This is topic 70MM ad thread 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=006347

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-22-2011, 04:24 AM:
 
I am hoping some of you out there have some old newspapers with the old 70MM ads.

I would love to see them!










 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-03-2011, 05:23 PM:
 
Tom, I do not have any 70mm newspaper clippings for you but it used to give me a trill whenever a new movie opens in Honolulu and newspaper ads would indicate the film is playing in that large format and our local theatres. Newspapers were pretty good in Honolulu advertising 70mm showings but for some reason when David Lean's RYAN'S DAUGHTER played at the Kuhio, the newspaper ads did not indicate at all it was in 70mm. It only gave me the impression it was a 35mm showing but I went anyway and I was very pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be a 70mm showing. Because it was photographed in 65mm Panavision, like LAWREBCE OF ARABIA, the image quality was gorgeous! So was the six track mag sound.

There were no 70mm theatres that I know of on the neighbor islands but Honolulu did have a couple great houses. They were The Kuhio (Before Twinning), Waikiki #1 & #2, Waikiki#3, Cinerama, Royal, Queen, Kapiolani, Varsity (Before twinning) Kapiolani (also when it was operated by Toho of Japan), Kokusai (Daie Studio-Japan) and the Kahala #1. Of all of Honolulu's 70mm theatres, only the Kahala is still in operation but they will never show large format prints anymore because it is a first run theatre showing current movies.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-10-2011, 12:06 AM:
 
I have a decent collection of 70mm ad clippings, but just about all of them are too freaking big to display effectively within the 550 pixel width limit of this forum. A lot of the ads are full page ads from the Sunday New York Times. If I shrank those ads down to 550px size you would barely be able to make out the 70mm logos.

I do have a few smaller 70mm movie newspaper ad clippings, but haven't got around to scanning them.

Isn't one of the points of this thread about how 70mm was advertised way back in the day? It's kind of about those logos right? I spent a decent amount of time scanning those logos and creating accurate, vector-based graphics art files of them. I've had some fun playing around with the things, like creating fake movie ads like this:



I made a 5" X 30" acrylic sign decorated with vinyl graphics and gave it to Brad Miller for his screening room. I don't know if he ever used it though.


Here's a jazzed up concept for 70mm DTS:


The 70mm logos from 1980's newspaper ads don't reproduce well at small sizes. I threw together this GIF image, but rotated it 90 degrees so more of the logo details would be preserved.


 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-10-2011, 12:25 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

within the 550 pixel width limit of this forum.

---

800. Not 550. 800.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-10-2011, 12:30 AM:
 
When did the image width limit change from 550 to 800 pixels?

Not that it would have made any difference about that last 70mm logo collage. It's 1000 pixels tall (by 550 wide).

 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-10-2011, 12:33 AM:
 
I fixed it for you.

Click for full size:

 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-10-2011, 12:41 AM:
 
Nice.

 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 02-10-2011, 01:33 AM:
 
It's probably way to late in the game for something like this to ever appear but I always thought it would be nice to see ads differentiating the different forms of 'IMAX' Example "Presented in IMAX 70mm on our GIANT SCREEN" vs "Presented in the IMAX Digital experience" or something to those effects.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-10-2011, 03:14 AM:
 

quote: Sean Weitzel

---

"Presented in IMAX 70mm on our GIANT SCREEN" vs "Presented in the IMAX Digital experience" or something to those effects

---

IMAX already says its digital:

"A DLP Cinema Technologies" right before the movie starts. Also, they clearly state "Crystal Clear Digital Picture" during the countdown that is not available on 70mm prints.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-10-2011, 09:00 AM:
 
IMAX doesn't differentiate the terms in the movie advertising. The general IMAX term is applied even if the movie doesn't have any 15/70mm film prints. That's misleading.

IMAX is still playing games with the theater listings on its web site. The company does not clearly differentiate digital-based theaters from the superior film-based theaters. I just looked at the map on their web site. The 15/70 3D capable IMAX theaters are lumped in with the Lie-MAX ones. The only ones you know for sure are film based are the domed screen theaters and 2D-only theaters.

BTW, the little DLP message thrown on screen before the movie starts is a fairly useless warning. The customer already paid for his ticket.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-10-2011, 12:44 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 02-10-2011, 02:32 PM:
 
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, theatres would actually put out the effort to distinguish their showmanship.

But, wow! They only had 15 minutes between screenings.
 

---

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 02-10-2011, 02:52 PM:
 
The Giant Screen Cinema Association has launched a campaign " Bigger Bolder Better" in an attempt to differentiate the Giant Screen Cinema experience on flat and dome screens .

We have also set out specifications to define what is a giant screen .

Yo can see details here http://www.giantscreencinema.com/MemberCenter/BiggerBolderBetter.aspx
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-10-2011, 03:08 PM:
 
Technically only 14 minutes between showtimes. Still that is assuming they ran NO previews or branding of any sort and that such a huge quantity of people can be cleared from the auditorium, theater cleaned and then re-sat.

No way did they clean between showings.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-10-2011, 03:34 PM:
 
So much for showmanship then.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-11-2011, 01:23 PM:
 





 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-11-2011, 11:26 PM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

But, wow! They only had 15 minutes between screenings.

---

Actually, that was quite generous back in that era. Many theatres ran THE GODFATHER (172 min) at 3 hour intervals). Ads in the NY Times show the 116 minute M*A*S*H with 2 hour intervals, and that was the exclusive first run! Ity was not untypical for first run theatres to schedule 5 minute breaks between shows; sometimes the first few shows of the day (matinees) would go from one feature to the other without ANY breaks, only scheduling one 5 minute break for (presumably) the most popular showing in the evening.

When I saw the 159 minute NASHVILLE at the Exclusive No. California Engagement in San FRrancisco at the 1000 seat Northpoint, all shows had 6 minutes breaks between. The Alexandria's showing of the 70mm Logan's Run scheduled their breaks as 5-5-15-10. A lot of first run theatres in those days showed NO previews or policy snipes.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-12-2011, 12:23 AM:
 
I certainly remember short down times between shows in New York City. I sat through a good number of screenings twice since the down time between shows was short (and the ushers didn't kick me out of the place).

Did a little scanning work this evening. Does anyone besides me loathe the technical problems with scanning halftone imagery on news print? It can be a pain in the ass at times. Especially when you have to stitch together multiple scans. Here's a nearly 22 year old ad that ran in the New York Daily News:



Respectable number of 70mm prints in the greater NYC area on that release.
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 02-12-2011, 02:25 AM:
 
For most of my career as an IA projectionist there were no "down times" except for intermissions. The shows ran continuously and a customer could stay in the theatre all day and night if he wanted. It continued that way until the early '70s. It wasn't until I re-entered the theatre in the past decade that I experienced breaks so the staff could clear everyone out of the auditorium after a film played (and sometimes they even cleaned the auditorium). Most of these were first run houses and I pulled many 12 hour shifts.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-12-2011, 02:39 AM:
 
Alright. I'm still up in the late hours of early Saturday morning. So here's a few more BIG images -at least BIG within the limits of the forum. Any complaints about image size should be met with the response of: this is the year 2011. Time to move up beyond dirt floors, outdoor shit houses and 56K dial-up modems and get modern already! I definitely recommend indoor plumbing at least.

First ad: newspaper ad scan of The Abyss for its NYC opening:


Dead Poet's Society was merely one of a great many "flat" 1.85:1 aspect ratio movies released with 70mm prints in tow primarily to take advantage of the 6-track Dolby magnetic audio.


Star Trek V: The Final Frontier was arguably the worst out of the entire big screen franchise. Although I have some huge problems with the most recent J.J. Abrams reboot of the series, his version is dozens of times better than the 1989 offering. Damn that movie sucked. Even the special effects were chintzy. With ST:V failing fast, Paramount had to do some ad work to allow the sequel to ride on the coat tails of Indy III -which wasn't universally praised either. To top it off, Paramount even threw in some teaser work on the forgettable Richard Dreyfuss star vehicle movie Let It Ride.

 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-12-2011, 05:18 AM:
 
Thanks everyone for the scanned ads. I love them! Keep them coming. I was always amazed as a little kid to see the ads in the paper.

WANTED: A 70mm newspaper ad from a Toronto Area newspaper. I would love to see that.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-12-2011, 10:16 AM:
 



 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-12-2011, 10:23 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Does anyone besides me loathe the technical problems with scanning halftone imagery on news print?

---

It helps if you put black paper or cardboard behind the newspaper clipping during the scan. In addition, turn off auto exposure or correct brightness to the lighter side, it keeps the backside printing from "bleeding through".
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 02-12-2011, 11:21 AM:
 
Once, I needed to put a half-tone scan into a video presentation and the artifacts were horrible. So, as an experiment, I went back to Photoshop and added a bunch of blur to it, followed by a bunch of sharpening. I was surprised at how well it worked.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-12-2011, 11:52 AM:
 
Sometimes it helps to scan images with halftone screens placed on the scanning bed at angles of 15° increments. The trick can eliminate moiré.

Here's another 70mm movie ad I had to stitch together:

 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-12-2011, 03:35 PM:
 
I always scan halftone at 400dpi or whatever resolution I need it in. Adding a very slight gaussian blur removes it and makes everything smooth and even printable. No need to "resharpen".
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-13-2011, 01:32 AM:
 





 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-13-2011, 02:52 PM:
 
Here are a couple ads for films released initially in 35mm. The upgrade/switch to 70mm is emphasized in the ad copy.





And here's an ad for Kurosawa's Soviet-Japanese co-production "Dersu Uzala," a film that at least two film history books mistakenly claim wasn't shown in 70mm in the United States. This ad is for a 1978 run in San Francisco.



And a couple of large-format classics. Here, the emphasis in the ads is on the reserved seats. The 70mm notations are nothing more than a small process credit.




 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-13-2011, 06:42 PM:
 
Am I the only person that finds these sort of posters annoying?



I am of course referring to Ms. Travolta and Mr. John.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-13-2011, 08:42 PM:
 
No.



or


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-13-2011, 10:57 PM:
 
Here are ads for a couple of movies that played a full year in some cities...







And another/better ad for "Die Hard"...


 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-13-2011, 11:01 PM:
 
Thanks Michael,

Great ads. The Die Hard is awesome.

I forget Raiders won five Oscars.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-14-2011, 04:27 AM:
 
Shouldn't that be "a team of terrorists have seized"?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-14-2011, 04:29 AM:
 
Terrorists can has seized skyscraper?
 

---

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 02-14-2011, 08:31 AM:
 
Or even better, John


 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 02-14-2011, 12:56 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Shouldn't that be "a team of terrorists have seized"?

---

[pedantic]In US-English-style grammar, the subject in the sentence is the team, which is singular, so "has" is the appropriate word.
But in UK-style grammar, a grouping of individuals would be seen as plural and "have" would be the appropriate word.

Like in the US, someone might say "Dream Theater is coming to play a concert here in a few weeks" were someone in the UK would be more likely to say "Dream Theater are coming..."
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-14-2011, 01:35 PM:
 


This is one of my all times faves, from a March 1970 re-issue. Note the hyperbole concerning the best 6 track sound systems in the country! The Edens 2 in Northbrook was one of my favorite places to go because it had a huge curved screen, something I was always into. The UA Cinema 150 in Oak Brook was so named because it one of 2 Chicago area houses equipped for Dimension 150 (the other being the River Oaks in Calumet City), although later the place was twinned. The Cinestage Theater in downtown Chicago later became a porn house! All 3 houses are now long gone.

In case you can't see it too well, here is the text:

RETURN TO THE "2001" EXPERIENCE. The UA Cinema 150, Edens 2 and Cinestage Theatres are equipped with the best 6-track magnetic stereophonic sound in the country. You will hear "Zarathustra," "The Blue Danube," and Gyorgy Ligeti's electronic compositions from surrounding overhead speakers and five frontal console speakers (4' high, 3' wide, 3' deep). The screen at the Cinestage is 70' across, UA Cinema 150 is 70' across and the Edens 2 is 60' across (combined that's longer than a city block). You will see "The Dawn of Man" and "To Jupiter and beyond" projected from the finest 70MM equipment in super-panavision and metrocolor. RETURN TO "2001" EXPERIENCE.



This ad is from October 1972. The Michael Todd Theater was in downtown Chicago, at one time a "brother" to the Cinestage before ownership changes. This particular "fest" appeared a few times, but sometimes was only known as "The Fabulous Three" and others as "The Fabulous Five." I forget which one they added when it was five, it was either "Grand Prix" or "Ben-Hur."
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 02-14-2011, 05:45 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

I am of course referring to Ms. Travolta and Mr. John

---

I am stunned at Travolta's ability to portray a woman back then. I was certain that the person playing "Sandy" was a woman. But with his portrayal of "Edna" in Hairspray... not so much.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-14-2011, 07:50 PM:
 
Good one, Louis.

Because they announce the terrorists as a singular 'team' that is correct. If it had said simply 'terrorists' then 'have' would be correct.

Where were the terrorists from in Die Hard...were they German? Perhaps their english was 'not so good'.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-15-2011, 12:11 AM:
 
Dolby trade ad (ca. 1980-81)


 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-15-2011, 12:47 AM:
 
Michael, the Empire Strikes back takes the cake.

Keep em' coming. Great ads!

I wish we would go back to the old style marquees.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-15-2011, 06:19 AM:
 
Lets see -- Showmanship.....More MONEY; Showmanship....More MONEY; Showmanship....MORE MONEY. Doesn't take a genus to see which one wins, even in the golden age of the single screen. Now admittedly, most of the time it was the studios, not necessarily the exhibitors that did this kind of thing; the studios would go so far as to chop chunks of a film in order to get one extra show a day on re-releases. In the case of the rerelease of CAMELOT, and FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, they went so far as to chop parts of the title song of CAMELOT and a complete song from FIDDLER. So all of them get the BIG DUBAYA on their foreheads; whores all.

tom, I have been trying in vein to find pictures of the Brandt theatre marquees that lined what we affectionatey call Forty-Douche Street, NYC back in the 70s. For each engagement they designed custom graphics with embossed image and lettering cuttouts custom designed to the exact size of the marquees, one for each side -- think huge standees mounted on the face of the marquee and also above the entrances and on the side entrance panels. Mind you, these theatres would change runs pretty frequently, maybe every two or three weeks. Even as a youngster it amazed me how they could produce these things to look so spectacular and within such a short turn-over.

I would really love to find someone who was directly involved with their production to pick their brains for a detailed explanation of how it was done.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-15-2011, 10:36 AM:
 

quote: Tom Petrov

---

I wish we would go back to the old style marquees.

---

As much as I like theater marquees from decades ago, those giant sized displays are mostly a thing of the past and unlikely to return.

The best marquees were typically associated with single screen movie palaces. No one builds single screen theaters anymore, much less auditoriums with anything near or over 1000 seat capacity.

The "megaplex" of today typically has too many screens to allow anything more than plain type listings of the movies playing. The titles are usually in some kind of changeable plastic letter (flat "Zip" style that slide into plastic track or injected molded Wagner letters that sit on metal blades). Some theaters have gone to using LED-based boards to show movie titles. The LED signs are nice in that it's a snap to change listings and you don't have to be out in the weather to do it.

Some newer multiplex sites have somewhat elaborate sign designs, but most are very restrained either by theater executives not wanting to spend a lot of money on signs or their hands are tied by overly restrictive sign ordinance rules in that city or town.

The marquee for the Warren Moore 14 south of Oklahoma City isn't over the top elaborate, but it's pretty big and definitely has that old time look to it, right down to the injection molded plastic Wagner letters used for the movie titles:

quote: Frank Angel

---

I have been trying in vein to find pictures of the Brandt theatre marquees that lined what we affectionatey call Forty-Douche Street, NYC back in the 70s. For each engagement they designed custom graphics with embossed image and lettering cuttouts custom designed to the exact size of the marquees, one for each side -- think huge standees mounted on the face of the marquee and also above the entrances and on the side entrance panels.

---

quote: John Wilson

---

Where were the terrorists from in Die Hard...were they German? Perhaps their english was 'not so good'.

---

They were German...except in the dubbed version playing in Germany, where their names were changed from Hans, Karl and Heinrich to Jack, Charlie and Henry.

Die Hard Wikipedia
 

---

Posted by Jerry Axelsson (Member # 3175) on 02-15-2011, 02:32 PM:
 
I would love to see "DIE HARD" in 70mm.
Are the blow-up prints of this title on par with the quality of "THE ABYSS" for example?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-15-2011, 05:34 PM:
 

quote: Jerry Axelsson

---

I would love to see "DIE HARD" in 70mm.
Are the blow-up prints of this title on par with the quality of "THE ABYSS" for example?

---

I watched both Die Hard and The Abyss in 70mm during their original theatrical runs. I think The Abyss looked better. However, a number of different variables are involved.

I watched The Abyss at the Ziegfeld theater in Manhattan and saw Die Hard a few blocks away at the Coronet/Baronet theater (I think the show was in the Baronet house). So, different projection setups were involved. The screen at the Ziegfeld was bigger.

The two movies had very different photographic styles. The cinematography in Die Hard really isn't very pretty through much of the film. Lots of dark, low depth of field shots. OTOH The Abyss had a lot more in the way of deep focus shots. The image had a better sense of contrast and the blue colors were pretty intense. I watched The Abyss in 70mm and then saw it again in 35mm. Colors were significantly richer in the 70mm version. But then that sort of difference was common between 70mm blowup prints and 35mm release prints back in the late 1980s. Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade looked really good in 70mm while a 35mm version I watched didn't have the same level of color intensity and contrast.

IMHO, The Abyss was the first great example of Super 35. I know lots of other movies used the process or variations of it previously. But none of them looked as good as this movie. I've seen many Super 35 produced features made years after The Abyss that had greater levels of noticeable grain and not so sharp detail. Whatever they did on The Abyss, be it choices in film stocks, camera/lens setups or optical processing techniques they did very well.

Die Hard had an excellent 6-track Dolby mag sound track. It thumped good. I've never heard the "Fox Fanfare" theme sound any better than it did on that movie.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-16-2011, 08:42 AM:
 
Another big image, the first feature film to deliver 5.1 digital surround sound in movie theaters:



I don't think the Guild Embassy actually installed CDS. Subsequent ad listings showed it playing Dick Tracy in 70mm Dolby magnetic. I think the Loews 84th Street Six was the only NYC theater to play the movie in 70mm CDS.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-16-2011, 09:48 AM:
 
And here's a Dick Tracy ad from the west coast.


 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 02-16-2011, 02:28 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The El Capitan Theater in Hollywood (6838 Hollywood Blvd. - look it up in Google Earth Street View) has one of the last really nice single screen theater marquees created in the United States. The sign has lots of neon and chase lights. And it has a large, vertical "blade" sign above the marquee. Disney bought the theater, renovated it and re-opened it in the early 1990s. The sign design won a number of awards. The sign originally displayed movie titles using flat plastic and some type of large format graphics. A few years ago the sign was retrofitted with full color LED "jumbotron" boards to show movie titles and other information.

---

The El Capitan definitely looks impressive from the photos I've seen. Here's a daytime shot of the entrance taken in July 2007 by an associate:


I have some additional photos of the marquee at night, which shows the neon and chase lights in our Photo Gallery for the theater:
http://www.bigscreen.com/Marquee.php?theater=1361&view=photos

I wonder how many communities would allow such a sign to be placed on the front a movie theater? It would be a pity if a movie theater wanted to do such a thing, but couldn't because of local regs. Talk about making an impression!
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-16-2011, 03:53 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-17-2011, 12:27 AM:
 
Michael, they need to go back to this time of marketing for movies.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-17-2011, 11:54 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I don't think the Guild Embassy actually installed CDS. Subsequent ad listings showed it playing Dick Tracy in 70mm Dolby magnetic. I think the Loews 84th Street Six was the only NYC theater to play the movie in 70mm CDS.

---

That isn't really saying much. The CDS systems were so flaky and they lost so many shows since there was no backup soundtrack to revert to when the digital failed, that from what I've heard most theaters supposedly went to a mag print for the second week. Others continued to advertise CDS, but were actually delivering mag audio.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-17-2011, 02:43 PM:
 
It was Paramount's Days of Thunder that had reports of problems with their CDS shows which resulted in their CDS prints being replaced with mag ones. Buena Vista, on the other hand, placed a trade ad at the end of Dick Tracy's run touting x number of flawless showings of the CDS version.

Now, was Buena Vista boasting truthfully, or were they trying to deflect any negative attention CDS received...?
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-17-2011, 02:43 PM:
 
I remember being very interested in CDS at the time and talked to a number of NYC local 306 guys and the concensus was, as Brad said, that it was a hit and miss nightmare -- it would hiccup at the slightest provocation. I was told that even the projector mechanical virbration would play havoc with it. No one felt any level of confidence running it, not even the floor staff who had to deal with irrate patrons -- every show was a crapshoot.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-17-2011, 04:05 PM:
 
the only CDS presentation I attended was 'Terminator 2' at the then UA Bethesda theater - and that soundmix rocked!!
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-21-2011, 02:47 AM:
 
And now, back to our program...






 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-21-2011, 03:02 AM:
 
Thanks Robert- nice ads, keep em' coming.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-21-2011, 12:50 PM:
 
Happy to oblige.






 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-21-2011, 01:27 PM:
 



 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-22-2011, 03:31 AM:
 
Ok folks. Here is something that I would like to see:
I think the above is a longshot but here goes.

Anyone have a THX+70MM+6-Track Dolby ad?
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-22-2011, 11:45 AM:
 

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Anyone have a THX+70MM+6-Track Dolby ad?

---

 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-22-2011, 12:44 PM:
 
Thanks Michael- Where do you find these? are they from your collection?
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-22-2011, 02:51 PM:
 
Tom... Over the years I've spent countless hours in libraries doing research and photocopying old newspaper ads from microfilm. (It's becoming easier now that many newspaper collections are being digitized.) Most of what I've collected is from Los Angeles and New York, but I've also tracked down stuff from numerous other cities across the world. Here are a couple of ads from Toronto that may interest you.




 

---

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 02-22-2011, 03:22 PM:
 
Michael,

Do you know of the year of the Star Wars trilogy screening? I recall coming across this in old ads for similar charity screening in Vancouver. Im thinking it was 1985 at the Stanley Theater.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-22-2011, 03:39 PM:
 
March 28, 1985. This particular 70mm trilogy screening for charity was shown in only eight cities: Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, and Toronto. (Return of the Jedi was re-released the following day.)

The thing you may be thinking of, Ron, is the Star Wars/Empire double feature re-issue, which played selected markets during 1982 & 1983. It played in Vancouver at the Stanley during autumn of '82.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-22-2011, 03:59 PM:
 
Now in it's 6TH Sensational Month Now THAT'S what I call a film having LEGS!

I love the Edward Newport Cinema ad for STAR WARS. "50-100% more seats than any other theatre" And what's a "Mohair Loge?" I guess they are referring to the seats?

I do like the way they hype the presentation and what sets them apart from their competition, although could that text blocking be any uglier? Still, it gets the message across. You don't see exhibitors doing that kind of promotion very often nowadays, even when they do put in costly upgrades. Opportunities lost.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-22-2011, 05:17 PM:
 
Here's one of my favorites (the ad, not the movie).


 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-23-2011, 01:31 AM:
 
Mike-You have totally made my day with the Raiders ad. I didn't know the Runnymede was a 70MM theatre. I knew the Eglinton was. I never went to Cedebrae or the University.

Thanks man!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-23-2011, 10:07 AM:
 
Here's an ad for Geronimo that ran in Los Angeles:


Closer view of the SDDS and 70mm listing:


From the outset, Sony Pictures gave SDDS top billing above 70mm in ads for The Last Action Hero, In The Line of Fire and Geronimo.

I watched a 70mm showing of Geronimo in Dallas at the United Artists theater across North Central Expressway from Northpark Mall. I don't have a copy of the Dallas ad. The same weekend I watched Schindler's List at GCC Northpark 1-2. I can't remember if that's also the same weekend I watched Baraka in 70mm. The UA Cine theater a little farther south had that one.

And here's an ad for The Remains of the Day:

 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-23-2011, 11:45 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I can't remember if that's also the same weekend I watched Baraka in 70mm.

---

I was called over to the UA Cine a day or two before Baraka opened to determine the cause of what was scratching every film they ran. On the platter for the large house was a 35mm of Baraka. I also remember the chief tech of the region at the time was complaining how he didn't ever want the Cine to run another 70mm due to the continual problems they had there. Unless they got a 70mm print at the last minute, they had it in 35mm.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-23-2011, 12:00 PM:
 
I'm pretty certain the showing I watched was in 70mm. And I remember the print having a vertical scratch on it throughout much of the movie.


I doubt it was 35mm because the image detail was too good (despite the scratch) and the audio had much better dynamics than regular Dolby Stereo optical. The movie's ad in the Dallas Morning News also listed 70mm; however, that ad may have been built/placed well in advance of the problem you described.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-23-2011, 02:59 PM:
 
Great ads Bobby! Keep em' coming

I am surprised that they were still using 70MM so late in 1993
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 02-23-2011, 03:54 PM:
 
1993 was the last Great year for 70MM releases from the Hollywood studios.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-23-2011, 06:50 PM:
 
Yeah, 1993 was a somewhat decent year for 70mm. But if memory serves correct the trend was already on a downhill slide. I think 1992 had a few more 70mm releases than 1993.

Here's one of the better 70mm releases from 1994:


True Lies had 70mm Dolby mag prints along with 35mm prints in Dolby Digital and DTS. You might have to save the ad image and use an image viewing program to zoom into it to see the DTS & Dolby Digital theater listings.

Here's a closeup of the 70mm listings in the ad. That's one ugly looking 70mm logo.


I think Fox has changed up the 70mm logos it used in ads more than any other studio. They used a certain logo for Return of the Jedi (which Universal then lifted for certain Backdraft ads in 1990). Fox borrowed Paramount's 70mm logo on the Die Hard release. Then they used something else for releases like The Abyss & Edward Scissorhands. Then they finally wound up using the logo above starting with ads for The Last of the Mohicans.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-23-2011, 08:46 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I'm pretty certain the showing I watched was in 70mm. And I remember the print having a vertical scratch on it throughout much of the movie.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

And here's an ad for The Remains of the Day

---

That ad must be from several weeks into the film's run after some bookings closed and/or switched to 35mm for moveovers to a smaller auditorium. When it first opened it had numerous L.A. area bookings in 70mm.

**********

And, here are a few more ad scans for your enjoyment...

First up is one for the infamous Munich engagement of The Sound of Music. (The presentation was shortened/censored by several minutes by the German exhibitor, without approval from the filmmakers or 20th Century-Fox. The cuts, essentially, rendered incoherent much of the film, particularly the final act. Reviews, not surprisingly, were negative, and the engagement closed after a mere three weeks.)



From Minneapolis, 1971 re-issue. (Note it's presented in 70mm rather than Cinerama.)



1968 re-issue, Tokyo.



1977 re-issue, Los Angeles. (The book Wide Screen Movies claims Tommy was in 70mm during initial release, but this re-release ad suggests the 70s came along after the initial run.)



1990, New York. (Note it's in CDS rather than mag Dolby.)


 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-23-2011, 11:17 PM:
 
Damn it! Beat me to Edward Scissorhands! I have full page New York Times and Los Angeles Times ads of that one.

quote: Brad Miller

---

Well it is entirely possible they got a 70mm print in the day before they opened, but to have me out to the site to find the cause of the scratching right beforehand and not to mention it was going to be a 70mm seems a little odd.

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

That ad must be from several weeks into the film's run as bookings closed and/or switched to 35mm for moveovers to a smaller auditorium. When it first opened it had numerous L.A. area bookings in 70mm.

---

That's correct. I scanned that ad for The Remains of the Day out of the same L.A. Times Calender issue that had the Geronimo 70mm ad. The issue also had a big 2 page spread for Schindler's List.

Here's a New York ad for The Godfather: Part III

 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-24-2011, 02:08 AM:
 




 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-24-2011, 09:21 AM:
 
Slightly off topic, but interesting nonetheless: a theater which actually showed a VistaVision film IN VistaVision!



Of course, they had to bring up that "stereoscopic" nonsense, this being the fifties, as they did with early CinemaScope.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-24-2011, 11:03 AM:
 
Stereoscopic...as in "3D" or were they exaggerating?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-24-2011, 11:11 AM:
 
Here's a couple more Dick Tracy ads. The first one is from Dallas followed by a smaller one from Oklahoma City.





And here's an ad from Dallas for Back to the Future Part III:


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-24-2011, 11:25 AM:
 
Now that you brought up the Northpark...

This one is from around Christmas of '77 and emphasizes the Northpark's mid-run upgrade to a 70mm presentation.


 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-24-2011, 01:31 PM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

First up is one for the infamous Munich engagement of The Sound of Music. (The presentation was shortened/censored by several minutes by the German exhibitor, without approval from the filmmakers or 20th Century-Fox. The cuts, essentially, rendered incoherent much of the film, particularly the final act. Reviews, not surprisingly, were negative, and the engagement closed after a mere three weeks.)

---

The cutting was certainly an important reason, but there is more to it. THE SOUND OF MUSIC was preceded by two German/Austrian films based on Maria von Trapp's autobiography, and both DIE TRAPP-FAMILIE (1956, dir. Wolfgang Liebeneiner) and DIE TRAPP-FAMILIE IN AMERIKA (1958) were extremely popular in Germany and Austria.

Now, add the fact that most American films were dubbed for German releases, even musicals like SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and MY FAIR LADY (and yes, the musical numbers too).

"Singin' in the Rain" - dubbed in German

Getting Germans to watch the well-known Trapp tale played by American and British actors with dubbed songs was a bit too much, and Rodgers & Hammerstein were not the household name they were in the U.S.

It's like expecting American audiences to accept foreign remakes of OKLAHOMA or A CHORUS LINE played by non-english actors, overdubbed in English, just a few years after two successful domestic films. Regardless, TSOM is a much better film than the two German films that preceded it.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-24-2011, 02:12 PM:
 
Hey Tom...thanks for starting this thread. It's one of the greats.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-24-2011, 03:03 PM:
 
Detroit, Christmas '77...


 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-24-2011, 03:30 PM:
 
I think it's pretty annoying a lot of newspaper ads for Close Encounters of the Third Kind used the "Super Panavision" or "Super Panavision 70" terms. The movie was shot on 35mm, anamorphic using Panavision cameras. The visual effects were the only thing shot in 65mm. It was essentially a blow-up movie like so many of the movies using 70mm prints after 1970.

Here's an ad for Patriot Games in New York:


Closer detail view of the 70mm listings:


Another Geronimo ad, this time from Dallas:


It's kind of funny how Wes Studi is the star on this poster while the white dudes take top billing on the L.A. ad.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-24-2011, 04:41 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I think it's pretty annoying a lot of newspaper ads for Close Encounters of the Third Kind used the "Super Panavision" or "Super Panavision 70" terms. The movie was shot on 35mm...

---

Even the Star Wars ads got in on the deceptive "Super Panavision 70" action in some markets, like this example from the Houston Chronicle in December 1977.



And a few more "annoying" CE3K ads...

From Chicago...



Tallahassee, FL...



A closer view...



And one (from Philadelphia) that's a little less deceptive...


 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-24-2011, 05:01 PM:
 
I seem to remember even seeing some one-sheet artwork for Close Encounters where they put the "Super Panavision" thing at the bottom of the poster.

Here's a couple more ads from Dallas:




And here's that Edward Scissorhands ad from Los Angeles, with the 70mm CDS thing blown up at the bottom of it:

 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-24-2011, 11:01 PM:
 
Michael Coate, the Christmas 77 'Star Wars' ad seems not to be displaying all the image - ???

love this thread and all the ads!
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-24-2011, 11:19 PM:
 
Yeah, I'm loving these too.

I think it's time for some procedural questions for the "scanners"...

1. What prompted you to start collecting these ads?

2. Do you only collect the ads for 70mm engagements, or everything? What do you (or don't you) collect?

3. How did you get the ads from cities other than your own? Do you go around visiting libraries? Or did you happen to visit and/or live in these places at these times?

4. How do you keep your collections organized?

5. Are you using yellow highlighter on your originals? or is that digital highlighter?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-24-2011, 11:53 PM:
 

quote: Manny Knowles

---

1. What prompted you to start collecting these ads?

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

2. Do you only collect the ads for 70mm engagements, or everything? What do you (or don't you) collect?

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

3. How did you get the ads from cities other than your own? Do you go around visiting libraries? Or did you happen to visit and/or live in these places at these times?

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

4. How do you keep your collections organized?

---

I have my ads tucked away in a dresser drawer out of the light. Newsprint gets really badly yellow the more it is exposed to light.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-25-2011, 02:56 AM:
 
Ok. So anyone with a My Fair Lady 70mm/DTS ad?
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-25-2011, 03:32 AM:
 
...and I could use a hi-res scan of the Cinema Digital Sound logo for a powerpoint presentation...
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-25-2011, 11:40 AM:
 


This theater originally opened in the 1960's as a mono house. M&R was a local chain that took it over and gussied it up, but the days of single screen houses were nearing their end (for chains, anyway), so this place didn't last long. In fact, the entire M&R chain was sold to Loews, who changed their name to Sony, until they merged with Cineplex Odeon and were known as Loews Cineplex, and then was gobbled up by AMC. (My head is spinning.)
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-25-2011, 02:04 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

And here's that Edward Scissorhands ad from Los Angeles, with the 70mm CDS thing blown up at the bottom of it

---

This engagement of Edward Scissorhands at the Avco was 35mm-CDS. It was advertised in 70mm-CDS only in advance of its release (like in the ad you posted) and the first couple of days of release.

The original intent was to show it in 70, and the theater was sent a 70, but at the last minute a 35mm-CDS print was used. (This was the first time Cinema Digital Sound was shown on 35mm in the U.S.; CDS releases prior to Edward Scissorhands were all on 70mm.) The Avco's 70 was sent to the Coronet in San Francisco, and their ads, like the Avco's, were similarly revised.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 02-25-2011, 02:16 PM:
 
If they had informative ads like this in the paper still, I may start reading it again instead of checking online for everything.

Great thread guys!

AJG
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-25-2011, 04:49 PM:
 
Here are a few from the '80s that show off some of the 70mm logos in use at the time. All are from Los Angeles (except for The Right Stuff which is from San Diego).












 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-25-2011, 05:35 PM:
 
I wonder how much Warners had to pay Richard Corliss for that positive review of Superman III?
 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 02-25-2011, 05:45 PM:
 
Manny, I took a close up photo of the CDS emblem on one of the readers. Will this help?



Click for huge
Click for huge un-edited or cropped
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-25-2011, 06:43 PM:
 
Thanks, Sean!

...and, gee...that sure is a strange reaction to SUPERMAN III

Very different from my reaction:


 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-25-2011, 07:04 PM:
 

quote: Manny Knowles

---

...and, gee...that sure is a strange reaction to SUPERMAN III

Very different from my reaction

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I've seen something about Google News digitizing newspaper microfilms and putting them on the web. Don't know if Google has followed through on this or not.

---

quote: Aaron Garman

---

Jedi didn't open at the Chinese?

---

No, but the original movie did (twice).


 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-25-2011, 11:25 PM:
 

quote:

---

Hey Tom...thanks for starting this thread. It's one of the greats. [thumbsup]

---

Anytime! I am always looking to start something that will be interesting. I was actually shocked at how long it took for this thread to get going, but right now it is red-hot.

I was always amazed by movie ads in the paper back in the day. I actually didn't think any of the guys on here would actually clip and save.

Oh yeah, and I know I can off as a jerk online, but honestly, that is really not the case if you know me or know me well.

~Tom.


 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-25-2011, 11:52 PM:
 
Tom, you do indeed start many interesting topics. But that's about all I'm going to concede to.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-26-2011, 12:45 AM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

Google's newspaper digital archive directory page

---

Thanks, Michael. I'll have to do a little more searching through it to find the good stuff. I clicked into the images for The Village Voice in New York City and was disappointed the image resolution wasn't high enough to show a lot of good detail of the pages, such as legible type of the articles. Maybe I'm doing something wrong when clicking on the magnifying glass icon. I'm using Google Chrome for the web browsing.

On the topic of CDS, I photocopied this ad out of a trade magazine in the SVA college library. I don't remember which magazine featured the ad. Millimeter maybe?



For Manny, I have vertical and horizontal versions of the CDS logo in vector format (Illustrator, CorelDRAW). However, seeing as how I don't play around with PowerPoint anymore than I have to I'm not sure what vector-based files PowerPoint can support. WMF maybe?
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-26-2011, 02:44 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-26-2011, 03:59 PM:
 
Bobby -- I love that ad -- I might use it in my presentation -- because it talks about how CDS was "reliable" and "flawless" -- and it nicely shows the CDS occupying the analog space.

It's perfect!

Could you convert your vector drawing to a JPEG? I guess I need it to be about 500px wide or larger.

Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-26-2011, 07:22 PM:
 
A few more from the '80s...

Los Angeles Times; May 27, 1984.


Los Angeles Times; April 7, 1985.


Los Angeles Times; June 3, 1984.


Los Angeles Times; December 9, 1984.

 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-26-2011, 09:23 PM:
 

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Could you convert your vector drawing to a JPEG? I guess I need it to be about 500px wide or larger.

---

Here's a 500 pixel wide version of the vertical CDS logo. I saved it in GIF format since it's actually better at preserving flat colors and edge details in logos than JPEG.


Here's a 500 pixel wide version of the horizontal CDS logo:


One thing I forgot to mention about that CDS 35mm ad, did you happen to notice how badly they kerned the word "film?" It looks more like "fi lm."
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-26-2011, 09:39 PM:
 


Ah, the 60s, when they were still promoting COLOR!
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-26-2011, 10:14 PM:
 
Nice find Robert!
 

---

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 02-26-2011, 11:06 PM:
 
It's good to see the Chinese got many 70MM engagements back then. It seems to be that the Cinerama Dome is getting all the premium bookings now, as I went to the Chinese earlier this year and watched " Season of the Witch ".

Is the Chinese still running the AAII?
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-27-2011, 12:23 AM:
 
WANTED:

48hrs
Another 48hrs

or any Clint Eastwood movie. I am thinking Firefox
 

---

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 02-27-2011, 01:19 AM:
 
The Rookie had a 70mm release.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-27-2011, 01:23 AM:
 
Neither of the 48 Hours movies had any 70mm prints. Firefox did have 70mm blow-up prints in its original release. I don't have any copies of the 70mm newspaper ads though.

quote: Ron Lacheur

---

The Rookie had a 70mm release.

---

I do have a newspaper ad of that one; an ad placed in the L.A. Times Calender. The 70mm part of the ad is real tiny so I would need to do a combo image thing when I scan it.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-27-2011, 01:46 AM:
 
Clint Eastwood was in several films that had 70mm prints, including, in addition to the ones mentioned, Paint Your Wagon, Where Eagles Dare, Kelly's Heroes, City Heat, In the Line of Fire, and, if you believe a couple of the history books, Pale Rider and Two Mules for Sister Sara. I do have ads for most of those; I'll scan them and get them added to the thread at some point...unless, of course, you guys are sick to death of me posting these things.

In the meantime, I leave you with an ad for 2010, a film that had one of the largest 70mm print runs in history.

Los Angeles Times; December 6, 1984.


And here's a closer view of the 70mm section of the ad listing the chain theaters.



And here's a closer view of the section of the ad listing the independently-owned theaters.



I'd love to see the lab bill for the 70mm prints on this title!
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 02-27-2011, 02:03 AM:
 

quote: Ron Lacheur

---

It's good to see the Chinese got many 70MM engagements back then. It seems to be that the Cinerama Dome is getting all the premium bookings now, as I went to the Chinese earlier this year and watched " Season of the Witch ".

Is the Chinese still running the AAII?

---

I was extremely sad that when I visited LA, they were running MacGruber in some flavor of DCinema. Sadly, I paid to see it just to say I saw a film there.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-27-2011, 03:14 AM:
 
Here's a little postage stamp sized ad for Howard's End in New York City:


1990 70mm re-issue of The Sound of Music in New York:



I saw a few movies at the Gotham theater when I lived in New York. Big played really well there, although it was only 35mm. I saw Predator 2 in 70mm there. Not all that great a movie. I seem to remember Spaceballs playing there in 70mm, although I watched a 70mm print of that movie in a much more fun place. The Sound of Music was wonderful in 70mm.

And here's one of Fantasia, the 50th anniversary re-issue:


I watched the 70mm version of Fantasia at the Gramercy Theater, a block west from the main building of School of Visual Arts. I saw a few movies in 70mm there, including Who Framed Roger Rabbit. When Fantasia was in previews, and the theater's curtains were drawn in to 1.33:1 ratio, I distinctly remember hearing some ladies in the row ahead of me complaining about the aspect ratio, "we should have gone to the Ziegfeld where they have that Panavision stuff." I am not lying about this. That is what they said.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-27-2011, 11:55 AM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

.unless, of course, you guys are sick to death of me posting these things.

---

No, keep em' coming
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-27-2011, 03:20 PM:
 
Thanks for the ads, Michael. I saw a number of these 70mm engagements in Los Angeles of the engagements shown in the ads. One particlular note: One weekend when I was down in L.A., I went to see STREETS OF FIRE at the Avco's screen numbner 3 on the engagement's second week Saturday. Despite Friday's newspaper ad saying it was still in 70mm, even though it moved upstairs to theatre 3 that second weeekend, they were showing a 35mm print (a fact that I think had been corrected in Saturday's paper - I had only seen Friday's and Sunday's preview edition of the paper making the 70mm claim). I got my money back and went to the National to see INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM (it was the LATE show, and I had seeen it first thing that morning at the Chinese #1). The two movies I saw inbetween these shows were THE HIDDEN FORTRESS at the Nuart and THE STONE BOY at the Coronet. The next day on Sunday, I finally got to see STREETS OF FIRE in 70mm at the big screen of the Hollywood Pacific (over 1200 seats even after being split into 3), and also saw both GHOSTBUSTERS and GREMLINS in 70mm at the Chinese Twins (next door to the original theatre).
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-27-2011, 09:50 PM:
 
TWO THUMBS UP HOWARD'S END!
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-27-2011, 11:09 PM:
 
This ad is similar to the one for "2001." Notice the misspelling on the word "curvulon" and the mention of "dimension 150." Strangely, this was one of 2 theaters in the Chicagoland area built for D-150, yet neither one played either "The Bible: In The Beginning" or "Patton." Both films had roadshows closer to the city itself at theaters that may have shown them in 70mm (no mention in the ads) but not in true Dimension 150 (which was mentioned only as " photographed in Dimension 150.")


 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-28-2011, 01:21 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-28-2011, 02:01 AM:
 
It's fascinating how the 70mm ads did not shy away from getting into the technical nitty-gritty. That ad for HELLO DOLLY even mentions the size of the speakers. In fact, the movie artwork is considerably downplayed.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-28-2011, 02:12 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-28-2011, 09:18 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-28-2011, 11:32 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-28-2011, 11:55 AM:
 
Here are a few ads from the first-run roadshow release of, arguably, the most famous and popular 70mm movie.

The Washington Post; April 2, 1968; an example of a theater promoting a "Cinerama" presentation.


The Austin Statesman; August 14, 1968; an example of a theater promoting a "70mm" presentation.


And a couple international ads; this one is from Essen, Germany; November 15, 1968.


Lisbon, Portugal; Diario de Noticias; September 30, 1968.

 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-28-2011, 02:40 PM:
 
First, a word about the "Hello, Dolly" ad above. This was the ad for the individual theater. "Dolly" opened on more than one screen in Chicagoland, but Fox's display ad made no mention of the UA Cinema 150 being the only theater in town showing the feature in 70MM, so UA did it themselves.

And now, here is one for "Camelot," which for some reason, the theater showing it (or Warner Bros.) didn't feel inclined to mention having a 70 print until the third month of their engagement!



And now, the second movie that Fox released in the late 70s with a 70MM logo in the ad art and on the poster (after "Alien"). I was working at a 3 screener where our one 70 house was already showing "Apocalypse Now" (in Dolby Split Surround, no less), so we showed this one in 35MM.


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-28-2011, 03:24 PM:
 
Here are a couple of ads featuring a funny typographical error.

The San Diego Union; November 22, 1985


The San Diego Union; August 5, 1983

 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-28-2011, 04:12 PM:
 
Bobby - thanks for the CDS logos - I just saw them - somehow I missed that post - it's a good thing this thread is so entertaining that I often go back to look at stuff I've already read.

And, yes - bad kerning on "Film"
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-28-2011, 04:50 PM:
 
Minneapolis Tribune; October 21, 1977.

 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-28-2011, 05:11 PM:
 
Does anyone have Revenge with Kevin Costner in 70MM?
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-28-2011, 11:20 PM:
 

The San Diego Union; May 20, 1983.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-01-2011, 12:48 AM:
 







 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-01-2011, 02:03 AM:
 
It's so hard to believe the UA at Long Beach Marina could ever have had 70mm -- the place is a dive.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 03-01-2011, 08:55 AM:
 
Try to believe it.


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-01-2011, 12:20 PM:
 
Manny... As difficult as it may be to believe, the "dumpy" UA Movies near the Long Beach Marina ran the following in 70mm (on screen #1, first house on the right as you enter):

Return of the Jedi (1983)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Aliens (1986)
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Hoffa (1992)

When I worked there during the early 90s, while attending nearby Cal State Long Beach, there were some 70mm trailers, including Black Rain and The Golden Child, still present in the booth from the various 70mm engagements they had.

I also recall a time in early 1990 when it looked like we would get a 70 of The Hunt for Red October, but we ended up showing it in 35mm, and the Lakewood Center, a few miles up the road, got the 70 for the south LA county region. Which is just as well because Lakewood Center was a much larger and nicer place to see a movie.

Pacific seemed to have a lot of muscle for booking 70mm prints for their Lakewood theater, as did Syufy with their Cinedome in Orange, a few miles to the east. UA only ever seemed to get 70s for their Long Beach theater (or mall twins in nearby Cerritos and Westminster) whenever the studios struck a HUGE number of prints.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-01-2011, 01:15 PM:
 
Screen #1 was where I saw THE ROAD (2009) and it was dim, dim, DIMMMM
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-02-2011, 12:34 AM:
 
Since your last visit, Manny, I understand Regal has installed digital projection on every screen. So now that the place is all-digital...the presentations are perfect!

Frankly, I'm surprised the place is still in business and hasn't been razed, especially since the AMC across the street expanded and Edwards (Regal) has the 20+ screen megaplex just a couple miles away.

**********

Getting back on topic...


The Kansas City Star; March 20, 1970.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-03-2011, 11:39 AM:
 

Los Angeles Times; September 25, 1983
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-03-2011, 05:47 PM:
 
"A rose by any other name..."

When "Around the World in 80 Days" was first released in Chicago in 1957, it was advertised as Todd-AO. However, a 1983 re-issue was advertised as 70MM.




 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-03-2011, 10:10 PM:
 
That 1983 print, if it was the same one I know about, was 24-fps, not 30-fps as was the original release.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-03-2011, 11:49 PM:
 

quote: Mark Lensenmayer was the last to post

---

---

Greg, you're doing it wrong. You've got the emulsion in, and I'll bet you ran soundtrack up (emulsion out) on your 35mm prints.

Oh yeah...your tech sucks...

 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-04-2011, 01:55 AM:
 
I told you it was a dive!

...and who is Greg??
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-04-2011, 10:46 AM:
 

Los Angeles Times; September 16, 1984
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 03-04-2011, 12:09 PM:
 

quote:

---

I told you it was a dive!

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Oh yeah...your tech sucks...

---

We had a tech?

Of course, I probably did several things wrong back then. I was, after all, on the leading edge of the "dreaded teenaged projectionist" movement. (...and there was no such thing as a Film-Tech web site to set me on the right path but, of course, I would have welcomed such a thing.)


(Totally staged photo, of course.)
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-04-2011, 06:12 PM:
 
Greg, you have film wrapped around your head and shoulders. Your trainer sucks.


 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 03-04-2011, 09:23 PM:
 
I had a trainer?
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-04-2011, 10:36 PM:
 
Michael's ads of BRAINSTORM and MAADEUS brought back some great memories! I saw BRAINSTORM at the National on Saturday, October 1 at the 8pm perfpormance. While the theatre was full by showtime, it hadn't sold out a couple of hours early, a sign the film was probably not going to be a giant hit (that was Westwood back then). I also saw AMADEUS on it's first Saturday matinee performance at the UA Coronet in Westwood in 70mm. I recall that the 70mm notation (not noted in this particluar ad) got dropped sometime during the run. Wouldn't be surprised if the theatre damaged the print.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-05-2011, 10:31 AM:
 

Los Angeles Times; June 2, 1985
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-06-2011, 11:07 AM:
 
I posted a Blade Runner ad a few pages ago, but (I think) here's a better one.


The New York Times; June 25, 1982


 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-06-2011, 12:30 PM:
 
I like how the girl has a cigarette in her hands for the Blade Runner ad.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-06-2011, 10:25 PM:
 
A rare example of the "split surround" component of a 70mm presentation being promoted...


Los Angeles Times; June 16, 1989
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-07-2011, 03:09 AM:
 
Michael.

Can you show the whole ad? I see Star Trek 70mm underneath the indy ad.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-07-2011, 01:55 PM:
 
No, Tom. If I displayed the entire Mann directory ad (which has about thirty theaters listed) I think the text will be too small to read. (Yes, that's Star Trek V advertised in 70mm at the Village. Ghostbusters II, in 35mm, is advertised on the Chinese's other two screens.)

How 'bout an ad for a classic '60s flick instead...


The Austin American; Dec. 1, 1966
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 03-07-2011, 05:24 PM:
 
Man this makes me wish I had saved all those Friday movie sections I once had collected in the '80's...


 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 03-07-2011, 07:24 PM:
 
This would have been interesting to see knowing Luxury Theater's reputation and lack of upkeep of the Coliseum in Seattle:

 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-07-2011, 07:46 PM:
 
SRO used to run one of these international type icons of a shoe stuck on gum with a red line through it in ads where they competed with Moyer.

Great fun!
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-07-2011, 08:08 PM:
 
I hear Disney is remaking this one. It can only be better.



A closer look at the one theater showing it in 70MM.



For those wondering, this is the place originally known as the UA Cinema 150. It was split and became the UA Cinema I and II. The big curved screen was replaced by 2 smaller flat ones.
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 03-07-2011, 09:00 PM:
 
Sam, speaking of SRO:



All the theatres listed showing Temple of Doom are demolished or shuttered.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-08-2011, 12:00 PM:
 

The Courier-Journal, Louisville, KY; Feb. 23, 1979.

A closer view of the presentation tag:



Press coverage at the time of this release described this Louisville booking as a test. It had a "proper" re-release a couple months later, so I guess the test was considered successful.

(Does anyone find it odd that Warner Bros. felt the need to test-release what was at the time the company's highest-grossing film and one that had been out of circulation for only a couple of years? Were they really concerned the film would not play well in a new format?)
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-08-2011, 08:21 PM:
 
This is a bit different than a newspaper ad, but it DOES COUNT as a 70mm ad... I guess.

http://www.jacksonheightscinema.com/

That's right, Indian movies in 70mm! Oh wait, it was shot on the Red?


 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-08-2011, 09:25 PM:
 
What a shitty looking poster!
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-08-2011, 11:07 PM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

Were they really concerned the film would not play well in a new format?

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

Does anyone find it odd that Warner Bros. felt the need to test-release what was at the time the company's highest-grossing film and one that had been out of circulation for only a couple of years?

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

yes, I'd agree it was about money - it usually is

---

I wasn't going to respond to your post because you already know this-the cost alone to produce and distribute a 70MM print is worry enough. All of the other factors I mentioned go on top of this heavy cost.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-09-2011, 02:36 PM:
 
The WIDESCREEN REVIEW article noted above was written by Michael Coate.

I saw that 70mm re-release of EXORCIST at the State-Lake theatre in Chicago. It was an early morning screening, and the people in the audience were almost more interesting than those on the screen! One of my stranger 70mm moments!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-09-2011, 02:39 PM:
 
Apparently nobody noticed the 70mm Indian film ad (except for Bobby). Maybe it is because people here generally know nothing about Indian films.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-09-2011, 06:26 PM:
 
As someone who at one time ran a bunch of those Indian flicks, knowing they are all 3 hours long, I don't want to even think of having to haul 70 prints of those things around.

Does anyone remember this flick from 1980?


 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-09-2011, 06:38 PM:
 
I saw RAISE THE TITANIC at Woodfield Mall during that engagement. That was one of the best 70mm theatres I ever attended. I must admit that it was not the best 70mm movie I ever attended.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-09-2011, 07:19 PM:
 

quote: Robert Harrison

---

As someone who at one time ran a bunch of those Indian flicks, knowing they are all 3 hours long, I don't want to even think of having to haul 70 prints of those things around.

---

So you actually believe they are showing 70mm Indian Prints? There's no law (that's actually enforced) which says you have to abide by what you advertise.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-09-2011, 07:48 PM:
 

Los Angeles Times, Dec. 19, 1985.

In the event anyone is confused by the contradictory "starts tomorrow" and "now playing" notations present in the ad, their presence can be explained by pointing out that the Avco and Cinerama Dome opened the film on Wednesday, Dec. 18, while everywhere else in the ad opened it on Friday the 20th.

A closer view of the "70mm box":


 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-09-2011, 09:04 PM:
 

quote: Robert Harrison

---

Does anyone remember this flick from 1980?

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

It really is too bad that Out of Africa was not filmed in 70mm

---

Oh yeah...
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-09-2011, 10:32 PM:
 

quote: Tom Petrov

---

It really is too bad that Out of Africa was not filmed in 70mm

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Far and Away was filmed in 70MM

---

65mm actually. So was Baraka, Tron, Kenneth Branagh's version of Hamlet and significant parts (but not all) of Brainstorm.

What other movies made after 1970 can you name that were filmed mostly or entirely in 5/65mm format? You can't name many more than what I listed above, certainly not standard theatrical releases.

Since 1970 around a couple hundred movies have been released with some 70mm prints in their inventory. The overwhelming majority of them were blow-ups from 35mm.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-10-2011, 12:53 AM:
 




 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-10-2011, 01:06 AM:
 

quote: Tom Petrov

---

It really is too bad that Out of Africa was not filmed in 70mm

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

65mm actually. So was Baraka, Tron, Kenneth Branagh's version of Hamlet and significant parts (but not all) of Brainstorm.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

I wasn't going to respond to your post because you already know this-the cost alone to produce and distribute a 70MM print is worry enough. All of the other factors I mentioned go on top of this heavy cost.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

65mm actually.

---

I was going to say this when I first read Tom's post because I remember it from that time, but then to double-check I looked up "Far and Away" on Wikipedia and it says 70mm. Which is right?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-10-2011, 08:51 AM:
 
65mm camera negative film and 70mm print film have the same size image area inside the perforations. The only difference is the area outside the perfs. 70mm film has more material outside of the perfs to hold four tracks of a 6-track magnetic soundtrack.

I have wondered why film production people went to the trouble to make two different widths of film for the classic Todd-AO format. Why not just make it all 70mm in width? Is there substantial savings on weight in the camera with shaving off 5mm of width? Does shedding that extra 5mm made the film run through the camera more reliably?

One interesting thing: it might actually be possible for the 70mm version of DTS to work on 65mm film. That time code isn't nearly as wide as 4 tracks of magnetic sound. But I don't see anyone going to the trouble of re-working film projectors to do 5/65mm projection.

I would like to see 65mm/70mm production make a comeback at the very least in the film production end of things. It does make a difference in how well the movie looks on mediums from film projection down to Blu-ray. Baraka is proof of that.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-10-2011, 09:35 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-10-2011, 10:23 AM:
 
This ad says nothing about 70MM, but what else could it be? After all, despite the claim that this 1973 re-issue is being presented with a new single projection system, wouldn't this have been the same thing that Cinerama devolved into during the 1960s?



Besides that, the Edens 2 DID have a curved screen (with movable masking not only on the sides, but on top as well, so 70MM presentations had a bigger picture than scope 35MM), but there were NO CURTAINS to open and open and open. It's possible that they at least used the masking to scale down the size of the screen as much as possible during the introduction and then open the masking up when Mr. Thomas says, "This is Cinerama!"
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-10-2011, 10:44 AM:
 

quote: Manny Knowles

---

...and whatever became of that re-release? Did it in fact go wider?

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

It had a "proper" re-release a couple months later

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

About a decade ago I had the pleasure of interviewing Out of Africa director Sydney Pollack. In that conversation he expressed some regret that Out of Africa was not shot in scope like most of his prior films.

---

quote: Robert Harrison

---

This ad says nothing about 70MM, but what else could it be?

---

quote: John Wilson

---

Sad really...

Mr. Pollack speaks of this dilemma.

---

Great video. Too bad the guy died. He seems like such a good guy.

But he is right about what he is talking about. But in defence of tv and VHS, at the time a lot of people would not see movies unless it was in Pan and Scan anyway - at least there is a message at the beginning saying that the movie was formatted to fit your screen.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-10-2011, 09:01 PM:
 

Los Angeles Times, July 10, 1983.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 03-10-2011, 09:19 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

65mm camera negative film and 70mm print film have the same size image area inside the perforations. The only difference is the area outside the perfs. 70mm film has more material outside of the perfs to hold four tracks of a 6-track magnetic soundtrack.

I have wondered why film production people went to the trouble to make two different widths of film for the classic Todd-AO format. Why not just make it all 70mm in width? Is there substantial savings on weight in the camera with shaving off 5mm of width? Does shedding that extra 5mm made the film run through the camera more reliably?

One interesting thing: it might actually be possible for the 70mm version of DTS to work on 65mm film. That time code isn't nearly as wide as 4 tracks of magnetic sound. But I don't see anyone going to the trouble of re-working film projectors to do 5/65mm projection.

I would like to see 65mm/70mm production make a comeback at the very least in the film production end of things. It does make a difference in how well the movie looks on mediums from film projection down to Blu-ray. Baraka is proof of that.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

One interesting thing: it might actually be possible for the 70mm version of DTS to work on 65mm film. That time code isn't nearly as wide as 4 tracks of magnetic sound. But I don't see anyone going to the trouble of re-working film projectors to do 5/65mm projection.

---

DTS screwed up with the dts70 format. They SHOULD have placed their timecode outside of the perforations and WIDENED the actual image area to 2.40:1.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-11-2011, 01:03 AM:
 
On DTS-70, the timecode is outside the perfs.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-11-2011, 02:42 AM:
 
Oops, you're right. What I meant to say was when they were creating the dts70 format they screwed up in not using that newfound width available to the picture.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-11-2011, 07:14 AM:
 
A popular misconception is that if one where to loose the inside tracks of 70mm that one would get 2.39:1...you don't. But another issue is that NO 70mm film gates are set up to run that wide either so EVERY 70mm projector would need to have its gate/trap modified to allow for the extra width.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-11-2011, 12:51 PM:
 
And the problem with new projector gates and such is?????? After all CDS did it!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-11-2011, 01:39 PM:
 
Yeah...sortof...they shaved one side on the Century JJ only. Which begot asymmetrical stability. Simplex barely has enough meat on their runners as it is. It would take significant engineering for all of the existing 70mm machines of the various brands to be able to accommodate this marginally wider image.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-11-2011, 04:17 PM:
 

quote: Tom Petrov

---

[Michael]- Perhaps you might know. From what you have been uploading, it looks like the Mann Chinese was the place for 70mm

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Did they play 70MM for an extended period of time without 35mm in between?

---

What do you mean? Like during 1989 when the Chinese played Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade followed by Batman followed by Casualties of War followed by Black Rain? That's about six months of 70mm goodness! Or are you asking about long, extended runs of a single film, like the 58-week roadshow engagement of West Side Story?

During the '80s, when there were a LOT of 70mm releases, the Chinese often ran 70mm bookings back to back. Plus, the Chinese was a triplex then and so you'd frequently find two or even all three screens running 70mm simultaneously.

And, finally, I leave you with an ad from one of the Chinese Theater's five return enagements of this '80s action-adventure classic.


Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1983.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-11-2011, 05:30 PM:
 

quote:

---

In other words, The Exorcist 1979 re-release played nationwide, mostly in 35mm, in the typical staggered distribution pattern of the era...At least six 70mm prints circulated during the re-release.

---

Thanks Michael - I had read your post - I was hoping you'd be able to expand with these kinds of specifics.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-12-2011, 09:30 AM:
 
Another ad for Mann's Chinese:


Los Angeles Times, December 1, 1985.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-12-2011, 10:59 AM:
 
Michael is now REALLY bringing out the good stuff!

And there's the proof. Back then they would print anything in 70mm. It didn't even need to be an event movie or something that would specifically benefit from the technology (such as a musical).
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 03-12-2011, 11:08 AM:
 
Wasn't "Spies Like Us" mono in 35MM? If so what was the 70MM mix? And why blow up to 70MM?
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 03-12-2011, 12:56 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I would like to see 65mm/70mm production make a comeback at the very least in the film production end of things. It does make a difference in how well the movie looks on mediums from film projection down to Blu-ray. Baraka is proof of that.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

spreading numerous lies about film and rendering it as something inferior

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

A popular misconception is that if one [were] to [lose] the inside tracks of 70mm that one would get 2.39:1...you don't.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Ramon-I just can't see how they are lying when a digital hard drive costs how much to make/ship/run compared to a 70MM print or even an IMAX 70MM print for that matter?

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Incorrect Michael

---

How so? I was quoting the same SMPTE specs/figures you did, Steve (with the exception of appropriately rounding up). When you wrote about the popular misconception of the aspect ratio if one were to recover and project any imagery typically concealed by inner mag tracks, you sort of implied that the resultant figure was nowhere close to 2.39:1, and so I commented to the contrary. Emphasizing that the absolute edge of an image ought not be projected or that projectors would require some modifications is beside the point.

Also, I'm not advocating anyone deviate from the current 70mm projection standard and try to project a wider 70mm image. I'm simply describing what one might achieve if they tried such an experiment. Moreover, few of the available DTS-70 titles would even benefit from such a form of exhibition because (1) some of the DTS-70 prints, including Vertigo and Titanic (probably the two most-played DTS-70 titles), don't even have imagery printed out to the edges, and (2) legacy prints for the 65mm restorations (i.e. West Side Story, The Sound of Music, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.) were never intended to have the imagery in the mag track area projected.
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 03-13-2011, 06:54 PM:
 
Ultimate awesomeness:

 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-13-2011, 07:23 PM:
 
Anyone ever seen 70mm at a drive-in?


The San Diego Union, April 25, 1962.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-13-2011, 07:23 PM:
 
I had to comment on Mark Campbell's image:



Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the first movie that used that familiar 70mm logo in its ads. Since then it has appeared on all of Paramount's 70mm ads in markets like New York and Los Angeles. The logo doesn't work in small sizes though. It was positively tiny in some of the New York Times ads for Titanic.
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 03-13-2011, 07:30 PM:
 
More Seattle Summer of '82 70MM goodness:


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-13-2011, 07:48 PM:
 
Mark:

Man, the summer of '82 was great for 70mm...

Annie
Blade Runner
E.T.
Firefox
Grease 2
Napoleon (re-release)
Pink Floyd: The Wall
Poltergeist
Raiders of the Lost Ark (re-release)
The Road Warrior
Rocky III
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Wars (re-release)
Tempest
The Thing
Tron
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-13-2011, 09:40 PM:
 
And yet even though LPP print stocks were available at the time for some of the 1982 releases, I don't think ANY of these titles actually had 70mm LPP prints made. I know for certain ET, Pink Floyd, Poltergeist, Raiders, Star Trek II and Star Wars were eastman...meaning totally red by now (or in some cases like the Raiders, brown.

Can anyone verify of any other 70mm prints released this year being LPP or red?

Some of the 35mm counterparts were LPP though.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-13-2011, 09:58 PM:
 
As there was much talk of this earlier, "The Exorcist" re-issue played in 70 in Chicago starting on April 27, 1979.



And here's one of the crop of 1982 movies:


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-14-2011, 11:51 AM:
 

The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, OH; November 12, 1982.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-14-2011, 05:26 PM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

Anyone ever seen 70mm at a drive-in?

---

Unfortunately, no...but my father did the equipment upgrades to the NSW/Sydney Drive-In circuits to accommodate The Sound Of Music in 70mm in them.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-14-2011, 09:48 PM:
 
So nobody has seen 70mm at a drive-in, eh? What about 70mm ?


The San Diego Union, November 12, 1976.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-15-2011, 01:41 AM:
 
Wow, I've ran that in 35mm, but had no idea it was ever printed in 70mm. That seems a bit excessive.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-15-2011, 01:51 AM:
 
Was it shot in 70mm?

AJG
 

---

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 03-15-2011, 06:33 AM:
 
I doubt it would be shot in 70mm, or at least not in 2.21:1 ratio. 70mm was used probably just for 3D with two Academy ratio pictures (for left/right eyes) next to each other inside the 2.21 frame.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-16-2011, 01:11 AM:
 
Here's an ad for a "roadshow twin." This one was located in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and was among the earliest built of the Showcase Cinemas brand of Sumner Redstone's National Amusements circuit.


Eagle-Tribune, North Andover, MA; October 5, 1966.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-16-2011, 01:21 AM:
 
Michael.

Do you have Godfather III?
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-16-2011, 01:49 AM:
 
Tom...Bobby already posted one. See Page 6.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-16-2011, 09:32 AM:
 
Here's a companion piece to HARD CANDY from 1974:


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-16-2011, 11:10 AM:
 
More from Chicago...


Chicago Tribune, April 21, 1965.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-16-2011, 10:30 PM:
 
Here's one from June, 1969:


 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-16-2011, 10:52 PM:
 
How did that work with the session times? Sure, it was continuous...I get that, but how were the patrons supposed to know when the next one started?
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-17-2011, 07:57 AM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

how were the patrons supposed to know when the next one started?

---

The theatres would have a typed schedule on display at the box office or you could call. But this was typical for many theatres, even big city exclusive first-runs, all the way through the late 60's-early 70's. THe majority of patrons seemed to come and leave whenever. THis spawned the old saying, "This was the part where we came in." I remember a 50's Lana Turner movie where she and her teenage daughter move to a small town and the daughter's date thinks she's weird for asking at the box office what time the feature started because she wanted to see it at the beginning. And David O. Selznick commented in a memo (David O. Selznick's Hollywood) about how the practive of the industry allowing to watc h a movie in any which order they wanted to was harmful to the industry in the long run.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-17-2011, 09:14 AM:
 

The New York Times, March 3, 1995.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-17-2011, 05:23 PM:
 
Here's another one which, like "Camelot," did not advertise having a 70 print until some weeks into its Chicago run in 1964:


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-18-2011, 02:02 PM:
 
Two theories on why The Unsinkable Molly Brown was not initially advertised in 70mm: (1) MGM, the film's distributor, may not have had a strategy on how to promote it since it was the company's first 70mm blow-up release and among the industry's first blow-ups not to be a roadshow (where reserved seats, instead of film format, typically would be emphasized in advertising), and (2) the film had a low-quantity run of 70mm prints struck and one may not have been originally intended for exhibition in Chicago. (I believe a 70 was supposed to be shown in New York at Radio City Music Hall, but that venue's management declined to install 70mm projectors for the engagement and so a 35mm print was shown there instead, which would've made a 70 available for booking elsewhere.)

And speaking of MGM and firsts, here's an ad for the first movie released in 70mm with a Dolby-encoded mag track.


Los Angeles Times, June 20, 1976.
 

---

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 03-18-2011, 06:37 PM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

the film had a low-quantity run of 70mm prints struck and one may not have been originally intended for exhibition in Chicago.

---

Merle Chamberlain, then post production supervisor at MGM said in a talk to the 1964 IATSE convention that 15 70mm prints had been struck for "Molly Brown".
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-18-2011, 10:39 PM:
 
One has to really look to realize this roadshow from 1969 was in 70...




It reads "70MM/PANAVISION WITH FULL DIMENSIONAL SOUND"
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-19-2011, 09:15 PM:
 

The New York Times, March 1, 1990.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-19-2011, 09:48 PM:
 
When "Red October" opened in Chicago, one of the theaters it showed at was the McClurg Court. Originally a single screen, by 1990 the stadium balcony had been converted into 2 screens, leaving the main floor pretty much as it was, except for a THX re-do.

Anyway, the movie played on all 3 screens, but was 70MM in #1, 35MM Dolby SR in #2 and 35MM Dolby A in #3. Wacky, huh?
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-20-2011, 02:43 AM:
 
Not as much wacky as just really sad....watching the last death-gasps of the dying era of the Great Single Screens. Single screen theatres didn't just shut down in those economic hard times ushered in by the age of video, they went thru this sorry and quite pathetic stage of forced birth -- being sliced and diced into twins and triplexes and quads, horrid little abortions carved out of the majestic grand ladies and rarely done with enough cash or thought to actually make worthy twins or triplexes or quads that did anything other than make you cringe when you walked into them.

For anyone who loved theatres, it was the kind of traumatizing thing that would make you instinctively reached over to cover children's eyes so they shouldn't have to experience such painful and prolonged death, because those poor multiplexed atrocities always died in the end anyway; slicing and dicing them into sorry multiples only keep them longer on tortured life-support, but inevitably they would succumb. Death was always in the air when you walked into them. But before they gave up the ghost, those horrible little grind houses would gave rise to the now all pervasive mantra, I HATE going to movies.. It all started there, with those first dying, hacked up and uglified twined and triplexed Grand Ladies and always ended with them listed in the "What's The Latest Theatre To Close Near You" thread on Film-Tech.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-20-2011, 03:16 AM:
 

quote:

---

being sliced and diced into twins and triplexes and quads,

---

I never had a problem with a single screen being sliced in to two screener. There are a number of theatres that were 2 screens which I really loved.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-20-2011, 01:41 PM:
 

Toronto Star, March 2, 1985.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-20-2011, 01:46 PM:
 
Wow. I have never seen the words "35mm blowup" in an ad for 70mm!
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 03-20-2011, 04:41 PM:
 
Forget about it being a blow up! I want to win the 1985 Mercury Topaz GS!
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-20-2011, 07:39 PM:
 
The Flashdance is a re=release thing that that Cinesphere did all the time.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-21-2011, 11:25 AM:
 

The San Diego Union, May 25, 1990.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-21-2011, 02:13 PM:
 
From 1965:


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-21-2011, 03:32 PM:
 
The Great Race...probably my favorite Blake Edwards flick. Thanks for posting that, Robert! (I have an L.A. ad for it but the copy quality is poor, like so many in my collection.)

The Great Race is another one, like The Unsinkable Molly Brown, that does not appear to have played in 70mm in New York City. I also find it interesting the State Lake's run was continuous; the world premiere engagement in Los Angeles (at the Pantages) was a roadshow.
 

---

Posted by Rob Alexander (Member # 6163) on 03-21-2011, 03:35 PM:
 
Thank you to everyone on this site for posting all these fantastic 70mm ads. As a new comer here, I am a bit blown away by all the knowledge and expertise everyone has.

These ads instantly bring me back to my teen years (late 1970's), waiting for the Friday(or Wednesday) LA Times Calendar ad, hoping that the movie I wanted to see was playing in 70mm at one of my favorite theaters. Back then, there was one theater in Hollywood, and usually one in Westwood that always had 70mm showings, and those are the ones i insisted we go to, even though it was a few miles further. My friends thought (and still do I think) that I was a bit nuts for this.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-21-2011, 04:16 PM:
 


A Titanic 70MM ad would be nice to see
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-21-2011, 08:24 PM:
 

quote:

---

(Michael Coate)Man, the summer of '82 was great for 70mm...

Annie
Blade Runner
E.T.
Firefox
Grease 2
Napoleon (re-release)
Pink Floyd: The Wall
Poltergeist
Raiders of the Lost Ark (re-release)
The Road Warrior
Rocky III
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Wars (re-release)
Tempest
The Thing
Tron

---

Yep! And i saw all but GREASE 2 in 70mm that summer.

Trip 1: Rocky III (Chinese III); The Road Warrior (Vogue)
Trip 2: Poltergeist (Paramount); Star Trek II (Chinese II); Annie (Chinese I)
Trip 3: E.T. (Cinerama Dome); The Thing (Hollywood Pacific 1); Blade Runner (Hollywood); Firefox (Vogue)
Trip 4: Tron (Chinese 1) and maybe a couple of non 70's somewhere
Trip 5: Napoleon (Cinerama Dome)
Trip 6: Pink Floyd - the Wall (Village); Tempest (Plaza) and the 35mm Diva (Royal) sandwiched in.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-21-2011, 09:08 PM:
 



 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-22-2011, 12:58 AM:
 


Here is an ad promoting 11 and 14 speakers
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-22-2011, 11:53 AM:
 
Guess the film...


San Francisco Chronicle, June 7, 1980.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-22-2011, 12:01 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 03-22-2011, 12:53 PM:
 
It's "Divine Madness" from Warner Bros..
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-22-2011, 02:01 PM:
 
BLUE THUNDER had a sneak preview about 4 months before release. I drove down to the Showcase Springdale in Cincinnti to see it. They had a couple of rows roped off for what I was told were exhibitors. The newspaper indicated a 70mm presentation, and that turned out to be correct. Quite a fun night at the movies!
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-22-2011, 02:46 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-22-2011, 09:48 PM:
 
If any of you are in or near Hollywood this month, the Egyptian is doing a Star Trek series, with 3 prints being in 70mm, and Nicholas Meyer as a guest.

I should take work off to go to see Undiscovered Country.

Egyptian Events

AJG
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-22-2011, 11:49 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-23-2011, 02:45 AM:
 
A couple from early 1983...




 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-23-2011, 11:13 AM:
 

San Francisco Chronicle, December 19, 1974.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-23-2011, 02:04 PM:
 
Here's Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" in its first Chicago run in 1959 and a re-issue in 1981...



Notice they are also showing a Disney CinemaScope short. This begs the question: was the short blown up and attached to the 70 print or shown separately on a third projector in 35MM?



I was working at the Golf Mill Theater back then as an usher and I recall the image was actually slightly letterboxed with dark brown bars. This theater didn't have movable top masking, so nothing could be done about it except to center the image vertically.
 

---

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 03-23-2011, 02:44 PM:
 

quote: Robert Harrison

---

Notice they are also showing a Disney CinemaScope short. This begs the question: was the short blown up and attached to the 70 print or shown separately on a third projector in 35MM?

---

quote: Robert Harrison

---

...was the short blown up and attached to the 70 print...?

---

No, because the labs weren't able to do blow-ups in 1959. (The first 70mm blow-up releases weren't until 1963.) It would've been shown in 35mm, as described by Robert Throop.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-23-2011, 05:53 PM:
 
Hey, thanks for the answers, fellas!

Also, thanks for letting me know that Chicago got gypped on "Towering Inferno." It opened exclusively at the Chicago Theater downtown in 35MM mono, unless someone made a big boo-boo and forgot to advertise otherwise.

It has always been catch as catch can with 70 prints in Chicagoland. There have been occasions where the entire first run was in 35 and then some place like the well equipped Tivoli Theater in Downers Grove would get hold of a 70 print for second run, as they did with "Back To The Future."

The Edens Theater #2 in Northbrook was another venue where 70 prints might show up for the first time in this neck of the woods months later as a one week fill-in, as happened with "The Blue Lagoon" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind: The Special Edition." I believe the McClurg Court in the city was operated by the same local company; they showed "The Right Stuff" in 70 months after its all 35 run.

While I am pontificating, I was wondering why Dolby is always coming up with marketing names for their sound advances, yet they never really came up with anything, advertising-wise, for their 70 split surround format. When "Apocalypse Now" opened, I was working at the aforementioned Golf Mill Theaters, and split surround was installed for the 70 engagement of that film. Yet, if one were to check the newspaper display ads, there was absolutely no mention of this (at the time) new format. I mean, they hawked "MEGASOUND" for the 70 engagements of "Altered States," and now the 7.1 thing, so any thoughts, or facts, anybody on why this was so?
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 03-24-2011, 11:11 AM:
 
ID4



AJG
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-24-2011, 02:21 PM:
 

quote: Robert Harrison

---

I was wondering why Dolby is always coming up with marketing names for their sound advances, yet they never really came up with anything, advertising-wise, for their 70 split surround format. When "Apocalypse Now" opened, I was working at the aforementioned Golf Mill Theaters, and split surround was installed for the 70 engagement of that film. Yet, if one were to check the newspaper display ads, there was absolutely no mention of this (at the time) new format. I mean, they hawked "MEGASOUND" for the 70 engagements of "Altered States," and now the 7.1 thing, so any thoughts, or facts, anybody on why this was so?

---

I think it was Warner Bros., not Dolby, that pushed the MegaSound thing. It was, essentially, an attempt to standardize (and promote) the "baby boom" aspect of the sound presentation. At least three films were presented in "70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo + MegaSound."

As for the split surround thing, on Page 11 of this thread I posted what I believe to be a rare example of such promotion. I think Dolby's attitude was that the split surround thing wasn't a bona fide format, but, rather, an enhancement of the "Six-Track Dolby Stereo" format and thus didn't require any additional (and potentially confusing) promotion. Similarly, there was never, to my knowledge, any promotional distinction made for those "Six-Track Dolby Stereo" films that included/excluded "baby boom" content or used five, instead of three, screen channels.

I believe Dolby felt that most of the promotion of their presentations was the responsibility of the distributor and exhibitor. The one issue on which Dolby was rigid was if a theater used an audio processor from a competitor, the word "Dolby" was to be removed from advertising. Some exhibitors, such as SamEric, got pretty creative with this sticking point.

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

Okay, today's entry:


San Francisco Chronicle, January 20, 1984.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-24-2011, 04:51 PM:
 
Thanks, Michael. Maybe Bobby Henderson can come up with a logo for Split Surround, if he hasn't already, just for fun's sake?

And now, a couple of ads from Chicago's Dimension 150 theaters back in the late 1960s:

First up, a roadshow for "Oliver."



Next, another case of a film showing in 70 in a later run. "Where Eagles Dare" originally opened downtown at the Chicago Theater, but played in 35 mag. Note the old "M" rating, the precursor to "GP" which eventually became "PG."


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-25-2011, 10:54 AM:
 

San Francisco Chronicle, October 23, 1967.
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 03-25-2011, 11:42 AM:
 
Weren't the 70mm versions of GWTW horrendously cropped at top and bottom as the original was 1.33:1?
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-25-2011, 12:05 PM:
 
On that 70mm version of GWTW, I clearly remember seeing the image sliding up and down...sort of a vertical version of pan-and-scan. I don't think many people noticed, though.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-25-2011, 12:51 PM:
 
The aforementioned MEGASOUND from 1981...



Hey, Michael Coate,

Can you find a 70 ad for the James Bond film "Moonraker?" A Dolby ad back in the day said it was available in that format, but it only played in 35 in Chicago.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-25-2011, 01:55 PM:
 
Robert... I've found no credible evidence that "Moonraker" played in 70mm anywhere in the United States. Of the official James Bond movies, I believe only "Octopussy" (1983) had 70mm presentations in the U.S.

I believe "Moonraker" was mixed in six-track with the intent of being released in 70mm (hence the inclusion on some of the Dolby lists), but, ultimately, I think United Artists changed their mind and released it only in 35mm (with some prints in Dolby SVA).
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-25-2011, 03:05 PM:
 
I have an old bookings sheet that was sent to me. It really is amazing how long some of these 70MM titles played at their locations.

Example:

Star Trek IV: Nov 26th 1986- Feb 26th 1987 at the Sheraton II in Toronto.

The Untouchables: June 3rd 1987 - Sept 17th 1987 in Cinema 1 (THX) at the Sussex Centre
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-25-2011, 09:33 PM:
 
Hey, Michael,

Thanks for the info on the Bond flicks. You would think with a franchise like that, they would have been releasing them in 70 since at least "Thunderball."

Anyone remember Associated Film Distribution? From 1981...


 

---

Posted by Keri Delio (Member # 6170) on 03-27-2011, 10:17 PM:
 
I've really enjoyed this thread with all the great ads posted - thanks from a new member
Michael Coate you beat me to posting the 70mm Gone with the Wind ad.
I have a complete newspaper supplement when it played here at the Northpark I&II in Dallas. I can post pics if anyone is interested.
From the many things I have read about the 70mm engagement the actors' heads tended to be cut off and to add insult to injury the stereophonic sound wasn't balanced well at all either.
In many cases the rustling dresses/petticoats were louder than the dialogue.
I have some pics in a book that show how the film was converted to 70mm.
Does anyone know if Gone with the Wind was ever presented in 70mm again past 1967?
I know MGM had a "Fabulous Four" re-release package in 1971 or 1974 that consisted of Ryan's Daughter, Dr. Zhivago, Gone with the Wind and 2001 ... unsure if GWTW was presented in 70mm again?
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 03-27-2011, 10:33 PM:
 

quote: Keri Delio

---

I have a complete newspaper supplement when it played here at the Northpark I&II in Dallas. I can post pics if anyone is interested.

---

I am
 

---

Posted by Keri Delio (Member # 6170) on 03-29-2011, 10:22 PM:
 
^ I'll take some pics of it & upload them in the next few days. It's a bit too fragile to scan being old newsprint that's been folded for over 40 yrs now.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 03-30-2011, 10:01 PM:
 
The non-event of summer 1978, even though I enjoyed it...


 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-05-2011, 09:23 PM:
 
and ??? I'm going into 70mm ad pics withdrawel here.... anyone here going to post some new pics??
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-05-2011, 09:54 PM:
 
When I can get around to it (hopefully in the next couple or so days), I'm going to try scanning some of the full page ads I have from the New York Times. The problem is it will take at least 4 separate scans to cover the entire page. Then there's the fun of rotating and repositioning the scans where they line up reasonably well and don't show seams. It's not so easy.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 04-06-2011, 06:59 AM:
 
Here are some recent articles talking about the format. I figure some would appreciate reading them.

quote:

---

70mm

It’s a gorgeous film, how was shooting 70mm back then?

SL: It’s good and bad. When you have a negative that big, you have a negative that’s twice as big, but the amount of light you need is four times as much. So at one point we blew the circuits on the city of Burbank. There’s very little depth of field. If you have low light situations – like I did with Cindy Morgan in the arcade – the DP asked me “which eye do you want me to keep in focus?” And she would start to move and go out of focus, so we put a C-Stand up the back of her blouse, and taped her to it. She had a metal rod attached so she wouldn’t move. That’s some of the joys you get with 70mm.

---

quote:

---

Dolby 70mm
For the theatres that were able to get 70mm prints, Dolby also had solutions. 70mm, introduced in the 1950s, had six tracks of five screen channels and one surround channel. Reducing the noise with Dolby A-type NR essentially meant that each of the six magnetic tracks could carry more level with less distortion, resulting in soundtracks that could go comfortably louder when necessary. This led to the awe-inspiring soundtracks on many 70mm releases such as Steven Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

1978’s Superman was the 50th film with soundtracks encoded with Dolby A-type and it was used in Dolby’s first experiments with 70mm stereo surround, though this was never publically announced. Previously, the additional two screen channels (left-center and right-center) on Dolby 70mm were only used for low-frequency information and needed was more surround capability. With Superman, Dolby reallocated the two mid-center screen channels to the rear, resulting in better distribution of audio effects in the auditorium. The configuration of three behind-the-screen channels, two surround channels and a subwoofer channel used on Superman became internally known as a 5.1 configuration.

The following year, Apocalypse Now became the first announced film released in 70mm with the 5.1 stereo surrounds. Apocalypse Now won an Academy Award for Best Achievement in Sound. The 5.1 channel configuration (though it wasn't publically called 5.1 until many years later) went on to become the loudspeaker configuration of choice and is ubiquitous today in movies, broadcast, DVDs, and virtually all other digital media.

---

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

---

I'm going into 70mm ad pics [withdrawal] here.... anyone here going to post some new pics??

---

Okay, okay, okay. Here are a few new ones.

One of the least popular 70mm productions (though the LA Times' Kevin Thomas seemed to love it)...


San Francisco Chronicle, June 25, 1969

One of numerous older "Academy" format films converted to 70mm...


The Seattle Times, November 3, 1978

One of the numerous MGM 70mm festivals...


Minneapolis Tribune, May 5, 1971

World Premiere* ad for one of the last 70mm/roadshow releases...


Los Angeles Times, September 23, 1970

*A more accurate promotion would've been "Co-World Premiere" as the gala event was actually held simultaneously in four cities (Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles, and Honolulu).
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-06-2011, 10:48 AM:
 
oops, didn't catch my typo there, thanks Michael for the ad pics
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-07-2011, 01:46 PM:
 
Here's one from the year with the most 70mm releases...


Los Angeles Times, November 21, 1985
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-08-2011, 04:47 PM:
 

Los Angeles Times, January 19, 1997
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-09-2011, 10:43 AM:
 
Daviau should have won an Oscar...


Los Angeles Times, December 10, 1987
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-09-2011, 05:28 PM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

Daviau should have won an Oscar...

---

Daviau should have shot it in scope. Flat films don't deserve the award.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-09-2011, 06:04 PM:
 
That was almost certainly Spielberg's decision. He is reportedly not fond of 'scope.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-10-2011, 02:08 AM:
 
He was always worried about panning and scanning for home video. Great director, terrible thought process with worrying about video though.

For anyone who has Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on letterbox video, watch the opening scene with River Phoenix. With the exception of a couple of shots that had to be panned hard left or right as characters are clinging to the side of a boxcar, the ENTIRE opening 10 minute action scene can be viewed as 4:3 within the scope ratio. Clearly Spielberg wanted it to pan and scan to video well.

Even if Empire of the Sun had been shot that way, it would have been a better decision. Humans have two eyes side-by-side, not one eye. This has always been my beef with IMAX 15/70 too. I can always see the entire width, but the height is always wasted out of my field of vision.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-10-2011, 10:04 AM:
 
Here are ads for a couple of Clint Eastwood flicks mentioned earlier in the thread...


Los Angeles Times, July 4, 1993.


Los Angeles Times, December 13, 1990.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 04-10-2011, 01:05 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-11-2011, 10:07 AM:
 
Techniscope blown up to 70mm...


Sydney Daily Telegraph, October 29, 1971
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 04-11-2011, 03:51 PM:
 
That Mad Max ad is awesome
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 04-11-2011, 09:09 PM:
 
Does anyone have the answer to what was the last main 70mm (blowup) wide release film?

I see "In the Line of Fire" but what was the last.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-12-2011, 09:16 AM:
 
I think True Lies (1994) was the last major release to have a somewhat decent inventory of 70mm blow-up prints. I don't know the exact number of prints though. Any blow-ups made after that were minimal orders.

If I remember right, James Cameron's next movie, Titanic -a movie that broke box office records had only six 70mm blow up prints made with DTS time code. And James Cameron footed the bill for those prints.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-12-2011, 11:35 AM:
 
True Lies had sixteen 70mm prints.

It's not clear what Tom meant by "main" and "wide release." If he's asking about the super-high print runs (the 200 range), where most markets with any 70mm-equipped theaters got a print, then you'd have to go back to Dick Tracy (1990) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989).
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-12-2011, 12:09 PM:
 
Dick Tracy and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade had unusually large print inventories, perhaps the largest of the entire blow-up era. Hoffa and Far and Away didn't have as many 70mm prints, but the orders still seemed large to me.

What I mean by a "somewhat decent" inventory is where 70mm prints of a given movie were shown in at least one theater in a dozen or so cities on opening day. True Lies was perhaps the last movie to do that with blow-up 5/70mm prints. I can't think of any others made after the summer of 1994 that managed it.

Movies from 1993 like Cliffhanger, In the Line of Fire, The Last Action Hero and Geronimo might also fall into that somewhat decent inventory category. At least three of those had at least one 70mm print in Dallas. I'm not sure if In the Line of Fire had any 70mm in Dallas.

I felt pretty lucky being able to see Titanic in 70mm DTS at GCC Northpark #1 in Dallas. I think if the theater wasn't such a great place that particular print might have gone elsewhere or never even created.

How many 70mm prints were made for the restored version of Vertigo and My Fair Lady?
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 04-12-2011, 01:35 PM:
 
Both "Hoffa" and "Far and Away" where shot in 65mm were they not? At the time I was surprised that even though they shot that way, there were many 70mm capable theatres in the Seattle/Tacoma area that only got 35mm prints. All money I guess.

Of all the "later" 70mm titles listed in the last few posts here is what I can recall for Seattle/Tacoma:

Trues Lies: in 70mm at the then Cineplex Odeon Cinerama
Dick Tracy: in 70mm at the GCC Renton Village 8 (I might be wrong)
Last Crusade: in 70mm at Tacoma Mall Twin, Tacoma South (move-over from the mall), Cinerama and several others. Was quite wide.
Cliffhanger: in 70mm at the Lewis & Clark
Last Action Hero: in 70mm at Lewis & Clark as same time as Cliffhanger (different screen)
Geronimo: in 70mm at the John Danz
Hoffa: 70mm at Guild 45th, John Danz and a couple others.
Far and Away: 70mm at Cinerama, John Danz and a couple others
Cinerama also ran Vertigo in 70mm DTS and My Fair Lady in 70mm (DTS??)

In Tacoma the last films to play in 70mm were Last Crusade at the Tacoma Mall and afterwards Tacoma South and The Abyss at the GCC Lincoln Plaza 8.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-12-2011, 02:29 PM:
 
Hoffa was filmed 35mm anamorphic. Far and Away was shot 5/65mm, making it a true 70mm movie.

My Fair Lady restored had 70mm Dolby mag and 35mm prints with DTS and Dolby Digital. Vertigo had 70mm prints with DTS time code. I think Vertigo and Titanic were the only movies the Northpark 1-2 in Dallas showed in 70mm DTS.

IMHO a lot more movies should have had 70mm DTS prints struck, even to this day. I still contend 5/70 is the best projection format for standard movie theaters with large or giant sized screens. It's a joke how dozens of theaters have been built since the mid 1990s with colossal sized screens yet only illuminated with 4/35 or digital projection. With 35mm projection on its way to the scrap heap that leaves only digital to do the job. And it doesn't do the job nearly as well as it should. The image may be steady, but the resolution and brightness levels aren't good enough for giant screens. We will be waiting years for the technology to mature where it should be provided the movie theaters stay in business that long. Without movie theaters the 1080p HD standard would become an almost permanent thing.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-12-2011, 02:37 PM:
 
Bobby: I knew what you meant and am essentially in agreement with you. I used the extreme example as a possibility of what Tom may have been asking about. Hopefully Tom will chime in and clarify his question, but, until he does so, discussing print numbers and distribution practices is futile.

Mark: Hoffa was shot in 35mm (anamorphic). [EDIT: Bobby posted his comment as I was writing mine.] Hoffa did look pretty damn nice, maybe even approaching 65mm-origination quality (though I didn't care too much for the movie overall). Among the possible reasons it looked so good was (1) it was well shot by Stephen H. Burum, ASC, and (2) it was an Original Aspect Ratio blow-up. Meaning, the 35mm element used in the blow-up utilized less magnification than usual by retaining its 2.39:1 image within the 2.20:1 recommended projection area of the 70mm frame. (Steve Guttag mentioned this technique in this thread a few pages ago.) For his work on Hoffa, Burum was nominated for an Oscar. He also won that year's American Society of Cinematographers award for best-shot feature film.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-12-2011, 03:00 PM:
 
I think Stephen H. Burum used the same 35mm/70mm blow-up technique on Casualties of War. I watched it in 70mm at the National Twin theater in Times Square back in 1989. I specifically remember the projected image looking slightly letter-boxed.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-12-2011, 03:03 PM:
 
Yes, and The Untouchables (1987).
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-13-2011, 02:39 PM:
 
Example of an American production that played domestically in 35mm but in 70mm in selected international territories...


Sydney Daily Mirror, December 22, 1966
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-13-2011, 07:05 PM:
 
Nice one, Michael. Good to see you pulling out some of the more obscure titles, especially if they did not play in 70mm in the US.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-14-2011, 01:48 PM:
 
Here are a few more for films that were middle-of-the-road in America but received deluxe treatment internationally...


Sydney Daily Telegraph, December 27, 1966


Sydney Daily Telegraph, July 25, 1968


Sydney Daily Telegraph, December 12, 1968


Sydney Daily Mirror, December 24, 1971


Sydney Daily Telegraph, July 26, 1974
 

---

Posted by Keri Delio (Member # 6170) on 04-14-2011, 05:44 PM:
 
The Valley of the Dolls ad is great! Thanks so much for sharing that one Michael.

I have some ads from the Star Wars Special Edition releases but they don't mention anything about them being 70mm - only THX.
I saw it at GCC Northpark I&II ... pretty sure it was 70mm there.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-14-2011, 06:00 PM:
 

quote: Keri Delio

---

but they don't mention anything about them being 70mm

---

quote: Keri Delio

---

I have some ads from the Star Wars Special Edition releases but they don't mention anything about them being 70mm - only THX.
I saw it at GCC Northpark I&II ... pretty sure it was 70mm there.

---

No it was not. 35mm with Dolby digital. I was their tech and ran projection shifts.
 

---

Posted by Keri Delio (Member # 6170) on 04-14-2011, 06:21 PM:
 
Thanks for the clarification Bill, I honestly didn't know.

Here are a couple of ads I found around the web over the years and saved, if they have already been posted I apologize in advance. I will get shots of my Northpark Gone With the Wind newspaper suppliment up very soon.




 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 04-14-2011, 06:24 PM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

And here's an ad for Kurosawa's Soviet-Japanese co-production "Dersu Uzala," a film that at least two film history books mistakenly claim wasn't shown in 70mm in the United States. This ad is for a 1978 run in San Francisco.

---

quote:

---

Thanks for the clarification Bill, I honestly didn't know.

Here are a couple of ads I found around the web over the years and saved, if they have already been posted I apologize in advance. I will get shots of my Northpark Gone With the Wind newspaper suppliment up very soon.

-

-

---

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

---

I really really want MGM to release 'The Boyfriend' on bluray

---

Well MGM does not own the video rights to the film. It is now available from the Warner Archive Collection. The DVDR has been remastered 16x9 and has a behind the scenes featurette. I think it has all the Roadshow overture music and the running time is 136 mins. They also have 'Savage Messiah' available too.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-15-2011, 01:29 PM:
 
How 'bout some 007 (well, sort of)...


Sydney Daily Telegraph, June 7, 1967
 

---

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 04-15-2011, 01:57 PM:
 
@Stephen Furley,
Not only Dersu Uzala was exhibited in 70mm previously, it was also shot in genuine 70mm, using russian light-weight magnesium-made cameras which made them very portable. Small in size as well, they looked like 35mm cameras but definitely were 70mm.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-16-2011, 01:14 PM:
 
^ do you know who owns the US video rights to Dersu? (Kino?) I'm hoping that Criterion can do a proper release from 65mm elements
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 04-17-2011, 05:11 PM:
 
So are we looking at $14,000 for a 70MM print? Can anyone confirm?
 

---

Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 04-18-2011, 10:44 PM:
 
In response to Mark Campbell who said Far & Away only showed in four theaters in Seattle in 70mm, I checked the newspapers, and he was right.


Seattle Times, May 22, 1992

Also, when a tour of Titanic artifacts visited Seattle, the gift shop was selling frames of the 70mm print of Titanic mounted onto a plaque. I didn't think this was a great use of a film print, but now that I've heard there were only six prints made, this was a horrible way to destroy a film. I remember the outcry when an investor had purchased a Picasso painting and was planning to cut it up and sell pieces of it to the public. Cutting up a rare 70mm print isn't a much better idea.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-18-2011, 11:54 PM:
 
There were 14 prints made of Titanic in 70mm. 4 were shipped overseas. Only 3 survived in the US.
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 04-19-2011, 12:04 AM:
 
Arthur, my guess was sheer luck. Never would have guessed the Grand and the Renton Village 8. Probably the last 70mm both those venues played.

Nice ad. Did you run one of those engagements? I saw it in 70mm at the John Danz.

Forgot what they meant by "Super 70mm" but I think it was because it was photographed in Super 65.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-19-2011, 12:35 AM:
 
It was just a re-arrangement of the standard "Super Panavision 70" term applied to 65mm lensed productions in the 1960's -such as Lawrence of Arabia.

quote: Brad Miller

---

There were 14 prints made of Titanic in 70mm. 4 were shipped overseas. Only 3 survived in the US.

---

Where the hell did I get the idea that only 6 prints of Titanic were struck in 70mm DTS? I guess if only 3 prints survived in the US then that means 7 of them were trashed at some point in their runs. Or perhaps cut up for silly keepsake items purchased at Best Buy.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-19-2011, 12:53 AM:
 
If you recall, John Pytlak was sent around the country after about 5 1/2 months of playing to inspect the prints. He said GCC Northpark's print was the only one in perfect like new condition. ALL of the others were scratched and had splices. There were supposedly only 2 other prints in "decent" condition.

Our print from Northpark was sent to the Fox theater in Atlanta where their union operator running AAII projectors reel to reel managed to damage it on a one week play. I know because I was the next person to play it back in Dallas again and it was NOT in the same condition as it was when I shipped it (after 6 months on a platter, by the way). I'm still angry to this day about that.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-19-2011, 01:12 AM:
 
That is indeed a pisser. After months of flawless runs, of which I was thankful enough to witness in December of 1997, someone else takes the valuable print and damages it.

I snapped an impromptu picture of the Best Buy curio I bought back in, what, 1998 or 1999?



I've never handled a 70mm DTS print of Titanic so I don't really know for sure if this is an actual dupe from one of those prints or something else. The green bar code stuff just looks too different to me from other bits of 70mm DTS print scans I've seen. My guess is 20th Century Fox or Paramount grabbed a few key film frames and duped the hell out of them on some 70mm film stock.
 

---

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 04-19-2011, 06:09 AM:
 
There is a 70mm print of Titanic still in Toronto, apparently in good shape.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-19-2011, 04:11 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

There were 14 prints made of Titanic in 70mm. 4 were shipped overseas. Only 3 survived in the US

---

One survives here also.

Those frames don't look like they're from a release print.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-25-2011, 01:59 PM:
 
One of the seven movies directed by Peter Hyams to be released in 70mm...


The Wichita Eagle-Beacon, June 12, 1981
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-25-2011, 03:13 PM:
 
I saw OUTLAND at the Cinerama Theatre in Honolulu in 70mm and enjoyed it very much. As a futuristic version of HIGH NOON, it was very good and I enjoyed it very much. By the way, OUTLAND was released on DVD by Warner Home Video very shortly after the format was introduced and has the distinction of being one of the worst looking disc ever released. WHV never remastered it and the original DVD has long been out of print. THE BIBLE also looked dreadful on DVD but the recent Blu-Ray of the film is gorgeous. Hopefully Warner Home Video will do a full restoration of OUTLAND and release it in Blu-Ray sometime in the near future,

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 04-25-2011, 03:31 PM:
 
hey Claude

Any info on the LD of Outland and whether it is any good or not?
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-25-2011, 05:43 PM:
 
That is a very interesting question, Tom. Although I had stated OUTLAND was released on DVD with very poor picture quality, I am now not sure it ever was. There is a possibility it was a laserdisc of the movie I had seen that was not very good. Anyway, WHV only released it once on home video and it is now time to reissue OUTLAND with pristine picture and sound quality in Blu-Ray.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 04-25-2011, 07:10 PM:
 
I ask because I have the dvd and had a chance to recently pick up the ld
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-26-2011, 07:26 AM:
 
Mike C., 70mm from Wichita. Nice to see something outside the big cities.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-26-2011, 02:20 PM:
 
Another one from Wichita...


The Wichita Eagle-Beacon, June 12, 1981
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-28-2011, 05:00 PM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

Those ["Titanic"] frames don't look like they're from a release print.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

There were 14 prints made of Titanic in 70mm. 4 were shipped overseas.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Where the hell did I get the idea that only 6 prints of Titanic were struck in 70mm DTS?

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

One of the seven movies directed by Peter Hyams to be released in 70mm...

---

quote: Thomas Hauerslev & John O'Callaghan

---

"Titanic" DTS 70mm Prints --- I was working on the color timing of my 35mm short "Sentinels of the Twilight" at the same time "Titanic" was doing the same. I was told by my color timer Bill Mochon [DeLuxe Laboratories, Ed], that 12 70mm prints were made for US distribution and 1 additional 70mm print was made for Jim Cameron. Of course, bearing the phenomenal succes of "Titanic" in mind, I don´t know if they made any more. When I was there was during late November 1997. John O`Callaghan, Corona, CA, USA.

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't be so quick to discount the figure of six. I also am aware of only six first-run U.S. bookings.

Dallas (Northpark)
Los Angeles (x2, Chinese & Village)
New York (Astor Plaza)
San Jose (x2, Century Dome complex)

Does anyone know where the other four played if there were in fact ten first-run U.S. 70mm bookings?

Wouldn't the NY and LA locations have had backup prints?

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't the NY and LA locations have had backup prints?

---

In LA on regular First Run 70MM engagements in Westwood or Hollywood, the backup print would be a 35mm Wetgate/EK print. If you had a print issue the studio and Deluxe or Technicolor was local to handle print problems. And the studio would pay for a studio call and Dolby Sound call to check the print before the opening show.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-01-2011, 11:25 AM:
 


Look close, 70mm Dolby Stereo in the ad
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 05-01-2011, 04:02 PM:
 
I know this has absolutely nothing to do with 70mm, but the building in the background with the satellite dish on top...what is with the windows? Are those drapes or some odd-ball reflections?
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-01-2011, 11:35 PM:
 
Wow! Good eye James
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-03-2011, 05:03 PM:
 

quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

Nice to see something outside the big cities.

---

Here are a couple of Ohio ads just for you, Mark, so you can reminisce about some of your favorite theaters from back in the day.


The Columbus Dispatch, May 21, 1980


Dayton Daily News, May 21, 1980
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-03-2011, 06:24 PM:
 
I saw EMPIRE at the beautiful DAYTON MALL I, my personal favorite theatre of all time. An 1100 seat gem of a place with curtains all around. Chief operator there was John Harvey, so this was "film done right".

On the Columbus sites, note that CINEMA EAST says it is "6 track stereophonic". They did not have a 70mm Dolby unit...just a CP-50 they put in for STAR WARS. The CONTINENT was legendary in these parts for always getting the top films and always getting them so dirty in the first few weeks that they were almost unwatchable. The CONTINENT was one of those Mid-States houses with projectors in the lobby. The 70mm platter was wide open for the world to see, pulling in dust and dirt from the opening doors and attracting cigarette smoke, which was permitted in lobbies at that time.

Thanks, Mike, for the good memories.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-04-2011, 12:54 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-05-2011, 04:04 PM:
 
The booth of the University
photo taken by John Wallington


 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-05-2011, 04:25 PM:
 
Wow!
Gordon,was the booth like that till the end?
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-05-2011, 04:42 PM:
 
I dont know when John took that photo but in the end there were 3 wall mount racks at the end of booth with the CP100 and SA5 Altec amps and the megasound gear
The MPU was in a small rack in the middle
 

---

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 05-06-2011, 07:18 AM:
 
Gordon,

are those Vic 8's with 5000ft reels?
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-06-2011, 08:11 AM:
 
5000 foot
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-06-2011, 12:48 PM:
 
Following the break-up of The Police, we got...


The New York Times, November 7, 1985

And here's a close-up view of the theater listings. This would appear to be a rare case of a 70mm print being booked in a suburban NYC area theater rather than in a Manhattan venue. In addition, note the 4-track mag presentation. There's some historical noteworthiness here as this may have been the final release in 4-track mag. It's certainly the most-recent one of which I'm aware. Many think Yentl and Scarface (both 1983) were the last, but this Sting doc came out two years after those.


 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-06-2011, 07:35 PM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

Many think Yentl and Scarface (both 1983) were the last

---

I had always thought it was Against All Odds (1984) that was the last one. It was the last 4-track mag new release that I had seen, anyway. (Village Westwood, first Saturday's late show).
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-06-2011, 11:58 PM:
 
Around this time, Samuel Goldwyn had been releasing "4Trk Mag" prints that were bastardized -- really only three tracks (LCR, sans Surround) on standard sprocket stock rather than Fox Sprockets. They did this for OKLAHOMA and SOUTH PACIFIC that I know of because I ran them. I am wondering if they might have done the same thing with the 35mm prints of BRING ON THE NIGHT AS WELL, although overtly claiming "4Trk Magnetic Stereo Presenation" and then only playing three track prints would be a pretty outrageous breach of Truth in Advertising.

When we ran the above mentioned musicals, we got around that by advertising "MultiTrack Magnetic Stereo."
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 05-07-2011, 09:39 AM:
 
I ran many mag track 35s where the surround track was essentially dead or had very little activity.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-07-2011, 09:47 AM:
 
Well track 4 was actually referred to as effects track originally
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-08-2011, 11:06 AM:
 


Never heard of this movie.



One of the late Toronto 70MM film releases.



Had no idea that Born on the 4th had a 70MM release



One of the very rare times when both screens in one theatre were both playing 70MM of the same film. Look at the Sheraton.





June 23, 1989


Sept 2nd, 1989



July 1989, a total of 17 70MM prints in circulation by Famous Players alone in the Toronto area .
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-09-2011, 01:04 AM:
 

quote: Tom Petrov

---

One of the very rare times when both screens in one theatre were both playing 70MM of the same film.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

July 1989, a total of 17 70MM prints in circulation by Famous Players alone in the Toronto area.

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

The summer of 1989 was a memorable one, in particular for fans of the 70mm presentation format. The studios that season circulated over 500 large-format prints of eight productions. In addition to “Indiana Jones”, 70mm releases during summer ’89 included “The Abyss”, “Batman”, “Casualties of War”, “Dead Poets Society”, “Lethal Weapon 2”, “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier” and a re-release of the classic “Lawrence of Arabia”.

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

One of the star treck films ran on two screens at the hollywood and two screens at the sheraton sharing one print that was bicycled on 20 min reels

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

This type of practice was not as rare as you may think.

---

Michael, I say rare because, it didn't really happen all the time.

Do you have the ad for Titanic in 70MM.. I would love to see that.


 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-09-2011, 03:12 PM:
 
This is one movie. You're not going.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-09-2011, 03:46 PM:
 
What movie is that, anyway? Looks like Paul Newman, in a movie called "Newman."

That ad was from the era where a star's name in big type would actually pull people in. That era's about gone, sadly.

quote: Tom Petrov

---

I say rare because, it didn't really happen all the time.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

That ad was from the era where a star's name in big type would actually pull people in. That era's about gone, sadly.

---

quote: Adam Martin

---

This is one movie. You're not going.

---

Ha! Yeah, I had a good laugh at that too. (As a side, I really loved The Color Of Money.)
 

---

Posted by Keri Delio (Member # 6170) on 05-09-2011, 04:37 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

What movie is that, anyway? Looks like Paul Newman, in a movie called "Newman."

---

Don't know if you're being sarcastic, but it's The Color of Money.
I totally forgot that was in shown 70mm
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-10-2011, 02:09 AM:
 

quote: Keri Delio

---

I totally forgot that was in shown 70mm

---

I'm amazed at some of the movies that were released in 70mm.


 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-10-2011, 07:20 AM:
 
The picture quality of a 70mm blowup from 35mm is amazing since a lot of what is wrong on the screen is print related
The larger print frame of a 70mm print reduces grain size on the same picture size and allows far more even light to be put through the film
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-10-2011, 02:53 PM:
 
Gord-I mean some of the movies that got 70MM is interesting. Bette Midler fans likely could of cared less that Beaches was 70MM


 

---

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 05-10-2011, 05:15 PM:
 
As for odd 70mm titles, Three Men and a Baby had a 70mm release as well.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-10-2011, 06:15 PM:
 
Three men and a baby makes little sense.


 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-10-2011, 07:14 PM:
 
If they hoped it would be huge then they tried it in 70mm. It didn't always pay off (American Flyers) but then again sometimes it did (3 Men and a Baby).

A 70mm blow-up of 35mm generally will look MUCH better than just showing a 35mm. Remember in those days there were still a few people involved in the decision making who gave a shit about how it'll end up looking...as opposed to now.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-10-2011, 08:54 PM:
 
I am shocked that JFK never got a 70MM release
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-12-2011, 03:44 PM:
 
One of the smallest 70mm notations I've ever come across...


Los Angeles Times, October 19, 1969
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-13-2011, 07:17 PM:
 
That's sad...on several different levels.
 

---

Posted by Jerome Holmes (Member # 5013) on 05-13-2011, 09:36 PM:
 
Gonna paint your wagon
Gonna paint it fine
gonna use oil-based paint 'cos the wood is pine.

(Ponderosa pine oooo-oooo)
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-14-2011, 12:34 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-15-2011, 12:31 AM:
 
Here's one that I've been meaning for a while to post. This is a companion ad to one posted by Bobby Henderson back on Feb. 24th (Page 6) and which supports a comment/explanation of mine given on Feb. 25th (Page 7). This is from the last day of Week #1 for Edward Scissorhands' exclusive Avco run in Los Angeles before expanding citywide. Here you can clearly see the absence of the 70mm notation, which supports my claim that the film was advertised in 70mm only for the first few days of the engagement. (The ads were revised to promote a 35mm-Cinema Digital Sound presentation once it was decided to keep and continue showing the 35mm print. The 70mm print was sent to San Francisco.)

Sorry for the crappy "negative" image. Until scanning this, I hadn't realized that when copied from microfilm ages ago I must have had the copier inadvertently set to make a positive-to-negative copy. (After scanning, can something like this have its tones reversed in an application such as Windows Live Photo Gallery?)


Los Angeles Times, December 13, 1990


 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-15-2011, 01:07 AM:
 
Very interesting observation Michael.

If you look at the True Lies ad. It states, 70MM with the little notation that it is in DTS. Something tells me that the True Lies print was not DTS



Do you know if they did the same to other CDS releases?
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-15-2011, 11:19 AM:
 
True Lies was MAG
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-15-2011, 11:53 AM:
 
Here you go Michael. I used the Roxio photo suite.


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-15-2011, 12:18 PM:
 
Thanks, Darryl.

Tom...At the time of the True Lies release, the DTS-70mm format didn't exist, so, yes, the 70mm prints of True Lies were magnetic, as Gordon stated.

As for the York and the DTS notation, that just looks like a lousy ad. I bet the movie played in 70-mag on one screen and 35mm-DTS on another.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-15-2011, 12:20 PM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

Tom...At the time of the True Lies release, the DTS-70mm format didn't exist, so, yes, the 70mm prints of True Lies were magnetic, as Gordon stated.

---

I was sure of that. But I was wondering if they added the DTS tag next to the 70mm on purpose or was it a mistake
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-15-2011, 12:31 PM:
 
Go back and analyze the ads over a period of time to see if the format notation data ever changed. Also check to see if True Lies was playing on more than one screen. (It can be a challenge to come up with clear, concise ads for a film that's showing on multiple screens in a complex when different types of prints are used.)
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-15-2011, 12:39 PM:
 
Michael, you are right!

True Lies was in both theatres at the York.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-17-2011, 12:28 AM:
 
I had planned to post today an ad for Top Gun in honor of its 25th anniversary. (It was released 25 years ago today...[EDIT]or yesterday judging by the timestamp at the top of my comment.) But, in checking out the ads in my collection, I see that they are all of pretty lousy quality or are copies of only the bottom half of the ad (the portion listing the theaters in which the film played). So...would you instead settle for a different movie about "speed and spectacle"?


Los Angeles Times, December 23, 1966
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 05-17-2011, 12:34 AM:
 
Thanks Michael. Would still take the Top Gun ads!
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-17-2011, 06:18 AM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

So...would you instead settle for a different movie about "speed and spectacle"?

---

No...I only feel the need for speed, I have no need for spectacle.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-17-2011, 11:37 AM:
 

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Do you have the ad for Titanic in 70MM.. I would love to see that.

---

The image quality is pretty poor, but here you go...


The New York Times, December 18, 1997


 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-17-2011, 02:37 PM:
 
Michael-Thanks for the Titanic ad
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-17-2011, 04:36 PM:
 
Let's give Northwest Ohio a chance with this TOP GUN ad from 5/16/1986. Theatre is Showcase Cinemas in Toledo, OH.


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-18-2011, 08:48 AM:
 

San Francisco Chronicle, May 19, 1978
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-18-2011, 07:37 PM:
 
Great flick.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-20-2011, 10:28 AM:
 

Los Angeles Times, August 11, 1990


 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-20-2011, 10:40 AM:
 
I see that the ad that Mike listed for Capricorn One did not have the movies title in it. I am thinking this may have been because the title was not final or they were just trying to create curiosity.
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 05-20-2011, 12:50 PM:
 
Wow. 70MM at the small Regent?
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 05-20-2011, 01:55 PM:
 
The Titanic ad from New York is also here: http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/1998/52/titanic/images/titanic_007.jpg

Vintage ads from Denmark: http://www.biografmuseet.dk/imperial_bio/annoncer/61_74/index.htm - spot the 70mm films - some not even advertised as being "in 70mm" (Barabbas, West Side Story and Le Corsaire

great thread by the way - you are all welcome to e-mail me all the ads to be included later on Mike and Bill's GRAND "70mm Blow up list" here: http://www.in70mm.com/library/blow_up/index.htm
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-20-2011, 02:57 PM:
 
Did Jaws have 70mm prints made?
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-20-2011, 03:31 PM:
 
It was 35mm Scope in the US. And boy did it clean up at the box office!
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-20-2011, 11:28 PM:
 

quote: Darryl Spicer

---

I see that the ad that Mike listed for Capricorn One did not have the movies title in it. I am thinking this may have been because the title was not final or they were just trying to create curiosity.

---

Well, that's why it was called a "sneak preview." Back in the days when they were legit tools instead of a form of marketing.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-21-2011, 11:13 AM:
 
I guess it's a California thing then since all the sneaks I remember from the 70's that ran in our area had the title of the movie in the ad.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-21-2011, 12:55 PM:
 
Released on this day thirty-one years ago. Anyone out there brave the long lines to see it on opening day or work at one of the theaters in which it opened?


Style A. Artist: Roger Kastel. The Honolulu Advertiser, May 21, 1980.


Style B. Artist: Tom Jung. The Deseret News (Salt Lake City), July 4, 1980.


1981 re-issue. Artist: Tom Jung. Santa Barbara News-Press, July 31, 1981.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-21-2011, 02:49 PM:
 
Mike,

it was nostalgic to see the Cinerama Theatre advertisement for THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. As we both know, all of the three original three STAR WARS films played in Honolulu at the Cinerama in 70mm . Seeing the Granada Theatre advertisement also brought back memories of the time I spent in Santa Barbara when I was a student at Brooks Institute of Photography and used to frequent the theatre a lot.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-25-2011, 02:22 PM:
 
Released thirty-four years ago today...


The San Diego Union, June 2, 1978
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-25-2011, 04:09 PM:
 
I braved the line first show at the Park theater in London Ontario!It was incredible 70mm 2 & a half story screen! The Empire Struck Back!
 

---

Posted by Keri Delio (Member # 6170) on 05-25-2011, 04:12 PM:
 
Great Star Wars & Empire ads - thanks so much for posting!

Saw Empire at Prestonwood GCC on opening weekend. My mother got mad at my father & I for booing & hissing at Vader when he first came on screen. Good times!
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-26-2011, 12:54 PM:
 
Winning (years before Charlie Sheen)...


Los Angeles Times, September 27, 1984
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-27-2011, 02:37 PM:
 

The Dallas Morning News, June 27, 1986


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-28-2011, 10:43 PM:
 

Los Angeles Times, May 28, 1983
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 05-28-2011, 11:55 PM:
 
I had completely forgotten that the Highland Park Village theater had 70mm capability.
I was aware the UA Northstar 8 in Garland and the South 8 near Red Bird Mall had 70mm capability, but I can't recall either one running a 70mm print.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 05-29-2011, 12:06 PM:
 
I was over at the Cumberland 4 a while back. I saw a pretty good foreign film called Certified Copy.

I did a little observing. While each of the four cinemas uses 35mm film with a platter. All four cinemas still have their second projector sitting there which was once used via changeover.

Cinema #1 still the 70mm rollers attached. Screen size was about 25 feet.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-29-2011, 06:05 PM:
 

Los Angeles Times, December 13, 1979
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-01-2011, 10:42 PM:
 

quote: James Westbrook

---

I had completely forgotten that the Highland Park Village theater had 70mm capability.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Its sad that the TIFF Lightbox which has 70mm capability won't be playing "Tree of Life" in 70MM. They will play the movie, no word on digital or 35mm.

Some good news. West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia, and Spartucus will be avaiable during the summer in 70MM

Tiff

---

Oh there is one print of Days of Heaven that survives on 70mm, but its pink. The Krrrr festival in Europe played it.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 06-04-2011, 10:40 AM:
 
Paul, so I am guess Spartacus and West Side Story will not be DTS?
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-06-2011, 07:12 PM:
 
The lone (official) 007 movie to be shown in 70mm in the USA...


Los Angeles Times, June 9, 1983


 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 06-06-2011, 07:19 PM:
 
I though Moonraker and A View to a Kill had 70mm prints. Not in the US?
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-06-2011, 09:36 PM:
 
Beside seeing STAR WARS in 70mm at Honolulu's Cinerama Theatre, I also saw it in San Francisco at the Coronet Theatre in that format because my local theatre was showing it in 35mm at the time. The theatre was packed and the house was filthy because it looked like it was not cleaned at all during the entire day. The carpet on the floor was squishy from split soda and residue from snacks such as popcorn and candy was clearly visible. It was different at the Cinerama, The theatre always looked great at all time and I still miss that theatre very much. It was a very classy house and it always looked that way

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 06-07-2011, 06:44 AM:
 

quote: Mark Campbell

---

I though Moonraker and A View to a Kill had 70mm prints.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Paul, so I am guess Spartacus and West Side Story will not be DTS?

---

 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 06-11-2011, 03:33 PM:
 
Here is another example of a 70 print showing up after the intial run in all 35, including the original road show engagement:


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-12-2011, 09:08 PM:
 
Happy 30th, Indy!



Marin (County, CA) Independent Journal, June 12, 1981
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 06-16-2011, 06:13 PM:
 
A good article remembering the times of 70MM

web page
 

---

Posted by Paul Vollmers (Member # 927) on 06-18-2011, 07:40 PM:
 
Does anyone have, or has anyone seen a 2010: The Year We Make Contact, in 70mm 6 track stereo?
I'm looking for one of these posters in 27X41.
Please contact me.

Paul V--
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-19-2011, 04:11 PM:
 
Paul, do you mean are there 70mm prints of 2010 or are you looking for a poster with the 70mm bit on it?
 

---

Posted by Paul Vollmers (Member # 927) on 06-19-2011, 05:06 PM:
 
John,

Yes, I'm looking for a poster with the 70mm bit on it?
I have the 70mm print...and I have a standard 2010 poster with no 70mm logo.
There must be some out there.
Thanks
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-19-2011, 07:07 PM:
 
Yes, 2010 was released in 70mm and I saw it in that format at the Cinerama Theatre in Honolulu.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 06-19-2011, 07:49 PM:
 
I have been collecting posters for many years and have never seen a poster for 2010 which references 70MM.

2010 Poster Images
 

---

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 07-07-2011, 06:27 PM:
 


Copenhagen reissue "Ben-Hur" in 70mm ca. 1965
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-13-2011, 03:26 PM:
 


This confirms a post from the CDS Theatres threat about a possible CDS installation in Columbus, OH. Cinemark Movies 12 shows the film screening in a THX room with no mention of CDS. 70mm prints were shown at GCC Northland 8 and AMC Dublin Village 10 (now 18). This was the only 70mm film screened at Dublin Village.
 

---

Posted by Keri Delio (Member # 6170) on 07-22-2011, 10:29 AM:
 
Here's the 70mm GWTW ad from a Dallas Morning News Supplement Oct. 20, 1967.



Sorry I couldn't get it more flat, but the paper is old & fragile - didn't want to chance it getting torn by putting it in the scanner.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-22-2011, 12:26 PM:
 
With the fold there, Clark Gable looks like Charles Bronson.
 

---

Posted by Keri Delio (Member # 6170) on 07-28-2011, 02:32 PM:
 
^ I can totally see that hah

Just ran across this the other day & forgot I had it.
From the Dallas Morning News May 25, 1983 a nice full page ad.


 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 07-28-2011, 02:41 PM:
 
Nice hard copy Keri
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-28-2011, 02:53 PM:
 
That ad appears to confirm both the CGG Northpark and UA Prestonwood theater having THX at the time Return of the Jedi opened. Too bad both of those theaters are long gone.

quote: Jonathan M. Crist

---

I have been collecting posters for many years and have never seen a poster for 2010 which references 70MM.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

That ad appears to confirm both the CGG Northpark and UA Prestonwood theater having THX at the time Return of the Jedi opened.

---

Yes that is correct.
 

---

Posted by Keri Delio (Member # 6170) on 07-28-2011, 05:09 PM:
 
Thanks Tom. I forgot I still had it.
The only other thing I ran across was the ticket stub from GCC Northpark's showing of the Original Star Wars Trilogy in 1985, but no mention of 70mm on that.

Here's a better close up of the 70mm logo + theaters from the ad:


I also miss both the Northpark GCC & UA Prestonwood as well as the countless others theaters in the DFW area that are long gone now.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-28-2011, 06:30 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I can't remember how many theaters in New York City played [2010] in 70mm (it's been a really long time since I've seen the NY Times microfilms), but I do remember at least a few theaters running it in 70mm.

---

quote:

---

December 7 [1984]:
2010
Anamorphic Blow-Up / Six-Track Dolby Stereo
MGM-UA
“The Year We Make Contact”

Bronx: [Redstone] Whitestone Multiplex
Levittown: [Loews] Nassau Six
Manhattan: [Loews] 34th Street Showplace
Manhattan: [Loews] Astor Plaza
Manhattan: [Loews] New York Twin
Paramus: [RKO Century] Route 17 Triplex
Queens: [UA] Continental Triplex
Sayreville: [Redstone] Amboy Multiplex
Secaucus: [Loews] Meadow Six
Stamford: [Trans-Lux] Ridgeway
Trumbull: [Trans-Lux] Cinema
Valley Stream: [Redstone] Sunrise Multiplex
Wayne: [Loews] Wayne Six
Yonkers: [GCC] Central Plaza Twin

---

quote: Keri Delio

---

The only other thing I ran across was the ticket stub from GCC Northpark's showing of the Original Star Wars Trilogy in 1985, but no mention of 70mm on that.

---

It was.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-29-2011, 02:16 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Keri Delio (Member # 6170) on 07-29-2011, 02:52 PM:
 
Right, I knew the Trilogy was presented in 70mm in 1985, it just doesn't mention that on the ticket stubs I have is all. So that's why I didn't post a pic of the stubs in this thread.

Very nice poster btw! I'm Jealous!!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-29-2011, 03:07 PM:
 
It's interesting that "first time in America" screening of all three Star Wars movies together in THX 70mm Dolby mag took place at the Northpark theater in Dallas. I would have figured any such first time screening event would have happened in Los Angeles.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-29-2011, 03:20 PM:
 
Bobby... That triple feature event took place simultaneously in eight cities, including Los Angeles. The promotional material was customized for each theater. I posted the Northpark poster because the Northpark was being discussed in the last few comments.
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 07-29-2011, 03:22 PM:
 
It happened in Seattle at the UA 150
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-29-2011, 03:28 PM:
 
I thought it didn't make any sense for such a thing only to play at Northpark, although that would have been perhaps my top choice for seeing such a show.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-29-2011, 03:39 PM:
 
Since some of you are bound to ask...

STAR WARS TRIPLE FEATURE, March 28, 1985

Chicago - [Plitt] Carnegie
Dallas - [GCC] Northpark I & II
Denver - [Commonwealth] Continental
Los Angeles - [GCC] Avco Center
Los Angeles - [UA] Egyptian I-II-III
New York - [RKO Century] Warner Twin
San Francisco - [UA] Coronet
Seattle - [UA] Cinema 150
Toronto - [Famous Players] Uptown

If you want to get really technical, the 1985 event was not the first time the triple feature had been screened publicly. In 1984, it was screened at the Cinesphere in Toronto as part of a two-day charity event. And before that, it was screened at a sci-fi convention.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-30-2011, 12:55 AM:
 
I was only a few years old on that day.

Damn, wish I would have been old enough to experience such a momentous event. I'd love to hear about first hand experiences from those screenings.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-30-2011, 02:42 PM:
 
The 1985 "Star Wars 70mm Triple Feature" event reportedly used newly-struck prints for the original Star Wars and extant prints for Empire and Jedi.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-30-2011, 04:34 PM:
 
I wonder if those prints survive somewhere today...

AJG
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 08-01-2011, 01:50 PM:
 
Those prints are locked away in George's secret vault so that the public will never see those nasty non-"Special" Editions again!
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-01-2011, 05:12 PM:
 

The New York Times, July 6, 1977
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-01-2011, 05:40 PM:
 
Are you sure it was 1985 or were the 1985 shows just exclusive 70mm screenings?

I first ran the Star Wars Triple Feature (in 35mm) at the Mackay City Cinema over a year earlier on Sunday February 12th, 1984. I ran it there again Sunday April 8th, 1984. Then it moved to the drive-ins and screened at the Grove Drive-In Friday May 18th, 1984 and one last time at the Westline Drive-In on Thursday June 28th, 1984.

Good times.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-01-2011, 09:00 PM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

Are you sure it was 1985 or were the 1985 shows just exclusive 70mm screenings?

---

quote: John Wilson

---

I first ran the Star Wars Triple Feature...over a year earlier

---

quote: John Wilson

---

I first ran the Star Wars Triple Feature (in 35mm) at the Mackay City Cinema over a year earlier on Sunday February 12th, 1984. I ran it there again Sunday April 8th, 1984. Then it moved to the drive-ins and screened at the Grove Drive-In Friday May 18th, 1984 and one last time at the Westline Drive-In on Thursday June 28th, 1984.

---

That's interesting, John, as those screenings all predate even the convention screening I mentioned a few posts ago. (It was September 2, 1984; World Science Fiction Convention, Los Angeles.) Let me check the old SW Fan Club newsletters (which is where I first heard about the US/Canada triple feature screening) and the Star Wars Year By Year Chronicle book and see what they have to say about all of this.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-02-2011, 03:52 PM:
 
The February 12th, 1984 show was from memory the first time it had been done here. As a result I managed to get the manager to agree to nothing but the movies on screen.

No trailers.

No film ads.

Just Star Wars IV, V AND VI.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 08-02-2011, 11:27 PM:
 
I don't recall what year it was, but the Trilogy was showcased at the AFI (Kennedy Center) here in Washington DC
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-14-2011, 09:58 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 08-26-2011, 11:52 PM:
 
Samsara" to Premiere in Canada, September 11, 2011

Indeed, it has been a long wait for many, including the director Ron Fricke, who sent an outline of "Samsara" to in70mm.com/The 70mm Newsletter not long after the release of "Baraka" - nearly 20 years ago.

The 70mm fans will be probably be disappointed to learn that no 70mm prints have been planned - yet. The premiere in Canada will be a state-of-the-art high-end 4K digital presentation, with full uncompressed 6-track digital sound.

Samsara

Really, really sad because Tiff has a 70mm house.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-27-2011, 01:42 AM:
 
That sucks because with today's filmstocks and lensing (and the fact it was shot in 65mm) a 70mm print would have been more impressive than any 70mm print in history.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 08-27-2011, 04:16 PM:
 
Add that the Tiff Cinema #1 is state of the art and an outstanding venue with some of the best equipment and well-trained projectionists.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-27-2011, 04:20 PM:
 
Your previous comment is absolutely ridiculous.

EVERYTHING these days is "state of the art". That is the most overused and stupid phrase that exists.

Best equipment is difficult to quantify because of so many opinions. I'll give you an example, I detest Simplex soundheads, but others think they are god's gift to film. (Others are wrong, as the "dirt embedder roller" causes film wear. Just because it takes a number of passes to see the damage doesn't mean it isn't happening.)

Well-trained projectionists doesn't mean anything. For every "good" projectionist there are thousands that suck. Just because you saw a good show doesn't mean that projectionist really knew what he/she was doing. In fact they could have been damaging the print. Fortunately there IS a way to determine who is a good projectionist. The test of a good projectionist is if a he/she can run the same print hundreds of times without ANY perceptible wear or dirt buildup. I only know maybe a couple dozen such projectionists.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 08-27-2011, 04:23 PM:
 
I disagree Brad.

Go to a few cinemas in the GTA. And they have cut a lot of corners.

Cineplex Odeon is nortorious for "NEW" building theatres that cut the corners. Screens way too big for the theatres, seats that do not point to the centre of the screen, lobby noise that enters the theatre etc etc.

The Tiff #1 is not a true stadium seating theatre, its screen is not oversized, the theatre actually has a balcony, and the presentation is second to none in Toronto.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-27-2011, 04:24 PM:
 
Another ridiculous comment!

Just because there are theaters in GTA that are horrible doesn't automatically make a decent theater spectacular.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 08-27-2011, 04:26 PM:
 
Brad - Are you saying Tiff #1 is just decent?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-27-2011, 04:27 PM:
 
I don't know, I've never been there. I am simply pointing out that your statement is ridiculous. Judging by your post history and the fact you have no knowledge in proper projection, I certainly wouldn't take your word for it.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 08-27-2011, 04:29 PM:
 
That's fine Brad. I don't take any offence to what you are saying.

The Tiff #1 is by far the best screening cinema in the entire Greater Toronto Area. No other theatre comes close.

And I am not sure if you are familiar with Cineplex Odeon?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-27-2011, 04:29 PM:
 
Have you visited every venue in GTA?
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 08-27-2011, 04:30 PM:
 
I have been to most new builds in the GTA.

If they are Cineplex, they are ALL identical.

Are you familiar with Cineplex at all?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-27-2011, 04:31 PM:
 
Then your statement should read:

quote:

---

The Tiff #1 is in my opinion for all of the theaters I have been to, by far the best screening cinema in the entire Greater Toronto Area. No other theatre comes close.

---

Now go eat a sack of fries at Five Guys.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 08-27-2011, 04:33 PM:
 
Brad - I am curious if you are familiar with GTA theatres? Theatres in Canada are not like the ones in the USA.

Just a thought of how crap theatres in Toronto area are. We have not one single THX Certified theatre in the GTA, the surrounding area, lower golden horseshoe, and actually the province of Ontario. The Empire 10 in Mississauga is a mistake and is not a THX theatre anymore.

The AMC 24 in downtown Toronto is good and brand new but nothing special to go make a trip there.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-27-2011, 07:55 PM:
 
This is the year 2011. There are barely any THX theaters anywhere.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 08-27-2011, 08:03 PM:
 
Tom,

Unless there is an independent cinema in Canada that is still certified, I'm pretty sure there are none under the Cineplex name anymore. The certifications were released when Famous Players was sold.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-27-2011, 08:14 PM:
 
Is The Tiff THX?
 

---

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 08-27-2011, 08:19 PM:
 
The Lightbox is not approved. The only cinema in Toronto that is according to THX's website is the Empire Studio 10 Square One.
 

---

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 08-27-2011, 09:04 PM:
 
I don't know what's sadder about Samsara's premiere. The fact it won't be shown in 70mm or the date of the premiere.

That being said, let's hope for special 70mm prints in the future!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-27-2011, 09:42 PM:
 
Well if it isn't approved, it must be crap, right Tom?
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 08-27-2011, 10:29 PM:
 

quote: Ron Lacheur

---

The only cinema in Toronto that is according to THX's website is the Empire Studio 10 Square One.

---

quote:

---

Well if it isn't approved, it must be crap, right Tom? [Razz]

---

Brad- In Canada we no exhibitor competition. We used to, we used to have Cinepex and Famous Players. Famous Players always had the best theatres. When Cinplex bought Famous, they also bought Galaxy Cinemas. The Canadian Government forced Cineplex to sell off a percent of their market share.

Empire bought the theatres that were not performing well and will never perform well. They bought into the market of Ontario. When Cineplex bought Famous, they sold their current (newer THX at the time Square One) theatre to Empire and kept the older Famous Players across the street that always gets the first run movies.

So now, what do we have. We have all kinds of second class cinemas owned by Empire and Rainbow Cinemas. The Famous Players megeplexes are aging into 15 year range, and the Cineplex theatres are getting close to 10 years.

Cineplex owns 70 percent of the market share in Canada. AMC does not really compete.

The chains in Canada suck! Cinplex has terrible presentation, horrible line-ups, and unbelieveable market share. If you want to go see a movie, it pretty much is Cineplex Entertainment or second class cinemas. I should mention that Empire is dominant in the Eastern part of Canada where Cineplex is a minor player.

The Bell Ligthbox (even though are not doing well) has by far the best theatres, Union projectionists, and seem to care about movies and the presentation that goes with them.

The only interesting thing going on in the GTA is that AMC/Empire like IMAX Digital while Famous is still using 15/70 which was all acquired long before Cineplex took them over.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-27-2011, 11:54 PM:
 
Tom - you no live Canada move.
 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 08-28-2011, 12:16 AM:
 
Tom -

For the record, the actual Canadian market share for the past 12 months is:

Cineplex - 65.28%
Empire - 13.05%
AMC - 6.12%
Guzzo - 2.79%
Landmark - 2.32%
All Others - 10.44%

Surprisingly, your 70% figure is close to accurate. Was that a guess?
 

---

Posted by Keri Delio (Member # 6170) on 08-28-2011, 12:20 AM:
 
Could we get back on topic or do ya'll enjoy pointless bickering this much?
 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 08-28-2011, 12:21 AM:
 
I think people ran out of 70mm ads to post (there's certainly not 30+ pages worth)!

And, in the spirit of pointless bickering, technically, the proper vernacular for the improper phrase is y'all, as in "you all". The apostrophe takes the place of the missing letters, in this case the "ou ".
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-28-2011, 12:40 AM:
 
I kinda enjoy the bickering, but here's an attempt to get this thing back on topic.


Los Angeles Times, 12.02.1984


Los Angeles Times, 12.06.1984
 

---

Posted by Keri Delio (Member # 6170) on 08-28-2011, 12:42 AM:
 
Congratulations, you win. I'm out.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-28-2011, 12:48 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-28-2011, 12:52 AM:
 
Maybe the Gill Sans Ultra lettering in that ad did the trick. At least it wasn't Trajan. Or that weird lettering in that Mary Poppins poster you put on Facebook.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-28-2011, 02:03 AM:
 

quote: Mike Spaeth

---

And, in the spirit of pointless bickering, technically, the proper vernacular for the improper phrase is y'all, as in "you all". The apostrophe takes the place of the missing letters, in this case the "ou ".

---

Slycord is rubbing off on people.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-28-2011, 02:21 AM:
 

Marin Independent Journal, 06.12.1981


Cedar Rapids Gazette, 05.23.1984


Savannah Morning News, 05.24.1989
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-28-2011, 02:32 AM:
 

quote: Indiana Jones 3 poster from previous page

---

Play the Indy game
Win exciting prizes
$2.50/call

---

Really???
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-28-2011, 02:09 PM:
 

Houston Chronicle, 12.14.1977

And here's a close-up view of the section detailing the Loews Town and Country Village, which I'm posting as evidence of the theater's existence circa 1977. I recall a film-tech member from the Houston area (Chris Slycord?) in a thread a few years ago thinking this place didn't exist in 1977.


 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-24-2011, 10:29 PM:
 
A heartwarming 70MM story...sorry, it won't let right-click to copy and paste.



A beautiful soundtrack
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-25-2011, 05:03 AM:
 
Nice product placement.

quote:

---

By Joshua Dixon, Staff Writer
Redwood Gazette
Posted Dec 22, 2011 @ 10:54 AM
Print Comment
Redwood Falls, Minn. —


If you get the Blu-Ray HDTV disk of Walt Disney’s Sleeping Beauty for Christmas, take a moment to appreciate the fine surround sound coming from your home theater’s speakers.
Then take a moment to thank Redwood’s Scott Balko for the small part he played in helping restore the sound.
About a dozen years ago, Balko decided a big-screen TV wasn’t enough for him. He wanted to see movies the way they were meant to be seen.
Having an empty barn available on his rural Redwood Falls farm, he did what anyone would do — salvaged several 35mm movie projectors from actual movie theaters, then built his own, professional quality movie theater.
With theaters today rapidly making the switch to digital projection, film projectors are becoming obsolete. Balko estimates movie studios will stop sending out actual film prints within a few years.
“Film projectors that cost $400,000 just a few years ago are basically selling for scrap today,” he said.
That’s good news for collectors such as himself. Balko was able to pick up a combination 35mm-70mm movie projector a few years ago for basically the cost of showing up and carting it home.
Getting prints for it, though, was a bit of a legal gray area. Legally, movie prints belong to the studio that paid for them.
Nevertheless, it turns out there’s a whole network of collectors who trade actual theatrical movie prints they way other people trade baseball cards.
“The studios know we collectors are out there, but they don’t make a fuss as long as we’re not abusing the copywrite and showing the movies for profit,” Balko said.
“We’re actually an important resource for the studios. If they lose a movie from their archives, they might need us collectors to provide them with a copy of it later.”
Within a few years, Balko built up a collection of several dozen 35mm movies, mostly action films and comedies.
Meanwhile, out in Hollywood several years ago, Disney decided to release their 1959 movie Sleeping Beauty on Blu-Ray, and went all out on restoring it.
For the picture, the original camera negative was scanned at high resolution, and the original sound recordings were cleaned up to the latest technical standards.
However, one detail was off.
Sleeping Beauty was the first animated movie released in the 70mm film format, which meant it should have had six separate tracks for sound.
However, Disney’s records said the sound was only mixed for four tracks, which didn’t strike the technicians as right.
Disney put out a call to movie print collectors of the world: did anyone have an original 1959 70mm print of Sleeping Beauty?
As it happened, Balko had one in his barn. Several years ago he traded one of his old movies for it, just on a whim.
After checking with several trusted sources to see if the call-out was legit, Balko contacted Disney.
At their okay, he shipped a reel of the movie — all 50 or so pounds of it — to Palmdale, California for six weeks.
The Disney sound technicians put the print on their own projectors, and discovered their records were correct — the sound was mixed for four channels, with the extra ones on the 70mm print just repeating others.
Was Balko nervous that Disney might not send the print back, considering that, technically speaking, it’s theirs anyway?
“No, I wasn’t worried,” he said. “You’re not supposed to own these things, so they could have kept it, but they sent it back without any problem.”
The final Blu-Ray disk lets you choose between two sound tracks: a new, seven-track version mixed for today’s home theaters, or a four track version mixed to match Balko’s.
The biggest irony in all this?
“I still haven’t seen Sleeping Beauty. I’ve never even seen it on TV,” Balko laughed.
“The magnetic sound tracks are pretty fragile, and I’m afraid if I run them through my projector, I’ll damage them. And at this point, they’re irreplaceable.”
Balko adds, “I hear it’s a pretty good movie, though.”

---

 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 04-14-2012, 01:23 PM:
 
Samsara finally has a distributor and will be released theatrically this August. Still no word if any 70mm prints will be struck.

http://www.spiritofbaraka.com/samsara
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-14-2012, 01:47 PM:
 
70MM prints would be great but it seems 4k is considered good enough.
It looks like 35mm is not even being considered!
 

---

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 05-11-2013, 10:35 AM:
 

It has been 391 days since the last post.

 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-11-2013, 10:35 AM:
 

The (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star, Sep. 30, 1983
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-11-2013, 04:58 PM:
 
BRAINSTORM played at the Waikiki #3 in 70mm and I enjoyed the movie very much. I wonder how much better the movie would have been if Natalie Wood did not die in a drowning accident and lived to finish playing her part in the film.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-15-2013, 06:30 AM:
 
We need more 7Omm ads for 'Return Of The Jedi' for its 30th Anniversary.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 05-15-2013, 08:39 AM:
 
Did any "Revenge" ads ever make it out of the gate? Or did the change happen enough ahead of time.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-15-2013, 08:52 AM:
 
I have a large insert from Variety that has nice pictures of the first two movie posters, then it folds out about 3' long with the words REVENGE OF THE JEDI. That was quite a bit before the release, though.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-15-2013, 08:55 AM:
 
There are "Revenge" trailers and one sheets, but I have never seen an ad. I suspect that if they exist, they would have only been run in trade publications such as Variety or Boxoffice.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-15-2013, 06:16 PM:
 
Just too bad that the Star Wars cycle released in 70mm were blow-ups from the 35mm negatives.

One could easily tell due to the grain issues in the presentation and the sound mix was plain 5.1 and not 7.1 as with 70mm.

The same with the first two Indy Jones series.

Outside of these quirks, the 70mm presentation was much better, and using carbon arc as the light source.

I did see "Ryan's Daughter" in 70mm and one can definitely tell that this release was not a blowup from a 35mm negative. No digital in present form can touch the presentation of this film on how excellent it looked on the screen.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-15-2013, 10:26 PM:
 
I also saw RYAN 'S DAUGHTER IN 70mm at The Kuhio Theatre in Honolulu, Monte. I agree with you. the picture was surpurb!

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-25-2013, 10:43 AM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

We need more 7Omm ads for 'Return Of The Jedi' for its 30th Anniversary.

---

Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1983


The Dallas Morning News, May 27, 1983


The (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star, June 3, 1983


The Honolulu Advertiser, June 23, 1983
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-25-2013, 06:47 PM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Just too bad that the Star Wars cycle released in 70mm were blow-ups from the 35mm negatives.

One could easily tell due to the grain issues in the presentation and the sound mix was plain 5.1 and not 7.1 as with 70mm.

--Emphasis added.

---

Really?

7.1 on 70mm?

Tell me more.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-26-2013, 07:05 PM:
 
Thanks Michael.

 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 05-26-2013, 08:20 PM:
 
Jedi in 70mm: something very few if anyone will ever witness again. How sad.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-27-2013, 12:01 AM:
 
Whoops .. sorry Manny .. got stuck with CP750's in my mind - be six channel for 70mm.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jedi in 70mm: something very few if anyone will ever witness again. How sad

---

How sad was it was like watching 35mm - just a poor blowup of sorts.

Now, "Alien" was worth seeing in 70mm!
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-28-2013, 03:26 AM:
 
I don't buy the complaint about the grain.

Yes, the 35mm image gets enlarged to 70mm. But, so what?

If we compare "apples to apples," this should not really be an issue in theaters where the screen size was comparable for both formats. In such a cases, the 70mm image would require less magnification which, I think, is preferable.

Additionally:

The larger aperture lets more light through.

Pin registration yields a steadier image.

The larger frame means positive dirt particles appear smaller on-screen.

I'm surprised nobody has whined about the cropping required to reduce a 35mm 2.39 (or 2.35) image down to the 70mm 2.20AR.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 05-28-2013, 07:06 AM:
 
"Pin registration yields a steadier image."

Possibly because in the day, 70mm teeth were cut to fit the 70mm sprocket holes whereas 35mm teeth were generally cut for Fox sprockets; but more often ran standard sized perfs.

I remember that 70mm was rock solid on the screen as was also 4-track mag (Fox sprockets), but standard 35mm was not always so. Increasing gate tension sometimes helped.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-28-2013, 08:30 AM:
 
Maybe it was a just a limitation with 35mm release print stocks and printing technology in the late 1980's and early 1990's, but I have noticed those prints looked noticeably muted in terms of color compared to a 70mm blow-up of the same movie.

For example, I watched Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade in 70mm Dolby SR mag at Loews Astor Plaza and again in 35mm Dolby optical at a multiplex on Staten Island. The blow-up print had considerably richer color than the 35mm print. The theater showing it in 35mm had it projected at a properly bright level, but the image still looked kind of washed out.

And, yes, 5-perf 70mm projection is noticeably brighter and more steady than 4-perf 35mm. I have often complained about stadium seated theaters boasting giant screens equipped with only 35mm when they should have used 70mm. With everything going digital the point seems moot now, except for the fact 70mm does have the capability of showing quite a bit more image detail than 2K or 4K can display (not to mention better color and much deeper black levels).
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-02-2013, 12:17 PM:
 

Tucson Citizen, June 15, 1990


Tucson Citizen, June 15, 1990
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-03-2013, 01:38 AM:
 
Mike,

We get it -- El Con advertised 70mm.

Give it a rest! Brad's got other things to do besides lock F-T threads.

LOL
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-03-2013, 02:22 AM:
 
Manny, please don't be the "insensitive prick" you are famous for. Best to stick with blue things.
 

---

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 08-03-2013, 04:42 AM:
 
The Newport ad posted on 2/10/11 - that's great! It's where I saw SW. It ran in the big house, with, I believe, Annie Hall running in the small house. Just sent a copy of the ad to a guy who ran relief there at the time. I'm sure he'll appreciate it.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-03-2013, 09:08 AM:
 
The blow ups were a mixed bag but on balance...they were a net positive for most features it was done to (not all, for sure). The 70mm print runs were much shorter than 35mm and were more hand done. Due the cost of them, and that there were multiple chances for screw ups (have to be printed, striped, degaussed, sounded) they were checked better than the average 35mm release. So, depending on the lab doing the 70mm printing, you were going to get a better printing job than the typical 35mm release.

Then there are the projection aspects. The hardest part of the film process is the projection. It has to be done in real time, naturally, you have a light source that is trying to deform the film while it is being projected...the light source is interrupted and thus pumps the film and you have wear/tear on the equipment. By using the larger format, you are reducing the magnification of all of these things by at least 3-fold. You are distributing the same light/heat over a larger area too. So are are going to start with a steadier, sharper image, just from the projector aspect itself.

The biggest "hit" that comes with a blow up to 70mm is the optical process itself. It is an extra step and it will typically reduce contrast some and you are dependent on the optical qualities of the printer. But this "projector" is in a much more friendly environment than a movie theatre.

So the net result is that 70mm blow ups almost (but not always) look better than the 35mm release print of the same title. For theatres like the Uptown in DC, they were pretty much essential for superior presentations. The flaws in 35mm prints just get magnified all out of proportion. That and the Cinerama screen gave 35mm such a narrow window for a decent looking image.

Yes a 65mm negative to a 70mm print is better (it is starting with a larger negative and there isn't the extra optical process) but that does not discount the real benefits the 70mm blow ups offered to many theatres.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-05-2013, 12:10 AM:
 

Tucson Citizen, May 22, 1992


Tucson Citizen, June 15, 1990


Tucson Citizen, May 22, 1992
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-06-2013, 09:11 AM:
 

Tucson Citizen, May 23, 1984


Tucson Citizen, May 16, 1986
 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 08-09-2013, 03:19 PM:
 
Mike do you have any newspaper ads that featured Cinema Digital Sound?
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-09-2013, 03:37 PM:
 
Sean... Bobby and I both posted CDS-70mm ads in this thread for "Dick Tracy" on Page 4 and "Edward Scissorhands" on Page 6.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-11-2013, 10:16 AM:
 

Tucson Citizen, May 24, 1989
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-11-2013, 04:38 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 08-11-2013, 08:26 PM:
 


This is 70mm at a neighborhood theatre in 1962. This theatre also ran Can-Can in 70mm.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-11-2013, 11:28 PM:
 


Grease II
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-12-2013, 09:13 AM:
 
Terry, why are you taking photographs of ads displayed on a computer screen when a far better & faster method is available?

It's basic computer knowledge territory. Use the computer's print screen function to copy the image on the computer screen to the clipboard. Open a pixel-based image editing application. Paste the contents of the clipboard into a new file. Crop or re-size down to the 800 pixel width limits of this forum and save the end result as a JPEG image.

The camera shots of the computer screen look terrible. They're totally screwed up with moire. A bunch of the text is muddy -that could be caused by any number of things (a low resolution computer monitor, how the application displaying the ad is rendering it on screen, the zoom level in the application, etc.).

In general, taking camera photos of ads should be a last resort when better methods are not available. Printed ads should be scanned with a flatbed scanner if possible. Electronic ads should be "acquired" using image downloads or screen grabs (or making stitched images from multiple screen grabs).

Mike was having to take camera photos of his most recently submitted ads, but only because the microfilm reading machine's integrated printer was broken. He would have scanned the images otherwise. Nevertheless, his camera shots (fuzzy as they were) looked a little better than yours because he was taking photos of an analog display projecting a film strip. There's no pixel grid to mess up the image with moire.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-12-2013, 03:43 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 08-13-2013, 03:17 PM:
 
*looking at the Grease 2 ad*
I realize this was all in the guise of marketing at the time, and not all that much has changed now, but who in their right mind would want to READ a paperback book of a MUSICAL?
I am sure some people did, but...
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-14-2013, 11:53 AM:
 
Here are full scans (for a different city) of the two cropped, computer-displayed ads recently posted by Terry.


Los Angeles Times, July 7, 1985


Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1982
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-14-2013, 11:57 AM:
 
GREASE 2 is one of my guilty pleasures. It really earned that 70mm release.
 

---

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 08-04-2015, 05:09 PM:
 

It has been 720 days since the last post.

 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-04-2015, 05:09 PM:
 

Augusta Chronicle, March 1967
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-03-2015, 01:09 PM:
 

Tucson Daily Citizen, May 29, 1969
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-04-2015, 05:39 PM:
 
This is probably a question best asked of Michael Coate and his incredible desire to get the facts right with everything he researches, but on a situation like Last Crusade, does anyone know (at this point I'm going to guess no) how many SR prints were made as opposed to A prints? I wonder if all of the prints were SR and only a few theaters properly decoded the SR noise reduction, or if it was dual inventory (most likely) and if so, I wonder how many "A" equipped theaters got SR prints due to miscommunication during the booking process.

Here is an example (Bobby's scan from page 2):


 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-05-2015, 10:16 AM:
 
Wow, that Indiana ad is a blast from the past. Of the 38 NJ theatres listed, only around 14 or so still exist.

The Paramus Tenplex was the "go to" place for 70mm when I was growing up. One of the last single screen movie palaces built, in the mid 1960's. Originally known as the Stanley Warner, a single screen art deco 2000 seat theatre with a huge screen. When the the multiplexing craze hit in the late 1970's, they build a whole new building next to it for the second screen and named it the Route 4 Cinema. A small 600 seat theatre, it did have a magnificent waterfall curtain and was also 70mm equipped. Eventually the buildings were combined and expanded, and the original theatre was cut up into 5 small theatres, making for the 10plex. It is now a health club.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-05-2015, 05:06 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

On a situation like Last Crusade, does anyone know how many SR prints were made?

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

CALIFORNIA
Corte Madera – Cinerama CINEMA
Los Angeles – Mann CHINESE TRIPLEX
Los Angeles – Mann NATIONAL

NEW YORK
New York – Loews 34TH STREET SHOWPLACE TRIPLEX
New York – Loews ASTOR PLAZA

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

1989
Back to the Future 2
Black Rain
Born on 4th of July
Glory
Indy Jones/Last Crusade
Star Trek 5

---

quote: Thomas Hauerslev

---

All 70mm films in Dolby A / Dolby SR

http://www.in70mm.com/library/process/dolby/index.htm

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Innerspace
The Presidio
Back to the Future 2
Back to the Future 3
Air America
Die Hard 2
Lethal Weapon 3

---

quote: Paul Linfesty

---

And were all 5 ["Indiana Jones"] 70mm SR prints in the split surround format?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

That's a fantastic article on Crusade.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Do you by chance happen to have any info on the SR quantities of the above list?

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

"My Fair Lady" restoration (Bob Harris) was a magnetic SR release

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

I can confirm My Fair Lady absolutely had at least 1 mag print. Don't recall if it was A or SR though.

---

There were at least four 70mm prints struck for North America for the 1994 restoration/re-release of "My Fair Lady." Sound format according to restoration producer Bob Harris was A (with split surrounds). Newspaper advertising I've seen corroborates the Dolby A claim.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-08-2015, 04:31 PM:
 
I'm reasonably certain that it was SR though I'm sure we wouldn't have advertised that anymore than we did for Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm SR. I absolutely HATED the "restored" My Fair Lady 70mm mix...they took the original panned dialog and put LC into L and RC into R...it sounded down right silly at the Uptown...ones voice only matched up if they were in the center or on the opposite sides of the screen.

Did Bob actually note that the release prints were A and not SR or just there wasn't notation about being SR?
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-08-2015, 06:14 PM:
 
Steve.... When I asked Bob about the 70mm sound formats of his restorations (in 1999 while conducting research for a 70mm-themed magazine article), he stated "Lawrence" and "Spartacus" were SR and that "My Fair Lady" was A. (And "Vertigo" was DTS.)
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-26-2016, 01:41 PM:
 
Here are a few more 70mm newspaper ads for the Tucson naysayers....
















 

---

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 08-07-2017, 04:19 PM:
 

It has been 468 days since the last post.

 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-07-2017, 04:19 PM:
 
70mm prints were aplenty in '82! Here's what the Hollywood zone of L.A. looked like during the final week of June of that year.






 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-07-2017, 11:06 PM:
 
I saw all the films at the Hollywood theatres listed in Michael's post that June, with the exception of The Road Warrior, which I had seen at the Vogue in 70mm before it moved over to the Fox. Annie was the worst quality of the 70mm blow-ups. VERY grainy. A 35mm preview of Secret of Nimh showed first. Rocky III was blown up to full width from it's 1.85 35mm version. 35mm previews were shown before Rocky III started, with no curtain calls between them, just an opening up of masking. Star Trek II had a 70mm preview of World According to Garp and this time the curtains closed between preview and feature. E.T. ran a preview of The Thing (can't remember if it was 70 or not). I do remember the screen masking being open full for ET, event though it was 1.85). I THINK The Thing was preceeded with a preview of Best Little Whorehouse at the Pacific, even though the film ended up at the Paramount. A 35mm preview of the 3-D "thriller" Parasite unspooled before Poltergeist. (Parasite was being cross-promoted at SRO's Holly Theatre). There was a second preview with Poltergeist. I no longer remember what it was. Blade Runner and Firefox had no previews. when I got to the Vogue for Firefox, I noticed the typed schedule backtimed the previews by 10 minutes: example: advertised time for the movie was when the feature started, when the previews started 10 minutes earlier. Except there were no previews. The manager (managers back in those days tore the tickets for their guests) told me there were no previews because you couldn't show them when you were showing 70mm movies.
 

---