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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Tarantino Ditches Digital At New Beverly Theater (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Tarantino Ditches Digital At New Beverly Theater Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 09-05-2014 02:21 PM                     "Tarantino Ditches Digital At New Beverly Theater" (Link-A-Roo) Quentin Tarantino is not only a rabid defender of 35 mm as the best medium for shooting films, but for projecting them in theaters as well. While Christopher Nolan and others agree that celluloid cameras are still superior to the highest HD, most industry professionals understand that the story is over for 35 mm projection in this country. It's done. But not for Tarantino's New Beverly. The landlord of the venerable Los Angeles repertory cinema is so anti-digital (see Cannes press conference) that he pulled out the digital projector installed without his knowledge alongside the 35 mm projectors last June by Michael Torgan, who runs New Beverly's day-to-day theater operations. When Tarantino found out, he said the digital projector had to go. Some thought Tarantino would go ahead and fire Torgan, but he has stayed on managing the theater. He went ahead and acquired the digital projector because he was finding it harder and harder to get prints. Will Tarantino eventually recognize reality? American Cinematheque director Barbara Smith has said, "Digital is honestly the only way you can possibly stay in business at this point." Tarantino recently told LA Weekly: "That was the thing that pushed me over to say, ‘Now’s the time to do it.’ I want the New Beverly to be a bastion for 35 millimeter films. I want it to stand for something. When you see a film on the New Beverly calendar, you don’t have to ask whether it’s going to be shown in DCP [Digital Cinema Projection] or in 35 millimeter. You know it’s playing in 35 because it’s the New Beverly." He announced, in the same interview, that he'll be taking over the New Beverly as Head Programmer in the stead of Michael Torgan, who took over for his father Sherman Torgan, who founded the LA rep theater in 1978 and passed away in 2007. "He’s really done a Herculean job. But after seven years as owner, I wanted to make it mine." Head to the New Beverly website and you will not find a September program--but you can expect an October program soon. Down the line we'll see films from Tarantino's private collection, whose highlights include prints of all three Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood films in IB Technicolor. Tarantino, meanwhile, is gearing up for production on "The Hateful Eight" in the new year.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 09-05-2014 02:55 PM                     Sounds like the rumors Leo was reporting in this thread were mostly true then. At least he didn't go as far as to fire the operator. I hope Tarantino does realize that it will be rather hard to run a venue in 35mm only in 2014, even if you're primarily a revival venue. I don't know what the deal between Tarantino and the operator (who took the business over from his father) exactly entails, but I sure hope the operator isn't the one left holding the bag when this bold plan might go south...  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 09-05-2014 03:26 PM                        If Tarantino can make this work in the LA market, them more power to him. His money and influence should make a difference. However, this type of thing just wouldn't be viable outside of major markets. And I speculate that the number of people who show up there specifically because movies are shown on film will be relatively low over the course of any movie's run.  |  IP: Logged Buck Wilson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 894 From: St. Joseph MO, USA Registered: Sep 2010 posted 09-05-2014 04:10 PM                     Kudos! As hopeless as it seems, this is exactly what is needed to have ANY hope keeping 35mm alive. We need more like him!  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 09-05-2014 04:51 PM                     Do you think that there would be enough directors, or a growing amount, in favor of film where they would fight back for film to return to the cinema? Course, we all know that the studios themselves has never given a firm date on when the striking of prints would cease - they're just going along for the ride on the "DCIP Bus."  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-05-2014 05:27 PM                        There are probably a lot of them who would "join the fight" as long as "the fight" consisted of writing letters, giving interviews and such. If "the fight" consisted of doing anything that would jeopardize the profits or grosses on their films, a lot of them would jump off the bandwagon.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 09-05-2014 07:39 PM                        quote: Marcel Birgelen Sounds like the rumors Leo was reporting in this thread were mostly true then. And ironically, my source (my boss, Barbara Smith) is quoted in the article! Actually, the entire office was talking about it last week: it wasn't a "this is in confidence and to go no further" scenario: if it was, then obviously I wouldn't have posted it on F-T. Glad to hear that the manager who bought the digi projector wasn't fired, though: as Barbara pointed out, he simply couldn't have run even a break-even operation without it. If Tarantino is willing and able to use his personal wealth to operate the place as a film-only venue and at what will almost certainly be a significant, ongoing operating loss as a labor of love, then all kudos to him: but before he made the decision to do that, having DCP projection capability was a no-brainer.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-05-2014 08:33 PM                        It reminds me of Charles Foster Kane on buying a newspaper in Citizen Kane (quoted something like this): "I lost a million dollars last year. I'll loose a million dollars this year. I loose a million dollars next year. If I keep up at this rate, I'll have to close the place in 50 or 60 years."  |  IP: Logged Mike Heenan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1896 From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-06-2014 10:38 AM                     Actually what sucks is that QT kind of strong armed Torgan out of the place. Torgan owns the NB business but QT owns the building itself and has been funding rent and such for many years. QT is quoted as they're still in negotiations with Torgan to stay on but what I'm seeing from people in the know on Facebook is that isn't going to happen.  |  IP: Logged Ron Yost Master Film Handler Posts: 344 From: Paso Robles, CA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 09-06-2014 11:25 AM                     Interesting info from Michael Torgan himself posted this morning: (Bottom of page) Curbed Los Angeles blog  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 09-06-2014 12:49 PM                        Firstly, I wonder who is going to be doing the install for the 16mm and mag systems? Some items that could be relevant to that were snapped up at the Deluxe auction, and so maybe that is where they're going to end up. Secondly, it'll be interesting to see how long he is able to keep this up. Unlike most other rep houses and cinematheques that are also trying, Tarantino doesn't have any money issue. But he does have all the others: no official spares and support availability anymore, the aftermarket service companies gradually withdrawing their support for film installations, increasing difficulty in finding competent projectionists and techs as time goes on, etc. etc. And unless his collection of prints is being stored in an atmospherically controlled archive vault (the acetate ones, at least) and handled per archival standards (e.g. acclimatised for 2-3 days on their way in and out of the vault each time), they will eventually succumb to VS. Even the polyester ones won't be immune from poor handling, embossing from excessive lamphouse heat perf damage from worn sprocket teeth and all the other ways in which film prints wear out.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-06-2014 01:04 PM                        Well, until very recently, there were about 100k screens worldwide running 35mm film on a daily basis. Probably 10-20% still are. And more than that have kept film capability when instaling D-cinema equipment. All of these places had operators (mostly incompetent, but even if only the top 1% are any good, that is quite a large number of people, most of whom would probably love to work at a place like this) and service technicians (most of whom were/are good at their jobs, and some of whom were/are exceptional). Most of the needed parts can be made in a machine shop if one has money, but no other sources for them. I think that QT will have enough spare parts and installation/service knowledge to keep two 35/70 machines and one 16mm machine working long enough to outlast him. I don't know how many prints he has, but let's say that he owns or has access to 1000 prints and no ability to order new ones. If the average print is supposed to be able to withstand 200 screenings and these prints are, on average, halfway through their useful life, he should be able to do a double feature every day for over 100 years. Not to mention the existing inventory of prints owned by the distributors and private collectors and archives around the world. Martin's comment above seems apt as well. If anyone is going to do this, QT is the one most likely to succeed over the long term. I don't personally like his films very much, but he has money and connections and the attention of the Hollywood establishment, which is more than most idealistic film fans have.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-06-2014 01:21 PM                     He has a ginormous collection of 35mm and a very large collection of 16mm. One of my customers ran some of his prints for him when he was filming near Jackson Hole. I had to supply special aperture plates for him. Mark  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-06-2014 01:56 PM                     QT also has solid connections among high-ranking-powers-that-be, so it is totally within the realm of possibility that he could swing an exclusive new print every now and again, to fill in any gaps in his personal collection. He might have to personally underwrite the costs, and the studios probably won't be willing to strike new prints for him too frequently. But, generally, they'll probably work with him because of who he is. I am not optimistic that this will result in any major change of course, away from digital, for the industry as a whole.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-08-2014 12:36 PM                     Related thread: Tarantino puts his money where his mouth is.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.