Palladium Times Square

umbaba on June 12, 2004 at 6:14 am

It’s a shame that Ny and NJ won’t see these prints…thanks Bill

umbaba on June 11, 2004 at 4:09 am

I agree the screen at the Film Forum is too small but I’ll give them this…they do care about the presentation. I guess (for me at least) it’s just good to see the old classics on the big screen (even if the screen isn’t that big) but they do score good prints.

But the panavision/cinemascope films there are on the small side and you have to sit closer to the screen. It never bothered me though.

Pete, is there a site for Columbia that has their available 70MM prints . I’d be curious to see what films are available??

PeterApruzzese on June 10, 2004 at 6:03 am

Re: Lawrence in 92 at the Ziegfeld – it looked fantastic to these jaded eyes.

Regarding the Loew’s Jersey, they do not have 70mm gear. I’m hoping they can one day finish their restoration of the theatre and then work on getting 70mm gear up there, it would be a great place for the big epics (if the sound echo can be tamed a little).

Columbia has a number of 70mm titles available, probably more than any other studio. They are available for regular bookings to any theatre that has the 70mm projection equipment.

Pete Apruzzese
Director of Film Programming
Big Screen Classics at the Lafayette Theatre

moviebluedog on June 9, 2004 at 11:16 pm

RE: Around The World In 80s Days photo at www.in70mm.com

The photo was taken in Norway.

VincentParisi on June 9, 2004 at 1:38 pm

Bill thanks for clarifying that. Hell I would love to see anything on even a 60ft screen in NY.

Mikeoaklandpark on June 8, 2004 at 11:59 am

I was wondering if the Ziegfeld still uses the two curtains they had instead of those stupid reapeating slides? The last movie I saw there was the opening day of Yentyl in 1983 and than I moved to Florida.
Mike

dickdziadzio on June 8, 2004 at 6:31 am

This could be a minor point but a true 70mm release print of
“WORLD IN 80 DAYS” would be in 30 frames per second (like Oklahoma)
This means a 25% increase in film stock- and cost- for the same running time.

Also,if there are any projectionists reading this and you ever
have to run one of these 2 30fps release prints, strange things can
happen to a 70mm projector (higher speed and vibration).

Tighten up everything.

I saw “OKLAHOMA” IN 70MM 30FPS several years ago at the Wang Theatre in Boston. The show went off first class (thanks to the great crew there) but you could hear the film going though Norelco's
in the front row.

umbaba on June 8, 2004 at 4:26 am

Bill, I would love to start some sort of organization to show 70MM flicks. The problem is, no money, no theater, no contacts, wouldn’t know where to start and I couldn’t get a theater anyway. I’m afraid (for myself) this will just have to be a dream.. a MAJOR life regret. If there was an existing organization, I would be the most loyal soldier, but money talks…and who has it? Oh well.

RE: Does Zeigfeld put on a good presentation…..last year in Oct. 2002 I saw the 40th Anniversary of Lawrence of Arabia…in remastered 70MM. Probably the last 70MM I’ll ever see..I hope not..it was an awesome experience to see.

RE: Around the World in 80 Days….it has been stated here that no 70MM prints were struck for it…but on the site in70mm.com there is a photo of the film showing on a screen?? Is this a 70MM print Bill??

moviebluedog on June 7, 2004 at 8:55 pm

Rhett wrote: What can we do here (East coast) to get these knuckleheads to keep 70MM alive??

Do you have a film society, like an American Cinematheque? The Cinematheque out here has presented a number of fine 35mm, 70mm and even some rarely seen widescreen films at the Hollywood Egyptian Theatre. Perhaps a film society in NYC could procure some 70mm prints of the newly restored classics. As for new 70mm, well…

There’s some kind of thought in the film business that 70mm is a cumbersome thing. But when I’ve listened to some DPs at various seminars, they’ve commented that the newer 65mm cameras are almost every bit as easy to use as their 35mm counterparts. The lighting set-ups are virtually identical and the cost isn’t as bad as some anti-70mm people might say. Considering it costs about $150-million to make and market a film today, shooting a handful of films in 65mm is nothing!

Rhett: I remember going to see Spartacus at the Ziegfeld in 91 in 70MM. I was told…“You have it on tape, why are you paying to go see it? Thetaer chains are run by ignorants or high schoolers who could care less, they just flip the switch.

So many people just don’t get it! Does the Ziegfeld still put on a great presentation? I know that some of the Westwood and Hollywood houses still care about quality presentation.

Scott wrote: One problem with IMAX is that it is a “large screen” format and not a “widescreen format”—The aspect ratio of IMAX is 1:37-1(the original standard pre-widescreen was 1:33-1). The only way you could show “widescreen” films on an IMAX screen is by letterboxing.

If I may, the approximate aspect ratio on IMAX is 1.44:1. And it’s true, if a director wishes to maintain the original widescreen aspect ratio on his film, the film does need to be letterboxed. But with “Apollo 13, ” and “Attack Of The Clones,” the films were cropped. “Apollo 13” was done in 1.66:1 (similar to Disney’s re-purposed animated films), and “Clones” was cropped to an unusal 1.81:1 ratio. Thus both films were letterboxed. With the tallness factor of an IMAX screen, the lettterboxing isn’t as bothersome.

Those digitally re-purposed films do look pretty good on the IMAX screen, though we’re still not getting true IMAX, or a true 35mm widescreen presentation.

umbaba on June 6, 2004 at 6:30 am

Sounds good Bill….I may have to venture to the Astor to see Potter too. Scott….egarding the editing of Attack of the Clones…gee, I bet it was a better picture shorter. I had seen Apollo 13 in IMAX..it was good, edited also and it was just like the TV version, cropped. But on the IMAX screen, it was a good experience

scottfavareille on June 5, 2004 at 12:26 pm

One problem with IMAX is that it is a “large screen” format and not a “widescreen format”—The aspect ratio of IMAX is 1:37-1(the original standard pre-widescreen was 1:33-1). The only way you could show “widescreen” films on an IMAX screen is by letterboxing. I actually recall seeing Star Wars II-Attack of the Clones that was “especially done for IMAX”—What had been done was the following:

1. The image was cropped from 2:40-1 to 1:37-1 in order to show it full-frame. The film itself was filmed digitally, but most theaters do not have digital projection systerms, so prints had to be struck. The digital files were not reconfigured for IMAX, instead the film was cropped.

2. For the IMAX edition, the film was also edited by about 20-25 minutes due to its original length. Slower expository scenes and some of the “romantic” storyline was edited out.

moviebluedog on June 4, 2004 at 10:12 pm

Rhett wrote: “In my research, it’s amazing, all the "presentations” (for you Vincent) that played in 70MM."

Kind of ironic how the format has been shoved to the backburner of film history especially considering how popular the format was!

“It seems every big movie played in at least 1 or 2 theaters in NY or NJ in 70mm.”

And then some! Just wait until you see the 1980s lists of 70mm runs in the region. Pretty incredible.

“You know, it has me thinking…have we seen the demise of the 70MM presentaion??”

Unfortunately, I think it has been pretty well “put to bed.” It seems that those who make films and those who distribute them, but not all, are content with pleasing the masses. So that means that virtually every film has to have that same jerky, zooming editing style; virtually every film is a sequel; virtually every movie theater built nowadays is like the one down the street, etc. So why not invest a few extra dollars in shooting in 65mm, or even printing a few 70mm prints for those massive 80-foot screens? I’ve even recently seen some 24p High Definition video transferred to 70mm print stock and it looks very good! The same footage, digitally projected, didn’t look even close to the quality of the 70mm print.

I find it funny that almost $200-million can be spent to make a film and market it, but someone in the ranks of getting a film distributed gripes about the cost of a 70mm print! More money is spent on Brad Pitt’s hair gel than would be spent on a 70mm print or two.

We do have some current 70mm first run presentations today. “Harry Potter 3” just opened day-and-date in select IMAX screens. But this is neither true IMAX nor is it a blow-up. The film, from what I’ve heard, is being shown in widescreen and was digitally transfered to IMAX via the original digital files.

I find this 70mm presentation awkward. The film is shown on a huge screen, but it’s letterboxed. But the picture quality is very good. You gotta figure that those commercial complexes that invested a lot of money into building and maintaining an IMAX screen are struggling. They need to make money somehow, even if that means showing crummy “enhanced 35mm” prints or psuedo-IMAX.

I think it’s far less expensive to strike 5-perf 70mm prints of the film. And with today’s film stock, they would look very, very good.

“It’s also a damn shame that most of the 70mm prints have been destroyed. Wouldn’t it have been great if the prints were preserved and used for the home video DVD transfers?”

I think it’s a shame that a number of 65mm negatives might be rotting as we speak. But there have been a number of 65mm transfers to home video formats over the years. And kudos to 20th Century Fox for restoring “The Sound Of Music,” “Patton,” and “Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines” and having the guts to strike new prints and showing them. Warners and Disney are also to be commended for striking 70mm prints of “It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World,” and “Tron” and “Sleeping Beauty.”

I think it’s sad that NYC/NJ hasn’t had the opportunity to see some of these restored 70mm titles. I guarentee you that if The Ziegfeld ran a 70mm restrospective on these classics, they’d have sell-outs. Even people who don’t know much about film formats do notice the difference in the quality of a 70mm print compared to 35mm. They would line up to see these films on the big screen. I’ve seen this succeed here in L.A. at the American Cinematheque.

Thanks again for the kind words.

moviebluedog on June 3, 2004 at 5:29 pm

To Bill H. and Vincent:

Thanks for the kind words. And yes, it would be looking a gift horse in the mouth. :)

I don’t believe any Asbury Park engagements, at least during the roadshow era, were included in The New York Times. So as a result, additional research from other sources would be required in order to integrate that area’s engagements into our project. Our principal source of the info has been The New York Times.

We have a couple Asbury Park/Belmar/Neptune area 70mm-equipped theatres included in the theatre portion of our project (St, James in Asbury Park, Man Ray in Belmar….), but are debating whether or not they should stay since we’re undecided if we want to consider that area to be a part of the “New York” market.

I think it is reasonable to consider Atlantic City a separate market
entirely, and one we haven’t considered researching at this time.

It would be nice to cover some other major markets, like Boston, Washington D.C. and Philadelphia. But time contraints, as well as cost, limit us to select regions to research. Mike has had the opportunity to do some extensive traveling across the country, and has unearthed some excellent information on 70mm and 70mm-equipped theaters.

If you’re interested, we will eventually have Los Angeles, New York and Orange County (CA, and actually quite a sizable 70mm market) 70mm lists posted at …in70mm.com.

Again, thanks for the kind words and interest in our work.