Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Aliens (1986)

This is topic Aliens (1986) 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=001539

Posted by John B. Keathley (Member # 5205) on 04-12-2009, 04:03 AM:

CINEMA: Landmark's Inwood Theatre, Dallas TX
AUDITORIUM: Downstairs, Number One
PRESENTATION: 35MM/Stereo
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Old Print, Scratched Throughout
RATING: Three Stars

Midnight show, the print was probably an original print. All types of scratched throughout. I went to the movie with my Lead Projectionist, and we had a kick out of the scratches. Found it kind of fascinating to see how a print looks after being passed around from theatre to theatre.
A/C must be on a timer, because the last hour of the film was like screening in a sauna. [Smile]

Posted by Ed Alvarado (Member # 2760) on 04-17-2009, 04:06 PM:

yeah it was pretty hot and humid in that place

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-19-2009, 02:35 AM:

You guys didn't read the tagline on the poster then, did you?

Posted by John B. Keathley (Member # 5205) on 04-28-2009, 05:51 PM:

Good stuff there Sir. Good stuff.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-28-2009, 09:43 PM:

..and the only one out of the four that was in flat...

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-29-2009, 11:28 AM:

Cameron wanted to shoot it in Super 35, but the studio wouldn't let him.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-29-2009, 01:48 PM:

That's kinda odd. Why did FOX put that restriction on him of his choice of filming? Was Super35 not perfected yet, or something else?

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 04-29-2009, 03:45 PM:

Actually a Fox execs wife probably complained while watching a letterboxed VHS copy of the first Alien film and told her hubby that next time she wants to "see the whole picture!"

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-29-2009, 04:16 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Cameron wanted to shoot it in Super 35, but the studio wouldn't let him

Actually, it was because he only used 6 alien suits and wanted to keep the width of the image smaller as to make it appear that there were more aliens in the scenes and keep the close quarters of certain scenes to appear close and cramped. Cameron's first scope film was The Abyss. Piranah 2 and Terminator were flat.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-29-2009, 04:17 PM:

Are you implying Fox execs have small penises?

Speaking of widescreen, looks like this may be the year of the beggining of the death of true-anamorphic.

Someone listed in the web the first 31 widescreen movies released (in France, I believe) this year so far.

Only 7 out of 31 originated in Scope. The rest in squeezed cropped Super35 or digital. [uhoh]

12 Rounds* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
17 Again* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Assassination of a High School President* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Confessions of a Shopaholic* United States 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Duplicity* United States 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Explicit Ills* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Fast & Furious* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Fifty Dead Men Walking* Canada 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Fired Up* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Friday the 13th* United States 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Gomorrah* Italy 2.40:1 (Super 35)
He's Just Not That Into You* United States 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Hunger* United Kingdom 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Il Divo* Italy 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Knowing* United States 2.40:1 (4K Redcode)
London to Brighton* United Kingdom 2.40:1 (Super 16)
Monsters vs. Aliens* United States 2.40:1 (Digital 3D)
Notorious* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Push* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Race to Witch Mountain* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Shuttle* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
State of Play* United States 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Sunshine Cleaning* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Taken* France 2.40:1 (Super 35)
The Class*(Entre les murs)* France 2.40:1 (HDV)
The Good the Bad the Weird*(Joh-un Nom, Nappun Nom, Isanghan Nom)* South Korea 2.40:1 (Super 35)
The Haunting in Connecticut* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
The International* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Three Monkeys*(Uc Maymun)* Turkey 2.40:1 (HDV)
Watchmen* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Welcome to the Sticks*(Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis)* France 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-29-2009, 06:18 PM:

Apparently, Cameron has never liked the optical artifacts of anamorphic. Even The Abyss was Super 35. And, when DVD was a new format, Cameron didn't want 16x9 enhanced versions of his movies because he decided that most people would be watching on 4x3 monitors and he didn't like the way DVD players were converting 16x9 video for 4x3 output. Total control freak.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-29-2009, 06:39 PM:

I saw the original "Alien" in 1979 at the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood. It was my first and only experience seeing a film in 70mm, and the first time I heard a really good theatre sound system. [thumbsup]

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-29-2009, 06:59 PM:

I think my first 70mm movie was Barabba (1961).

Technically it was shot in Technirama, sort-of a Vistavision, but I saw a 70mm screening at a since burnt-down Todd-AO equipped house.

Don't remember much about the quality of the picture (sound was always good in that house), but I remember some scenes from the movie.

Last time I saw a 70mm "regular movie" (i.e. not a theme park, etc), I think it was a blow up from Super 35mm of Apollo 13.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-29-2009, 11:28 PM:

Nope, there was no 70mm prints of Apollo 13...but this needs to be taken to a new thread if the James Cameron discussion is going to continue.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-30-2009, 04:36 AM:

We get side-tracked easily [Wink]

I must have seen Apollo in Imax then and it was the right stuff in the 70mm blow-up? Hmmm. I know it was around the same time as Apollo 13 came out I saw something space-related on a nice theater with a curved screen in 70mm ... It wasn't 2001.

There must be something good for the memory, but I just can't remember ... [uhoh]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-30-2009, 10:46 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Why did FOX put that restriction on him of his choice of filming? Was Super35 not perfected yet, or something else?

The true Super35 format hadn't even been introduced at that time. What I mean by true Super35 is the Super 1.85/Super 35 system Clairmont Camera and Arri developed to use up the space normally reserved for the optical analog audio track and yield a significantly larger image on the negative. "Super Techniscope" movies like Silverado and Top Gun still left the optical track space intact on the negative instead of using up all the area in between the perforations. The Abyss was a true Super35 movie.

quote: Julio Roberto
Speaking of widescreen, looks like this may be the year of the beggining of the death of true-anamorphic.

I don't agree. Just as many, if not more, movies are being filmed in anamorphic 35mm. The real issue, and it has been this way for a few years now, is the lack of 1.85:1 "flat" movies. Super35 is being used on a lot of movies that normally would have been released flat years ago. I've seen it many times where our local Carmike 8-plex is playing nothing but 'scope movies, many of them shot Super35. The issue even occurs during off peak times like January, April and August when the theater is playing a lot of throwaway comedies, dramas and bad horror movies.

We're seeing a reverse form of panning and scanning taking place with many movies. The movie is released in Super35 to fill the width of commercial movie theater screens, then it is opened up "full screen" for old TV sets or to fill 1.77:1 ratios of HDTV screens when it is broadcast on cable. It's a one size fits all approach. What's really bad about this is the compositions just tend to be rather bland.

With shooting anamorphic 35mm you're locked into composing for the 2.40:1 frame. That's not the case with Super35. As a result few directors and cinematographers treat Super35 in the framing, production design and set decoration areas in the same manner as shooting anamorphic. I've repeated this point before in other threads and the point remains valid. James Cameron, David Fincher and perhaps a handful of other directors properly compose for 2.40:1 when shooting Super35.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-30-2009, 12:52 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
properly compose for 2.40:1 when shooting Super35.

And this is what you see on a "behind the scenes" presentation when you see the camera monitors that are probably ratioed at 1.77:1 with lined out areas on the screen, what it would look like in 2.40:1?

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-30-2009, 01:44 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
And this is what you see on a "behind the scenes" presentation when you see the camera monitors that are probably ratioed at 1.77:1 with lined out areas on the screen, what it would look like in 2.40:1?

If we are thinking of the same thing, then yes (although video taps for S35 are often made for 1.33 monitors, but same thing).

Bobby, just to make sure we all understood each other, I was talking about TRUE anamorphics, where a movie is shot in anamorphic and (likely, if it doesn't go to digital dci) projected anamorphic.

Super35 is not true anamorphic. It's spherical, as you well know.

I just showed how, out of about 65 films opened this last couple of months in France, almost half were wide-screen. But out of those, only 7 were true-anamorphic, with the rest being Super35 squeezes or digital. The other half were, of course, flat.

Just making sure we are talking about the same thing. If you say that more and more films are being shot in scope (anarmorphic, not spherical), instead of fewer and fewer, then we indeed agree to dissagree. [beer]

I think the percentage of films being shot in (true) anamorphics is declining and will continue to do so for the next several years to the point that, sometime in the future, they'll be an extremely small percentage (say 3%) of all significant films shot in the west. Super35 and spherical digital crops will replace them, even if released in scope, but they'll still be cropped spherical-originated. And in the case of DCI projection, cropped-spherical projected as well [Wink]

In another words, I think the use of (true) anamorphic processes is a dying art that will be relenquished to a very small minority in 3-5 years. Once a significant number of DCI projectors show up, making true anamorphic films only adds expense to doing the same in, say, Super 35, as the scanning to DI of anamorphic is more expensive and the added resolution does nothing for cropped scope DCI 2K projection.

Only an artistic license for the look of anamorphic artifacts (distortions) would justify its use. And at the price tag it will carry, I don't think many producers will concur and force the use of Super 35 at best.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-30-2009, 03:48 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
Bobby, just to make sure we all understood each other, I was talking about TRUE anamorphics, where a movie is shot in anamorphic and (likely, if it doesn't go to digital dci) projected anamorphic.

Re-read my post carefully. I fully understand the differences between Super35 home video safe widescreen and anamorphic 35mm widescreen.

Anamorphic 35mm photography is not in decline. The fact is not very many movies are filmed with anamorphic lenses in the first place. Panavision has only so many systems it can rent out to productions at any given time. Anamorphic lenses are bulky, heavier and the DP has to be up to the challenges of using those kinds of lenses.

I repeat, the real issue is a whole lot more movies than normal are shot in Super35, even a lot of shows that really don't have any business using the 2.40:1 ratio. The real decline is the number of movies being released in 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 formats.

Back in the 1980s and early 1990s when VHS rentals were booming not very many movies at all were released in super wide format. The vast majority were shot flat in 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 so they would play better on home video. That is not the case today. Super35 has largely taken over.

Everybody and his brother wants to shoot in "scope" whether it's true anamorphic 35mm, cropped Super35 or the head-scratching retarded move of shooting with video cameras and cropping that to 2.40:1. The movie studios want their movies to fill 100% of a commercial theater's 2.40:1 screen as well as fill all of the 4:3 and 16:9 TV screens at home. Super35 allows you to do that. Anamorphic 35mm doesn't; you're stuck with letterboxing or panning and scanning.

quote: Julio Roberto
Once a significant number of DCI projectors show up, making true anamorphic films only adds expense to doing the same in, say, Super 35, as the scanning to DI of anamorphic is more expensive and the added resolution does nothing for cropped scope DCI 2K projection.

Anamorphic 35mm is still going to beat Super35 in terms of color and contrast quality since the full 4-perf 35mm is being used rather than only half. Hollywood studio use of HDTV levels of resolution (2K) will end up biting them back a decade or two from now, but that's another separate issue.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-30-2009, 07:28 PM:

Congratulations goes out to Greg Anderson here.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-30-2009, 07:59 PM:

Yes, but...

quote: Film-Tech Main Page
Film-Yak
The place for all non-film topics and general yaking. No politics permitted!

Is it really in the right spot in Film-Yak?

We now return you to our scheduled feature.

---------------

I really LOVED Aliens.

Whereas Alien made it totally spooky by hiding the alien, this one came out all guns blazing and turned Ripley into a Rambo-esque character complete with lots of others who enjoyed shooting lots of guns. To compliment this, there seemed to be hundreds of aliens too to even things out a bit.

We started this film around November 1986 and it played through and beyond March 1987. At 130ish minutes it was considered a long movie in those days too. Not like today at all.

First ran it at the Richmond Regent. We built it as soon as it arrived late one night and all the staff were called in for the staff screening a few days before its release. Great night watching a great movie. Years later ran it as a 70mm double with Alien (which was pink) but of course Aliens was still great.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 04-30-2009, 08:08 PM:

Post deleted. Not a movie review.

[ 04-30-2009, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-30-2009, 09:17 PM:

quote: John Wilson
Whereas Alien made it totally spooky by hiding the alien, this one came out all guns blazing and turned Ripley into a Rambo-esque character complete with lots of others who enjoyed shooting lots of guns.

I found that to be a master stroke on the part of James Cameron. We knew how the alien looked and all the good horror scares were used up in the original movie. So there was little surprise left. Aliens is more of an action movie rather than a horror genre film -even though there are scary "oh shit" moments in the movie.

Sigourney Weaver did a good enough job with her female version of Rambo character that it earned her an Oscar nomination for Best Actress.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 05-01-2009, 08:28 AM:

I LOVED Aliens when it first came out. Near the end of the summer, a local theatre ran a week-long double feature of Aliens and The Fly. I went and saw Aliens 3 days in a row. ...And at all 3 showings, I had to leave the auditorium and tell the dipshits to change the lens because they still had the scope lens on from The Fly.

I'd pay $10 to see Aliens on the Big Screen again.

*CHEERS*
Geoff

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-01-2009, 08:30 AM:

quote: Geoff Jones
I had to leave the auditorium and tell the dipshits to change the lens because they still had the scope lens on from The Fly.

They must have truly been dipshits...

The Fly was flat, not scope.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 05-01-2009, 11:23 AM:

Unless it was the original Vincent Price version..."Help...me!!! Please...help...me!!!"

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 05-01-2009, 11:24 PM:

Hmmm... You're right. It might have been that they were running something else in that auditorium during the day, and then this double feature at night.

At any rate, it was the exact same problem 3 days in a row.

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 05-10-2009, 01:08 AM:

Post deleted. Not a movie review.

[ 05-10-2009, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-10-2009, 10:51 AM:

Post deleted. Not a movie review.

[ 05-10-2009, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 10-09-2018, 11:38 PM:

It has been 3439 days since the last post.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 10-09-2018, 11:38 PM:

Saw ALIENS tonight at Harkins Northfield, in Auditorium 18, on their second largest screen after the "Cine Capri."

I was really impressed with how the DCP looked. We sat in the fifth row and I couldn't see any jagged edges on the credits the way I often do on current releases. Was it possible this was 4k? There were a few grainy scenes from the original photography, but in general the image looked great. Sound was solid too. Well done, Harkins.

It was the 1986 theatrical cut, but it included the digital fix to the "Bishop hole" that was made for one of the Blu-Ray releases.

My 14-year-old daughter (who had seen the Special Edition once before at home) was on the edge of her seat.

There were about 50 or 60 people at ALIENS. We arrived early and peeked in a few other auditoriums to watch trailers. Those current releases, with their multi-million-dollar marketing budgets, all had "crowds" in the single digits. I still don't understand why theaters don't show classics on the big screen more. Seems like money left on the table.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-11-2018, 08:38 PM:

I'm still kickin' myself for missing the DCP screening on the Lockheed Martin IMAX-laser system in 2016 [Mad]