Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Poltergeist 25th Anniversary Screenings

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Poltergeist 25th Anniversary Screenings - 35mm or DVD?

Author

Topic: Poltergeist 25th Anniversary Screenings - 35mm or DVD?

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 09-07-2007 12:37 AM

Poltergiest is getting a one-night re-issue on 10/24. Here's the Official Site, which also has a Theatre List.

Can anyone confirm if any of these theatres will be screening 35mm prints, or if they will be projecting DVD? (I've heard that their events in the past used DVDs.)

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 09-07-2007 08:31 AM

Most likely with that amount of theatres it will be digital projection. If they were to have new 35mm prints, they would be in NYC and Hollywood areas. Warner is releasing Blade Runner Final Cut version only in a digital projection soon.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-07-2007 10:35 AM

I have some doubts about the D-Cinema thing. According to the list of theaters booked to play the 25th anniversary screening of Poltergeist, two Cinemark theaters in Oklahoma are included. However, the Tinseltown 20 in Oklahoma City and Cinemark Tulsa don't have any digital projection systems at this time. The company has only 32 d-cinema equipped screens between 31 sites (including acquired Century screens) according to D-Cinema Today. There is a chance those numbers could be well out of date (I know D-Cinema Today is lacking at least a couple of Harkins installations in their lists).

Another problem seeming to count against a digital-only release of Poltergeist is the fact most movie theaters with digital projection typically have only one system in the multiplex and that system is usually set up for a larger auditorium. A 25 year old movie (although a classic) may have a tough time competing against new fall releases for those few digital-equipped screens.

I hope no one will stoop to showing Poltergeist merely projected from a standard DVD. That would just be sad. 480p is just too coarse and low in resolution to look good on a large, commercial movie theater screen. Sure, 35mm film prints are going to cost some money, but if the re-release is marketed competently at all it should bring out enough movie-goers to make the effort turn a good profit.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 09-07-2007 01:05 PM

It will most likely be if not film, NCM HD pre-show projectors running the show. These projectors are the ones that use two bulbs in them and are used for concerts and such.

Cinemark currently has 36 locations with 53 total digital screens.

| IP: Logged

James. R. Deeter
Film Handler

Posts: 64
From: Belton, MO, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-10-2007 01:50 PM

Does anyone think this will be well attended on a Thursday night ? Without big promo help from a local station that targets the 40 + age demo, who cares ? From the list of theatres participating, it looks like mostly AMC, Regal, Cinemark. Maybe NCM put this together ? One more nit pick...the movie released in June of '82, shoulda ran this promo in the summer.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-10-2007 02:45 PM

There probably was nowhere near enough available screens to run the Poltergeist reissue during June.

Other popular movies from the 1970s and 1980s have had similar booking difficulties. The 20th anniversary reissue of E.T. ran in the Spring of 2002 instead of Summer. The Star Wars movies were quintessential "summer movies," but their 1997 special edition versions were released in the early part of that year instead of summer.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-10-2007 08:30 PM

They did Star Wars that way because there's no way they could have gotten 12 weeks in big houses (a minimum 4-week-per-movie contract requirement) in mid-summer.

They should do Poltergeist starting Halloween night for two days. They could catch the overflow from Saw IV.

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 09-10-2007 09:46 PM

Based on a reply I got from Fathom, and a discussion over at Home Theater Forum , it looks like they are doing something to upconvert the DVDs to 720p, and then projecting them digitally.

I'm going to opt for seeing it in 35mm at the Castro in San Francisco instead.

Jonesy
Movie Theatre Reviews

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-11-2007 02:47 AM

I wonder how happy Mr. Spielberg would be to know this was going to happen on DVD.

[dlp]

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 10-04-2007 12:37 AM

I made it to the Castro for Poltergeist last night and I want to take the time to say thanks to the staff at the Castro.

The 35mm print was beautiful. It looked brand new. The presentation was excellent from start to finish. I haven't had that much fun at the movies in a long time. [Big Grin]

It's a shame that moviegoers won't get the same experience at the video screenings of Poltergeist tomorrow night. [Frown]

If you find yourself in the San Francisco area, make an effort to see a movie at the Castro!

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 10-05-2007 09:25 AM

Here's a couple of reactions posted on Ain't It Cool News.

quote:
A Couple Of Dissatisfied Readers Write In About Tonight’s POLTERGEIST Event!

Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.

I’m sorry to hear that this event was so mismanaged. I am not sure what would possess anyone to show a film in a theater in the wrong aspect ratio in the year 2007? That’s a basic mistake that no one should make. It’s not the same as the home video debate because we’re talking about a theater. In the theater, it makes sense to show it in the theatrical ratio... hence no need for letterboxing or pan and scanning and digital zooming.

I’ll let these guys tell you what they saw:

So Harry I went to the screening of Poltergeist this evening. I have been looking forward to seeing it since the posting here a few weeks back.

Well it did not go well.

Once upon a time I worked in a theater, so I know just a little something. The show starts off very much full screen and just as the credits start the pictures pulls back and shows the "scope" that should be presented. The darn thing is wide-screen (letter-boxed)just for the opening and closing credits. I am a forgiving sort on some things but when I have to pay for a "pan and scan" version of a beautiful film like this it is a shame.

I was not impressed with the projection system used either. As I understand it most movie theaters have might have two kinds of digital projectors. The very expensive one for the movie and one for the Movie Vision pre-show. Well guess which one was not used. Not the good one, thus a blurry, dull and dark movie experience with those annoying little boxes that show up on titles and very bright images. Why not just throw a sheet up and grab a lap-top and your $500.00 Best Buy LCD projector. Totally not what I wanted this evening.

I do have one good thing to say...the movie was very clean. I found the "print" to be pristine and flawless, just presented poorly.

Needless to say I did get my dollars back and will use them to purchase the DVD movie next week. I am sure my TV will do the trick, once I place my hands on it and proclaim "They're Here!"

Just call me Mr Voice.

This next one is just a quick reaction:

Hey Harry & Crew,

Just got back from the "one night only special screening" of Poltergeist at the AMC theater in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Loved the flick, as always, but was appalled to see that it was PROJECTED IN THE WRONG ASPECT RATIO. Or I guess I should say, since I assume it was all digital, they USED THE WRONG VERSION for the screening. Basically we got a full-screen version of the flick, with correct aspect ratio main and end titles. Jeebus H. Criminy. Even movie theaters don't understand the appeal of widescreen now. Or at least Fathom Entertainment doesn't.

Just thought I'd share ...

Troy "Minnesota T-Rex" Tradup

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 10-05-2007 09:40 AM

The New Remastered 25th. Anniversary Edition of "Poltergeist" will be released on October 9th. 2007 from Warner Home Video.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 10-07-2007 10:42 AM

I wonder if anyone made an effort to locate a private print and run that instead. Without telling anyone of course.

| IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 10-07-2007 12:09 PM

I hope this Poltergeist showing goes better than the one I saw on its PREMIER night in a neighborhood Atlanta theatre. Full house, and the film breaks right where Jobeth Williams falls into the unfinished swimming pool and slides down to the deep end where... and it breaks. Entire theatre crowd SCREAMS in unison! After about 5 minutes, they got it going again, but nearly everyone there got a free pass, myself included.

I dont want to see the FATHOM version. I hate the digi projectors anyway!

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 10-07-2007 12:13 PM

Yow- theaters running a regular DVD of a film - not even in it's orginal ratio! That's about as low as you can go. But that, really very few people complained (a few articles in the newspaper or online doesn't count for much) only proves the point that the average paton doesn't even care about quality.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.