Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Little Women in 35mm

This is topic Little Women in 35mm 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=012516

Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 12-17-2019, 06:28 AM:

So, The Little Theater here in Rochester is apparently showing the new adaptation of Little Women in 35mm. They have it listed as such on their Facebook page, which was updated last night.

Anyone else have this one booked for their screens?

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-17-2019, 07:23 AM:

Last week at a Christmas party populated with a plethora of plastered
projection people, I do recall a rumor going around the room that it
had been booked into two San Francisco theaters in 35mm.
But I can't confirm that 100%

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-17-2019, 08:30 AM:

In the Boston area, it will be playing in 35mm at (at least) the Somerville Theatre and Coolidge Corner.

Otherwise, I don't know much about this--why is it being released in 35mm? Director's preference? Photochemical process from camera negative to print? Cheesy marketing gimmick? Something else?

(edit: spelling)

[ 12-17-2019, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-17-2019, 11:44 AM:

35mm at Gateway Film Center, Columbus.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-17-2019, 12:12 PM:

According to IMDB, this was indeed shot on film (35mm 3 perf) with Kodak Vision negative. But at best, all editing and processing is done in 4K digital then everything is out to film. It won't be a straight through camera to projector film process. So digital out to film in this day and age is about as good as it will ever get. No one is going to edit on film. Then you throw in what we have all been talking about here in many times, i.e., the condition of existing printers and who's left in the business to operated said equipment. Add to that the state of existing 35mm projection equipment and who's left in the booths to operated said equipment, not to mention having the knowledge to properly care for a 35mm print (better see it in the first week)...I mean, we all know what the state of film presentation was in the years prior to digital; I can't believe it has magically gotten better in the last 10 years when NO on was running film.

So, it's questionable as to what advantage an audience is going to get by seeing it on celluloid.

Plus, Scott's questions really need to be answered as well.

Oh, and not for nuthin, but do these producers REALLY believe there is an audience out there that is pining for yet ANOTHER version of this title...four versions; really?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-17-2019, 12:51 PM:

Shooting on 3-perf doesn't necessitate a DI. It is possible to cut the camera negative (even if the film is edited electronically; the Avid will happily make a cut list for a movie shot on 3-perf) and make a 4-perf negative optically. There are some negative-cutting issues with 3-perf involving visible splices, but that is not a big deal if the thing is going to be optically printed, anyway.

Whether or not they did this is a different question, of course.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-17-2019, 01:48 PM:

This 4K DI thing also seems to have become opular for making today's 70mm prints. I feel some accountant figured out they could eliminate an expensive step in making 70mm prints and told them if you want them then do it this way. Well, why even bother unless? A little nicer light, and dust and dirt are not magnified quite as bad is about the only advantage left. Even the DTS sound is a compromise over what it used to be, leaving today's 70mm in a shambles. Yes... there have been a couple exceptions. But all this is about distribution being cheap like they always are.

I also worked on several movies and TV shows that shot on 3-perf. I never could understand the reason why they would choose to do that, because back in the 80's and 90's the extra optical work needed more than offset any lower film costs. Kind of like shooting in Techniscope and having to have the namorphic I.N. made when shooting in Scope would have just been easier. One TV show DP said he liked 3-perf because they did not have to reload as often and his Arri BL ran a tad bit quieter. BTW: All the Dailies I ran from all those shows came in as 4 perf. So both Technicolor and Deluxe must have had special printers just for doing that in one step back in the day.

Mark

Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 12-17-2019, 03:33 PM:

I have to admit that it was a bit perplexing to see this get prints. But it was shot on film, and its a prestige film that Sony is pushing hard to get award season recognition for this one.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood must have drawn good ticket sales for screen with 35mm prints. Might have been better per screen than the digital presentations, prompting them to try their hand at the same kind of magic. But this film doesn't quite have the draw that Hollywood did. And the awareness for prints doesn't seem to be nearly as high this time around.

Either way, I had quite a few issues with all aspects of the print presentation of Hollywood here at The Little. If I can't get in to see it within a day or two of it opening, I'll just go see it at the local multiplex. Or maybe I'll just do that anyways. They seem to run film just for the "experience," and I need a bit more than that.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-18-2019, 05:33 AM:

quote: Jim Cassedy
I do recall a rumor going around the room that it
had been booked into two San Francisco theaters in 35mm.

the 4-star and... who else? the balboa site doesn't mention 35mm, which it typically does when applicable. it doesn't appear to be coming to the new mission. curious!

Posted by Benjamin Ruder (Member # 10765) on 12-18-2019, 11:07 AM:

quote: Chris Haller
Either way, I had quite a few issues with all aspects of the print presentation of Hollywood here at The Little. If I can't get in to see it within a day or two of it opening, I'll just go see it at the local multiplex. Or maybe I'll just do that anyways. They seem to run film just for the "experience," and I need a bit more than that.

That's too bad considering all of the talent available in the area associated with the George Eastman Museum. [Frown]

Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 12-18-2019, 11:19 AM:

quote:
That's too bad considering all of the talent available in the area associated with the George Eastman Museum. [Frown]

The crew over there is on an entirely different level. I have literally never seen a bad presentation at the Dryden Theater unless it was another studio's rough archive print of the movie.

They do tech screenings of every show beforehand and are very upfront if the print they have is less than decent. I've seen everything from lab fresh to absolutely ANCIENT prints there that have been screened to perfection. There seems to be little cross over between the staff there and The Little.

Posted by Sascha F. Roll (Member # 9043) on 12-18-2019, 01:02 PM:

It should also be noted that the last 35mm release ("Marriage Story") was even printed in pillar boxed 1.66, that was a "Wtf" moment for me. One would think that every cinema that is capable of playing 35mm in 2019 also does have a set of lenses and aperture plates for 1.66.
Instead they decided to throw away resolution... [Confused]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2019, 03:30 PM:

That's definitely against the standard going all the way back to the very first 1.66 ratio film. Not a single theater in the world will be properly setup for that. [Frown]

The same thing happened with the 70mm prints of Justice League and The Joker. They were 1.85 within 2.40 within the 70mm frame of 2.21

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-24-2019, 01:29 AM:

Mark, I shoot 3 perf nearly exclusively. The great thing about it is that for digital finish (which is all anyone really does anyway) you have a 1.75:1 negative, which fits the 16x9 HD frame perfectly. So all you need to do is crop a bit for 1.85:1 and that's your "theatrical" aspect ratio built-in to the format. 4 perf is wasteful in this day where nearly everyone shoots spherical and requires a 16x9 (1.75:1) aspect ratio version at minimal. 2 perf is common, but again it's process to photochemical finish blows, like 3 perf does.

Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 12-25-2019, 05:18 PM:

Update: looks like Rochester got passed over for this one at the last minute. No 35mm print here after all. To the multiplex I go.....chances are whatever mystery meat digital they run at Cinemark Tinseltown would’ve been better anyways!

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 12-26-2019, 10:37 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Oh, and not for nuthin, but do these producers REALLY believe there is an audience out there that is pining for yet ANOTHER version of this title...four versions; really?

I don't know whether there's an audience pining for "Little Women" at all, although this seems to be getting good reviews, but as to whether audiences need another version, it's because audiences, especially younger audiences, are very reluctant to see anything "old" AND because there are quite few revival theaters these days.

If theaters brought back the 1994 version with Susan Sarandon, Winona Ryder and Kirsten Dunst, would anyone go see it? I don't think so. Thus, another version.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-27-2019, 01:51 PM:

A movie production studio's "brain-storming" session today appears to be little more than looking 15-20 years in the past for something ripe to be re-made. It's even better when the original novel is old enough to fall into the public domain, which is the case for Little Women. Maybe they'll make a sequel of it. Nothing is off limits. It has been 30 years since Ghostbusters 2 was released but we're getting a sequel of that next summer.

quote: Scott Norwood
Shooting on 3-perf doesn't necessitate a DI. It is possible to cut the camera negative (even if the film is edited electronically; the Avid will happily make a cut list for a movie shot on 3-perf) and make a 4-perf negative optically. There are some negative-cutting issues with 3-perf involving visible splices, but that is not a big deal if the thing is going to be optically printed, anyway.

Whether or not they did this is a different question, of course.

I think the real issue is so many movie and TV productions have become heavily dependent on digital backlot techniques. It's surprising how much green screens are used on studio sets and on location. Whether the original live action footage is shot on film or captured electronically it's going to be pushed into the digital domain for compositing with lots of artificial CG elements and then color graded.

IMHO, once the footage has gone digital there's no reason to output it back to a film print other than to serve as an analog, archival backup. A film-out isn't going to improve the image quality any. And it's really not going to do it if the damned image is pillar or window-boxed on the print!

quote: Tyler Purcell
4 perf is wasteful in this day where nearly everyone shoots spherical and requires a 16x9 (1.75:1) aspect ratio version at minimal. 2 perf is common, but again it's process to photochemical finish blows, like 3 perf does.

There's still a lot of anamorphic shooting taking place, just for the oval bokeh look and flares. Some TV series have been shot with anamorphic lenses and even letter-boxed in 'scope ratio to look more like a movie. Most of those 'scope-looking shows are not shot on film. Then there's the ridiculous stuff like using UP70 lenses on an Arri Alexa 65 and claiming Filmed in Ultra Panvision 70 in the end credits.

I'm used to seeing 2:1 compression ratio anamorphic lenses being used on 4/35mm. But does anyone do that with 3-perf?

Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 12-30-2019, 11:21 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm used to seeing 2:1 compression ratio anamorphic lenses being used on 4/35mm. But does anyone do that with 3-perf?

The movie "Luce", which came out a few months ago, did this. The ratio was 3.5:1 when unsqueezed, and it was cropped on the sides to 2.39.