This is topic Pearl Harbor - Booking, etc in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000227
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 04-25-2001, 10:06 AM:
Just found out last night (4/24) that our 24 screen theatre is slated for 4 prints of Pearl Harbor (Running time 2:55)Buena Vista was wanting to get preliminary schedules and house placements so that final bookings could be placed. Some theatres were confirmed with 'X' prints with 'X+1' available if BV thought the scheduling could allow the extra print.
This probably explains why the Drive-Ins will be late. All the prints are taken by the regular theatres until first of multiple prints are dropped after week 2.
They are looking for $300M take.
Paul.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-25-2001, 10:25 AM:
Paul --- for such a long running time, will you be getting a digital "print" for your DLP screen, and how will you store the much larger file size? I'd estimate you need to store at least 80 gigabytes of data with the present levels of compression used in the QuVis QuBit unit.------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 04-26-2001, 08:18 AM:
For drive-in fans, you could say that the "medium is the message", we'll show up for many movies that we wouldn't go to otherwise, just for a night out under the sky. And really, we expect that most films we won't see off the break (especially when 5 or 6 good films all break within a couple weeks), so "Pearl Harbor" I'll look forward to in August and be happy with "Driven" opening outdoors on the break. But enough about me, here's an interesting article, I think BV's policies are going to hurt the small indoors more. It's 
! Look at the beautiful theatre in the article (Senator in Baltimore). A damn shame, this is the kind of place movies SHOULD break!
www.senator.com/PDF/Pearl_Harbor_NY_Times_Story.html
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-26-2001, 06:50 PM:
THe article says "Nobody under 5 allowed...period." While many of us would LIKE to adopt that policy, it would surely put us out of business. Those under-5'ers usually come attached to at least one or two adults! He's training those people with small kids to stay home and watch video.
That said, I share his pain. We would love to have "Pearl Harbor" on the break too, but I hear the terms are 4-week minimum and that's just too long for us. We could probably do 3 weeks.
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 04-29-2001, 02:53 AM:
Probably not.Word has it that we will probably receive Shrek next, followed by Atlantis.
Paul
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-10-2001, 06:55 PM:
Has anybody heard anything about the Pearl Harbor prints?My booker said he saw a letter from Disney saying they are going to be very diligent about watching print condition, and theatres damaging the prints will be charged! Also that this is a very expensive print, about 2X what a normal print costs. I attribute some of this to the length of the print, but is there some other reason?
I wonder if they're paying for that "higher level of service" that TES offers. That would be cool, at least we'd have a pretty good chance of getting a decent print.
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 05-11-2001, 01:38 AM:
>>this is a very expensive print, about 2X what a normal print costs. I attribute some of this to the length of the print, but is there some other reason?<<IB Tech prints, maybe?? I can always hope... 
Aaron
Posted by Scott Madsen (Member # 167) on 05-13-2001, 08:36 PM:
This article in Friday's USA Today sounds like it's talking about the letter referenced in this thread.
"Disney's plans for its big summer action/love story, Pearl Harbor, have left some theater operators befuddled. The studio sent them a letter outlining how the film, starring Ben Affleck, Kate Beckinsale and Josh Hartnett, was to be shown.
''They do have certain requirements,'' says Bob Bagby, who runs the Missouri-based B+B Theatres. Among the letter's points, which Bagby says are the most wide-ranging since Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace: The three-hour film should start during the 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. prime-time hours and play in the largest auditoriums.
Disney distribution chief Chuck Viane, who confirms this column's earlier report that drive-ins will not be allowed to show Harbor for at least a month after it opens May 25, says some theater operators misunderstood the letter.
''There's no blanket policy,'' Viane says. ''But we have as good a movie as anyone, and we do want the biggest houses we can get.''
While some theater operators have privately groused that the demands are tough in an extremely competitive season, Bagby and others say Disney's requests -- regardless of whether they are demands or suggestions -- are a small price to pay to get the movie.
''We believe this is going to be one of the biggest movies of the year and possibly one of the very biggest movies of all time,'' says Brian Callaghan of the General Cinema theater chain. ''It's a movie with a Titanic level of interest.''
Posted by Will Morrow (Member # 792) on 05-13-2001, 09:36 PM:
If this movies sucks, which I have heard the trailer blows away the script, then moviegoers will lose trust in us. There is a TON riding on the success of this film. Our theater has at least two prints coming, maybe three, and we only have 11 screens. I am excited, but the hype that brings people in, can also be the hype that burries the experience. We'll just have to wait and see.
Posted by Derek Maxwell (Member # 234) on 05-14-2001, 10:53 AM:
I'll wait for it to show at our local Drive-in. I'm not sitting in a small indoor and watch an out of focus film for that long.------------------
http://www.drive-infilm.com
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 05-15-2001, 10:27 AM:
I know lots of people are gonna disagree with me on this, but I don't consider drive-ins suitable for an accurate presentation, simply because you can't have the sound set up properly. There should be 3 speakers behind the screen so that the dialogue sounds like it's coming from the screen- kind of hard to do at a drive-in!
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-15-2001, 01:44 PM:
If you ask just about anyone at a drive-in why they're there, the response will likely be that they're not there for the specific movie, but for the atmosphere. No pun intended.Historically, there have even been drive-ins that never even placed the feature's title in their newspaper ad. Instead, they mentioned coming out early for the playground or the volleyball or the burgers or whatever. When it got too dark to play, they just happened to show a movie.
But that's another thread. Of course, results may vary by market.
Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 05-15-2001, 02:26 PM:
I agree with Adam and Jesse. I wouldn't want to do away with the drive-in experience, but how can you really imply that the drive-in presentation is better. I went to a drive-in for the first time in probably 20 years to see "The Mexican". The first problem I had was the FORD Expedition in front of me that wanted to keep its hatch up, blocking my view of the screen. Moving over one parking spot so that I would be behind an empty space, this guy decides to get a charcoal grill going. It's hard to see the picture through flames and I've never had that problem indoors. After the flames burn down, I try to figure out how much of the 2.39:1 image I'm missing. I can see the C/O cues, so it must be the left side that is shooting out into space. My other problem was the screen illumination. I forgot to check my lunar calendar to realize that it was going to be a full moon.It's the experience, not the movie... 
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-15-2001, 05:02 PM:
John,I have heard rumblings that we may get Pearl Harbor in DLP, but we only have about 50GB of disk space, I would think that we would need double that to hold this long print.
Paul.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-16-2001, 10:27 AM:
I would hope that you need FAR MORE than 50GB to hold a 3 hour movie. In the DV video format, a 5:35 project takes up 1.18 gig, and that's 720x480 video with only two channels of audio! At 50 gigs that's roughly over 4 and a half hours of video. They must be doing some CRAZY compression on the DLP!
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-16-2001, 04:19 PM:
Joe, I said that I would have to at least double the 50 GB I currently have to hold it. Sorry if I was ambiguous. 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-16-2001, 04:53 PM:
Sorry Paul, I also meant to say that at double the resolution of DV (720x480) and double the sound (4 channels) you could only put 2.25 hours on 50 gigs. At 100 gigs it would be 4.5 hours. But isn't DLP higher than 1440x960 and have 6 channels of audio? If not, then OK. If so, then they must be doing some sort of CrAzY compression!
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-17-2001, 09:08 AM:
The DLP chip runs 1280 * 1024 resolution with 6 channel sound. Color, I believe, is 10 bit.Joe, you suprised me with, yet again, another new picture.
Paul.