Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Alita Battle Angel 3d light level verification

This is topic Alita Battle Angel 3d light level verification in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=003558

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-21-2019, 04:33 PM:

Fox is requiring that any theatre that is planning to play Alita Battle Angel in 3d has to verify that your light level is at least 4.5fl, else you will only be allowed to play the 2d version.

Real D has a system set up to do this verification where you take a couple of pictures of your screen while playing a test dcp and upload them through a web form.

The pictures have to be taken with an iphone, and only an iphone. I don't have one of those things. The cell phone dealer here is a friend of mine, though, so I borrowed a "display" iphone from him this afternoon to take the pictures. Never used an iphone before, so I'm just kind of hoping that I got the thing set the way they want it for the pictures.

My wife said, "Geez, next thing they're going to tell you that you have to buy an iphone."

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-21-2019, 06:30 PM:

Funny. I'm looking at iPhones tomorrow.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-22-2019, 06:41 AM:

They probably want a limited set of phones/cameras in order to control the exposure parameters more tightly. iPhones use a limited set of components and identical software routines to create photos. With 'any' phone/camera, you simply don't know what you get.

- Carsten

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-22-2019, 10:39 AM:

I don't know a lot about photography but isn't there about five miles of metadata that comes with a jpg out of a phone that will tell you far more about the picture than you ever want to know?

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-22-2019, 11:07 AM:

If that was my theatre, and they sent me that demand, they would have gotten one of two answers:

1: You want me to take a picture with a specific device, YOU provide it at YOUR expense. I'm not going through the wasted time and/or money to do something special just for a one-off request. (Or YOU pay for a tech to come and use a real light measuring instrument to do it right.)

2: Just send me the 2D version. (My most likely response.)

The situation is starting to get out of hand. Since when can the studios place such demands? I do realize that for special premiers or limited showings, the practice of having a tech come in and check sound, do a "B" chain, and maybe ask for a lamp to be changed was common....but for a regular run? Get real. (or reel.)

The real issue is the classic case of "give them an inch, they'll take a mile." Want to bet that this will become a common practice if enough theatres agree to it? (In that case, I'd have no issue if they did item one above. But they would be also paying for the TIME involved.) And where is the line drawn? Will theatres be required to have tests done before getting ANY content? Who's gonna pay for it?

As a real world example, I run the city water system. One of the state regulatory agencies MANDATED that everyone who has a well install specific brands of flow meters to measure usage. (None of them were cheap, ours were over $3,500 EACH (plus installation) and we had to install two.) There was nothing wrong with our existing meters, and they were still accurate. They made us do it at our expense, and our city is not that financially well off. (In fact, that cost destroyed my maintenance budget for the next year.)

The main reason the newer ones were mandated is that they can be read remotely (by SCADA, Telemetry, etc.) by the agency. But they are not doing remote reads yet, it is still done by logging and quarterly (or in my case, semi-annual) reporting. Since I do monthly readings, it is no big deal to send them the totals when they ask.

Problem is, a county agency (which has no direct jurisdiction and was not the mandating agency) is now demanding they WE provide photos of our readings to them every six months. The mayor has already said if they want them, they can pay for them. (Since they are not the primary agency, and can get that info from the primary agency themselves, I agree.)

Back on topic:

Digital is already controlled enough. Thankfully the KDM situation is far better than when the rollout started, so it is almost as streamlined as the old film days as far as getting the show set up to run.

I feel that theatre owners have enough costly demands made on them to appease the studios. This latest request is over the line, IMHO.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-22-2019, 01:43 PM:

The movie companies hold all of the power in this relationship, though. "No movies for you" would put us little guys out of business, but it wouldn't make even a blip on their end.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-22-2019, 10:32 PM:

^^^^^ This, my friends, is the problem in a nutshell. There is a rule in business that essentially boils down to this:

Don't bite the hand that feeds you, and if you break enough fingers, you won't have a hand left to feed you."

That is what I feel the studios have been doing for a long time, and the whole digital changeover has accelerated the breaking of the fingers.

Sad really, but I'm grateful to have at least been involved in the industry before things started getting really bad.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 01-22-2019, 11:49 PM:

IMO, a photo taken by a phone is completely worthless to judge light levels. The phone software is going to attempt to find a proper exposure. You can prove it for yourself. Take a photo in a dimly lit room. The image will have the light level boosted.

Now if they told you to take a photo with a DSLR or equivalent in manual mode and told you what ISO to shoot at and what exposure to use, that might be somewhat useful.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-23-2019, 12:11 AM:

Again, I don't know a lot about photography, but these are the settings that are included in the instructions for creating the photos:

quote:
iPhone Setup
Before conducting the test, it is very important that the iPhone is set to preserve non-HDR images. To do this, go to “Settings” and select “Camera”. Make sure “Keep Normal Photo” is turned on.
The camera should be set to normal Photo mode, turn the flash OFF, turn HDR off, and turn live mode OFF.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 01-23-2019, 04:14 AM:

quote: Martin Brooks
IMO, a photo taken by a phone is completely worthless to judge light levels. The phone software is going to attempt to find a proper exposure. You can prove it for yourself. Take a photo in a dimly lit room. The image will have the light level boosted.

I suppose you can manually control the exposure by software. If that is the case you can set a fixed exposure and compare the output with a known 4.5fL screen brightness.
Maybe it won't tell them if you are 4.5 or 4.4 but I would not be surprised if it would be able to tell them "it's 1.5fL".

A picture would also be able to evaluate the brightness throughout the whole screen - and not just on the hotspot.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-23-2019, 06:47 AM:

They can look at the EXIF data and find out exposure settings, then judge from there. It's not a screen brightness meter, but a camera with known operating parameters can be used to get a decent idea about screen brightness. Harkness offers a screen luminance meter app for iPhones.

By the way, I haven't seen any of this communication first hand - but from what Frank writes, it appears as if FOX is asking for decent 3D screen brightness, while it is RealD who offer (or demand) pictures to be taken with an iPhone to verify.
Now, what's so bad about a studio taking care about screen brightness, or, generally speaking, presentation quality? In my opinion, cinema operators should know about their screen brightness anytime anyway. At least what their system is able to achieve when setup properly with a new bulb, or, 'on average'.

- Carsten

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-24-2019, 05:10 PM:

Fox should send out light meters if they want 4.5fL on this presentation.

Gee. an eyephone is well over 1100 bucks: 1000 is on the camera and 100 is on the phone itself!

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-24-2019, 06:17 PM:

Obviously, it is cheaper to expect exhibitors to either own an iPhone, or to borrow one of the zillions circulating.

- Carsten

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-26-2019, 06:59 PM:

There are already a zillion iterations of iPhones alone floating around... Not only the major generations but also sub-generations. Heck, I'm even lost on the latest generations... XS, XR? XS MAX? iPhone 8? iPhone 8 Plus? Most of them have a different camera design. I'm pretty sure they will never be able to account for all of them...

Shooting a picture with a random iPhone and trying to neutrally determine the light readings from this is pretty much b.s.

Since 3D is almost always major suckfest anyway, I'd just give Fox the finger if they made me do something stupid like that: No 3D dollars for you.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-26-2019, 08:22 PM:

We got our 3D fixed a couple of months ago (after it had been "down" for about 18 months and we were waiting for our tech to make his periodic trip this way). I have mixed feelings whether (and when) to use it again. And I hate to start using it on the fear that it'll crash for no reason again like it did the last time.

The upside is, virtually nobody is asking about 3D anymore. And it's easier not having to deal with the glasses.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-26-2019, 09:42 PM:

quote: Frank Cox
Fox is requiring that any theatre that is planning to play Alita Battle Angel in 3d has to verify that your light level is at least 4.5fl, else you will only be allowed to play the 2d version.

Is that the entire run, or just day and date opening? I'd like to see the disturbs try and bust AMC or Regal when they move over to one of their smaller houses (though they probably only use 2D in those screens anyway).

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-26-2019, 10:06 PM:

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-27-2019, 11:19 AM:

Wow. That letter really proves my point about the attitude of the studios... "...not just to achieve superior box office results for the film" (wonderful grammar there..NOT) "but also for the long-term benefit of the theatrical film business (note the use of film business, not exhibitors) It's all about the studio's greed folks.

And the total condescending tone of this: "However, we believe that the quality of 3D presentation in many theaters (wrong spelling, theatre is the correct one for cinema) in the domestic market (so I guess the rest of the 3D theatres elsewhere are perfect, right?) is not as good as it could be." Whose fault is that? Let's force super expensive projection equipment down everyone's throats, THEN make exhibs pay even more for 3D systems that are rarely used for any worthwhile films...amazing.

And the real whopper of all lies: "If your theatre can present with light levels higher than 4.5fl we will grade for those versions as well," Bad grammar aside, why are they going to go through the expense of grading for different 3D light levels? I don't know the exact costs of grading two separate versions for light levels, but I am pretty sure it isn't free, or cheap. Why not just release the low light version, and if the theatre CAN project at 4.5 or better, the image will finally be bright enough in 3D to be tolerable.

So that means at least three versions will be on the drive.... 2d, 3D under 4.5 and 3D 4.5 and up ..so now how much compression is gonna be done to fit all those on one drive? Or will there be multiple drives distributed, like in the old 35mm mono print vs. Dolby print days?

The stupidity of the studios continues to reach greater heights.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-27-2019, 11:58 AM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
So that means at least three versions will be on the drive.... 2d, 3D under 4.5 and 3D 4.5 and up

It's actually quite common for movies to be distributed with all of those versions on one hard drive (plus captioned versions too).

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-27-2019, 01:19 PM:

I would love to know the failure rate on this. Do you think they will release the results?

Guess we will see how many locations actually play it in 3D.

Of course, I also wonder how many theatres did not participate in this because they could care less about playing it in 3D.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-27-2019, 01:23 PM:

Typical distribution drives do offer 1TB nowadays, they can easily hold 4-5 versions, even multiple OVs. We have already seen two different 3D versions for different screen target brightness in the past. Even a 500G drive would typically suffice for that.

Still, I can't see what's bad about a studio wanting to assure 4.5fL 3D as a minimum. That is already low enough. But we know that some screens, especially those with high-gain silver screens lit by underrated or burnt-down projectors/bulbs often achieve even less than that. Aiming at 4.5fL minimum can't be wrong.
After all, you're free to book 2D only...

- Carsten

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-27-2019, 01:31 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
wrong spelling, theatre is the correct one for cinema

Just looking for a fight are you? [Wink]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-27-2019, 03:29 PM:

quote:
Wow. That letter really proves my point about the attitude of the studios... "...not just to achieve superior box office results for the film" (wonderful grammar there..NOT) "but also for the long-term benefit of the theatrical film business (note the use of film business, not exhibitors) It's all about the studio's greed folks.

You're a little nitpicky there, aren't you? I don't see anything wrong with the grammar in that sentence, and I also don't see your point about "film business" vs. "exhibitors." All exhibitors are in the film business (in the sense we exhibit "films," whether they're made out of celluloid or not). So as used here, the two things are synonymous.

Also "theatre" vs. "theater" -- I wish everyone would pick one and stick to it. It's the National Association of Theatre owners, but their correspondence has the word "theater" sprinkled through it. Studio onesheets are not consistent either. I don't think there is an official definition of the words.

Maybe it's an autocorrect problem. Chrome is showing a misspelling on "theatre" so there's that.

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 01-27-2019, 04:08 PM:

The whole "theatre and "theater" thing is indeed annoying. It wouldn't be if some publications could be consistent with it's use.

Edit: about the public and their want for 3D. At my local AMC, if there is a 3D title they will play 2 showings a day. Early and Late. If I ever go to a 3D movie it is ALWAYS packed or sold out. Mix of younger and older people too. Maybe its just this area or the fact that there is only 2 showing a day but 3D films are very popular in these parts.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-27-2019, 04:30 PM:

quote: Carsten Kurz
Still, I can't see what's bad about a studio wanting to assure 4.5fL 3D as a minimum. That is already low enough. But we know that some screens, especially those with high-gain silver screens lit by underrated or burnt-down projectors/bulbs often achieve even less than that. Aiming at 4.5fL minimum can't be wrong.

There is nothing bad about a studio trying to assure a minimum presentation quality. But in this case, the problem is in how they're trying to achieve this.

If you want to assure consistent quality, you will need a more rigid method to implement this and keep on checking it.

The way it should be IMHO, in e.g. the case of RealD: RealD licenses technicians to do the measurement and those licensed technicians can get you a "certified" label after he/she measured your theater.

Having somebody shooting some pictures with an iPhone is total nonsense. There are dozens of iterations of iPhones, all with different lenses, sensors and software.

Also, an iPhone is not a calibrated device. It might have some kind of calibration once it left the factory, but still, there are almost infinite factors that might affect any objective conclusion.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Also "theatre" vs. "theater" -- I wish everyone would pick one and stick to it. It's the National Association of Theatre owners, but their correspondence has the word "theater" sprinkled through it. Studio onesheets are not consistent either. I don't think there is an official definition of the words.

Theater is the preferred American English way, whereas theatre is the preferred way every else where English is being used. So, I guess your choice simply depends on your primary audience. In any way, it should indeed be consistent, at least across a single publication.

NATO is an oddball thing, why they choose "Theatre" instead of "Theater" will probably remain a mystery, especially because one of the predecessors of NATO, the MPTOA, used "Theater": Motion Picture Theater Owners of America.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-27-2019, 05:57 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Theater is the preferred American English way, whereas theatre is the preferred way every else where English is being used. So, I guess your choice simply depends on your primary audience. In any way, it should indeed be consistent, at least across a single publication.

For the last few years I have been immersed in Trade Magazines and Newspapers from the beginning of motion pictures and before. "re" vs "er" is, and has been from the beginning, a stylistic choice.

Not only is there no right, wrong or preferred(accept maybe by the programmers behind auto-correct), I have theatre adds that spell it both ways within the same ad.

I use "re" because that is what was on the marquee when I got here.

I am, however, quite fond of "Theatorium", which achieved a degree of use in the teens, but never really caught on.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-28-2019, 02:18 AM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
Not only is there no right, wrong or preferred(accept maybe by the programmers behind auto-correct), I have theatre adds that spell it both ways within the same ad.

This seems to be a discussion we could continue for ages, which actually isn't bad, because at least I'm learning a thing or two in the process. [Smile]

So, I did a little Googling, just a little really. I'd say that preferred depends on how often it is being used in actual publications. Apparently, someone has done a little research.

According to this research, somewhere in the later 1970's, the preferred way to spell theat{re,er} swapped from theatre to theater for American English publications.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-28-2019, 01:55 PM:

I have it spelled both ways in my internet domain name(s), since otherwise I get people complaining about bounced email or a missing website. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-28-2019, 02:17 PM:

Here's an graph that I found interesting. It shows the American usage of the two words. Take note that there is a huge peak in the use of "theatre" around 1930, which is the year my establishment was built. Hence it's no surprise that it was (and is) called the Roxy Theatre.

In Britain, 're' is still by far the most commonly-used version in all instances, no matter what kind of building, establishment or whatever is being discussed.

Generally I still use 're' when I refer to the Roxy, and 'er' if I use the word any other context. Ten years ago I was using 're' all the time. This is me giving into modern times...a little.

Here's an article which uses a lot of words to tell you that it really makes no difference which you use.

Writing Explained article

Theatre vs. Theater: What’s the Difference?

The words theatre and theater can be confusing to writers because it’s not immediately clear which word is the better choice — or if there’s a “better” choice at all. Are these just variants of the same word? Do they have different meanings or different functions within a sentence?

In today’s post, I want to address each of these questions so that you will never again have to second-guess yourself.

Theatre and theater are both nouns that mean a building, room, or outdoor structure for the presentation of plays, films, or other dramatic performances.

quote:
The auditorium of the theatre, which will open in Spring 2017, will be designed by Steve Tompkins and Roger Watts of Haworth Tompkins. –The Guardian

While London is fortunate in its heritage of Victorian and Edwardian theaters, relatively few new theaters of scale have been built in London in the last hundred years. –New York Times

They can also refer to the activity or profession of acting in, producing, directing, or writing plays.

quote:
What caused you to go into theater?

I have been in love with theatre even since I was a child.

You’re probably still wondering, “Okay, so when do I know which one to use and when?”

For the most part, there is no demonstrable difference in sense or function between them. There are, however, important dialectal differences to consider, which I will outline below.

When to Use Theatre
Theatre is by far the preferred spelling in British English in all senses of the word, plays, buildings, the art form, etc. The graph (above) illustrates just how deep the preference is for theatre in British English.

Clearly, if you are a British writer, or an American writer writing to a British audience, the correct spelling for you is theatre.

Part of a writer’s job is to know who his or her audience is. If your audience unanimously uses one spelling over another, you, as a writer, should take note of this to more effectively communicate to them.

This preference is not only borne out in popular usage in Britain, but popular British style guides like Fowler’s also list theatre as the preferred spelling in British English.

When to Use Theater
Theater is the preferred spelling in American English for all senses of the word, as the below graph illustrates.

Most American usage guides agree with this. Garner’s and The AP Stylebook both list theater as the preferred spelling. It is interesting to note, however, that theater has become the preference in American English only in the last 50 years or so, which makes some people reluctant to accept its spelling.

Others have attempted to distinguish between theatre and theater, with theatre being an art form and theater being a building where theatre is performed. None of these, however, has caught on and none is borne out in actual usage.

Unless theatre is used in the proper name of a building, production company, etc., theater is the correct spelling in American English. Some examples of theatre in proper names, the American Ballet Theatre, the Muncie Civic Theatre, etc.

These same preferences equally apply to the cinema as they do live theater. You should, therefore, write movie theater in America and movie theatre in Great Britain.

It is interesting to note, however, that movie theater is primarily a North American phrase. In Great Britain, they typically say, “We’re going to the pictures.”

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-28-2019, 03:13 PM:

quote:
In Great Britain, they typically say, “We’re going to the pictures.”

Let's flood the internet with "pictuers" just to mess with them [evil]

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 01-28-2019, 09:49 PM:

Well, for that matter, how about "pitchers", as well?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-29-2019, 07:20 AM:

In my lifetime, Theatre was the spelling. Just because it changed during my lifetime is no reason for me to change.

I strongly suspect that a key influence are the spell checkers used in word processors and other computer programs influencing how the current generations are spelling the word (and others).

If the built in spell checkers are loaded with a preference of Theater for the "US Dictionary" then it will correct the misspelling of Theatre. As time goes, the younger generation just goes with that. For me, the first time such device tries to correct me, I click the "Add word" option and never see the admonishment again. [Razz]

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-29-2019, 08:08 AM:

FWIW, I have a clipping from 1906 (too big to post here) of a "List of 300 Words The Hereafter in All Messages and Documents From the White House Will Be Printed According to the Recommendation of the Matthews Committee," that Teddy Roosevelt sent out.
"Theater" is the "New Form", "Theatre" the old.
Of course, he also wanted to change "Suppressed" to "supprest" and "Surprise" to "Surprize." (and the auto correct is going crazy right now)
Just quickly scanning the list, it looks like most of the ones that stuck were the "re" to "er" changes.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-29-2019, 08:25 AM:

Isn't that the same with centre and center? In german school, we are told that '-re' is british english, and '-er' american english. I would guess that british english is more contrained, while american english, with all the international influence, melting, and british ancestry, will practically have it mixed all over.

- Carsten

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-29-2019, 10:01 AM:

Carsten: I speculate that's where the whole theatre/er thing got started. Someone got it in their head that Theatre was British and therefore classier and therefore was only used for legitimate theatre, not the movies.
It's very clear that from the late 1800's through the rise of the movie palaces there was no distinguishing between the two. Not sure when it kicked in as a distinguishing thing, but the use was all over the place in naming theatres at least into the 1960's.
Just doing a search, I noticed that PBS has dropped Theatre from Masterpiece Theatre. Maybe it just got too confusing.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-29-2019, 10:55 AM:

Ok, since I started this mess:

The reason behind my commenting on it is this:

When I got started in the business back in the 80's, I heard the same info from two different sources, which flies against the graph Mike posted.

Working with RCA Theatre Service, one of the well respected technicians explained that the -re was used to separate cinema from the stage.

Working for Knott's Berry Farm as an entertainment tech, The stage venue there was (is?) known as the "Good Time Theater" and the then running attraction was run in the "Cloud Nine Theatre" (Actually it is the Cloud Nine Ballroom, as it was originally built to host dancing of various kinds.) It also introduced me to the old "lamp" vs. "bulb" argument.

I ran and maintained the 2 Century projectors for the 3-D movie "Sea Dream" (To my horror, I can STILL remember perfectly the intro and outro to it, as well as most of the music and visuals).
When I contacted purchasing to order new Xenon bulbs, the old school live venue crustacean haughtily sniffed, "I don't order bulbs, I only order lamps." [Roll Eyes]

(Oh, and don't dare to call a stage fixture a lamp, it is a "luminare")

Evidently all of my early mentors were steeped in the old school traditions. [Big Grin]

I also recall (but cannot remember the specific source,it might be one of the old Cameron or Mitchell projection books) the author emphatically stating that cinema venues "must" be referred to as theatres to distinguish them from the legitimate stage. That sounds about right from the time those were written (1940's - 50's)

Those books are still packed away from my move to Idaho, when I can get access to them I'll check again.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-29-2019, 11:43 AM:

quote:
the old school live venue crustacean haughtily sniffed, "I don't order bulbs, I only order lamps."

At the risk of going off on another tangent - I call them bulbs, but they go into the lamp. Or the lamphouse... I would never call it a bulbhouse.

It's just like the thing that lights up your living room... it's a lamp, but the device that makes the light is a bulb.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-29-2019, 12:56 PM:

Shall we move on to "pop" vs "soda"?

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 01-29-2019, 12:57 PM:

Uhhh...Alita Battle Angel...
As of this posting none of the theatres... CINEMAS in my town have their advance tickets up for sale, despite a deadline for Jan 24 to have them up. In my location, the booking has not been confirmed yet. I have heard no reason as to why. I could assume it's due to the memo Fox released, but that would be an assumption.
As for theater/theatre thing, I compare it to how people mispronounce the name of the city I live in. This riles up the locals quite a bit and I find it amusing. When I am speaking on the phone with a supplier and they confirm the address as "Loo-bach Texas", I say "Yes." (If you are curious, it's pronounced "Luh Buck.")
With my luck, seconds before I post this, the bookings will get confirmed.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-29-2019, 01:41 PM:

Now just imagine telling a supplier that you live on Mosquito Grizzly Bears Head Lean Man First Nation, Saskatchewan. (I suppose the folks who live there would run out of room on the "Address" part of forms.)

I've always thought it would be difficult for people who live on Raggedy Ass Road in Yellowknife to order stuff by phone. "Your address is WHAT? Quit wasting my time, Mac." *click*

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-29-2019, 01:45 PM:

Did we used to use fibre or fiber gears in them moving picture machines?

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-29-2019, 02:23 PM:

You should be using fiber, according to TR;>

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-29-2019, 03:52 PM:

Maybe it depends on the route your 1,37795 inch film takes through your moving picture projector? [Razz]

Language and local habits are some peculiar things.

I was always in the impression that in general in British English, the "movie theater" was almost always called a cinema and not a movie theatre. [Wink]

The same discussion can be done regarding "auditorium" v.s. "screen" v.s. "cinema". In Germany for example, a single screen in a muliplex is often refereed to as "Kino" and not "Screen" or "Schirm" or "Leinwand", which always refers to the physical screen. Whereas "Kino" can also mean the whole thing...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-29-2019, 06:51 PM:

quote: James Westbrook
I compare it to how people mispronounce the name of the city I live in. This riles up the locals quite a bit and I find it amusing. When I am speaking on the phone with a supplier and they confirm the address as "Loo-bach Texas", I say "Yes."

My town of Forsyth gets mispronounced all the time, which I don't understand because it just seems so obvious. Some people say "Forsth" all in one syllable, and others say "For-sith."

We have a lot of unpronounceable localities around here, like Wibaux ("wee-boe"), Belle Fourche ("bell foosh"), and my favorite, Meagher County, which is pronounced "mar."

Back to Alita Battle Angel - is this shaping up to be the first high-profile flop of 2019? I have heard zero buzz on it, and my own level of excitement for it is below minimum. But maybe I'm missing something.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-29-2019, 06:55 PM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alita:_Battle_Angel

There's a special fan crowd attached to the character, let's see...

- Carsten

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-29-2019, 07:35 PM:

After skimming over that article, I looked up the trailer....now I remember it, I looked at the trailer that came out last year. Egads, the title character looks uber-creepy with those over-sized eyes. Talk about uncanny valley, this is more like the uncanny-super-creepy-valley.

I'm reminded of the over-hyped movie "produced by James Cameron" that came out not too long after "Titanic." It didn't exactly set the world on fire either. I guess we'll see.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-30-2019, 10:42 AM:

Wow, over 14 years to start production, production ended in Feb. 2017 and release date two years later...(after being pushed two times)

This has "Heaven's Gate" written all over it..... [Big Grin]

The plotline has elements of the '70s film "Rollerball" too....(though that was a modest cult success.)

I noted that the critics seem to have liked it, but I think that is more of the "Cameron Effect" than the actual quality of the movie.

If I owned a single screen, I wouldn't book it. If I had a multi, I might book it in one of the smaller auditoria to start with.

We'll know in a week or so...

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 01-30-2019, 02:02 PM:

Some of my kids are fans of the books (Manga) and are pretty impressed with the attention to detail and faithfulness to the story hinted at in the trailers. And were pretty taken with the story to begin with.

But can it break out a bigger-than-fanboys audience?

We'll see next week...

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-30-2019, 04:07 PM:

Looks a lot like that Ghost in the Shell movie from last year. Which had almost nothing for audience when I played it here.