70mm Oppenheimer

[William Kucharski]

Universal is apparently re-releasing Oppenheimer in IMAX for one week, November 3 - 9, including six 15/70 IMAX locations:

• AMC CityWalk Stadium 19 in Hollywood, Calif
• AMC Irvine Spectrum in Irvine, Calif
• AMC Lincoln Square in New York City
• AMC Metreon 16 in San Francisco
• BFI London in the United Kingdom
• Melbourne Museum in Australia.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/c...se-1235774308/

"The re-release comes at a quiet time for the box office, without any major releases on the calendar for the upcoming weekend. Disney’s superhero adventure “The Marvels” will claim most of the Imax footprint when it opens in theaters on Nov. 10."

[Peter Mork]

Without going into details, since every platter system has its own design weaknesses, let's just say that none of them that I've encountered are 100% Pappas-proof (Pappas being a co-worker from years ago who insisted he was careful but prints had a habit of getting scratched on his watch.) The trick is recognizing this and addressing it - how can this platter be run the wrong way while still feeding out and taking up the film such that you could miss that something was not correct, and what can you do to ensure that if it is run incorrectly it won't damage the film? (It's all well and good to blame operator incompetency when bad things happen, but that doesn't solve your problem.)

An example: the old Super Platters that everyone complains about have a set of skewed rollers in the brain that, if you miss that last one, the film still pays out but is pulled across the top flange of the roller you missed, likely causing emulsion scratches of the most annoying sort. Solution is to glue a strip of velvet on the problem flange, so if it does contact the film damage is far less likely. Pappas-proof!

I never ran a platter that wouldn't benefit from some sort of simple modification of this sort, especially in the area of roller edges that can go askew in all sorts of ways. And I've never met a human being that doesn't screw up now and then. That includes platter designers.

[Kyle Mikolajczyk]

Are you doing or involved with this, Brad? I’d really love if some of these results were published, or at least written up somewhere. It would be nice to dispel the “platters damage prints” myth with some real data!

Last week I was speaking to someone relatively high at a large film archive, who insisted that “platters are bad and we can never allow our films to be run on them”. We then proceeded to watch a print that has been projected exactly two times before the time I watched it (one other public screening, and one QC check), and ALREADY there was dirt visible at reel ends! (No Film-Guard used, sadly). It was so frustrating.

I think what archives assume when a platter is used is that the print is not being attended to nearly as often as reel-to-reel booths. In a bad platter setup, it's easy for an entire print to get a line through it when nobody is watching. In a good and proper setup, there should be no difference to what happens to a print if it is projected by platter or changeover. I also assume that platters have the potential to cause more damage simply because there is more rollers, direction change, etc. that are needed for the film to run through, but again this is a blanket statement that would not apply to a proper platter setup. All in all, I am sure in the 2000s there were a lot of multiplexes that were hurting prints due to poor platter setup/maintenance and having one teenager running multiple movies at once, which probably started the "platter = bad" thing.

[Peter Mork]

Looks like our 35mm presentation has been forced to retire. Lamphouse (Strong X-90) has quit. I don't think it's the lamp itself, I see no power coming to the lamp control panel, and the power supply seems down (fuse okay but fans don't turn and red light not lit).

83 shows, not a record breaker but I'm glad we did it. I hope more titles get a 35 release.

[David Ferguson]

Regardless, ALL of the Oppenheimer prints are being inspected post-run. They are being separated in various groups such as:
FilmGuarded print
Dirt, but no scratches
Emulsion black/green vertical lines with no base damage
Emulsion green/yellow vertical lines with no base damage
Emulsion diagonal/horizontal lines
Base lines only
Damaged section/missing footage

Within each of those categories they are also being separated as changeover vs. platter. Historically, the platter prints almost always fare better in the end because most changeover projectionists still to this day can't keep their KFC finger-lickin' hands off of the lab countdown leaders.

Are you doing or involved with this, Brad? I’d really love if some of these results were published, or at least written up somewhere. It would be nice to dispel the “platters damage prints” myth with some real data!

Last week I was speaking to someone relatively high at a large film archive, who insisted that “platters are bad and we can never allow our films to be run on them”. We then proceeded to watch a print that has been projected exactly two times before the time I watched it (one other public screening, and one QC check), and ALREADY there was dirt visible at reel ends! (No Film-Guard used, sadly). It was so frustrating.

[Chris Haller]

I saw two different prints of the IMAX version of Oppenheimer in the Toronto area and can honestly say that these prints definitely did start to build up a little more dirt towards the end of their 10 week runs. Cineplex Vaughan's print had specks here and there that didn't detract from the experience too much by the last day of showtimes, and even Mississauga had a few specks before they wrapped in early September. Just the nature of running these incredibly long prints over and over. What I will say is that there's always been much less dirt on the print at the end of their IMAX runs than I'd have anticipated. I suspect at this point the skill of the remaining projectionists must be quite high for them to continue to look this good.

At the end of the day, regardless of format, it was nice to have a human element added to the experience for this run of Oppenheimer. To know that someone did their best to thread, frame, and run these prints was nice in an era when the digital frontier isolates us further from each other. Walking through the booth of the 13-plex where I work part time can often be a very desolate experience. So thank you to everyone here who provided their services and knowledge. As someone who was born too late to ever get a shot at threading a film projector, I appreciate you all.

[Martin Brooks]

William, I am thrilled to hear there is a print in solid condition at that venue, but let's be realistic because you are using the term "perfect" here and that's an awful strong word.

The only thing the theater had to keep the print clean are those useless PTR rollers. By the end of the head leader those PTRs will have already spun around hundreds of times, and each spin the PTR rollers become less effective. Keep in mind the PTRs will spin a few times per SECOND of film that passes as well, and we are talking about a 3 hour 70mm film running nonstop through the projector without even a chance to clean the PTR rollers partway through (not that it would make any difference). PTRs are simply ineffective in the field.

Unless the projectionist at that venue brought in his own 70mm Kelmar cleaner and ran the print wet with FilmGuard on each show, there is no way that print is in "perfect" condition. It's just not possible. Dirt WILL accumulate on the print slightly more with each run and that does not constitute a "perfect" print. I believe you when you say there are no scratches on the print, but I think you just aren't very sensitive to dirt.

Perhaps a more suitable description for the Lakewood print would be "excellent" condition. That's a believable term.

I saw Oppenheimer on September 7th in 70mm IMAX at the AMC Lincoln Square in NYC and I was extremely pleasantly surprised that the print sure looked perfect to me or as good as it would have looked on the first day. Except for one little momentary speck, I saw nothing. From that perspective, except for that one speck, it looked as dirt and scratch free as digital. The projectionist(s) there deserve a lot of credit. I still remember that when I saw "The Master" in 70mm at the Ziegfeld, there was dirt on the print end-to-end and even though I know the projectionist at the eWalk who projected "The Hateful Eight" in 70mm tried very hard, I saw it fairly early in the run and there were some scratches.

[Chris Haller]

Looks like the 70mm engagements of Oppenheimer are coming to a close at Cineplex in the Great White North. Toronto's run at the Varsity ends today according to the website, and the last day for IMAX 70mm at Cineplex Vaughan is on Sunday. 9+ weeks in traditional 70mm and a little less than 10 weeks in IMAX 15/70 at Vaughan is pretty solid for a 3 hour biopic in first run.

I've got a day trip planned for Sunday to check out one of the last screenings at Vaughan. I've never been, but its an SR house. I'm looking forward to it.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

Either Mark is off his meds again or Oppenheimer has had an incredibly short release to home video window......

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I did not find the dialog nearly as bad on the Blu-Ray as it is in theaters... There ARE some quiet dialog moments though.

[Henry Atkinson]

Ah, bummer. Hopefully there will be a way for some venues to end up snagging prints destined for "junk" before they disappear forever. Speaking selfishly, it would be incredibly cool to have a changeover print of Oppenheimer over here.

[Clark Teddles]

Henry,

A large quantity of the Hateful Eight prints that weren't selected to go to the archive were simply junked. Wouldn't be surprised if the same situation happens for Oppenheimer.

Cannot confirm this is true! Just judging by H8's release.

Cheers

[Henry Atkinson]

Anyone know for certain what's going to become of the Oppenheimer prints that don't go to archives?

[Brad Miller]

My comments were plural. Nobody ever said anything about only keeping ONE print for repertory use. Given the "talent" some theaters have for trashing a 70mm print in a couple of passes, that would be foolish to only keep one.

[William Kucharski]

William, I am thrilled to hear there is a print in solid condition at that venue, but let's be realistic because you are using the term "perfect" here and that's an awful strong word.

Fine - I saw perhaps three visual spots over the entire run time and I doubt there's one with 195 runs in better condition.

I was looking as my last three views were on a weekly basis.

Archives don't save just a single print as most send out prints for runs at theaters like Palo Alto's Stanford.