Reviving a thread from the former board.

Relate your good, bad and beyond experiences at the movies. Here's a piece I saw today that I think EVERY marathoner can relate to in some way - a movie they love is mocked and ridiculed by other marathoners. 

The piece is about a screening of the Bond film TO RUSSIA WITH LOVE and how some in the packed theater just couldn't take it seriously:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/from-russia-with-love-is-not-unsophisticated-you-are

Excerpt:

From Russia With Love was released almost 50 years ago.

I point that out not to make anyone reading this feel old (or young), but because I revisited the second James Bond picture on a big screen recently, in a small but packed Manhattan theater, and it made me painfully aware that for a good many people, movies aren’t art or experience, they’re product. And products date.

Some of the patrons seemed truly, deeply, un-ironically into the film, but many more seemed to be treating it as a nostalgia trip. The very qualities that made the film seem modern and exciting when it came out amused them. The film’s lack of newness prevented connection with the audience.

Scratch that. It wasn’t the film’s fault. It was the audience’s. 

I hate to be the guy who says “You’re watching it wrong,” but these people definitely were.

There might be a lot of factors contributing to the viewers' failure to engage (surely including lack of film literacy), but ultimately, that’s their decision and their loss....

Playing off THE BIRDS digital print tale.

Perhaps, the WORST crime going on in America's cinemas right now is the documentary SAMSARA. It's not a bad film by any means. Actually, it's a pretty entertaining travelogue in the vein of KOYAANISQATSI or BARAKA.

The crime is that the movie was shot on 65MM film (which are what 70MM films are shot on). But, the filmmakers were apparently sooooooooo spooked by the whole move to digital, that they did not strike even a SINGLE 70MM print - not one!

I saw the film in it's "best" 4K Digital presentation. It was scanned at 8K from the negative. It looked ok. But, it also looked DIGITAL g$#damn it! It flattens and smooths out the film grain.

A damn shame.

L.A. Connection wrote on Sep 20^th, 2012 at 5:35pm:

Perhaps, the WORST crime going on in America's cinemas right now is the documentary SAMSARA. It's not a bad film by any means. Actually, it's a pretty entertaining travelogue in the vein of KOYAANISQATSI or BARAKA.

     Which were made by the same guy.


Quote:

The crime is that the movie was shot on 65MM film. But, the filmmakers were apparently sooooooooo spooked by the whole move to digital, that they did not strike even a SINGLE 70MM print - not one!

     I'll be talking to them about that, if my installation upgrade ever comes to pass.  I certainly would not be interested in playing it in video.


Quote:

I saw the film in it's "best" 4K Digital presentation.

     There are 35mm prints of it out there, but they were made off a DI, sooooooo....

In another thread http://sf.theboard.net/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1318312051/15 I mentioned that TCM/Fathom Events ran a double feature of Universal's "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein" on a big screen simocast. I don't know if the simocast technology would have negated the value of a real 35mm print, thus encouraging them to run a DVD version, but they promoted it as being six times the pixle density of a Blu-Ray TV version. Given that the smallest screen at my local megaplex is well over six times the size of the largest home TV, I was concerned.

It wasn't all that bad, even if it wasn't up to the standards of versions of both films run at the Marathon. There were a couple of parts during both films where the quality jumped to a grainy scene and back again, as if lost footage had been replaced by a 16mm version. We can expect this in the newer, longer version of Metropolis as well.

The best part may have been the audio. Does anyone know if they rescored "Bride" or was there always a strange, soft, feminine, jazzy musical phrase during her animation?




The Turner production could have been worse...

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/Karen_Tom/Movies/FrankbyWarhol.jpg

it could have been colorized! ;)

Like I noted earlier, I refused to go to see FRANKENSTEIN & BRIDE in digital this week.

Here is an article echoing my view of digital:

http://willmckinley.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/we-belong-dead-why-frankenstein-looked-horrific-on-the-big-screen/

Excerpt:

It seems I leave every TCM Fathom screening (including last night) with pretty much the same feeling: it’s great to see a classic film in a theater filled with enthusiastic fans, but why do the movies have to look so awful?...And yet, what we all paid $15 to see on the big screen Wednesday night at the AMC 25 didn’t even look as good at what we could have watched at home on our TV sets.

FRANKENSTEIN, in particular, looked horrendously murky. The opening sequence with Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and Fritz (Dwight Frye) grave-robbing by lamplight was almost impossible to see, as was anything shot in low light, including many key scenes in the castle. BRIDE had generally better image quality, but it was still disappointing. This has been my complaint at every screening I’ve seen in Fathom’s TCM Event Series: great crowd, poor image quality....

The Director of the CLASH OF THE TITANS rehash "admits" it was all a big ripoff:

'Clash of the Titans' Director Admits 3D Was Horrible
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/clash-titans-director-admits-3d-was-horrible-94006

Further, Director Louis Leterrier admits that both CLASH and his HULK films went into shooting without finished scripts:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/louis-leterrier-now-you-see-me_n_3333311.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

A new initiative from theater owners demanding that movie preview trailers be 2 minutes or less. I don't care how long a trailer is, as long as they don't give away "all the good parts" and aren't amped up too loud. And, it's still better than watching commercials:


Theater Owners Seek New Rules Shortening Movie Trailers
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/theater-owners-seek-new-rules-559164

L.A. Connection wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 6:08pm:

Like I noted earlier, I refused to go to see FRANKENSTEIN & BRIDE in digital this week. Here is an article echoing my view of digital: http://willmckinley.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/we-belong-dead-why-frankenstein-looked-horrific-on-the-big-screen/ Excerpt: It seems I leave every TCM Fathom screening (including last night) with pretty much the same feeling: it’s great to see a classic film in a theater filled with enthusiastic fans, but why do the movies have to look so awful?...And yet, what we all paid $15 to see on the big screen Wednesday night at the AMC 25 didn’t even look as good at what we could have watched at home on our TV sets. FRANKENSTEIN, in particular, looked horrendously murky. The opening sequence with Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and Fritz (Dwight Frye) grave-robbing by lamplight was almost impossible to see, as was anything shot in low light, including many key scenes in the castle. BRIDE had generally better image quality, but it was still disappointing. This has been my complaint at every screening I’ve seen in Fathom’s TCM Event Series: great crowd, poor image quality....

Quite frankly, I can only say horse puckey.

"Casablanca was a TCM Event.  If TCM is unable to get a handle on quality, possibly there should be no more.  If this is the best that TCM cares to do, I'd suggest they shut down their "events. Quickly. Turner Classics may have once been an organization that had some interest in film and film history, but they seem to haveturned away, and may now be after the quick buck.  This makes everyone involved look bad. And let the public see films properly."  - Robert Harris (noted film restoration expert)

"Much of it looked great, but a lot of scenes looked washed-out and contrasty. Very white objects, like dinner jackets and Ingrid Bergman’s complexion, had a distracting shimmer to them, with tiny white spots swimming about at random." - Bayflicks.net

But, hey, it's your money if you want to spend $12 to watch a TCM broadcast made for a 40" TV screen blown up well beyond it's technical limits.......

::) ::) ::) ::)

L.A. Connection wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 9:49pm:

"Casablanca was a TCM Event.  If TCM is unable to get a handle on quality, possibly there should be no more.  If this is the best that TCM cares to do, I'd suggest they shut down their "events. Quickly. Turner Classics may have once been an organization that had some interest in film and film history, but they seem to haveturned away, and may now be after the quick buck.  This makes everyone involved look bad. And let the public see films properly."  - Robert Harris (noted film restoration expert) "Much of it looked great, but a lot of scenes looked washed-out and contrasty. Very white objects, like dinner jackets and Ingrid Bergman’s complexion, had a distracting shimmer to them, with tiny white spots swimming about at random." - Bayflicks.net But, hey, it's your money if you want to spend $12 to watch a TCM broadcast made for a 40" TV screen blown up well beyond it's technical limits....... ::) ::) ::) ::)

It looked great on the big screen and the audience loved it but you will never know. 

Oh, I've seen BRIDE on the big screen many times and I do know how enjoyable it is.

And, I know how good it can look in 35MM - as it did at the Marathon.

Even a proper 4K digital transfer can't hold a candle to 35mm film - let alone a crappy TV broadcast blown up.........

So, I go to a small arthouse film. Afternoon. During the week. Theater is a bit better attended than I expect. Usually, a good thing. I walk in and there's a group of seniors talking away loudly in some vaguely Middle Eastern language. They act like they own the place - like it's THEIR living room. Ads and commercials are running, so no big deal. The trailers begin. Half the group splits up and moves further back. Two of the blue hairs remain in the row behind me. They keep yapping - loudly, like they are trying to talk OVER the trailers.
As the trailers end, they clam up. Until the first plot point hits. Yap-yap-yap-what just happened? Why? The first SH'S! Are shot that way. Doesn't matter a wit. Every plot point - more Yap! Yap! Yap!
Just then, a couple shows up. The movie has started, and it's dark. Another elderly couple. The man has a cane. He sees some empty seats in the row behind me. Do they walk around front and enter from the other side? Of course not. They stumble over everybody in my row and THEN walk into the next row. Of course, right behind ME. And, of course, the first thing the man does is put down his cane - SMACK into the back of my chair! Then, they think the seats are too close. They move back another row.
As that is going on, you guessed it...some old guy's Cell Phone goes off! Loudly. He runs out of his seat and heads...for the exit? No! He runs towards the movie screen figuring most people are seated towards the back - talking all the way. Finally, he realizes that this won't be a short call and stumbles out the exit.
Meanwhile, me and others keep shushing the Middle Eastern blue hairs. They do lower their voices, but, they learn a new "tactic" - only talk when something fairly loud is going on in the movie!
The Cell Phone guy returns. He sits down....and, yup, seconds later the phone rings again!
Fast-Forward to the last 40 minutes of the movie. A literal Bag Lady rolls in with her cart. She remains fairly quiet for awile, save for, you know, her BAGS! The bags are plastic and, contain food, of course. So, she has to scrunch and handle and play with her bags as she takes every bite. Then, during the last 15 minutes of the movie, the Bag Lady decides that NOW is a good time to start SORTING RECYCLABLES! Yup, let me put my dirty cans in one bag, my bottles in another. Oh, and I have cardboard?! Let me RIP THEM INTO SMALLER PIECES so they fit in my cart!
Mercifully, the movie finally ends. I have a splitting headache from all the distractions. Several of us are giving stink eyes to the Blue Haired Middle-Eastern couple. The guy with the Cane walks over towards them glaring. I swear -- for one split second -- that he was going to bonk them over the head with it!

So, while we all usually complain about "kids" and "teens" with their talking and texting, I find that it's really Senior Citizens that can be the most annoying. Plus, you kind of expect a louder noise level at action, comic book and roudy comedies that younger filmgoers attend. But, some of these older folks act like it's a private screening!

L.A. Connection wrote on May 30^th, 2013 at 11:27pm:

Oh, I've seen BRIDE on the big screen many times and I do know how enjoyable it is. And, I know how good it can look in 35MM - as it did at the Marathon. Even a proper 4K digital transfer can't hold a candle to 35mm film - let alone a crappy TV broadcast blown up.........

Have you seen the latest revival trend?
Poster was up for Wizard of Oz in IMAX 3D.

I'll give whomever is behind it points IF they start the film in the normal format and add the IMAX 3d when they get to Oz.

And, don't forget that WIZARD is in the old 4:3 aspect ratio (like old TV sets). So, in Imax it would be a very boxy look.

How much you wanna bet they stretch it into a faux widescreen look in order for it to "fill the screen"?

Actually, aren't most IMAX screens 1.43:1?  There might be some narrow space on the sides, but I imagine Wizard would actually be using more of the screen than most DMR jobs.

Not sure about the Lie-Max screens people complain about, but the one I go to with 70mm capability definitely is wider than that.


Jay Seaver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 11:02am:

Actually, aren't most IMAX screens 1.43:1?  There might be some narrow space on the sides, but I imagine Wizard would actually be using more of the screen than most DMR jobs.

The ones in the Boston area are certainly 1.43:1 (the standard, for the most part) - well, the Aquarium and Jordan's Furniture are, and that's the general size of the picture projected at the Science Museum.  The one at Boston Common might be a bit wider, if only because I remember Star Trek Into Darkness opening up a bit more at the Aquarium than it did there, but I think it's still unusually square for something built recently.

The article below explains some of the tech aspects of Imax ratios. Sadly, so few films are still shot on 70mm Imax film that it is fast becoming a moot issue anyway.

So, while it may be correct to say that the "traditional" Imax ratio isn't that far off from the old Academy ratio that WIZARD OF OZ was shot in - WHO THE #$#$ KNOWS what they will do to blow-up, stretch, pull or what have you to make a 75 year old film be in "Imax". Not, to mention doing a VERY post-conversion 3D abomination to it!


http://www.flixist.com/imax-35mm-the-dark-knight-rises-and-you-212249.phtml





Jay Seaver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

The ones in the Boston area are certainly 1.43:1 (the standard, for the most part) - well, the Aquarium and Jordan's Furniture are, and that's the general size of the picture projected at the Science Museum.  The one at Boston Common might be a bit wider, if only because I remember Star Trek Into Darkness opening up a bit more at the Aquarium than it did there, but I think it's still unusually square for something built recently.

I don't trust Warner Brothers quite as much as I did when Ted Turner was still actively involved (he actually had New Line distribute Gone With the Wind with black space pillars on the sides of the film frame so that theaters couldn't crop it), but if any studio can be trusted to treat their catalog well, it's them.  This isn't Paramount we're talking about here.

I am reasonably confident that it will have a slight windowbox, and wouldn't be at all shocked if there were 2D showings much like Man of Steel had.  And, honestly, both theaters and studios are backing off 3D-or-nothing bookings; there are times when I've had trouble finding a 3D show at a good time at certain locations, especially after the first week.

As to the 3D post-conversion itself...  Well, this project has been in the works for a long time, and while post-conversion got a bad reputation with hastily-done rush jobs, good things can happen when some time is taken (and the technology has gotten much better since Clash of the Titans.

Look at it this way:  It'll play in theaters for a week.  In most cases, there will be 2D showings.  And as a result of everything needed to make this project work, there's likely a nicely restored 4K or even 8K transfer on Warners' servers that will serve as the basis for a great Blu-ray and some new 35mm prints.  I'm reasonably sure that this is going to be a positive.

That's the hopeful spin on WIZARD. We shall see.

Now, Jay Seaver, you see more movies than anyone here - you MUST have some good "Moviegoing Experiences"!!!!

About a year ago, there was an announcement of special screenings where texting would be encouraged. I haven't anything about it since.

NOW, some rich Sillicon Valley venture capitlist wants to take it one step further. Wi-Fi in the theater. Power outlets in the aisles. Oh, and turn UP the lights so he can see what he's texting etc. He even says that hey, something like PACIFIC RIM? Who needs to follow the plot!?

A-Hole!

http://badassdigest.com/2013/08/05/venture-capitalist-ding-dong-wants-well-lit-wired-movie-theaters/

I think I heard that Regal's Sharknado screenings last Friday were meant to be Twitter-friendly.

Not going to lie, I will take a power outlet anywhere I can find one.  This phone whose charge doesn't last an entire day is a bummer.

Anyway, if he thinks this is a viable business model, and there are people who want this service, go for it.  If "smartphone-friendly" is the only thing his theater has to offer, he's basically succeeded in alienating his best potential customers, and I think few enough people are actively interested in it to make it work.

L.A. Connection wrote on Aug 8^th, 2013 at 11:57am:

About a year ago, there was an announcement of special screenings where texting would be encouraged. I haven't anything about it since. NOW, some rich Sillicon Valley venture capitlist wants to take it one step further. Wi-Fi in the theater. Power outlets in the aisles. Oh, and turn UP the lights so he can see what he's texting etc. He even says that hey, something like PACIFIC RIM? Who needs to follow the plot!? A-Hole!

I'm sure somewhere along the line someone will point out to this guy that having all that available means whats on screen ain't worth watching. And if that's so, WHY THE HELL GO TO THE MOVIES!

My worst experience at the movies was World War Z which not only had a group passing a lit screen device among their group but also a loud snorer.

Maybe THIS is what we need.
Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in Texas is famous for their "one warning and we mean it" policy about noisy patrons.
Check out these two PSA's they ran in their theaters.

This one's interesting because it actually shows what the theater looks like inside.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=159aC5YSio4

And this is the uncensored version of their most famous one, warning about some swears (and gibberish) during it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs

Those Alamo spots are pretty funny.

Only thing is, I find full scale food in a theater as annoying as talking and texting. Kind of surprising they have a no tolerence mobile device policy, but, have no problem with some guy ordering booze and food 5-10 times during a show, pigging out, burping, belching and worse........... :-/ :-/ :-/

It's not so bad; you write down your orders on a card that the wait staff can spot and retrieve without disturbing the rest of the audience, and the times I went (at SXSW about 5 years ago), I often didn't even notice the bill being returned until credits rolled.  The food's generally quieter than popcorn or candy with crinkly wrappers - and a much better value for money, both in terms of being on a part with pretty good take-out and not horribly expensive.

It was a little jarring the first time, but it pretty quickly becomes like the bright orange EXIT signs, a predictable part of the background that your brain filters out.  I was actually rather hoping that Alamo would purchase the Harvard Square Theater (well, they were my second choice behind FEI) and renovate it like they have noteworthy theaters in other cities, but apparently it wasn't on their radar or the price was too high.  Given my schedule, a combined dinner/movie place would be fantastic.

I've been "lucky" in that at screenings at such places that I have attended, most folks passed on full meals (save for the guy with the whole pizza, Bucket of popcorn, 75oz soda AND Dessert).

But, last week at a Sundance Theater (yup, Redford has a small chain), they used light up Pagers for ordered drinks. And, this "Pager" was the size of a small tablet and the lights were like Xmas lights which ringed the entire outside of the pager! That was more annoying than most people checking their phone for messages.

A couple of people pointed out one of the reason Alamo runs ads like these is so people don't think a place you can get drinks during the show is loud and raucous.

I also saw an article that alamo was opening a place in NYC, that should be interesting.

Y'know I think the main thing wrong with modern movie houses is that no one checks on the houses after the film starts. If someone just came in during the show, even just a quick check they'd see people using phones. cameras and hear them talking. 

Which is actually one of the benefits of having an Alamo-style cinema - there are always servers scanning the crowd for order cards (which can serve double duty as "idiot nearby" alerts).

Here's something I hadn't even thought about with the end of studios making actual prints of movies.
What happens to the drive-ins?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh2ULhXtqYU

Bottom line is the bottom line - the studios could give a ##@#! They don't care. As long as they save $$$ in the long run with film, print and shipping costs, they consider Drive-In, arthouses and small indie theaters "collateral damage".

The don't care.



da_Bunnyman wrote on Aug 11^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

Here's something I hadn't even thought about with the end of studios making actual prints of movies. What happens to the drive-ins? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh2ULhXtqYU

My first real job was as a projectionist in a Drive-In. If there was a better job for a Kansas teenager, I can't think of it. :)

Here's a modest proposal to help save the Classic American Drive-In: ACTUALLY GO TO THEM!

Check out this list with links to sixteen open, operating drive-ins within a 150 mile radius of Boston:

http://www.drive-ins.com/dbdisrch.htm?status_op=open&zipcode=02116&distance=150&search.x=0&search.y=0

Gone are the days of the Roger Corman triple B-movie feature, but they generally offer two recent summer big-budget films. Next weekend, Mendon will be offering "Elysium" along with "Two Guns" for example.
http://www.mendondrivein.com/coming-soon

I've been to these three:
Mendon Twin Drive-In Mendon, Massachusetts
Weirs Drive-In Weirs Beach, New Hampshire
Rustic Tri-View Drive-In North Smithfield, Rhode Island 

All have great old-school charm, multiple screens, and concession stands that smell like fryolators.

No, you won't get blasting AC or super-sense-surround Dolby Digital mega-woofer-crunch audio beyond what your car sound system can provide. On the other hand, Is the guy in the car next to you talking or texting, making weird grunting sounds or fidgeting in his seat? Heck he can be total jerk and slit the seats and you don't care! :D

I say go for it. Bring your wife or best girl. Bring along bug spray and hide your 3.2 beer and high-school buddies in the trunk. Have a retro-good-time. :D

I agree, that folks should support Drive-Ins, Arthouses and ancient single-screen theaters in little towns. Problem is, if they can't raise the tens of thousands of dollars it takes to convert to digital - they still will close.

I talked to a single-screen theater owner just recently who told me that even IF he could raise the money, it may not be worth it. The investment is so steep that it would takes years if not decades to get that money back.

Digital sucks. Reason number 294

Quote:

Me: Gone are the days of the Roger Corman triple B-movie feature...

I have to correct myself. This is not an old advert from days gone by...

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/Karen_Tom/Movies/Drive-In_zpse629138a.jpg


Quote:

LA: ... folks should support Drive-Ins, Arthouses and ancient single-screen theaters in little towns. Problem is, if they can't raise the tens of thousands of dollars it takes to convert to digital - they still will close.

The front money needed to make the digital conversion was a problem created by the studios. I think it's great that Honda is helping out, but shouldn't the studios who created the mess at least provide low-interest loans to the small and historic theater operators? After all, $80-K will bust a small theater operator but it's chump change to a major studio.

R_F_Fineman wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

[quote] The front money needed to make the digital conversion was a problem created by the studios. I think it's great that Honda is helping out, but shouldn't the studios who created the mess at least provide low-interest loans to the small and historic theater operators? After all, $80-K will bust a small theater operator but it's chump change to a major studio.

Cool programs!

But, as to your last comments, I will repeat what I wrote before - The Studios Don't Care. Small independent theaters and drive-ins are just collateral damage to them.

Sad.

But, true.

Jay Seaver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 11:32am:

I am reasonably confident that it will have a slight windowbox, and wouldn't be at all shocked if there were 2D showings much like Man of Steel had.  And, honestly, both theaters and studios are backing off 3D-or-nothing bookings; there are times when I've had trouble finding a 3D show at a good time at certain locations, especially after the first week. As to the 3D post-conversion itself...  Well, this project has been in the works for a long time, and while post-conversion got a bad reputation with hastily-done rush jobs, good things can happen when some time is taken (and the technology has gotten much better since Clash of the Titans.

So, I was wrong about there being 2D screenings; every showtime at Boston Common and Jordan's is 3D.  I was, however, pleased to see that it was projected at Academy Ratio or something pretty close, even though the Imax-branded screen at Boston Common is one of the 2:1-ish ratio installations.  The furniture stores, therefore, are recommended.

The worries about the movie being brutalized in the conversion are unfounded; the image is clean and clear but retains grain, unlike some digital restorations/conversions which smooth that out or sharpen the picture unnaturally.  And the 3D conversion is excellent as things go, unobtrusive but not lackluster.  The work done on the backdrops is especially good; it really expands the world back without changing the character of the paintings.  Heck, Warner Brothers doesn't even put their logo at the front or end of the movie.  Kind of surprised it was 3D all the way through rather than adding that with the color, but that's better than taking people out of the movie to put their glasses on.

So not quite the best-case scenario, but pretty darn close.  It was a neat way to see the movie; my nieces are going to have a ball when they see it tomorrow.  The Blu-ray coming in a week and a half is going to look great.  The 3D version will probably be little more than a novelty a week from now, and if doing it put more resources into the restoration and got the anniversary video release a little more attention, it's done its job.

I've heard mostly good things about the WIZARD conversion, but, I ain't paying the $21 the local plex is charging for it. (so much for the theory espoused by several theater owners that there was a psychological barrier to charging $20 for a movie ticket)

It really is too bad that the studio's greed is such that they won't have at least a few 2D showings.

I think it tops out at $18 here; I wound up paying $7 between hitting the 11am show and having a $12-for-$6 Fandango Groupon in my pocket for just such an occasion (otherwise, I would have carved out the time to make it to Reading where tickets top out at $12.75).

I was kind of surprised that there aren't any 2D screenings, if only because local theaters have really cut down on 3D shows this year, especially for family movies.  I suspect it's meant to give folks a reason to come out in advance of the video release on 1 October, but at least there will be decent 4K DCPs for screens that want them going forward.

If digital "projection" was not already a horrible abomination, now it looks like it's destined to be a three-headed horrible abomination! :o


Quote:

270-Degree Movie Screen: Coming Soon to a Theater Near You? ...A South Korean cinema chain has developed movie viewing that literally surrounds you with the film by incorporating not one but three separate "screens." ScreenX, developed by CJ CGV Co. Ltd., makes use of side walls as additional projection points to create a 270-degree view of the film. Think the "King Kong 3-D" ride at Universal Studios but without anything going on behind you (and sans the rocking tour bus, too, of course)...According to Paul Kim, senior producer for ScreenX, the wider scenes were shot using three cameras simultaneously filming different angles — which presents unique challenges, such as where to hide the crew and equipment. "In a [traditional] shoot, you have one façade. Now we need an entire set for a scene. What was usually one wall now becomes 270 degrees," said Kim to Korea Real Time (via the Wall Street Journal). "It was a lot of trial-and-error." Mostly error, apparently, as Jee-woon himself called the experience of filming "The X" to be "like hell and a nightmare," according to The Verge — a description that might not exactly inspire other filmmakers to try out the new toy.

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/270-degree-movie-screen-coming-soon-theater-near-230353353.html

R_F_Fineman wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 11:12am:

If digital "projection" was not already a horrible abomination, now it looks like it's destined to be a three-headed horrible abomination! :o Quote: 270-Degree Movie Screen: Coming Soon to a Theater Near You? ...A South Korean cinema chain has developed movie viewing that literally surrounds you with the film by incorporating not one but three separate "screens." ScreenX, developed by CJ CGV Co. Ltd., makes use of side walls as additional projection points to create a 270-degree view of the film. Think the "King Kong 3-D" ride at Universal Studios but without anything going on behind you (and sans the rocking tour bus, too, of course)...According to Paul Kim, senior producer for ScreenX, the wider scenes were shot using three cameras simultaneously filming different angles — which presents unique challenges, such as where to hide the crew and equipment. "In a [traditional] shoot, you have one façade. Now we need an entire set for a scene. What was usually one wall now becomes 270 degrees," said Kim to Korea Real Time (via the Wall Street Journal). "It was a lot of trial-and-error." Mostly error, apparently, as Jee-woon himself called the experience of filming "The X" to be "like hell and a nightmare," according to The Verge — a description that might not exactly inspire other filmmakers to try out the new toy. http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/270-degree-movie-screen-coming-soon-theater-near-230353353.html

Filmed with 3 cameras? Extra wide screens?
Good Lord, they've invented CINERAMA, again.

Would you pay more for primo seats at a movie? A theater chain is thinking of doing just that. Ready for you upcharge, sir?

http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/05/14/cineplex_to_test_surcharge_for_best_movie_seats.html

Emil Gantz would be proud (ref: "Napoleon," 1928)

Jon wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 9:32am:

Emil Gantz would be proud (ref: "Napoleon," 1928)

I'm pretty sure you mean 'ABEL GANCE".

But, even so, what exactly is this referencing??

:-? :-? :-? :-?

L.A. Connection wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 10:02pm:

Jon wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 9:32am: Emil Gantz would be proud (ref: "Napoleon," 1928) I'm pretty sure you mean 'ABEL GANCE". But, even so, what exactly is this referencing?? :-? :-? :-? :-?

I'd guess it was a reference  to the South Korean triple screen projection system mentioned a couple of lines up.
Gance's Napoleon had a system called Polyvision where certain parts would have 3 projectors and 3 screens.   

Has it come to this?

I'm at a quiet Foreign Language movie. The guy next to me gets bored and whips out his cell phone and starts cruising the internets. A few minutes later he starts texting. I always give folks ONE cell phone text - there may be an emergency, kids to check up on etc. Fine. One.

A few minutes later, he starts texting back and forth again. I tell him to please not text any more. Without pause he shoves his middle finger right in my face and yells, "F#ck You, A$$hole! I'll do what I want, when I want!"

So, we've gone from talking and using your cellphone in a movie theater is wrong, to I'm an A-hole if I ask the offender to stop?

As I've said in the past, I put a lot of the blame on the theaters themselves. No one ever looks in on the house to check on anything. So temperatures can get extreme, sound can vanish or be too loud or morons like that guy can text, talk, hell even film without any worries.
There does not have to be someone always in a house but just having someone look in every once in awhile would help.

I agree with that about movie theaters, but, my point is now that people seem to feel they are entitled now to using their tech no matter where they are. THEY are the ones offended by even being asked to stop what they are doing.

A couple of years ago when BRIDESMAIDS came out, an attractive young lady decided she wanted to text ALL her friends about how funny the movie was. When I politely asked her to cease and desist she gave me this indignant loud sigh like I just spat in her face or something.


da_Bunnyman wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 4:55pm:

As I've said in the past, I put a lot of the blame on the theaters themselves. No one ever looks in on the house to check on anything. So temperatures can get extreme, sound can vanish or be too loud or morons like that guy can text, talk, hell even film without any worries. There does not have to be someone always in a house but just having someone look in every once in awhile would help.

L.A. Connection wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2014 at 6:24pm:

I agree with that about movie theaters, but, my point is now that people seem to feel they are entitled now to using their tech no matter where they are. THEY are the ones offended by even being asked to stop what they are doing. A couple of years ago when BRIDESMAIDS came out, an attractive young lady decided she wanted to text ALL her friends about how funny the movie was. When I politely asked her to cease and desist she gave me this indignant loud sigh like I just spat in her face or something. da_Bunnyman wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 4:55pm: As I've said in the past, I put a lot of the blame on the theaters themselves. No one ever looks in on the house to check on anything. So temperatures can get extreme, sound can vanish or be too loud or morons like that guy can text, talk, hell even film without any worries. There does not have to be someone always in a house but just having someone look in every once in awhile would help.

     Go right to the manager and either A) Demand a full refund [dont accept a pass], or B) Demand that the assclown be kicked the hell out.
     If you dont do one of those, you have no one to blame but yourself.
     I give people like youre describing one warning: "I work here, and if I have to get up from this seat, I guarantee youll be out on the street two minutes later."  That usually works.

I get it, I get it -- get the theater involved. But, that wasn't my point.

My point is that I shouldn't HAVE to go a theater employee at all. Two main reasons:

1. If I'm enjoying a movie why should I have to get up, try and find an employee who will listen, care AND do something about it? That could take 5+ minutes. THEN, we have to walk in the theater and said employee may or may NOT do anything about it save for a warning. 10 minutes gone.

2. And, most importantly, I shouldn't have to remind the cell phone abusers in the first place! They know the rules, they see the pre-show warnings not to text. And, when they are asked to stop, they should desist immediately and without anger.



David the Projectionist wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 2:08am:

L.A. Connection wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 6:24pm: I agree with that about movie theaters, but, my point is now that people seem to feel they are entitled now to using their tech no matter where they are. THEY are the ones offended by even being asked to stop what they are doing. A couple of years ago when BRIDESMAIDS came out, an attractive young lady decided she wanted to text ALL her friends about how funny the movie was. When I politely asked her to cease and desist she gave me this indignant loud sigh like I just spat in her face or something. da_Bunnyman wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 4:55pm: As I've said in the past, I put a lot of the blame on the theaters themselves. No one ever looks in on the house to check on anything. So temperatures can get extreme, sound can vanish or be too loud or morons like that guy can text, talk, hell even film without any worries. There does not have to be someone always in a house but just having someone look in every once in awhile would help.      Go right to the manager and either A) Demand a full refund [dont accept a pass], or B) Demand that the assclown be kicked the hell out.      If you dont do one of those, you have no one to blame but yourself.      I give people like youre describing one warning: "I work here, and if I have to get up from this seat, I guarantee youll be out on the street two minutes later."  That usually works.

L.A. Connection wrote on Nov 4^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

I get it, I get it -- get the theater involved. But, that wasn't my point. My point is that I shouldn't HAVE to go a theater employee at all. Two main reasons: 1. If I'm enjoying a movie why should I have to get up, try and find an employee who will listen, care AND do something about it? That could take 5+ minutes. THEN, we have to walk in the theater and said employee may or may NOT do anything about it save for a warning. 10 minutes gone. 2. And, most importantly, I shouldn't have to remind the cell phone abusers in the first place! They know the rules, they see the pre-show warnings not to text. And, when they are asked to stop, they should desist immediately and without anger. David the Projectionist wrote on Nov 4th, 2014 at 2:08am: L.A. Connection wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 6:24pm: I agree with that about movie theaters, but, my point is now that people seem to feel they are entitled now to using their tech no matter where they are. THEY are the ones offended by even being asked to stop what they are doing. A couple of years ago when BRIDESMAIDS came out, an attractive young lady decided she wanted to text ALL her friends about how funny the movie was. When I politely asked her to cease and desist she gave me this indignant loud sigh like I just spat in her face or something. da_Bunnyman wrote on Nov 3rd, 2014 at 4:55pm: As I've said in the past, I put a lot of the blame on the theaters themselves. No one ever looks in on the house to check on anything. So temperatures can get extreme, sound can vanish or be too loud or morons like that guy can text, talk, hell even film without any worries. There does not have to be someone always in a house but just having someone look in every once in awhile would help.      Go right to the manager and either A) Demand a full refund [dont accept a pass], or B) Demand that the assclown be kicked the hell out.      If you dont do one of those, you have no one to blame but yourself.      I give people like youre describing one warning: "I work here, and if I have to get up from this seat, I guarantee youll be out on the street two minutes later."  That usually works.

My own opinion is don't confront the people at all. Most of them know they're doing something they shouldn't, they just don't care and may decide to do more than just tell you to f**k off. (Remember though I worked for awhile at the downtown Saxon & Pi Alley theatres in Boston.) Plus if you do get the theater staff to do something they know exactly who to blame for their trouble. Go out get someone from the cinema and let them come in by themselves.
As to why they do it, who knows, its always been some kind of problem people in cinemas. Smoking, talking, yelling at the screen, its just some people don't care about anyone but themselves and the rest of us don't exist to them.

Well, I ain't giving up 5 to 10 minutes of a movie I like just because some A-hole can't unplug for a movie.

Maybe theaters could install a Call Button like ones in an airplane. This way I don't have to miss maybe a crucial part of a movie because of some rude bastard.

>:(