35 and 70 mm licorice pizza

[Jim Cassedy]

I spotted these "Licorice Pizzas" in a candy
store near Chinatown over the weekend.

70mmCandy.jpg
(OK, so maybe these 'gummi' pizzas are technically,
not exactly licorice, but ironically, they ARE 70mm! )

[Mark Ogden]

Licorice Pizza was actually a chain of record shops in Southern California, many years ago. There was one on Sunset near Tower Records, I remember. I dropped much money in both.


lp.jpeg

As far as the film goes, NYC will have two 70mm shows. The Village East will have it after all, and the AMC Lincoln Square. I won't go to the East for the reasons stated above, as well as their infuriating bullshit $4.00 70mm surcharge from which I spit upon (patooie!).

[Jim Cassedy]

Also, in the NYC area Mark, it's my understanding that the new Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn will be doing 70mm too.

[Martin Brooks]

Also, in the NYC area Mark, it's my understanding that the new Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn will be doing 70mm too.

Yes, Screen 7, but it's not "new". The Lower Manhattan branch is recently opened. The Brooklyn theater opened over five years ago.

As far as the film goes, NYC will have two 70mm shows. The Village East will have it after all, and the AMC Lincoln Square. I won't go to the East for the reasons stated above, as well as their infuriating bullshit $4.00 70mm surcharge from which I spit upon (patooie!).

Forget that it's a surcharge. It's still less expensive than the Alamo Drafthouse. It's $20 at the Village East and $23.50 at Alamo (although "only" $18 at the AMC Lincoln Square). Besides, is the surcharge really any different than the higher priced tickets for 3D, IMAX and Dolby Vision? The AMC Lincoln Square is currently charging (for a nighttime show), $27 for IMAX, $28 for Dolby Vision and $18 for "regular" Digital movies. (I didn't realize that IMAX and Dolby had gotten so expensive. If I see one Dolby or IMAX film a month, I more than break even on my AMC Stubs fixed monthly subscription.)

---
And for those who might think that all of these prices are outrageous (I think NYC is the most expensive market for movies), I remember NYC movie tickets going to $10 during the Koch administration because he complained about it. His last year in office was 1989. I don't remember when he complained, but if we assume it was around 1986, $10 then is $25.26 in today's dollars. Since the pandemic, AMC does offer a 30% discount during the day. Most NYC chain movie theaters never before did that, but I think it's a good idea to get some patrons into those seats during the day. Having said that, the-numbers.com still maintains that nationally, the average movie ticket today is priced at $9.16.

[Bobby Henderson]

I remember NYC movie tickets going to $10 during the Koch administration because he complained about it. His last year in office was 1989.

Actually Ed Koch went ballistic about movie theater ticket prices in NYC when they eclipsed the $7 mark. I remember the local media spectacle about it back in the late 1980's during my college days there. I can't remember for certain, but by the time I left NYC in 1991 some theaters might have gone past the $8 mark. I'm pretty sure most were still below that.

Back then there was no extra surcharge to see a movie in 70mm versus watching it in 35mm, even at a multiplex theater showing the movie on both 70mm and 35mm in two different auditoriums.

I can't remember off hand how much of a surcharge I paid to see The Hateful Eight in 70mm. IIRC, it was substantially above the usual $3-$4 surcharge that is typical of IMAX Digital, Real-D, Dolby Cinema, etc. I'll have to find my ticket stub, but I'm pretty sure it was around $20, which is freaking expensive for Oklahoma City.

[Martin Brooks]

I saw Licorice Pizza in 70mm at the AMC Lincoln Square in Manhattan (Screen #2 - "Kings"). I think there was a digital intermediate. The credits gave a callout to those who produced the DI. And the film looked more like digital noise than grain to me or the film grain was turned into digital artifacts. Frankly, I don't think it looked all that great. I don't think anyone would have been able to perceive the difference if it had been presented in 35mm and obviously the DTS soundtrack (which had quite high fidelity) could have been accomplished in 35mm as well.

The print was clean - no dust or dirt. I noticed only one quick scratch early on. But the overall image was soft. contrast was low and it was dimmer than I would have expected, but it's been a long time since I saw a movie projected on film. In addition, there was some jump on the titles, so there appeared to be a projection issue (sync on the shutter?). There was nothing particularly beautiful about the cinematography in this movie and I think it actually might have looked better digitally.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Thanks for your review Martin. It essentially cemented my expectations. The 70mm format is a valuable, but very expensive tool, to be used when it actually adds something to the experience. While I hope we can preserve the 70mm format for future releases, that doesn't mean we should just release any odd production to 70mm, just to please the ego of the director.

[Steve Guttag]

If one is going to release a movie on film, I can see using 70mm as medium, even if a blow-up as it would further entice those interested in the film experience. The film release was going to be a small one, regardless of 35 or 70mm and using 70mm is going to entice more people to venture into the film theatre. Do we know if the film prints came from the DI or was a DI generated for the DCP release?

[Marcel Birgelen]

Why release something on 70mm if the quality isn't anything better than your average digital presentation? The only result I can see is disappointment. It can even damage the reputation of the format as a superior experience in quality.

According to IMDB, the DI is the master:

Cinematographic Process

Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format) Panavision (anamorphic) (source format)

[Bobby Henderson]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of digital-based master being output to film unless there is something special involved, such as the DI being produced and rendered at a quality level well above the 2K and 4K resolution levels of d-cinema projectors. I really don't like those odd productions where they shoot some or all the movie on 5/65mm, but then run it thru a DI stage at a standard resolution and then (maybe) output it on 70mm. Why even bother shooting the movie on 5/65mm versus shooting it digitally?

If the movie had a native 8K digital intermediate and then was laser recorded to 65mm or 70mm at that resolution then I might be excited to see a 70mm print of that. The 70mm print would then have something that couldn't be matched by digital projectors. I can't get very excited at all about a movie whose final product is a 2K or 4K DI that is output to film. I might as well just watch the digital version and save the gas money from having to drive to Dallas-Fort Worth or farther to see it in 70mm. Modern computer hardware should be able to generate 8K DI's without it breaking the bank. As it stands, we're only now starting to see native 4K DI's on a more regular basis. 2K is still pretty much the de facto standard unfortunately.

Audio on 70mm is another problem. Various DTS processors have only so much life left in them. Many are only a key component failure away from turning into a door stop. Who ever own the DTS Theatrical patents really needs to work on an updated system to sync 35mm and 70mm prints with DTS time code up to something like an audio-only DCP. That way a new release with audio formats like Dolby Atmos can utilize 70mm or 35mm film prints if the occasion calls for it. Really the time code on 70mm prints should be able to be paired with any audio format, not just the classic DTS theatrical format. There is still a decent number of existing 35mm and 70mm prints with DTS audio. There needs to be at least some versatility with being able to play back that audio in order to keep those film prints useful for many years into the future.

[Tim Androes]

Anybody know what the sound formats are for the 35mm prints?

[Bobby Henderson]

I think the 35mm prints are SR optical and Dolby Digital.

[Leo Enticknap]

Inherent Vice had DTS on the 35mm prints as well. Given that they will have to do a DTS mastering for the 70mm prints, maybe this show also will.

[Jim Cassedy]

Tim Androes wondered:

Anybody know what the sound formats are for the 35mm prints?

Here's your answer:
35mm's are Dolby SRD® & Digital
LicoricePza_35mm.jpg

The 70mm Prints Are DTS™ & FLAT (On 4 VERY heavy reels!)
LicoricePza_70m.jpg

[Bobby Henderson]

The 70mm Prints Are DTS™ & FLAT (On 4 VERY heavy reels!)

Wait, what? Flat? The image on the 70mm prints is flat? The movie was shot 35mm anamorphic. The image on 70mm should be either slightly letterboxed to 2.39:1 or fully fill the 2.20:1 area. If it is pillar-boxed to be flat on 5/70mm that would be pretty ridiculous.