The OtherArena Forum IndexThe OtherArena Forum IndexThe OtherArena Forum Index The OtherArena
"Best not to think about it. I know that's a problem for you... not thinking. " -Steve Yohe
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Tarantino's new western is in Ultra Panavision 70; Dec. 25
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The OtherArena Forum Index -> Entertainment
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ken Viewer



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve,

The two theaters where the schmuck-ups occurred did not purchase anything. They both have 70 MM projectors they've owned for years.

All right, maybe they should have bought some film-projector lubricating substance (WD-40 won't do it) at a 99-cent store.

The problems in both theaters appears to be lack of a skilled projectionist and faulty equipment (perhaps at the Crest in Los Angeles they received a bad print -- it happens).

Originally the Weinsten Company ( www.weinsteinco.com ) wanted theater-owners to pony up the costs of a projector and installation and sound equipment and providing a skilled projectionist and tech support -- a cost they put at $60,000 to $80,000. The Weinstein Company was/is crazy because the deal would not leave the theaters with the projectors -- it was a rental and the Weinsteins would come and take back the projector when "The Hateful 8" finished its run. When virtually no theater-owner went for that, the Weinsteins changed the terms somewhat to make it more attractive to the theaters. When that didn't work, they have dropped all requests for money for the loan and installation of the projectors.

But it's really too late now to find available theaters for the Christmas run.

At this point, they seem to have lined up about 40 theaters in the United States that either have their own equipment or have some sort of deal for rental equipment from the Weinstein nuthouse.

In the old days, when theaters had union projectionists on salary, a print would come in for exhibition and the projectionist's job was to check the entire print for flaws -- and send it back if they couldn't repair it themselves. That didn't seem to happen now. Prints used to arrive in 12 to 20 minute reels.

Today the prints are usually shipped on single platters of up to 10,000-feet long. How do you check a 200-plus pound single print? How do you lift it? Perhaps ya go over to the local Home Depot store and in the parking lot find day-laborers provide the muscle...or you actually run the whole reel on the screen after the theater closes for the night.

As for radical differences in picture quality you get from 70 MM film that was filmed in a 70 MM method, why do so many folks pay premium prices to go to the Arclight's Cinerama Dome in Hollywood to see them? Why am I going to pay highway-robbery for a seat to see a 70 MM print of Tarantino's film on a flat screen in a theater the size of a Manhattan bus when I could see it for much less money if I chose digital projection?

Why did Merian C. Cooper, who conceived of, co-wrote and produced the original "King Kong," and who was involved in the development of the original form of Cinerama (105 MM total width on three separate projectors -- a/k/a "three-strip" version) plan to make a Cinerama version of "King Kong?"

NOT KIDDING. If you look on the Internet you can find the line-drawings of the planned three-strip film, which unfortunately never got made. It might have changed the history of Cinerama.

Can I point out the dramatic differences between single-strip 70 MM Ultra Panavision (or 70 MM Super Panavision, or D-150 -- used to make "Patton")? Sure. But it has to be in a theater showing a 70 MM film on a curved screen or on Youtube in 3-strip Cinerama for "How the West Was Won" -- the only 3-strip film that had a plot, boring as it was.

Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Viewer



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a series of silent restoration attempts of the 3-strip Cinerama 'How the West Was Won" that clearly shows the 3-D qualities of the process. Although projected, in this case, on a flat screen, watch the sides; back up the footage and look at the center frame. And on. I can point out the fact the sides are usually in focus even as the center is, and the horses are in proportion in this artificial attempt at natural vision.

(Yes, there's no color-correction for each of the three strips of film.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rix5n-_5V3I

Can you imagine "King Kong" with more-modern technology (by the same people, if they were still alive circa 1952) in Technicolor and Cinerama at the old 4,000-seat Loew's Capitol (then called Loew's Cinerama) on Broadway watching Kong coming at them out of the curved screen in stereophonic sound?

Not wanting to be trampled by fleeing patrons being chased by a giant ape, I'd have sat in the balcony for this one.

I hope this thread will be ignored when "The Hateful 8" opens so a thread discussing the film itself can start from scratch.

Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Viewer



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2015 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The European premiere of the 70 MM version of the film was yesterday in Paris, France at the Grand Rex movie palace, which is pictured below. When I was a kid, Manhattan had theaters like this all over town. This one has two balconies, and perhaps a ballroom in the lobby:

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2016/hateful_8/images/grand_rex.jpg


Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Viewer



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Official list of theaters showing the film in 70 mm is out. Go here to view it. Scroll way, way, way down. The list is by state so you'll quickly know which theater is closest to you. Hope there's a movie house near Steve and John:

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2016/hateful_8/index.htm

I'd wait two days before going to see the film. Whatever can go wrong will go wrong as projectionists learn how to run 70 MM film machines. Gears will fall off the projectors, lenses won't be the right ones, screen-masking will have to be done by hand, film will jam...

If the performance can't go on, don't accept a pass to return, get a cash refund and go to another theater.

Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 16866

PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are the LA ones, Steve:

Arclight Hollywood
Movies at Cinemark 18 & XD (Los Angeles)
The Landmark (Los Angeles)
Del Amo 18 (Torrance)
Edwards Long Beach Stadium 26 & IMAX
Arclight Sherman Oaks
AMC Burbank

A few places out in DC/MD/VA, but I doubt I'm going to suggest to Cheetah that we go unless she's a Tarantino fan... which I would think she'd have mentioned in the past 19 years. :) The 70mm may still be in the theaters by the time I get back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Viewer



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In Manhattan, at the AMC Lincoln Square, the matinee price for Seniors is $20. Same price for kids. I'm going to find some food stamps and then call the the theater to ask if they'll accept 'em instead of cash. Gonna organize a Food Stamps for Films society.

Bringing a modern measuring device to guarantee the screen is at least 40 feet wide. If it's not, the group of us that's going (now set for the second week of the run) will demand a refund before the film starts. Maybe we can bargain the price down to reflect the width of the screen. A 20-foot wide screen means the picture can only be about 8 feet high.

The screen at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood is 86 feet wide.

Tarantino might have been wiser to leave Ultra Panavision blissfully in its coffin.

Wondering how, at prices like this, Steve and John keep going to three films a day without resorting to climbing over the transoms? The last time I paid $20 for a ticket to a film was never.

Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 16866

PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Springsteen tickets were over $100. One concert, three hours, $100 per ticket.

The WWE this weekend in LA has tickets for $35 in the nosebleed, $75-$100 in the first level, $130 on the floor. One show, 2 hours. Too much for me.

Right now movie tickets are under $15 unless we're doing IMAX. I could get them cheaper if I got the discounts that my company offers, but have been too stupid to take advantage of. One movie, two hours, $15 or less.

Movies are semi-decent priced as long as you don't eat the over priced popcorn & drinks. They're not a *great* deal, but they're better than most entertainment prices these days.

I've paid for Springsteen in the past in that price range, and it's always been something memorable. This mini-tour likely would be as well, but I passed on it and instead will go see his solo tour (which is next) if it's an acoustic tour. I stupidly missed on the prior solo acoustic tours (Joad and Devils & Dust tours). I'd love to see this River tour as I love the album, and think it would be something special. But $100+, well... I need to be smart with my $$$.

I'd rather go see movies with Yohe. One of the fun things that I do each year is going to the flicks with Steve every couple of months.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Viewer



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Movies historically were the people's art form in the United States -- inexpensive, easily accessible, shown in comfortable and often lovely theaters and often great-storytelling and acting on the large silver screen.

I don't quite know what they are today, unless time has passed me by and watching digital projection on a shrunken bed-sheet in a hall large enough to fit one minivan in doesn't do it for me.

I used to follow films the way Steve and John do, but in theaters that sometimes looked like this:

http://www.scoutingny.com/the-queens-movie-theater-you-will-not-believe/

(Of the original six Loew's Wonder Theaters in the New York City area, three of which I attended often -- to the amazement of so many of us -- four have now been restored and three of them are open to booking live shows and/or movies. But the studios don't want their films shown in 3,500-seat theaters with lobbies larger than entire 24-screen multiplexes.)

A visit to an ornate theater was an experience in addition to what was on the big screen. Even in Fox's plain old Metropolitan Playhouses chain in New York City, a 1,000-seat house had a screen that was relatively huge.

As for expensive tickets to live shows, I paid $95 (box-office price) for a ticket in the front row of the orchestra section of the Metropolitan Opera House in 1976 to see Alicia Alonso in "Giselle" -- her first one here in over 20 years, and that year her only appearance in the U.S., as a guest of the American Ballet Theatre -- her home company in the 1940s.

Alicia Alonso had been barred from the United States since the early 1960s for her pro-Communist, pro-Fidel Castro rhetoric. She was as hard-core a Communist as they made 'em back then. The story in the 1970s was that the State Department wouldn't allow her to return to the U.S.

Wikipedia has it the other way -- that Castro barred her from traveling to the U.S. I wasn't writing about the arts that far back and don't know what the real story was, only that Ballet Theatre's board member Roger L. Stevens, founding chairman of the Kennedy Center, and Lucia Chase, Ballet Theatre co-founder and contributor extraordinaire to the company -- and well-connected to the State Department, brought pressure to get her for two performances, one the year before, and then the one "Giselle"... of a lifetime.

I'll spend if the performance seems to justify the expense. I'd pay $40 without a single gripe to see the Tarantino movie at the Cinerama Dome, my favorite movie-house in Los Angeles.

I'm more interested in the filming process than the film, which itself looks fine from the trailers that have already been released in digital format.

Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2802
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tarantino was on Howard Stern today & said he had the 8 movie booked in the Dome on sunset, but Disney went to Arclight & told them they wanted Star Wars 7 in the Dome thru the holidays....or they wouldn't let Star War in any of their theaters. So 8 got push out of the best 70MM theater in LA.--Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ken Viewer



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the information, Steve. If Tarantino and/or the Weinstein Company want, they can still book "8" into the Dome after the holidays. It would pull in all the Ultra Panavision/Cinerama fans who want to see it the way it was filmed and don't care about seeing it a second time.

The LeFrak theater in Queens (in the "LeFrak City") housing complex, is still operating. It used to be operated as the "UA D-150" theater decades ago. It was, for some reason, the only theater in New York City built from the ground up to demonstrate 20th Century Fox's D-150 process, which was a 70 MM system Fox wanted to use to replace the awful Todd-AO 65 MM (dumb name for a 70 MM film-process). The one advantage to Mike Todd's "Todd-AO) was that they could make 35 MM reduction prints that were pretty-much distortion-free.

The Queens County theater, run by the UA theater chain, never played a single D-150 film, all two of which were made (John Huston's "The Bible" and "Patton" -- which was a smash hit shown mostly on flat screens across the country).

Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Viewer



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tarantino says the Disney Company screwed him out of the use of the Cinerama Dome theater in Los Angeles this year over a booking of Star Wars.

Here's the footage of the comments Tarantino made:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pd6yO-jBRo&app=desktop

Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Viewer



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The New York Times' review, by A. O. Scott, their chief movie critic, has been published online today, December 24th. Since discussions of story and actors and Tarantino as a filmmaker ought to be left, on this board, to those who are frequent movie-goers and reviewers here, I won't quote any of it not related to the film process:

... His eighth feature, “The Hateful Eight,” was shot on film with antique lenses and is being projected at some theaters in sumptuous, wide-screen 70-millimeter Panavision..."

And that is accurate. There's no Ultra Panavision to it regarding the film being shown on the screen.

With the "process" issue just about settled, I hope a new thread is set up here for the regular posters to write about and review the film. Would you want to have all the baggage of this thread hanging over your discussions of the film?

I'm going to see it and, in-person, babble on about the days of the various 70 MM processes.

Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Viewer



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

General release of the movie, in digital format, has been moved up to next week -- it was supposed to be in two weeks.

Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Viewer



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Golly, the New York Times has taken note of the "breathtaking clarity" an image shot in, and properly-projected in, 70 MM film can offer.

As for Steve's recent observation that he couldn't necessarily tell if the film had been in projected in 70 MM or not, he is damn right. A number of the theaters running the film this week, supposedly in 70 MM, are not -- they're using digital systems and the Weinstein Company seems to be okay with that.

I still have yet to see the movie because the seats we bought for last Saturday we returned to the manager of the AMC Lincoln Square when word spread their 70 MM projector had fallen apart, and that when they tried to repair it, they didn't know where the parts went. Then they thought one of the parts had gone bad, or at least beyond its expiration date -- like a container of milk.

So the next day, an engineer or technician was flown down from Boston to fix the thing -- with a replacement part or parts, and a new container of milk, if the AMC people were right. So we'll go next week, assuming we don't learn of additional breakdowns at this location. This breakdown, at the highest-grossing multiplex in the U. S., even made the New York Times.

The Times also reported today that:

"...'It is a tricky, unforgiving, high-maintenance format to run correctly,' said David Kornfeld, head projectionist at the Somerville Theater in Somerville, Mass., who was running a “Hateful Eight” screening when he spoke by phone.

“'Because the picture area of 70 millimeter is three to six times greater than 35, you have three to six times more area to make a mess of.' His sense of the 'Hateful Eight' release was that theaters with qualified technicians were doing well, but that problems would occur when a technician wasn’t up to snuff.

"'One common complaint is that the image doesn’t fill the entire screen, but that is, in most theaters, intentional. 'The Hateful Eight' was shot in an unusually wide aspect ratio of 2.76:1, meaning that the picture should have 2.76 feet of width for every foot of height. Modern multiplex screens vary, but a significant amount of them will have empty space at the bottom for 'The Hateful Eight.'...”


Film jams and projector breakdowns all over the place. The Weinsteins apparently only count as a 'breakdown' anything that prevents the projector(s) from being restarted within a couple of hours. There are supposedly only three theaters left in America that have screens designed for such a ratio, and not one of them is playing the film. That does not count theaters large enough to place a Cinerama-like screen in them, such as Manhattan's Ziegfeld. It's a single-screen joint which has shown Cinerama films in the past. Now it has a flat screen, but perhaps also has its old Cinerama screen in pieces in its basement -- if it has a basement.

Its curved screen, put in temporarily years after the theater was built, was made of cardboard of something similar, and didn't reflect light all that well. At that time, it was used for some scheme to re-release the old Cinerama travelogues in 70 MM (originally filmed in 105 MM) -- which flopped.

Tarantino could have had a 70 MM film shot in a less-wide format, but he wanted a process that could give him a chariot race rivaling the one in the second version of Ben Hur (the 1959 one William Wyler directed and turned into four hours of sludge excepting that race).

It's currently showing Star Wars volume 40. Ahh, well... For those who've seen the Tarantino film, is there a chariot race in it?

Ken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 2802
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On a regular screen you would expect it to look like a letter box movie on TV. My screen was normal & it didn't have that letter box look. They advertised it as 70MM. My thinking was it was filmed in 70 but shown like a 35mm. I smelled a rat.

Don't matter because the movie stinks. The film is claustrophobic and not suited to 70MM. I think the film would have bombed and the reviews would have been worse if the director hadn't been Quentin Tarantino.

It was a draw the first few days. All the shows were sold out in my area the first day & the boxoffice was good in limited release. Once the Tarantino fans are used up....good luck. Quentin name on a film does draw.--Steve Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The OtherArena Forum Index -> Entertainment All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
The OtherArena topic RSS feed 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group