Paramount is the first film studio to stop distributing film prints, digital only...

[Foggy]

This is huge news for the future of film...

The end of an era. Maybe it's time to fire up Bob Dylan's song again. The LA Times reports that Paramount Pictures has been informing movie theaters that Anchorman 2 is the last film they'll be distributing on film. From now on, the studio will only distribute their films digitally, and Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street was their first movie in wide release to be distributed entirely as DCP (digital cinema prints). "For 120 years, film and 35 mm has been the format of choice for theatrical presentations. Now we're seeing the end of that," Jan-Christopher Horak, director of the UCLA Film & Television Archive, told the LA Times.

This is very interesting and certainly signals that times are a changin', which is something we've already known considering the death of film has been a talking point for years (there are even documentaries about it, like Side by Side). However, major movie studios have continued to distribute a few 35mm film prints to movie theaters because not all theaters have been updated (8% still remain), and they often still want to get the widest distribution possible. However, over the last few years with the digital transition coming close to being finished, it's now time for them to push things into the next phase and stop printing on film entirely.

This isn't exactly breaking news - as the Times reminds us that 20th Century Fox and Disney recently issued statements (last year) saying they would stop distributing film prints "within the next year or two," however Paramount is the first to make this decision official. Though the studio hasn't announced it, since it would likely lead to a small backlash, it's obvious all of Hollywood is headed in this direction. But is it really a huge loss? Especially with digital getting better every year. How often do you go see a movie at a theater and wonder if it's on film or digital? I feel it's only noticeable if it is film, with scratches and marks and so on.

One of the biggest reasons that studios are making this decision is money. Printing on film can cost upwards of $2000 or more for one copy, which was a normal part of the theater-studio relationship for years (prints were loaned and had to be returned in perfect condition). Nowadays, in the digital era, studios send out harddrives (called DCPs) packed in locked boxes, encoded with copy protection that can only be unlocked with a key from the studio. The price is significantly less ($100) to manufacture these "prints" and while the quality isn't as good as film, it's certainly close, especially with filmmakers like Peter Jackson shooting in digital 4K anyway. Within a few years, digital projection may even surpass the quality of 35mm film anyway.

Just don't shoot the messenger. For now, a few film prints may still be used, but we have entered the digital era and this is the direction everything is headed. We'll keep you updated on any other major distribution developments in this new era of movies. Who is really upset by this news? Is digital truly that bad?

http://www.firstshowing.net/2014/par...y-from-now-on/

[Chaotic]

so sad.

[chris_sc77]

That is a Damn shame.
Now I know why my crappy local cinema never got wolf of wall street and Jack Ryan or paranormal activity marked one's.
They don't have digital projection and I doubt they can afford to upgrade to it.

[Doctor Jack]

This sucks but might as well embrace it rather than complain about it. There is nothing we can do to stop this from happening.

[Ben_UK]

A friend of mine runs a cinema projection booth, and we often talk about film projection and the way its presented. I am forever telling him about shoddy presentation that ive seen at various cinemas, wrong ratios, bad framing, scope change not done, out of focus, one side of the image sharp, the other side blurry as hell. I have been told that a lot of this has stopped now that digital is here. There are still ways to screw up a presentation, but things like keeping the gate clean are now a thing of the past. Virtually every 35mm film I saw over the last year had some kind of problem with the presentation. Of all the digital ones ive seen, I think there may have been a handful of problems with the framing, but that's it.

I was blown away when I first saw a digital film, simply because the 35mm kit isn't ever properly maintained and is subject to a number of factors that can detract from the image.

[cinemaphile]

Great news!
nostalgia is fine, but lets accept progress. this isnt a tragedy or a great loss. id rather watch a digital print that is pristine after 200 showings than a film with scratches, marks, and reel change splices after just a few.

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

Great news!
nostalgia is fine, but lets accept progress. this isnt a tragedy or a great loss. id rather watch a digital print that is pristine after 200 showings than a film with scratches, marks, and reel change splices after just a few.

You still see so much more detail in a film than in a digital version I swear.
I couldn't believe how much more detail I saw on the film print versions of Djanjo Unchained and Cloud Atlas.
It is awful news. And it will put some theatres out of business that cannot afford to convert to digital.

[The Great Owl]

It was fun while it lasted.

[KingRad]

While it is sad in regards to nostalgia, I can't say that I'm truly upset; however, I've never been one to stress over picture quality. Since theaters will be saving money by buying digital "prints" instead of film, maybe they'll pass the savings onto us, the consumer (yeah right!).

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by KingRad

While it is sad in regards to nostalgia, I can't say that I'm truly upset; however, I've never been one to stress over picture quality. Since theaters will be saving money by buying digital "prints" instead of film, maybe they'll pass the savings onto us, the consumer (yeah right!).

Considering its the big theater chains that use digital prints now charge about twice the amount for tickets that the small first run theaters do I doubt they will pass savings to the consumer.
Its why I feel no guilt about movie hopping at big chains

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

Considering its the big theater chains that use digital prints now charge about twice the amount for tickets that the small first run theaters do I doubt they will pass savings to the consumer.
Its why I feel no guilt about movie hopping at big chains

[LynxFX]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

You still see so much more detail in a film than in a digital version I swear.

I was quite sad that I could see the screendoor effect when I went and watched The Hobbit DoS in Imax. I was even sitting in the middle. Pixels as clear as day. Prestine film will be missed. I don't miss scratches, audio skips, hairs, dust, and poor splicing of film, even on opening day.

[SilentDawn]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

Considering its the big theater chains that use digital prints now charge about twice the amount for tickets that the small first run theaters do I doubt they will pass savings to the consumer.
Its why I feel no guilt about movie hopping at big chains

Don't do that, pay for the film!

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Anyways, I do feel that digital is the future of film; even though nothing can beat a pristine film print in this point in time.

I highly recommend the documentary Side By Side, fascinating stuff!

[Atreyu]

This is sad news as all the small, second run and classic film cinemas will close down as they don't make anywhere near enough money to get digital projectors.

[Kevin Holly]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

This sucks but might as well embrace it rather than complain about it. There is nothing we can do to stop this from happening.

Not to be the guy who makes extremely awkward analogies, but that's kind of how Hitler got into power.

[Jasonic]

My arthouse theater in downtown just finished raising $700,000 to convert their 7 screens. So thats $100,000 per screen. Definitely pricey for any independently run theater.

[IndyMLVC]

I can't remember the last time I saw a movie on film. I think it was the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. But that was once in the last...5 years, perhaps. Maybe more.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Jasonic

My arthouse theater in downtown just finished raising $700,000 to convert their 7 screens. So thats $100,000 per screen. Definitely pricey for any independently run theater.

A fellow Broadway fan!

[Jasonic]

Originally Posted by Snicket

A fellow Broadway fan!

I've only been a few times though so far. Went and saw All Is Lost, 12 Years a Slave, and Dallas Buyers Club there. It's a pain to drive about an hour to downtown just to see a movie, especially when a great deal of them I notice open up in a few more theaters closer by a couple weeks later. Jordan Commons tends to pick up quite a few not too long after them. I definitely now check up each week to see whats playing at the Broadway. Glad we at least have a place like it around.

[Poya]

I am going to kill myself now.