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

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

All on 65mm!

Dude, somebody has got to foot the bill!
People were so cost conscious for The International that the 35mm stuff was shot on 35mm 3 perf (same as the TV series Lost is) to save on stock and processing costs.

Dude I hear ya

But how much more would have been the cost ?
I am asking because I have no idea and would like to put things in perspective. According to Tom Tykwer about 7 minutes shot on 65mm ended up in the movie which seems about right to me so it would be nice to get an idea, for this production, for the per minute or total additonal costs of shooting in 65mm vs shooting in 35mm.

Here is a nice itemization for Vertigo from the Widescreen museum site:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingvv6.htm

It says the total additional costs for shooting in VistaVision instead of standard 35mm were a mere 78000$

That was about 3% of the complete budget for Vertigo so not nearly as much as I would have thought and I guess that the numbers might not be much different today for productions with a higher budget and 65mm (not The International that did not have such a big budget).

I am the last person to demand that all of The International should have been shot completely in 65mm - it would be unfair to demand that from the only production in years that used a significant amount of standard 65mm for non-effect shots at all. I do think that movies with bigger budgets would be much more suited for this as the relative cost increase for shooting in 65mm would be much smaller once production costs go near or exceed the 100 million $ mark.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Here is a nice itemization for Vertigo from the Widescreen museum site:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingvv6.htm

It says the total additional costs for shooting in VistaVision instead of standard 35mm were a mere 78000$

That was about 3% of the complete budget for Vertigo so not nearly as much as I would have thought and I guess that the numbers might not be much different today for productions with a higher budget and 65mm (not The International that did not have such a big budget).

An important distinction here is that Vertigo was, largely, a studio lot production, while The International is full of locations. When you're shooting on a studio set, you can replace your 35mm cameras with 65mm cameras on dollies, tripods, cranes, etc., with minimal unwritten costs to the production (costs in the form of set-up and teardown time, additional light rigging, limitations in shooting options/camera mobility, etc.). When you're on location, these kind of costs, which do not appear on the kind of budget breakdown you've linked, are potentially much more significant.

Shooting 65mm requires maintaining control of and lighting larger locations. It prevents or, at least, makes more difficult and expensive, a lot of high-mobility camera moves which are very popular today in just the kind of action spectacle which might have a shot at being able to shoot 65mm in the first place (hand-held, anyone?). Fewer of these action spectacle movies made today are studio backlot-bound. This makes large-format shooting more expensive in ways that can't be expressed in comparative lab processing charges.

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Truly, as I had to delete a post, nothing personal to anyone.
I would much rather hear comments about “twinkle toes” (of Man. U.) out on the town last night with Paris Hilton.

Ouch to me.

I know you're not connected with Universal, but I have two related questions, one of which you might know the answer to.

A few weeks ago, Universal announced plans to rerelease a classic movie to theaters every month for the rest of the year - starting with Spartacus and ending with Animal House.

The date for Spartacus has come and gone (June 9) and I haven't been able to track any theater showing it. Does anyone know if this was delayed or one of those "limited releases"?

My question to you would be whether the advent of digital distribution and projection means that releases like this will become more common? This would be wonderful for small theaters to bring in people on slow nights during off seasons.

[Jeff Kleist]

Many times older films on an anniversary run will roadshow through the arthouse circuit. If you have a local arthouse, it may take as much as a month to cycle your way.

I know by the time the Monty Python and the Holy Grail prints got to us there were 2-3 splices in it that killed 2-3 seconds of the film each. Wanted to strangle whoever had the print last

Me, I'm looking forward to seeing MOON, which was supposed to come out today but is nowhere to be found in Philly yet

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

"banging forehead against monitor" = writing and producing

I don’t want you to hurt yourself so, I think I’ve got to encourage you to move away from all those golf courses and out to the country where I can get you a mailman like this………..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06MqvW7AzZg


At least then, only the birds will suffer.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

An important distinction here is that Vertigo was, largely, a studio lot production, while The International is full of locations. When you're shooting on a studio set, you can replace your 35mm cameras with 65mm cameras on dollies, tripods, cranes, etc., with minimal unwritten costs to the production (costs in the form of set-up and teardown time, additional light rigging, limitations in shooting options/camera mobility, etc.). When you're on location, these kind of costs, which do not appear on the kind of budget breakdown you've linked, are potentially much more significant.

Shooting 65mm requires maintaining control of and lighting larger locations. It prevents or, at least, makes more difficult and expensive, a lot of high-mobility camera moves which are very popular today in just the kind of action spectacle which might have a shot at being able to shoot 65mm in the first place (hand-held, anyone?). Fewer of these action spectacle movies made today are studio backlot-bound. This makes large-format shooting more expensive in ways that can't be expressed in comparative lab processing charges.

That’s a Roger.
For The International, there were quite a few scenes that required steadicam and handheld acquisition not to mention, the necessity of a compact camera for space challenged locations for some scenes.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Truly, as I had to delete a post, nothing personal to anyone.
I would much rather hear comments about “twinkle toes” (of Man. U.) out on the town last night with Paris Hilton.

The headline of one of the tabloid papers this morning was;
"RONALDO SPENDS A NIGHT IN PARIS"

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I am not, nor have I ever been paid by any studio, hardware manufacturer or any other entity in the home theater spehere to espouse anyone's viewpoint in cash, options, merchandise or any other form of compensation whatsoever, and I would swear to that in court as well as take a lie detector test on that, nor does anyone else at the bits.

Ah, but have you received compensation without being directly asked to espouse a particular point of view? Get any discs for free? Get into any parties? Ever get free hardware? Did a group of studios supporting one format over another ever throw you a birthday party in Vegas?

I'm not attacking motives here (hell, I've had my fair share of review discs, and even got a T-shirt from Amir and lunch from Toshiba!), just suggesting that "compensation", whether or not it directly relates to editorial point of view, is a slippery slope.

A lobbying firm is by its very nature an organization who is paid to "communicate a viewpoint". Whether or not they agree with that opinion is irrelevant.

Sure. But while the fact that they're a lobbiest means you should take them with a (perhaps enormous) grain of salt, it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, just that there's a clear agenda ("bias") as work. So, either you know that agenda up front, or you remains sensitive to any hyperbole, dogmatism, or other forms of counterfactual rhetoric that bely intransegence. Where there's dogmatism, there's bias.

Meanwhile, could it not be seen by your two examples that this plagues only the "other" side? After all, isn't one person's "corporate shill" another person's "insider"?

(Too soon? )

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Sure. But while the fact that they're a lobbiest means you should take them with a (perhaps enormous) grain of salt, it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, just that there's a clear agenda ("bias") as work. So, either you know that agenda up front, or you remains sensitive to any hyperbole, dogmatism, or other forms of counterfactual rhetoric that bely intransegence. Where there's dogmatism, there's bias.

Meanwhile, could it not be seen by your two examples that this plagues only the "other" side? After all, isn't one person's "corporate shill" another person's "insider"?

(Too soon? )

Good example.

Thank you for making my point.

Jeff, you may a passionate argument about how you don't take anything, etc. etc. and I didn't mean to imply that you did. But, you are definitely on one side of an issue as much as the other person we're talking about. It just so happens in this case that we're all on the same side so there doesn't seem to be an alternate viewpoint out there.

Never-the-less, there are people out there who supported HD-DVD, or who think Blu-Ray is holding back digital distribution, or that hate recorded media all-together and think that the modern world has destroyed live performance who would definitely see you as a biased person on one side of an issue and, loosely speaking, The Digital Bits generally fits into the definition you used to describe someone else's employer. None of this makes others right or you wrong (or vice versa). It's just that everyone, no matter how extreme, thinks they're in the middle.

And I still want this alleged release of Spartacus to show up anywhere, just so that I know it actually exists.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For The International, there were quite a few scenes that required steadicam and handheld acquisition not to mention, the necessity of a compact camera for space challenged locations for some scenes.

BTW, what's the weight difference between a handheld (non-tripod) 35mm steadicam camera and it's 65 mm cousin?

My guess is that there would be a significant difference, as much due the format size as due to the development of newer lightweight 35mm cameras vs. old, frozen-in-time 65mm cameras.

[Jeff Kleist]

Ah, but have you received compensation without being directly asked to espouse a particular point of view? Get any discs for free? Get into any parties? Ever get free hardware? Did a group of studios supporting one format over another ever throw you a birthday party in Vegas?

Nothing beyond the standard review copy deals that everyone gets.

And the same party was thrown for HTF, because both of us had our tenth anniversaries, a site I might add that was as anti-blu-ray as it got. That's the part all those critics seem to ignore, so no, I was never given anything that Blu-ray haters weren't given as well. Toshiba gave us all free HD DVD players,

I'm not attacking motives here (hell, I've had my fair share of review discs, and even got a T-shirt from Amir and lunch from Toshiba!), just suggesting that "compensation", whether or not it directly relates to editorial point of view, is a slippery slope.

I've never even gotten lunch. Not living in LA has a lot of disadvantages. The closest I've ever gotten is a friend in the VFX industry who writes off our lunches together when I'm out there

Sure. But while the fact that they're a lobbiest means you should take them with a (perhaps enormous) grain of salt, it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, just that there's a clear agenda ("bias") as work. So, either you know that agenda up front, or you remains sensitive to any hyperbole, dogmatism, or other forms of counterfactual rhetoric that bely intransegence. Where there's dogmatism, there's bias.

Meanwhile, could it not be seen by your two examples that this plagues only the "other" side? After all, isn't one person's "corporate shill" another person's "insider"?

Anyone who knows me will tell you I do extreme amounts of research on anything that interests me. My opinions are my own, and I never claimed objectivity on the subject. I made a determination based on research 3 years ago, and I've stuck by it because there has been no evidence to prove that position wrong.

None of the insiders here from Hollywood studios/CEs ever made a single claim to objectivity when it comes to supporting their parent company's agenda, and to expect that would be unreasonable.

As I said, I am willing to testify in court/lie detector that I have not received any compensation from anyone involved in the Blu-ray camp in any form for espousing the format either directly or indirectly (aka "cause we like you" gifts) for my support, beyond any courtesy extended to general press, and I haven't seen a lot of those privileges either (no plane rides/hotels to events, no free lunches, etc. ) If that's not good enough for you, then there's nothing I can do. That applies to any and all variations on the theme as well.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

None of the insiders here from Hollywood studios/CEs ever made a single claim to objectivity when it comes to supporting their parent company's agenda, and to expect that would be unreasonable.

That's the real danger in corporations. For as much as corporations pitch "diversity", etc...they actually stifle people with differing opinions and/or people who question the "agenda".

It is human nature to "save your own @ss". But at the same time, if you have to compromise who you are (and what you believe), then what's the point?!?! As I rose in my career, I flat out have said, "If you don't like what I have to say, then fire me." Nobody ever did. Of course, my opinions turned out to be right so that helps. I don't play politics, and I run my org with smart people who work hard and aren't afraid the question ANYTHING, even me. If one expects to come into the office, and just agree with everyone else to collect a paycheck and play politics...they usually don't last long with me.

[Esox50]

BTW, I should point out that I have an MBA that you guys like to bash from one of the top schools in the world. I agree with some of your guys' comments re some of the new, younger MBAs, but you guys were also stereotyping and were a little over the top. I still love ya all though.

[Esox50]

Penton,

On Tuesday...I think I'll be calling..."GHOSTBUSTERS". "I ain't afraid of no ghost..."

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I've never even gotten lunch. Not living in LA has a lot of disadvantages.

Dude, you’ve really got to move to 90210, as it puts you mighty close to the action for events like this (90211) ………..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8IGfkSeRv4

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

And the same party was thrown for HTF, because both of us had our tenth anniversaries, a site I might add that was as anti-blu-ray as it got. That's the part all those critics seem to ignore, so no, I was never given anything that Blu-ray haters weren't given as well. Toshiba gave us all free HD DVD players

And I can confirm that neither Bill nor Ron spent the night with Karen (Playmate of the Year '98) nor Alison (Miss May 2006), both in the background, despite this ridiculous grin on Ron’s face -

[Penton-Man]

Although, I can’t vouch for this fellow ……

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

The headline of one of the tabloid papers this morning was;
"RONALDO SPENDS A NIGHT IN PARIS"

lol, I’m glad I googled that phrase, as I had no idea the guy got transferred to Real.
http://www.theimproper.com/Template_...ArticleId=3635

I wonder how the Man U. supporters are handling that?
Sounds good for the Arsenal though.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

BTW, what's the weight difference between a handheld (non-tripod) 35mm steadicam camera and it's 65 mm cousin?
My guess is that there would be a significant difference, as much due the format size as due to the development of newer lightweight 35mm cameras vs. old, frozen-in-time 65mm cameras.

The International was filmed with Arri cameras.
The Arricam LT weighs in at about 11 lb. (body and finder) and was used for all Steadicam and handheld shots (actually at least 2 at the same time).

The Arriflex 765 was used for the 65mm capture and I’m purty sure it is the lightest most compact 65mm. camera currently available today……weighing in at a robust 70 lb.

[Jeff Kleist]

Dude, you’ve really got to move to 90210, as it puts you mighty close to the action for events like this (90211) ………..

There would have to be a reeaaaaly good reason. SoCal really starts to wear on me after about 2 weeks, personal taste.

I love the things that can be done in LA, I just don't want to live there