"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Don’t give up Bobby H!
I think you’re wearing down the doctor and that in itself is a rare accomplishment round these parts.

Since you comment on it, Penton... now that Bobby and I have gone back and forth for far too long... can you provide any outside perspective on our exchange? I feel like I'm going a bit insane because Bobby seems to keep disagreeing with me by agreeing with me completely and I can't tell if he doesn't understand me or I don't understand him or both.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I think the maximum investment is something like $500.

Maximum investment?! What on Earth are they thinking?

You know, I've messed around with these "Hollywood Stock Exchange"-type things a bit in the past and I eventually gave up because I could never quite get my head around what the criteria for success or failure was. I could handicap confidently for different potential targets, but with no pointer to any one of those targets to aim for, it's all pretty useless.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Final thought for the day, as I'm already 9 min. behind schedule, which is an eternity for ex-ISDT racers.

I watched Chelsea play last night against Barca and I must say that Chelsea reminded me of the Italians playing in many past World Cups.

True, they just "parked the bus" and were completely unadventurous.
Will you get to see United-Arsenal at some stage tonight??
(my brother is going to the game)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

True, they just "parked the bus" and were completely unadventurous.

I dare say tonight won't match it.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

So, they'd see "3D", which they'd recognize and they'd see "70mm", which they wouldn't recognize, and they wouldn't be able to chose the one they recognize because they'd be paralyzed by the unfamiliarity of the other one?

The problem is they don't know what 70mm is and largely have never seen any real 70mm-based movies. How can someone expect to make anything other than a blindly stupid judgment when he doesn't know anything about one of the things he is being asked to compare?

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Right. And I never said it was a fault of any technology. I just said it was a market reality.

The "market" (the general movie going public) doesn't have anything to do with choosing one process over the other. They have zero say in this issue.

The decision of using 3D, 70mm, etc. is 100% up to the movie distributors and they're not into picking presentation formats based on quality. They really don't care about that sort of thing.

What about digital projection? That's a change that's improving quality. The underlying goal Hollywood studios have with digital cinema is cutting cost. It's a lot cheaper to distribute a movie on a bunch of hard discs than making thousands of 35mm prints running $1000-$3000 each. Costs are cut even further when the movie can be beamed to theaters via satellite.

This new effort behind digital 3D isn't about improving movie going quality either. If high quality was important we would have at least one 3D system in place that had an appropriately bright image and one that could be projected on really big screens in the best movie theaters. IMAX 3D is the only process that can accomplish that, but it's that icky film stuff, not to mention 70mm.

Nevertheless, the studios are having movie theaters install hundreds of these digital 3D systems because they can charge a healthy $2-$3 (or higher) premium on ticket prices. I don't remember that kind of premium being demanded with previous 35mm-based 3D systems. The studios also believe they might be able to prevent some movie piracy. It's true digital 3D images look like murky soup to a camcorder, but the main leak on movie piracy (pre-release DVD screener discs for critics, actors, VIPs, etc.) remains unplugged.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

The problem is they don't know what 70mm is and largely have never seen any real 70mm-based movies. How can someone expect to make anything other than a blindly stupid judgment when he doesn't know anything about one of the things he is being asked to compare?

In my experience with audiences looking at theatre advertising, unfamiliar statements and logos generally go ignored. If a theatre lists a movie screening in two rooms and one listing has a "3D" by it and the other has a "70mm" by it and the reader is familiar with 3D, but not 70mm, they'll say "Let's go to the 2:15 showing- it's in 3D."

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

The "market" (the general movie going public) doesn't have anything to do with choosing one process over the other. They have zero say in this issue.

Right.

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

This new effort behind digital 3D isn't about improving movie going quality either.

Right. It's a money-maker. And that's exactly why I don't think 70mm has much of a chance against it, commercially, as far as the distributors and theatre owners who call the shots are concerned. If Chris Nolan does shoot this movie in 70mm, he'll then have the job of convincing theatre owners to install convertible projectors for it. The theatre owners are not coming to him, pleading "Please, Chris, shoot your next movie in large-format, so it can look beautiful!" However, they very well may be coming to him, pleading "Please, Chris, shoot your next movie in 3D, so we can charge $3 more per ticket!"

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

If a theatre lists a movie screening in two rooms and one listing has a "3D" by it and the other has a "70mm" by it and the reader is familiar with 3D, but not 70mm, they'll say "Let's go to the 2:15 showing- it's in 3D."

The problem is that scenario isn't going to take place in real life. The movie distributors won't offer any such choice in the first place, much less make any effort to adequately explain 70mm and its benefits.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It's a money-maker. And that's exactly why I don't think 70mm has much of a chance against it, commercially, as far as the distributors and theatre owners who call the shots are concerned.

3D has nothing to do with 65mm/70mm going largely unused for decades.

If studio heads wanted to push 70mm they could definitely make money off of it if they marketed it properly and twisted the arms of exhibitors to get equipment installed (as they've been doing for years with digital cinema and digital 3D lately).

You seem to be looking at digital 3D in a kind of zero-sum equation -as if all movies need to be presented in that process and that there is no room for showing a movie in any other way. I'll never be in agreement with such a stance.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

The theatre owners are not coming to him, pleading "Please, Chris, shoot your next movie in large-format so it can look beautiful!" However, they very well may be coming to him, pleading "Please, Chris, shoot your next movie in 3D, so we can charge $3 more per ticket!"

And Christopher Nolan could tell them to kiss his ass. He has enough clout now to do it. Look at Woody Allen. He still has his movies largely mixed in mono despite the mono recordings being distributed in digital sound.

You're also assuming theater operators have any pull on getting a movie studio to generate movies in a certain format. The distributors give the theaters whatever they're going to get and the theater operators basically get to live with it. As it stands, many theater operators don't care one way or the other. If the studios are going to foot much of the bill for installing new D-cinema equipment that's fine by them.

The digital 3D aspect carries costs theaters are having to eat, so some exhibitors are actually turned off by the current fad. Dolby 3D requires a theater to have an industrial dish washer or some other kind of sanitizing system in place to clean glasses in between shows. And the theater must have extra labor in place to distribute and collect glasses. RealD charges yearly licensing fees that make THX licensing costs seem minuscule by comparison. And studios like Fox are now expecting theaters to pay those licensing fees and pay for the disposable glasses too. Movie studios are grabbing up much of that extra ticket price premium leaving the theater operators behind to eat the imbalance.

A lot of perfectly operational 70mm capable film projectors are sitting dormant in warehouses or unused in various booths. Even brand new 35/70 projectors are cheap compared to digital models. It wouldn't take any more than a couple of weeks work to get that gear installed in a few dozen key theaters before the release of a big event movie with 70mm prints in its inventory. It would be even easier today than it was in the 1970's and 1980's because there's no more mag sound to set up (it's all DTS time coded). The logistics for installing 5/70 equipment are much easier and less costly than d-cinema or 3D.

[Doctorossi]

Bobby, what is your point? You don't seem to be contradicting anything I'm saying; just continuing to counter my arguments with reiterations of my arguments. Is this going somewhere? You said you disagree with my original premise, but all you've done since is make my arguments for me. Where are you headed?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

True, they just "parked the bus" and were completely unadventurous.
Will you get to see United-Arsenal at some stage tonight??
(my brother is going to the game)

Yes, later tonight when I get home.
It’s being recorded as we speak.

And I plan on making the trip to Roma if they qualify for the Final…….even if there is a worldwide pandemic of the swine flu by then.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Since you comment on it, Penton... now that Bobby and I have gone back and forth for far too long... can you provide any outside perspective on our exchange? I feel like I'm going a bit insane because Bobby seems to keep disagreeing with me by agreeing with me completely and I can't tell if he doesn't understand me or I don't understand him or both.

You didn’t know?
It’s a conspiracy. Everyone chipped in and hired Bobby H. to debate you during his lunchtime and such.

Even now there’s a pool going on some secret thread here as to how many hours from now you will completely lose it and cry uncle.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Even now there’s a pool going on some secret thread here as to how many hours from now you will completely lose it and cry uncle.

Well, I hope you went long, 'cause I've got stamina.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Where are you headed?

Your 3D versus 70mm contest has no basis in any logical reality.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Your 3D versus 70mm contest has no basis in any logical reality.

Then why do you keep arguing for it?

[Bobby Henderson]

I'm not arguing for it. I'm just saying your scenario just doesn't make any realistic sense at all. It's stupid. You're saying customers are going to pick 3D over 70mm -as if they're qualified at all to make such a choice.

Ultimately you're just running with your own opinion without any real understanding of the movie distribution and movie exhibition business. You think digital 3D is this grand new thing when in reality there is a LOT of flaws behind it.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...
To the later (as am I), folklore tells it that Jacky Bisset inspired (with her appearance in this deep, insightful film) the present day wet T-shirt contests which we now see at various venues to this day...

Don't be so sure. In her freshman year at UVA, my sister's dorm was invited to a wet T-shirt party. So the girls each put a T-shirt on a hanger, wet them down, and took them to the party.

[MerrickG]

Hey Penton,

Here is a different kind of question for you. Afterall, you are the man!

Question:
My female friend told me that the guy she was dating asked her for some money and she told him no. I told her she made the right decision.

Whats do you think Penton?

I need the Hollywood perspective!

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I'm not arguing for it. I'm just saying your scenario just doesn't make any realistic sense at all. It's stupid. You're saying customers are going to pick 3D over 70mm -as if they're qualified at all to make such a choice.

Not to jump into the middle of your argument, but since when do people only make decisions they're qualified to make? They make decisions based on the information or misinformation they have on hand.

Given the choice of the illusion that things are going hit them in the face or a higher quality picture on the big screen (if they even recognize that as the case) people are going to choose the sight-gag almost every time.

Be honest, in your typical movie theater, with your typical mainstream audience member, how many people are going to notice the difference between 70mm and 35mm? Now, how many people are going to notice the difference between 2D and 3D?

[4K2K]

What are the standards that the SMPTE have have come up with for 3D home video? Will the Blu-ray 3D standard support the SMPTE 3D Home Content Master Standard? Is the SMPTE 3D Home Content standard A) 1080p60 per eye or B) up to 1080p60 per eye - ie. allowing 1080p24 per eye too? If the former, how will 1080p24 stereoscopic content be encoded and played back without 3:2 pull-down judder? About how long will it take for the SMPTE 3D Home Content standard to be fully specified and about how long will it be before the Blu-ray 3D standard is agreed on and players supporting the standard released?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Let's try and keep petty bickering out of the thread please.

Aye aye, Captain!

For the record, though... one man's petty bickering is another man's dissonant meta-coaster of psychedelic delights.*





* In more penetrable words, I'm not going to engage in anything I perceive to be bickering. I know I can be a blowhard, but I try my best to keep it in the "amusing blowhard" realm.

[Mr. Cinema]

According to HD Digest's review of Da Vinci Code, only the extended cut is offered. With 50 gb of space, why didn't Sony provide fans with the theatrical as well? On top of that, this catalog title has a new release list of $38.99. It's $23.99 on Amazon, but I'm passing. Had Sony given us both versions, I would have bought.

Why didn't they give us both options?

[BluDomain]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

... It's $23.99 on Amazon, but I'm passing.

Darn, you ruined my whole day. I thought I got a bargain..
But the nerve of them to include a ticket to "Angels and
Demons" and exposing me to a theater filled with Swine
Flu.