa 65. The 4K bit I'd hold out on till DCPs are out for the digital release. These comic book movies usually cut it pretty close to the wire on post-production.

What does that mean for the 70mm prints? I guess that all depends on your take on the modern digital sourced 70mm prints that have been floating around from Warner.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 08-08-2019, 01:00 AM:

I got an e-mail from WB yesterday informing me of their change of
plans for JOKER's 70mm release. I'm not in a position to quote them
directly, but it's fair to say it was a budgetary decision that was the
stimulus which caused them to "change their 70mm release footprint".

quote: Chris Haller
What does that mean for the 70mm prints?

I believe all of the 22 theaters on the list I have, had their 70mm
JOKER engagements pulled. So that means that there are either 22
70mm prints with no place to go, or 22 70mm prints that won't be
printed in the first place.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-08-2019, 09:31 AM:

In principal I know it's not right to judge a movie well in advance of its release before anyone has seen it, but I have a strong feeling Joker is going to be one hell of a flop. I do not have a good feeling about the movie. The trailer currently available only makes me more sure about those feelings.

The Joker is not a sympathetic character. The trailer makes it look like the movie is building the character that way, as some wierd yet kind soul that some people crapped on, beat and abused. It still could make for logical motivation for a revenge plot but it looks like this movie is just making a mess of the whole origin story. And where are the sinister, freakish gags that were a staple of the comics? Joker would kill people with some unique poison or gas, leaving the victims' bodies with a giant creepy grin on their faces.

I think WB's move to ditch the 70mm print order could be a step at cutting costs in advance of what could be a big flop. Another clue would be how much they spend promoting the movie in the next couple or so months.

Given the movie is shot digitally and finished in 4K, the 70mm prints seem like a waste of time even if the movie turns out to be great. The prints would only serve as something to give projectionists practice handling the medium. If the production had maintained the 6.5K resolution throughout post production then there might have been some actual benefit of watching the movie in 70mm versus digital.

Movie studios and productions have a good supply of camera systems that capture well above 4K resolution. But it seems like all the extra resolution of these 6.5K and 8K cameras has about as much use as tits on a bull. The movie industry could be utilizing that technical capability and laser recording it out to 70mm to give theaters a bit of an edge. But the movie industry is really about making TV shows these days.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-08-2019, 10:24 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
the movie industry is really about making TV shows these days.

Spot on. It would be like Simon and Schuster getting really heavy into publishing comic books.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-08-2019, 11:03 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Movie studios and productions have a good supply of camera systems that capture well above 4K resolution. But it seems like all the extra resolution of these 6.5K and 8K cameras has about as much use as tits on a bull.

I think the main use is that it allows them to re-frame the shot while maintaining 4k resolution. Basically they can shoot with a large "safe area" around the intended framing and then adjust it in post production.

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 08-08-2019, 01:46 PM:

I have heard they are still making 20+ 5/70 mm prints and the Grand Lake and Willows are confirmed to get one each. Would not surprise me if the New Mission gets one as well. All 3 of these locations have there own equipment and regular staff to show it properly.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-08-2019, 03:11 PM:

I wonder if there are even 20+ existing 70mm installations that normally show first-run features.

On the east coast, I know that Coolidge Corner has announced this booking and Somerville is supposed to get it as well. Both are existing installations with competent operaturs.

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 08-08-2019, 04:20 PM:

A lot of the Alamo locations have 70mm. I know Brooklyn does. They may have 20 or so on there own. There is the two near Dallas that Brad Miller is involved in. In the San Fransisco Bay area there is the New Mission, Grand Lake, Castro and California San Jose. Hollywood Theatre Portland. Cinerama Theatre Seattle. Arclight Hollywood and Sherman Oaks. Landmark Theatre LA. Music Box Chicago. Willows and Heights theatres in the Minneapolis area. Besides the Alamo I think there are two others in the New York area. Have to include Toronto as well in the 20+. Not that far of a stretch.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-08-2019, 04:47 PM:

Honolulu at one time had 11 theatres with 70mm capabilities but today, there are non. Too bad!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-10-2019, 03:00 PM:

It usually means the movie is in the can, been previewed, and it's not very good. So no justification to spend more money on 70mm.

Mark

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 08-12-2019, 02:09 AM:

So here is the issue with making 70mm prints.

Unlike 35mm recorders, the 70mm recorders are very slow. It takes 16 - 18 days to make the master internegative that the prints are struck off. Then you've gotta ramp up production and strike the prints. Fotokem is the only lab in the world that can make color 70mm theatrical prints from an IN.

So lead time is everything and the movie right now has a major issue, so it's being re-cut. Considering things like world premiere schedules and such, they have to lock picture by a certain time and a re-cut would mean, everyone needs to re-tweak, VFX, audio mix, color, the whole 9 yards. So they may even resort to showing a non-finished product at the premiere, which happens a lot. The film comes out in October, so lets say they finish end of August, they've got September to do all the print work? No way..... it's too tight of a schedule.

Back in the day, once they'd have a cut negative, it would be easy to make prints. With 50+ printers in LA alone running at 200ft per minute, you could make a few hundred prints in the same time it takes to laser out a single 70mm IN from a computer.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-12-2019, 02:16 AM:

Why not just output to 4-perf or 8-perf 35mm and do the blowup optically? Wouldn't that be faster?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-12-2019, 09:54 AM:

Tyler, you have a valid point, but remember though as slow as the 70mm recorder is, once the first reel's internegative is struck and an answer print made and approved, the lab can start printing those reels immediately while the recorder is working on another reel. It isn't as if they have to lose 2 weeks before they even start making the prints.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-13-2019, 12:27 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
I think the main use is that it allows them to re-frame the shot while maintaining 4k resolution. Basically they can shoot with a large "safe area" around the intended framing and then adjust it in post production.

I'm aware some productions will shoot shots loose and then crop to re-frame shots, using the extra resolution of the camera to still stay above 4K (or 2K). I'm still not a big fan at all of that approach. It's a variation of pan-and-scan.

What I don't like about it is the camera, just like the vision from your eyes, sees a natural vanishing point in the dead center of the image. Different planes of perspective will differ from that vanishing point, but there is a still a natural relationship present. That is enhanced by the effects of vignetting and differences of image sharpness at the edges as opposed to the center. When someone crops into the image, especially in some kind of offset manner the whole look of the image can end up feeling odd. It's one of the things that grated on me badly when watching 'scope movies panned and scanned on old SD TV sets. All the shots looked weirdly off center, confirmed by added home video edits either cutting from the left side of a shot to the right side or electronically panning to it. Just awful. Now we're getting back to that in an oddly different way.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 08-13-2019, 09:00 PM:

quote:
Tyler, you have a valid point, but remember though as slow as the 70mm recorder is, once the first reel's internegative is struck and an answer print made and approved, the lab can start printing those reels immediately while the recorder is working on another reel. It isn't as if they have to lose 2 weeks before they even start making the prints.
| IP: Logged

True! But for some reason, they don't appear to be doing it that way. Maybe they did on Once Upon a time, which is why they had issues with the reel labels? I'm also not sure if they can record the DTS timecode or if they have to do that when they make the prints. My familiarity with 70mm print making is pretty weak, I need to go make a visit and talk to Andrew about it in more detail.

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 08-21-2019, 10:02 AM:

Visited the Alamo Drafthouse New Mission in SF on Tues 8/20 as they are open again after their small electrical chemical battery smoke emergency light problem a few days ago. I smelled no smoke as they aired out Theatre#1 for 2 days. The unit that caused the mess was on the left side of the stage.

Watched again for the third time and still in good 70mm film shape 'Once Hollywood' I noticed that they have pulled the attached at the top 70mm 'Joker' flat trailer and have put in 'The Tenant' in 70mm scope film trailer in It's place. Says in 70mm-35mm & IMAX at end. Looks like a better film then The Joker?

I wonder is this means the 'The Joker' 70mm film will not play in SF at the New Mission Theatre?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-03-2019, 04:29 AM:

quote:
What I don't like about it is the camera, just like the vision from your eyes, sees a natural vanishing point in the dead center of the image. Different planes of perspective will differ from that vanishing point, but there is a still a natural relationship present.

As long as you use an "open matte" approach and you crop the same ratio from all sides, I don't see any harm done here.

Besides some stability corrections, which don't really meaningfully affect the vanishing points in the picture, I guess it's generally considered to be bad cinematography to pan-and-scan around the image.

Yes, some of those scope to 4:3 pan&scan transfers were pretty horrible, but otherwise, watching scope on a 4:3 screen always was a bit of "slit-o-vision". [Wink]

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 09-05-2019, 01:03 AM:

Joker 7OMM engagements: https://in70mm.com/news/2019/joker/index.htm

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 09-05-2019, 01:48 PM:

I believe the Willows in Plymouth Minnesota is showing it as well as the rest in the USA.

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 09-05-2019, 07:50 PM:

Yes, Willow is booked for it I don't know why it is not on the list

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-06-2019, 01:38 AM:

What makes me skeptical is that this movie now ranks a 9.6 with 9.2K votes on IMDB, while it hasn't been released in any major market yet...

Granted, the reviews themselves look more promising than I thought. My feelings about a 70mm release remain mixed on this one. It was shot digitally, so why bother to print it to expensive 70mm film? Why not reserve this privilege for movies that did take the optical/photo-chemical route?

Yes, I know, contrast of a good 70mm presentation will be much better than that of the average xenon 4K presentation. But I guess that those venues that show 70mm as a premium engagement can also invest in a high-contrast 4K RGB laser machine?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-06-2019, 07:06 AM:

There is ZERO marquee appeal to "Presented in 4K Digital." People have that in their homes and spend next to nothing doing it (hence they would think our 4K projectors are no more expensive).

Presented in 70mm is something quite a bit more rare and could give a movie credibility that 4K cannot.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-06-2019, 07:42 AM:

I agree with you on that one, but... (would be a boring discussion without a but, wouldn't it?)

For most people I know outside of this industry, I think, the added value for "presented in 70mm" is also close to zero, unfortunately.

Maybe, let me call it, the "don't know what it is, but it must be good"-value (or value-of-positive-ignorance ?) of 70mm is higher than that of "Presented in 4K", since many people know they do have "4K" at home, but have no clue about 70mm. That might lift it up just a little bit, but most people either have never heard of 70mm or if they have, it reminds them of "old movies".

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-06-2019, 10:42 AM:

Even in film's heyday...they had no clue what 70mm meant. Seriously. The associated it with bigger screen...which confused them on 1.85:1 70mm films like Playtime or blowups like ET.

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 09-06-2019, 11:07 AM:

When "Interstellar" played in Copenhagen in blazing 70mm in 2014, one theatre alone created 58% of all business of that title in the entire nation. It opened in 60 cinemas I seem to remember. It was the 1000-seater Imperial Bio managed by Nordisk Film.

Besides the fact it was a splendid film in many ways, people came to see it because it was IN 7OMM!! 7OMM bloody works - good old fashioned film - big time. People like something special, and 7OMM has that. And the audience want to pay for it, and they travel far and wide to see it. It is also still a good story in the press. At least here in Denmark, and a few more places I know of.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-06-2019, 12:41 PM:

That's like claiming that because a gas station next door to a Ferrari dealership sells 58% of a city's 91-grade fuel, that the general public are willing to pay more for higher quality gas.

Interstellar was an arthouse slash event movie, not a mainstream show for the popcorn munchers. And that theater is a well known attraction for cinema geeks who actively seek out high end technical presentation. I could probably make a cat video on my (4K) cellphone camera, have FotoKem blow it up to 70mm, and draw a decent crowd at one of the few theaters worldwide that has made top quality technical presentation its selling point.

The issue for WB is that The Joker, from what I've heard about it, is a popcorn muncher movie, most of the target audience for which won't care if they're seeing it on a cellphone or a laser projector. It would still do well on 70 in places such as the Imperial Bio, Odeon Leicester Square, Cinerama Dome, etc., but in one of the mall multiplexes that installed 70 for H8, I can't see 70mm being a significant audience draw in itself.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-06-2019, 01:00 PM:

Thomas, I have pointed this out before. It is "70mm" (as in "70 mm" or "70 millimeter").

There is no such thing as "7 omm" gauge film stock.

This silliness of intentionally creating a typo by using a letter instead of the appropriate number in no way makes the format somehow bigger or more appealing. It's equal on the lameness scale to Mark Gulbrandsen intentionally mispelling Barco with a "K" because he (and only he) thinks it's funny or somehow creative.

The biggest issue though is that it completely messes up the search engine when people are trying to search for a topic about 70mm. Please consider this when you type "omm" elsewhere on the internet. The typo is actually a disservice to the format for people trying to find info on it because I think it's safe to say most people do not realize you are intentionally creating typographical errors and would think to type OMM instead to find information on the format.

No worries though, I have "fixed" this in the forum software so this foolishness will not happen to future topics in the archive here.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 09-06-2019, 01:19 PM:

Brad, your post made me laugh out loud. Thank you.

Leo, you and I must be reading different reviews. Variety, for instance, calls Joker:

quote:
A dazzlingly disturbed psycho morality play, one that speaks to the age of incels and mass shooters and no-hope politics, of the kind of hate that emerges from crushed dreams.

That doesn't sound like a popcorn muncher movie to me.

I'm bummed that the two decent chains in metro Denver (Harkins and Alamo) aren't equipped to show Joker in >>7(O)MM<<

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 09-06-2019, 02:21 PM:

"This silliness of intentionally creating a typo..."

If it is good enough for Stanley, it is good enough for me...

It's not "2001", it's "2OO1"

Make a better search engine is what I say.

SEVENTY MILLIMETER is out of this world, bigger than life and it need bigger letters to get the audience in – it's simple teaching for all. For me, as a former projectionist, this is all about how HALVFJERDSMILLIMETER is the most authentic cinema experience right now. Regardless of digital cameras, 35mm, 16mm, 8mm or whatever. It’s selling the product. It’s authentic, and unlike the “plastic” experience of digital cinemas today, it is about real people showing you FILM. People upstairs working to show you a piece of film.

It's the talent behind the camera who is the judge of what is good or bad, how it shall be released and presented, the chosen aspect ratio etc. etc. What you think of it is completely irellevant. It's "our" job to give the best possible performance of whatever material we have.

ps - this last paragraph is a quote from a MAJOR film producer by the way

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 09-06-2019, 04:28 PM:

One reason I laughed at this is that I have always done my own silly version. When I write 35mm, I use little “m”s and when I write 70MM, I use big “M”s. So I’m with you, Thomas, at least kinda.

[Smile]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-06-2019, 10:20 PM:

quote: Thomas Hauerslev
Make a better search engine is what I say.

This might surprise you, but that's not how search engines work.

Next I'm guessing you want to have them smart enough to replace every "V" with the number "7" too??? (Somebody here will get that.)

If ol' Stanley intended the official title to be 2OO1 instead of 2001, then we have been mispronouncing it for decades! We need to all make a conscious effort to pronounce it as "two-ohhh-ohhh-one"...with the "ohhhs" of course sounding exactly like the yawns that movie induces. [Razz]

I suppose though if you REALLY want to make 70MM look more amazing than it's actual name in print form, you could start typing "see it in 70.000000000000000000MM!"

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-07-2019, 03:58 AM:

And to rain a little more on the parade...

A capital M is Mega, there is no SI-unit written with a capital M I'm aware of.

So 7OMM would be 7-Letter O-Mega-Bullshit?

If you want to make it real big, you should write 70 Mm... 70 Megameters... Try to fit that into your projector!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-07-2019, 01:04 PM:

quote: Thomas Hauerslev
It's not "2001", it's "2OO1"

In plain body text, such as the text in this forum, anything with numbers should be typed using numbers unless there is some specific exception where that exception is the only thing ever used. Nevertheless, if I'm going to mention something about the 1995 movie Seven, I'm not going to write it out as "SE7EN" even though some of the poster artwork featured that clever play between a "V" and "7".

If anyone is wanting perfectly round zeroes in some numerical display, such as "70mm." then it's a matter of choosing a typeface equipped with wide zeroes.

The original poster artwork of 2001: a space odyssey featured the title set in a bold weight of Futura. The zeroes were not capital O letters. They were oval-shaped zeroes. Now, I'll give you the "O" thing for the opening title card in the actual movie (title set in a light weight of Gill Sans). But that's the only place where you see that treatment.

As for 70mm logos, most of those used actual zeroes rather than capital "O" letters. Eurostile Bold Extended was used for the most famous of 70mm logos; its zero is not skinny, but it's not as wide as the "O" either. Times New Roman was used in Fox's 70mm logo for Return of the Jedi; that's definitely a vertical oval-shaped zero there. Compacta Black has a reasonably fat enough looking zero in the 70mm logo Fox used for The Abyss.

There are many thousands of digital-based typefaces. Some have weights that are very wide. Modern OpenType fonts can feature alternate glyphs for a given letter or numeral. But you're still going to use a zero for "0" and a capital "O" for words like "Ohio."

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-08-2019, 02:38 AM:

If the title card is all-compassing, then we have to write it as "2OO1: A SPACE ODYSSEY", in all caps constantly.

The Os in the title card look weird and off-place. I always considered it to be a hack, probably because Stanley Kubrick didn't like the zeros in Gill Sans, which are rather narrow.

Regarding the movie Seven. That movie still has me confused regarding its official title, as it is actually written as Se7en all over the place. Even IMDB features it as Se7en and Rotten Tomatoes also doesn't seem to be sure, as they feature Se7en between parentheses. Then again, most of the poster artwork seems to use "seven" as title, all lowercase and in a dirty, white or red font.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 09-08-2019, 11:09 AM:

quote: The Grand Poo-Bah
It's equal on the lameness scale to Mark Gulbrandsen intentionally mispelling Barco with a "K" because he (and only he) thinks it's funny or somehow creative.

And let's not forget that other MG classic, Dolbly instead of Dolby. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-08-2019, 09:31 PM:

I have an Alice In Chains music video collection DVD that features “Dobly Digital 5.1” as one of the audio choices.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 09-08-2019, 11:49 PM:

I remember at the height of the 35mm blow-ups craze some cinemas advertised "On the giant 70mm screen!" as that is less than 3 inches, I didn't bother.

Posted by Emiel De Jong (Member # 4225) on 09-10-2019, 01:48 AM:

Some 20 years ago one of my colleagues walked around in a "DOLBLY" t-shirt. In Dutch dolblij means insanely happy.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-23-2019, 08:48 AM:

Somerville also has this booked, although it is not on the list.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 09-23-2019, 11:22 AM:

Gateway Film Center near THE Ohio State campus lists 70mm JOKER in their Coming Soon web page.

Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 09-23-2019, 04:24 PM:

Got our print today! Looks like they're finally phasing out the terrible steel shippers and instead sent the print in new flightcases. Two reels per package. Heavy!

Posted by Sascha F. Roll (Member # 9043) on 09-23-2019, 05:39 PM:

Any evidence on the print itself that it is actually a 4k film out, not just 2k?

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 09-24-2019, 07:45 AM:

Some theatres around the SF Bay Area are advertising in '70mm Widescreen'. From the previews I have seen'Joker'looks like It was shot in flat 1.85 not widescreen and then blown up to 70mm flat for just a few 70mm showings in the USA? No 70mm widescreen like most 70mm film roadshow prints have been in the past.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-24-2019, 09:00 AM:

Actually 1.85:1 was considered widescreen originally [Smile]

Many 1.85 films have been blown upt to 70mm in the past

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-25-2019, 01:03 AM:

Ready to go...

Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 09-30-2019, 04:14 PM:

The AFI Silver in Silver Spring, MD will show this in 70mm. They have two advance screenings this Thursday night.

Posted by Jesse August (Member # 1798) on 09-30-2019, 11:17 PM:

It will be at the Park Theatre here in Vancouver in 70mm.

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 10-01-2019, 09:49 PM:

Say anybody else have any other combos on the Joker I've got one can that isn't working underneath 5653

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-06-2019, 02:19 AM:

Saw the 70mm print at Arclight Sherman Oaks. Looked really nice. Projection was good, crisp and OK registration. I wish they'd put a Kinton in theater 3, but its ok. I'm so gracious for everyone involved from the really beautiful production through the very good printing from FotoKem. Excellent job all the way around, and a decent movie to boot! [Smile]

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 10-07-2019, 06:43 PM:

Just watched it at Seattle Cinerama. Rock solid presentation. Super clean print. All changeovers (happened every reel) were flawless. Cue markers were small white circles (don't know the proper terminology). Sound was rich and deep. Screen was masked for proper 1.85 unlike the recent screening for ET which it was set for 2.2 and Piller-boxed. I used to wonder what the point was for a 1.85 blow up. And now I get it. And it was not even an "action film" in the typical sense.

Bold filmmaking! Joaquin Phoenix was astonishing. Supporting cast was great. Cinematography, sound and music also impressive. Who knew Todd Phillips had this film in him?

Teaser trailer for Nolan's "Tenet" preceded the film.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 10-08-2019, 01:42 PM:

Thanks Tyler, I worked on that location for the tech check of this run!

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 10-11-2019, 01:19 PM:

Ran JOKER at Alamo Drafthouse Brooklyn last weekend, WHILE the 4K was on the screen behind me. I must be honest, this is the worst 5/70 job I've seen Fotokem do yet. Colors are good, but looking at the screen behind me, was not impressed with the sharpness or render. Original file also has artificial film grain added.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-12-2019, 07:16 PM:

I mentioned that I thought that would be the case in another film related forum. It was not even shot on film so there had to be some loss in the digital intermediate rendering. It was shot digitally and is going to look best in that format. I have seen two other Foto Kem jobs the last few years and they do leave a lot to be desired... mainly steadiness. The H-8 I watched also had a greenish cast to it. Its shit like this that will kill all film really fast. The only thing that will still be standing soon will be digital file to 35mm direct positive film out.

Mark

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 10-12-2019, 10:07 PM:

Jack,

How's your back after bending down to that low boy pedestal?

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 10-13-2019, 09:55 PM:

Looks like the Alamo Drafthouse in Kansas City has a 35mm print

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 10-19-2019, 03:30 PM:

We are into week #3 with the Joker in 70mm at Emagine Willow Creek in Plymouth Minnesota