|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The New World
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler
Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-15-2006 03:29 AM
in70mm
Written by: Thomas Hauerslev
Last year it was bruited about that Terence Malick was shooting his new film wholly or partially in 65mm and distributor New Line Cinema was checking into whether there were enough theaters to do a limited 70mm release. Although "The New World" is opening next month (25 December 2005), I've heard nothing about 65/70mm in relation to it. Is there a story here?
According to the cinematographer, Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki, he and Malick briefly toyed with the idea of shooting the film in 65mm, but ultimately opted for anamorphic 35. Apparently, they only used 65mm for a few brief segments.
Here's a preview of a direct quote from Chivo on the matter: "Our initial dream was to shoot the entire movie in 65mm, but there were so many barriers", says Lubezki. "The only person who really supported us in that idea was Vittorio Storaro [ASC, AIC]", who had mixed 65mm and 35mm on Little Buddha. "I called him to talk it over, and he said, Chivo, donīt even think about it. Shoot it all in 65!" But there are big problems with how to distribute 65 and postproduce sound for it. No one projects it any more."
The filmmakers did shoot a small amount of 65mm "for what we called Hyper-enhanced moments" when, for example, John Smith or Pocahontas has an important realization."
======================
70mm Prints?
New Line does its domestic printing on Fuji stock, which I don't believe makes 70mm.
Rick Mitchell
It looks like Terrence Malick's "The New World" isn't going out with 70mm prints, at least here in L.A. Just plain 35mm and digital sound at the ArcLight and AMC Century 15 (in underwhelming SDDS). From what I understand, most of the film was shot in anamorphic, with a scene (or scenes) shot with John Smith and Pochantas in 65mm. I'm sure most of you have read the most recent issue of American Cinematographer featuring this film. There are some *interesting* quotes from the DP regarding 70mm. Too bad 70s weren't struck.
If memory serves, this is the second time Malick has toyed with doing his film in 70mm. I believe that "The Thin Red Line" was supposedly considered for 65mm or at the very least, 70mm blow-ups. I don't have the particular issue of American Cinematographer in front of me to verify.
Best,
Bill Kallay, 24. December 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-15-2006 10:48 AM
Y'know, there's all sorts of stories about directors and DPs considering the idea of shooting in 65mm. The New World is just the latest example of the idea being considered and then put aside in favor of 35mm. Spielberg was going to shoot 65mm on Empire of the Sun but opted to shoot 35mm instead and shoot flat as well. Some 70mm blow up prints were made though.
Ron Howard (Far and Away), Ron Frike (Baraka) and Kenneth Brannaugh (Hamlet) are the only directors in recent years who have actually gone through with shooting all or nearly all of the film on 65mm.
For all of the difficulties cited in using 65mm for feature film production it makes me ask the following: then how are the special venue filmmakers getting it done?
How is it that small crews on fairly small budgets are able to get 15/70 projects for IMAX completed while much better funded feature projects can only manage to shoot 35mm? A 65mm Panavision or Arri camera is not much bigger than a 35mm model, and they have some 65mm cameras that can work on a Steadicam. IMAX cameras by comparison are pretty huge. But crews have managed to haul those things up to the top of Mount Everest.
I'm not buying the sync sound argument either. Movie sound on the set is all recorded separately anyway -and nearly all of that is replaced in the ADR, Foley and Effects studios.
In the end, the only real argument against shooting 65mm is the lack of projection in theaters. I seem to remember a post from Brad with lots of details to show it would not be hard to convert an existing 35mm-only screen to handle 70mm. It would even be possible to have 70mm packages put together and installed to support a major 70mm release. Honestly, none of that is any more complicated than the average D-Cinema install. In fact it may be even more simple.
In the end, if a major feature movie production really wants to get it done in 65mm/70mm they'll get it done. Otherwise the "it's too difficult" argument sounds iffy to me.
I still believe in the long run Hollywood may have to resort to using larger film formats like 65mm. Computing technology is going to keep improving. Internet bandwidth is going to increase to phenomenal levels. 20 years from now viewers may be watching movies via IP that have resolutions far above 1080 HD. Sure, video camera people will try to pack more and more pixels into their CCDs, but most will be stuck at 1080 HD for the forseeable future. Large format film will have the capability to deliver much sharper detail.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic