My REEL beef is that the movie came on ten reels. TEN FRICKEN REELS. It would have made it easily on seven reels. Do they have any brains about this when they decide to do this to us? Do they realize just how much time and care we have to put into each and every splice? OF COURSE THEY DONT!!!

And speaking of splices. One of thier lab splices was out of frame, and like the bonehead that I am I did not catch it. Now I have to put another one of these things together. It takes me so damn long because I make sure that each and every splice is lovingly applied so you NEVER EVER EVER SEE IT OR HEAR IT EVER EVER EVER.

OK i just needed to rant before I went back to that ten reel movie that really should be on seven reels. AAAAUGH....

You should have handled Branagh's 'Hamlet'.. A film that would have fit easily on 12 reels spanned over TWENTY reels, most about 5-10 minutes in length! Totally unacceptable in my book.... and thats FIVE 4-reel cans! Ouch! (and a bigger ouch for the poor souls that had to deal with 20 reels in *70MM*...)

But, oh...the image! It made all that build up work worthwhile.

We asked Columbia if it would be okay to leave it to the twelve spools but they said that would stuff up their inventory. (!)

A great, great film but only in its complete 4 hour version. Branaugh wanted to film the entire text and man, does it work. Actually, it was interesting because we had just finished Romeo and Juliet at our theatre where you could understand about one in every three words. Then along came these fabulous Shakespearean actors and 6 track mag and you could understand every word.

A delicacy unfortunately all too rare.

Kodak makes the film. (It costs about twice as much as 35mm, as expected, since it is twice as wide.) Panavision, Cinema Products Corporation and Arriflex have modern 65mm cameras. Technicolor, Deluxe and CFI have the 70mm printing and processing machines. DTS has 70mm digital sound. Over a thousand theatres have the 70mm projectors. Where's the product?

I wrote about the "Splendor of 70mm" in the December 1998 and March 1999 "Film Notes for Reel People":
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/december98/pppp.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/march99/pytlak.shtml

For an article on the producton of "Hamlet", see the February 1997 issue of "Film Notes for Reel People":
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/february97/index.shtml

I'm not saying it costs too much, (Hamlet seemed to cost a reasonable amount) but it's not a trival decision.

Although, I am at a lost to explain why regular 35mm production are not printed to 70mm. It still looks better.

There are multiple issues at work when producers decide to work with 35mm as opposed to 65mm:

1. Cost of film. The film is twice as much in cost and developing.

2. Editing. Facilities charge much more to edit 65mm than 35mm. Also there are not many facilities left that will still do any 65mm work making it much more expensive at the places that still do.

3. Director of Photographers and Cameramen. There are few left that have any experience working with 65mm and as a result the ones who do charge much more.

There are so many reasons to shoot 65mm, but when actors and directors and cameramen eat into 65 percent of your budget before you ever get into pre-production, 65mm becomes a passing fancy and you start looking for ways to cut the budget.

how great the Matrix would have looked if Keanu didnt demand that 10 million bucks and they put it into 65mm shooting.

Another point is that many directors PREFER to work with anamorphics on 35mm. For some reason they cant see the film without it.

 |  IP: Logged

LONG LIVE FILM!

I can not see FILM being replaced in my life time...........I agree with Aaron.....long live film.....