Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The New World

This is topic The New World in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews 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=4;t=001038

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 12-01-2005, 04:35 PM:

Excellent picture ... felt extremely cut back though (the last 30 minutes were pretty rushed). Could have easily been a 3-hour picture. Probably the best film I've seen this year. It will be interesting to see how they market this one. It's more love story then anything else.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-01-2005, 06:27 PM:

Watched in on my Screener DVD. What a POS! I get sooo sick and tired of the so-called "underprivileged" and "the slighted" yapping about the past and those "film-makers" that feel they MUST make a film about it!

1/2 star outta 100. Another whiner film.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 12-01-2005, 11:58 PM:

Did you watch the same picture? The one about Pocohontas?

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-22-2005, 05:02 PM:

quote: Mike Spaeth
Could have easily been a 3-hour picture.

Interesting point. The L.A. Times reported today that New Line has requested Malick to lose an additional 15-20 minutes of the 149 minute movie for a version that will possible be used for the general release in early 2006 (although the L.A./N.Y. openings will be the 2.5 hour cut).

(Sorry I couldn't provide a link. It is in the print edition, but couldn't find it online).

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-27-2005, 03:01 PM:

Since most of this was filmed in 65mm (except for the effects shots, apparently), is anyone showing it in 70mm?

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-27-2005, 09:09 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Since most of this was filmed in 65mm

MOST of it? Supposedly, only a very few scenes were shot in 65mm. And there are no 70mm prints available anywhere.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-28-2005, 06:05 AM:

We were asked if we could play it in the one auditorium we have that's still 70mm capable, but in the end, it didn't happen, I don't know why.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-28-2005, 06:35 AM:

An art house film. Long and slow but according to one who knows the facts better than me, fairly accurate. Oncethe story got to England it looked like they were in a hurry to get it over with and ended. The fades and cuts to long blacks were very annoying.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 12-28-2005, 01:22 PM:

How good could this have looked in 70mm (had it been mostly filmed in that format) anyways, considering it would have been outputted from a 2K digital master?

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-10-2006, 11:56 AM:

The new Domestic Short version runs 135 minutes now.

For Motion Picture Guild screenings the longer 150 minute version will be screened.

[ 01-13-2006, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Bill Gabel ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-10-2006, 03:11 PM:

I haven't seen the movie yet, but just about everything I saw on the movie trailers and HBO First Look documentary was clearly anamorphic 35mm. Not 65mm.

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 01-15-2006, 03:29 AM:

in70mm

Written by: Thomas Hauerslev

Last year it was bruited about that Terence Malick was shooting his new film wholly or partially in 65mm and distributor New Line Cinema was checking into whether there were enough theaters to do a limited 70mm release. Although "The New World" is opening next month (25 December 2005), I've heard nothing about 65/70mm in relation to it. Is there a story here?

According to the cinematographer, Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki, he and Malick briefly toyed with the idea of shooting the film in 65mm, but ultimately opted for anamorphic 35. Apparently, they only used 65mm for a few brief segments.

Here's a preview of a direct quote from Chivo on the matter: "Our initial dream was to shoot the entire movie in 65mm, but there were so many barriers", says Lubezki. "The only person who really supported us in that idea was Vittorio Storaro [ASC, AIC]", who had mixed 65mm and 35mm on Little Buddha. "I called him to talk it over, and he said, Chivo, don´t even think about it. Shoot it all in 65!" But there are big problems with how to distribute 65 and postproduce sound for it. No one projects it any more."

The filmmakers did shoot a small amount of 65mm "for what we called Hyper-enhanced moments" when, for example, John Smith or Pocahontas has an important realization."

======================

70mm Prints?
New Line does its domestic printing on Fuji stock, which I don't believe makes 70mm.

Rick Mitchell

It looks like Terrence Malick's "The New World" isn't going out with 70mm prints, at least here in L.A. Just plain 35mm and digital sound at the ArcLight and AMC Century 15 (in underwhelming SDDS). From what I understand, most of the film was shot in anamorphic, with a scene (or scenes) shot with John Smith and Pochantas in 65mm. I'm sure most of you have read the most recent issue of American Cinematographer featuring this film. There are some *interesting* quotes from the DP regarding 70mm. Too bad 70s weren't struck.

If memory serves, this is the second time Malick has toyed with doing his film in 70mm. I believe that "The Thin Red Line" was supposedly considered for 65mm or at the very least, 70mm blow-ups. I don't have the particular issue of American Cinematographer in front of me to verify.

Best,
Bill Kallay, 24. December 2005

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-15-2006, 10:29 AM:

quote: Bill Gabel
The new Domestic Short version runs 135 minutes now.

For Motion Picture Guild screenings the longer 150 minute version will be screened.

Isn't this a bit deceptive? One, if the 135 minute version is really an improvement, then why show a longer version to groups in order to be considered for awards?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-15-2006, 10:48 AM:

Y'know, there's all sorts of stories about directors and DPs considering the idea of shooting in 65mm. The New World is just the latest example of the idea being considered and then put aside in favor of 35mm. Spielberg was going to shoot 65mm on Empire of the Sun but opted to shoot 35mm instead and shoot flat as well. Some 70mm blow up prints were made though.

Ron Howard (Far and Away), Ron Frike (Baraka) and Kenneth Brannaugh (Hamlet) are the only directors in recent years who have actually gone through with shooting all or nearly all of the film on 65mm.

For all of the difficulties cited in using 65mm for feature film production it makes me ask the following: then how are the special venue filmmakers getting it done?

How is it that small crews on fairly small budgets are able to get 15/70 projects for IMAX completed while much better funded feature projects can only manage to shoot 35mm? A 65mm Panavision or Arri camera is not much bigger than a 35mm model, and they have some 65mm cameras that can work on a Steadicam. IMAX cameras by comparison are pretty huge. But crews have managed to haul those things up to the top of Mount Everest.

I'm not buying the sync sound argument either. Movie sound on the set is all recorded separately anyway -and nearly all of that is replaced in the ADR, Foley and Effects studios.

In the end, the only real argument against shooting 65mm is the lack of projection in theaters. I seem to remember a post from Brad with lots of details to show it would not be hard to convert an existing 35mm-only screen to handle 70mm. It would even be possible to have 70mm packages put together and installed to support a major 70mm release. Honestly, none of that is any more complicated than the average D-Cinema install. In fact it may be even more simple.

In the end, if a major feature movie production really wants to get it done in 65mm/70mm they'll get it done. Otherwise the "it's too difficult" argument sounds iffy to me.

I still believe in the long run Hollywood may have to resort to using larger film formats like 65mm. Computing technology is going to keep improving. Internet bandwidth is going to increase to phenomenal levels. 20 years from now viewers may be watching movies via IP that have resolutions far above 1080 HD. Sure, video camera people will try to pack more and more pixels into their CCDs, but most will be stuck at 1080 HD for the forseeable future. Large format film will have the capability to deliver much sharper detail.

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 01-15-2006, 07:51 PM:

Don't forget VistaVision and Technirama. Another main point of large format shooting (with the exception of IMAX) is to make high quality 4/35 reduction prints.
After shooting 65 on "Little Buddha", Vittorio Storaro insisted that he will shoot all future projects on 65 exclusively. Well that never happened...

"The New World" has not been released here yet but I will see it. None the less even though shot on 35 "The Thin Red Line" looked amazing on a huge screen. Hope this will be the same for The New World.

Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 01-16-2006, 10:04 AM:

Having worked out a 35 vs. 65 budget for what was to have been David Lean's final film, the numbers are not all that far off. It worked out to (as I recall) under $500,000. Especially, with a bit of cooperation from Panavision and Kodak, which we had.

There is no difference in audio.

IMHO, the only real obstacle to a current 70/5 release is the quality of projection and continuous print damage from those venues who refuse to place qualified projection engineers in the booth.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-16-2006, 10:48 AM:

quote: Paul Linfesty
Isn't this a bit deceptive? One, if the 135 minute version is really an improvement, then why show a longer version to groups in order to be considered for awards?

Yes, it is a bit deceptive. This is the way New Line told us to run the show. The longer version opened in three theatres in the US on December 25th. and has played numerous guild screenings. The director decided on the changes late in the game and reworked the film for the January 20th. release date. So it's up to how New Line and the Academy (AMPAS)want to handle what version they will consider. I handle many guild and press screenings here in NYC. I just play what they send me.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-26-2006, 01:03 AM:

Mumble, mumble, mumble...

I wonder WTF they were talking about? [Confused]

A good cast wasted by one simple wrong direction.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 01-26-2006, 04:51 AM:

I haven't seen this, and I don't plan to. Nothing interesting to me. I am a bit angered by getting the run time from the 'net, only to find out after the first day that it was shorter than we scheduled for. I could've gotten out of work earlier.

I would never sacrifice decent showtimes for the sake of going home early, but a 15 minute difference in a movie of this length would mean an earlier 'late' show, which would be important in my town. This time of year, we have a LOT of seniors that won't go to late, late shows. They are also the primary audience here for this film.

I wish the bookers would have told us about this before we ran the film. Our newspaper ad could not be changed after screening it on Thursday and finding out the film was much shorter than what we thought. Had we known on Monday when we did the listings, things would have been different...

No shows for this one before noon (since nobody came to it anyway), and an earlier evening show (so more people might think about coming to it in our sleepy little town) would have made a substantial swing in our attendance.

But maybe I'm expecting to much to get accurate run times from a booker...

Posted by Jon Morgan (Member # 3059) on 01-30-2006, 04:18 PM:

People get run times from their bookers? Whoa. I read mine from tea leaves.

As for The New World, I really liked it. Not as good as The Thin Red Line, but still very good. I don't expect most people would like it, though.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-30-2006, 06:10 PM:

quote: Robert Harris
IMHO, the only real obstacle to a current 70/5 release is the quality of projection and continuous print damage from those venues who refuse to place qualified projection engineers in the booth.

Not just any theater should be booked with 70mm prints. The prints need to go where they are most sorely needed, really large venues with giant oversized screens -some even equal in size to some IMAX screens.

4/35 just doesn't really cut it being shown on a 70' wide by 30' tall screen. Quite a few screens like this exist in "destination" megaplex sites across the country. There are several just an hour or two of driving distance from me (in Dallas and Oklahoma City), and I'm way out here in Oklahoma, not near either coast.

I agree projectionists, in general, need more training and qualifications to show "film done right." On the bright side, formats like 70mm DTS can greatly reduce the cost of 5/70 prints. It's still worth getting angry about a 70mm print getting damaged, but those kinds of prints wouldn't be as bad a loss as a mag-striped 70mm Dolby SR print worth up to $20,000 (or even more).

I'm still waiting for an opportunity to see The New World at a decent theater. It isn't playing locally. I liked The Thin Red Line alright, but was mainly impressed with the cinematography. Some really incredible camera crane tricks were on display, such as one running up an angled hillside.