|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: The Sydney re-release of 2001...
|
Michael Barry
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 584
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-15-2001 11:21 AM
I've been VERY busy this week, but meant to post this message about last week's Sydney 2001 re-release.Firstly, it didn't have a wide release as originally intended, but only went to three theatres for its season. All three are prominent venues that attract large traffic. Despite the fact that it only went to three screens and did not go wide, all three prints were 35MM. Here's the final irony: all three locations that are showing it have 70MM projection capability! As Brian Grazer and Ron Howard said on the 'Far and Away' trailer, '35MM is great...but that's still not our movie'. There was a great opportunity this year to show the public what this great film really means but this re-release has not achieved that. The (independent) theatre I work at decided not to show 2001 as a season with the other three theatres; instead, they will feature selected screenings next month only in 70MM. With only a mediocre response to the re-release, this prompts me to wonder: 1) If the release had taken place right from the start in 70MM and that fact had been pushed, would the response have been different? 2) Will people respond differently to the 70MM presentations next month, or will they feel they have 'already seen it' this month? 3) Is '2001' no longer of much interest to the public as a big-screen concern, and/or is '70MM' a meaningless term to the current generation of movie-goers? Next month's screenings will prove interesting...and as the aforementioned duo would say, 'Now THIS is our movie!'.
|
|
John Wilson
Film God
Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-15-2001 05:33 PM
Hi Michael... As much as I enjoy this movie, I think 2001 has been done to death in this town as was proven by its last dismal outing about 6 years ago. Even with a brand new (albeit crappy registration) print, it failed to bring in an audience. Will you be running a new 70mm print and does it have mag or dts track? I believe the old print I mentioned above had to be destoyed due to the rights expiring fom the distributor. ------------------ "It's not the years, honey...it's the mileage". Indiana Jones
|
|
|
Michael Barry
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 584
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-15-2001 08:16 PM
Hi John!Thanks for the poster! Speaking to the distributor reveals that they have imported one 70MM print, although they were unable to tell me whether it was DTS or mag. Either way, I can't understand why they didn't use it at one of the three locations now showing it...or can I? Another thing...the newspaper copy proudly heralded that 2001 was showing 'for the first time in digital sound!'. Gee, if only they had shown it in DLP then the ad copy could have said, 'For the first time in digital sound AND picture!' I did hear another interesting anecdote...apparently the distributor had to insist that it is forbidden to cut out the intermission tag on the new prints. Oh, dear...
|
|
|
John Wilson
Film God
Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-15-2001 09:52 PM
Forbidden to cut it out? OK, then remove it and put it back when you send the print back. It's only 140 mins after all...pretty much your average feature nowadays.Surely these three aren't running intermissions...are they? Who's the distributor now? The fact that you say there is only one 70mm of 2001 would tend to say more the reason you are not running it at the moment. Perhaps someone else has it who was willing to offer the 2day /2night sessions they are demanding? Daisy...Daisy...(get it...'Peter'?) ------------------ "It's not the years, honey...it's the mileage". Indiana Jones
|
|
Michael Barry
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 584
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-16-2001 12:10 AM
John: The thing is that no-one in Sydney is running a 70MM print despite the apparent existence of one, so that can't be why we didn't get it, although if we offered them their seasonal terms they may have obliged. The other three are giving them those terms yet they are running 35MM - wierd.The thing about removing the intermission tag is that Kubrick wanted to have an intermission right after we discover that HAL is lipreading the two astronauts. Removing the same is not quite presenting the film as He had intended. Then again, neither is 35MM projection, which is the main point of my thread. The distributor is Roadshow, by the way. They certainly went to some trouble and expense by bringing in new trailers, which are excellent, but lack the 70MM push that the original trailer had. The text during the trailer says, 'In 1969, it was ahead of its time. In 2001, its time has come. Still the ultimate trip - just not as sharp as you remember it'. (Well, not the last part anyway). So it's a huge shame to go to all that trouble and then drop the ball when it comes to the presentation itself. Insult to injury: one of the theatres running it is dead opposite what used to be the Plaza theatre, purpose built for Cinerama. They ran 2001 in single-strip years ago; that was before the site was demolished so it could become a McDonalds. I don't mean to be a Cassandra, but really...
|
|
Dick Vaughan
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1032
From: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-16-2001 03:18 AM
Leave that intermission in!The new 70mm print we ran here in Bradford last week was SR mag stripe. The neg it was printed from still had some scratching and other marks. The restoration budget apparently didn't run to digital retouching. I hear that the prints for the US release(late Summer?) may be DTS. BTW we screened the print on the louvred Cinerama screen. Some of those amongst the audience that weren't in the know thought that the visible lines from the over 1000 screen strips were scratches on the print . We are running the print again in May and are considering doing some of the shows on the flat screen.
|
|
Per Hauberg
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 883
From: Malling, Denmark
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-16-2001 08:07 PM
Regarding Mr Wilson, Sydney:Would someone please remove that man's splicer...? The film was made with an intermission and lots of very special enter-the-act music. Since when has it become a projectionist's job to edit a film ?? Shame ! /p.
|
|
John Wilson
Film God
Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-16-2001 10:49 PM
Fine, don't cut it out then. Just do a changeover. Per, the 35mm prints we ran in 1982 had no entracte music nor overture music attached yet the leaders were still original and had never been spliced. If it was so important to run this in two parts, why was this print allowed to be made so? Also, it had original cues leading up to the intermission tag, which had been added from different stock. It runs through just fine without an intermission and these are multiplexes running them...not grand old presentations of yester-year. When Michael gets his hands on the 70mm print, I'm sure it will and should run in two parts, but please get off your soapbox to me about how it should be seen in a crappy little shoebox.
|
|
|
John Wilson
Film God
Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-18-2001 04:51 AM
I take your point, but my point was...it didn't seem to matter to warners then, so why is it so important to them now? Does Kubrik's death make his film somehow greater than when he was alive?What can these cinemas do while the overtures are running? They have no curtains to look at...it all seems a bit pointless. If Warners are going to be such sticklers for this film, then they shouldn't let inferior 35mm prints play in 70mm territories. ------------------ "It's not the years, honey...it's the mileage". Indiana Jones
|
|
Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-18-2001 10:58 AM
Please don't edit, cut, modify, scratch, embelish (with large changeover marks) any film, ever. The guy that created the film is trying to tell a story. Each frame of the film has meaning and is a part of the telling of that story. If someone removes part of the film or somehow alters the film, it is changing the story. When I go to a theater, I expect to see the story presented as the creator directed. If I go to a famous film that is supposed to be restored from the original and I see that it's not all there, I get real upset. It's the main reason I don't bother to try to watch movies on commercial TV. Entire sections of story line are removed and the sound track has been modified to the point that all the language that depicts the speakers character is gone and replace with some PC BS. As projectionists our job is to show (and tell) the story with as much fidelity as humanly possible. Please don't make the film "The projectionist's edition"------------------ Greg Mueller Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|