This is topic Polar Express largest 70mm print order in cinema history in forum Large Format 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=14;t=000094
Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 01-12-2005, 02:49 PM:
 
Original Cinema : the newsletter of the Large Format Cinema Association. Volume X, Number 3 (2005 January).
quote:
An Historic Print Order

In completing Polar Express for IMAX 3-D and shipping it to nearly 70 Large Format theaters in North America, David Keighley and the team at DKP/70mm Inc. were dealing with some big numbers. "It's the biggest 70mm print order in cinema history," says Keighley. "Star Wars used 250 70mm prints in the 1970s. That would be 3.2 million feet. This release is 5.5 million feet. It's also got other parameters. All those prints put end-to-end, the left and right eye, are almost 1000 miles long. Each print is about 14 miles long. Each print goes into ten boxes which hold the 30 reels left eye and 30 reels right eye. That weighs 661 pounds. There are almost 290,000 frames in the film. At 4k that's 7.3 terabytes. So that's 7 trillion pieces of data.

To project Polar Express 3-D as a feature film, new 150-minute platters had to be built for the theaters. Separate platters hold the left eye and right eye prints which run in tandem through the projector.

The IMAX effort to produce a LF 3-D version of The Polar Express seems to have paid off. After only eleven days in release in North America, it had grossed a total of almost $6 million.

 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-12-2005, 05:44 PM:
 
quote:
Star Wars used 250 70mm prints in the 1970s.
Bullshit.
 
Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 01-12-2005, 09:02 PM:
 
I knew you would pounce on that one.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-12-2005, 11:23 PM:
 
quote:
The IMAX effort to produce a LF 3-D version of The Polar Express seems to have paid off. After only eleven days in release in North America, it had grossed a total of almost $6 million.
And how many millions did the 35mm prints make in the first eleven days in release? Of the $6 million from IMAX tickets, how many of those customers would've seen it in 35mm if the IMAX version had not existed?
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-12-2005, 11:56 PM:
 
Brad,

I know of a bunch of people in my neighborhood that saw it in 35mm first and then decided that it would be cool to see it in IMAX 3D. Once they all buy the DVD in a few months, they'll complete the distribution trifecta.
 
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 01-13-2005, 03:16 AM:
 
quote:
To project Polar Express 3-D as a feature film, new 150-minute platters had to be built for the theaters. Separate platters hold the left eye and right eye prints which run in tandem through the projector.

150 minute platters have been around for at least 3 years and anyway PE is only 101 minutes so will fit on any platter larger than ,and including, the 60" "90 minute" platter.

Also ,switches to pedantic mode, the word tandem is defined as

A two-wheeled carriage drawn by horses harnessed one before the other.
A team of carriage horses harnessed in single file.
A tandem bicycle.
An arrangement of two or more persons or objects placed one behind the other: driving horses in tandem.

adj.
Having two identical components arranged one behind the other: a tandem axle.

As the the two eyes of a 3D film are not identical neither do the two films follow on behind each other this is not an appropriate or accurate description of the 3D projection process
 
Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 01-13-2005, 05:23 AM:
 
quote: Brad Miller
And how many millions did the 35mm prints make in the first eleven days in release? Of the $6 million from IMAX tickets, how many of those customers would've seen it in 35mm if the IMAX version had not existed?
A better question would be "what was the average dollar amount PER SCREEN that the movie brought in in 35mm in the first eleven days, vs. IMAX?" -- there was an initial order of 65 prints (According to DKP) for Polar Express, and assuming no extras were added in the first 11 days, that would be just over $92,000 per screen in 11 days...pretty impressive for LF theatres, competing with the thousands of 35mm ones that had the film. And as to the second half of the question, most of the customers who saw it at my theatre seemed to have already seen it in 35mm (granted, we got the movie about two weeks after its inital release), and we still sell out weekend shows and sold out almost every show for the first two weeks.

As to the facts of the original quote, they're slightly different than the ones given by David Keighley Productions initially. This is from a sheet sent out by DKP along with the Polar Express print to IMAX Projectionists:

quote:
Here are some answers to FAQs:
That's all well and good...but my question is on:
11,700 labels identify each individual reel
I think they could have worded it better...either that or they used 45,630,000 labels (11700 * 3900 reels). That's a lot of labels, hope it doesn't leave residue.
 
Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 01-13-2005, 09:26 AM:
 
Polar Express in 3D has raked in $30,243,050 with a $487,791 per screen average in just 8 weeks. I'd say it's a success.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-13-2005, 06:48 PM:
 
Perhaps the Star Wars reference refers to the 3 films combined.
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 01-16-2005, 05:21 AM:
 
quote: Dick Vaughan
150 minute platters have been around for at least 3 years and anyway PE is only 101 minutes so will fit on any platter larger than ,and including, the 60" "90 minute" platter.
This original point was probably trying to allude to the fact that, while the 150 has existed, many QTRU's needed to be upgraded, on account of this movie, so that FOUR decks could run 150's. As is the case with us. Our decks 4 and 5 could run 150, but 1, 2, and 3 could only do 60's.

Poor wording causes so much confusion. There was a newspaper article a month ago about this and it led the reader to believe that IMAX projectors have been running 35mm prints forever, but this "DMR" thing just makes them look better. I also saw a "clarification" that 15/70 means "15mm by 70mm". Hmmm ... that's skinnier than a 35mm frame!
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-16-2005, 06:16 PM:
 
quote: Steve Kraus
Perhaps the Star Wars reference refers to the 3 films combined.
No, for two reasons. (1) David Keighley's quote mentions "in the 1970s," implying just the first movie since the two original trilogy sequels were released during the '80s. (2) The combined 70mm print total for the three exceeded 250.

Star Wars: 25-30
Empire: 135
Jedi: 160

Numbers are for US & Canada, are approximate and are based on researching published articles in Variety and the original newspaper ads, and communication with Lucasfilm.

[But then... maybe my research is just plain poor and the 250 figure is correct. That would explain how there were enough prints to get to places like Tucson. [Smile] ]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-22-2005, 08:51 AM:
 
quote:
In completing Polar Express for IMAX 3-D and shipping it to nearly 70 Large Format theaters in North America
Seems to me that one of the Star Trek films had a 200 plus 70mm release print count but I don't remember which one it was.

I don't think the number of feet of 70mm printed counts as a record..... ecept for the number of feet printed.

To me it would be the number of screens that it plays on simultaniously that makes any 70mm "quantity printed" film the winner..... So star Trek wins hands down.

This undoubtdly qualifies as the largest amount of 70mm film printed for a release but only because of its format. 70 screens is nothing in the exhibition buisness.

Mark
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 01-24-2005, 03:32 AM:
 
quote: Brad Miller
Of the $6 million from IMAX tickets, how many of those customers would've seen it in 35mm if the IMAX version had not existed?
Regarding the first few weeks of the film's release, I'm sure the answer is a significant amount. Now, however, over two months after the fact, our IMAX version is still pulling in a lot of people. Our 35mm print is ... oh, wait, we lost that a month ago! If we had a 35mm print of Polar Express now, and NOT an IMAX, it wouldn't do any business at all. (Well, does anyone still have it in 35mm and can confirm or deny?)

In fact, the business it's doing now--for ANY movie two months after its release--is actually impressive. Amazingly. Neither of the Matrix sequels were still attracting patrons after this long.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
but only because of its format.
Well, there you go! If it's true in ANY capacity, then it's fair game to be used to promote the film. Every marketing department EVERYWHERE is guilty of this, I'm sure. Oh, this is the the first time that over 1000 computers were networked to render the darned thing ... oh, this is the first time every print was personally viewed by the director for quality assurance ... oh, this is the longest film ever that was produced in the time it took ...

Whatever the gimmick is, someone'll point it out. And really, what does it all mean when it comes down to it? A whole heck of not a lot. [Razz]
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-24-2005, 05:33 PM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Seems to me that one of the Star Trek films had a 200 plus 70mm release print count but I don't remember which one it was.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

BTW, the 70mm print record for a single U.S./Canada saturation release print run (according to figures supplied by TAP) is "Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom" (1984).

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I don't think the number of feet of 70mm printed counts as a record..... ecept for the number of feet printed.

To me it would be the number of screens that it plays on simultaniously that makes any 70mm "quantity printed" film the winner..... So star Trek wins hands down.

This undoubtdly qualifies as the largest amount of 70mm film printed for a release but only because of its format. 70 screens is nothing in the exhibition buisness.
The work done on "Polar Express" IS noteworthy...but only within the realm of the current Large-Format industry. The fact that the details needed to be qualified by pointing out the dual prints and total footage measured in feet does little but remind me of all of the silly box office "records" created every time a new movie does well. "The largest Wednesday, non-holiday, non-summer opening of a non-sequel film ever."

And the sports world is just as bad (and I'm a sports fan!) with the endless stats: "Randy Johnson has a 1.15 ERA when pitching on Wednesday night games on astroturf."
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 01-24-2005, 08:03 PM:
 
Just got an e-mail today about the official Robots IMAX press release. The plot summary includes such phrases as ...

"this is the first time ever that an animated feature presents a unique, completely imagined world"

and

"never has such a cast been assembled for a single feature, including no less than five Academy Award winners"

Whatever! [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-24-2005, 09:27 PM:
 
Considering the same printer at CFI is used for 5 perf or 15perf 70 makes it a bit of a milestone as the same constraints are involved
 
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 02-15-2005, 10:16 PM:
 
quote:
Star Wars used 250 70mm prints in the 1970s.
Bullshit.
At first I was going to criticize your response for not providing any useful information, but it seems that you're entirely correct.

Although I don't have specific information regarding the first Star Wars release, an article in the July 28, 1982 issue of Variety quotes the following 70mm print run numbers. The thrust of the article is that 70mm print numbers were smaller than they could have been because of the lack of theaters to play them in.

The 11 early summer 70mm films of 1982 were released in a TOTAL of 282 prints.

The widest print run was 68 prints for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Others:
Grease 2: 8 prints
ET: 31 prints
The Thing: 7 prints
Poltergeist: 37
Rocky III: 25
Blade Runner: 10
Firefox: 5
The Road Warrior: 3
Tron: 41 + 2 added later
Star Wars: (8/13/82 rerelease): 4 (rejuvenated from existing prints)
Empire Strikes Back (reissue): projected to print 40 70mm prints
Revenge of the Jedi: Fox predicting 100+ prints, "duplicating the record original print run of The Empire Strikes Back in 1980"
Raiders of the Lost Ark (reissue): 12
Pink Floyd: 20-30 (projected)
Yes, Giorgio 2 (projected)
The Tempest 2 (projected)
Annie: initially 14 prints, 28 additional after first five weeks.

So if 100 for Empire was the record, the first Star Wars had to have far less.
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-25-2005, 05:47 PM:
 
quote: Martin Brooks
I was going to criticize your response for not providing any useful information...
Well, I figured my one-word post stated everything that needed to be stated, and I believe anyone familiar with my posting history (or articles published elsewhere) would understand why I posted in the manner that I did.

But in the event my earlier post appears vague to anyone, allow me to summarize.

I suspect that the person who made the claim that the original Star Wars had 250 70mm prints, (a) didn't bother to research the data and conjured up the title from memory, and (b) remembering "250" sounded right, confused one Lucasfilm production (Star Wars) with another (Indiana Jones). Common sense would clue one in that there weren't 250 70mm-Dolby houses in service in the '70s.

From VARIETY, 16 May 1984.

quote:
Paramount's "Indiana Jones And The Temple of Doom" premieres across the U.S. [and Canada] May 23 with the largest number of 70m[m] prints ever released for an opening.

Two hundred and forty-three 70m[m] prints will be distributed for the film's opening, far surpassing the 164 released for Lucasfilm-20th/Fox's "Return of The Jedi" in 1983 and MGM/UA's record 169-print 70m[m] launch of "Brainstorm" last fall.
And, for those of you curious about which theatres all of those expensive prints were booked into, I invite you to check out one of the latest new articles posted at From Script To DVD:

http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/indiana_jones_70mm_engagements.htm

Discuss article here if you like. (Or start up new thread in another forum since, technically, this is not a 5-perf 70mm discussion forum. Always good to keep the moderators happy. [Smile] ) Some may find the article a trip since it's somewhat nostalgic and many of the theatres and companies mentioned are no longer in business. Enjoy!
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-25-2005, 10:23 PM:
 
[Dragging this thread further off-topic...]

I'm kind of surprised to see Moyer's West 11th [Movieland] in Eugene listed as a 70mm venue for Temple of Doom. Gonna have to check with my local sources on that... [Razz]
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-28-2005, 01:58 AM:
 
quote: David Stambaugh
Dragging this thread further off-topic...
OK, OK. Let's move the Indiana Jones portion of the discussion over to the Film Handler's Forum.

http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006983
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-27-2005, 09:35 PM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Seems to me that one of the Star Trek films had a 200 plus 70mm release print count but I don't remember which one it was.
quote: Michael Coate
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
The 70mm print run on "Star Trek IV" was 135.
 
Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 05-03-2005, 06:51 PM:
 
I love Michael Coate's response.

With 250 70mm prints created from the original rolls of Oneg, in addition to timing prints, separation masters, etc., the Oneg of Star Wars would have been trash by about 1977.

No one seems to be mentioning the huge print order for Far and Away. I seem to recall seeing the sounding logs at Goldwyn, which were many pages thick, although I don't remember the exact number prints.

RAH
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-05-2005, 04:49 PM:
 
Darren showed a print of Far and Away at York last year and it looked almost virgin (the film, that is: I couldn't speak for Nicole!). It certainly can't have been shown very much in the decade since the film's release.
 
Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-21-2005, 03:36 PM:
 
I read somewhere that “Polar Express” the characters looked more like Zombies of CGI proportions, so I decided to rename it

“Zombie Express”

PS don’t get me wrong I like Bob Zemeckis’s films like “What Lies Beneath” “Cast Away” “Forrest Gump” “Back to the Future trilogy” “Romancing the Stone” and “Death Becomes Her” dame funny one too.

But CGI characters looking like they had the life sucked out of them, no well

I may get “Zombie Express” on DVD later in the year presented in “Zombie Vision”
God help me!
 
Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 07-21-2005, 05:41 PM:
 
Next time you decide to review a movie or post an opinion about its look (especially to the point of giving it a stupid name), try maybe WATCHING the movie first.

Just a thought.
 
Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-21-2005, 06:29 PM:
 
I saw a review of it on DVD and thought I will give it a miss, so that’s pissed on your fireworks….
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-21-2005, 06:45 PM:
 
Maybe Any should take a holiday from filmtech as he doesn't seem to be taking the hint on decorum here
 
Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-21-2005, 06:57 PM:
 
Gordon, I was just reflecting my own, view, was it out of order if so I’ll edit it…..
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-21-2005, 07:13 PM:
 
Stand your ground, Andy. There is ALWAYS someone to whine about something (ME included)! [Wink]

I get bitched at alot...but it's *MY* opinion and yours should be yours.

OBTW: Please use spell check and learn the difference between "hear" and "here". (see, that's me whining) [beer]

Thanks!
 
Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-21-2005, 07:26 PM:
 
Phil

That’s creaked me totally up, you devil, [beer] hear, hear, well come on guys it’s only a movie, man I’ve seen some real
turkeys before, but “Zombie Express” tops the billing… [puke]

PS this is best works of GCI making “Tom Hanks” look like a Zombie perhaps they should have used this in “Death Becomes Her” as they where walking Zombies too….
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-22-2005, 03:18 AM:
 
No need for DVD's. The IMAX 3D re-release is this November. See it again for the first time! Zombies or no zombies, they'll be comin' at you in IMAX 3D.
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-22-2005, 08:48 AM:
 
Are they making new prints, or re-using the old ones or a little of both? Just curious as I've seens some IMAX prints get trashed just like 35mm prints often do.
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-22-2005, 11:19 AM:
 
Not sure about other locations, but we're showing the same print. It's still on hand, since they seemed to know quite in advance that they were planning on re-releasing it. We take pretty good care of prints, so the exhibition should be no different than it was at its original opening.
 
Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 07-22-2005, 03:00 PM:
 
Like Brian, I am showing the same print from last season. IMAX gave me the option to send it back and take the chance I would get a good print in return. I declined and stored it here. You are correct, some prints do get trashed...It makes no difference what kind of projector you are using, it is the OPERATOR and the booth staff that makes the presentation work. When Brad visited my theatre a couple of months ago, I was showing prints with 800 plus runs on them and a couple of years old, they still look like the day the film opened. It was sure nice to hear his approval of my booth operation. But, some guys, IMAX or other, just don't care, and like 35 mm this brings down the Brand Name...

[ 07-22-2005, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Bob Brown ]
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 11-28-2005, 09:17 AM:
 
What resolution was the IMAX 3D "Polar Express" rendered at? I saw it this past weekend and thought it looked fantastic.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2