This is topic Poltergeist 25th Anniversary Screenings - 35mm or DVD? in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=005214

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 09-07-2007, 12:37 AM:
 
Poltergiest is getting a one-night re-issue on 10/24. Here's the Official Site, which also has a Theatre List.

Can anyone confirm if any of these theatres will be screening 35mm prints, or if they will be projecting DVD? (I've heard that their events in the past used DVDs.)

 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 09-07-2007, 08:31 AM:
 
Most likely with that amount of theatres it will be digital projection. If they were to have new 35mm prints, they would be in NYC and Hollywood areas. Warner is releasing Blade Runner Final Cut version only in a digital projection soon.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-07-2007, 10:35 AM:
 
I have some doubts about the D-Cinema thing. According to the list of theaters booked to play the 25th anniversary screening of Poltergeist, two Cinemark theaters in Oklahoma are included. However, the Tinseltown 20 in Oklahoma City and Cinemark Tulsa don't have any digital projection systems at this time. The company has only 32 d-cinema equipped screens between 31 sites (including acquired Century screens) according to D-Cinema Today. There is a chance those numbers could be well out of date (I know D-Cinema Today is lacking at least a couple of Harkins installations in their lists).

Another problem seeming to count against a digital-only release of Poltergeist is the fact most movie theaters with digital projection typically have only one system in the multiplex and that system is usually set up for a larger auditorium. A 25 year old movie (although a classic) may have a tough time competing against new fall releases for those few digital-equipped screens.

I hope no one will stoop to showing Poltergeist merely projected from a standard DVD. That would just be sad. 480p is just too coarse and low in resolution to look good on a large, commercial movie theater screen. Sure, 35mm film prints are going to cost some money, but if the re-release is marketed competently at all it should bring out enough movie-goers to make the effort turn a good profit.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-07-2007, 01:05 PM:
 
It will most likely be if not film, NCM HD pre-show projectors running the show. These projectors are the ones that use two bulbs in them and are used for concerts and such.

Cinemark currently has 36 locations with 53 total digital screens.
 

---

Posted by James. R. Deeter (Member # 837) on 09-10-2007, 01:50 PM:
 
Does anyone think this will be well attended on a Thursday night ? Without big promo help from a local station that targets the 40 + age demo, who cares ? From the list of theatres participating, it looks like mostly AMC, Regal, Cinemark. Maybe NCM put this together ? One more nit pick...the movie released in June of '82, shoulda ran this promo in the summer.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-10-2007, 02:45 PM:
 
There probably was nowhere near enough available screens to run the Poltergeist reissue during June.

Other popular movies from the 1970s and 1980s have had similar booking difficulties. The 20th anniversary reissue of E.T. ran in the Spring of 2002 instead of Summer. The Star Wars movies were quintessential "summer movies," but their 1997 special edition versions were released in the early part of that year instead of summer.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-10-2007, 08:30 PM:
 
They did Star Wars that way because there's no way they could have gotten 12 weeks in big houses (a minimum 4-week-per-movie contract requirement) in mid-summer.

They should do Poltergeist starting Halloween night for two days. They could catch the overflow from Saw IV.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 09-10-2007, 09:46 PM:
 
Based on a reply I got from Fathom, and a discussion over at Home Theater Forum , it looks like they are doing something to upconvert the DVDs to 720p, and then projecting them digitally.

I'm going to opt for seeing it in 35mm at the Castro in San Francisco instead.

Jonesy
Movie Theatre Reviews
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-11-2007, 02:47 AM:
 
I wonder how happy Mr. Spielberg would be to know this was going to happen on DVD.


 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 10-04-2007, 12:37 AM:
 
I made it to the Castro for Poltergeist last night and I want to take the time to say thanks to the staff at the Castro.

The 35mm print was beautiful. It looked brand new. The presentation was excellent from start to finish. I haven't had that much fun at the movies in a long time.

It's a shame that moviegoers won't get the same experience at the video screenings of Poltergeist tomorrow night.

If you find yourself in the San Francisco area, make an effort to see a movie at the Castro!

 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 10-05-2007, 09:25 AM:
 
Here's a couple of reactions posted on Ain't It Cool News.

quote:

---

A Couple Of Dissatisfied Readers Write In About Tonight’s POLTERGEIST Event!

Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.

I’m sorry to hear that this event was so mismanaged. I am not sure what would possess anyone to show a film in a theater in the wrong aspect ratio in the year 2007? That’s a basic mistake that no one should make. It’s not the same as the home video debate because we’re talking about a theater. In the theater, it makes sense to show it in the theatrical ratio... hence no need for letterboxing or pan and scanning and digital zooming.

I’ll let these guys tell you what they saw:

So Harry I went to the screening of Poltergeist this evening. I have been looking forward to seeing it since the posting here a few weeks back.

Well it did not go well.

Once upon a time I worked in a theater, so I know just a little something. The show starts off very much full screen and just as the credits start the pictures pulls back and shows the "scope" that should be presented. The darn thing is wide-screen (letter-boxed)just for the opening and closing credits. I am a forgiving sort on some things but when I have to pay for a "pan and scan" version of a beautiful film like this it is a shame.

I was not impressed with the projection system used either. As I understand it most movie theaters have might have two kinds of digital projectors. The very expensive one for the movie and one for the Movie Vision pre-show. Well guess which one was not used. Not the good one, thus a blurry, dull and dark movie experience with those annoying little boxes that show up on titles and very bright images. Why not just throw a sheet up and grab a lap-top and your $500.00 Best Buy LCD projector. Totally not what I wanted this evening.

I do have one good thing to say...the movie was very clean. I found the "print" to be pristine and flawless, just presented poorly.

Needless to say I did get my dollars back and will use them to purchase the DVD movie next week. I am sure my TV will do the trick, once I place my hands on it and proclaim "They're Here!"

Just call me Mr Voice.

This next one is just a quick reaction:

Hey Harry & Crew,

Just got back from the "one night only special screening" of Poltergeist at the AMC theater in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Loved the flick, as always, but was appalled to see that it was PROJECTED IN THE WRONG ASPECT RATIO. Or I guess I should say, since I assume it was all digital, they USED THE WRONG VERSION for the screening. Basically we got a full-screen version of the flick, with correct aspect ratio main and end titles. Jeebus H. Criminy. Even movie theaters don't understand the appeal of widescreen now. Or at least Fathom Entertainment doesn't.

Just thought I'd share ...

Troy "Minnesota T-Rex" Tradup

---