Star Wars The Force Awakens .

[Giray Izcan]

I strongly recommend you to see it on print. The print was was rather scratch-free with beautiful blacks.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Too bad there isn't a 5-perf 70mm print out there.

There are 15/70 prints, but not in LA or NY.

[Matt Stevens]

I moved to China and have t wait a month to see it (the film doesn't open here until mid-January). I will have ZERO chances to see a film print. It will be digital, period. But likely 4k since the theaters here in Kunming are top drawer and brand new. They do have an Imax screen, though I have yet to check it out. I really want to see it in 2D, but they don't do 2D here for any film that is shown 3D. EVERY screen will be 3D, which does piss off the locals, but that doesn't matter.

 

I hate 3D with a passion and can only accept it when it's seamless and central to the story. ANT-MAN in 3D worked because of how the character's powers worked. The micro-photography was superb.

 

I wonder how I will feel about Star Wars in 3D. Nxt month I will find out.

 

By the way, I was 5 years old when SW 1977 came out. It was my first film in a theater and I will never ever forget it. We waited in line all day to see it.

[Keith Walters]

Where did they get the prints made?

It requires a specialized processing line to make prints, completely different to the one that processes camera negative.

While there is still a fair market for processing film, and so it's worth while maintaining at least a limited infrastructure, what supports the maintainance of a release print chain?

 

With the virtual disappearance of film prints, there would seem even less reason to rush in to see the movie in the opening weeks, since digital versions don't develop scratches or otherwise wear out.

I don't know what it's like in other countries, but here it only lakes a couple of weeks and you virtually have the cinema to yourself, off-peak :-)

[David Mullen ASC]

FotoKem here in Los Angeles still processes negative (ECN2) and prints (FCP). I had tests printed for the 35mm movie I shot last spring.

[Keith Walters]

 

I hate 3D with a passion and can only accept it when it's seamless and central to the story. ANT-MAN in 3D worked because of how the character's powers worked. The micro-photography was superb.

 

All the Marvel Studios 3-D features are shot flat, with the 3-D effects computer-generated in Post. This means that everyday scenes that would shot "practically" using a 2 camera 3-D rig, are assembled from multiple greenscreens. That way the computers can individually tailor the depth of field of each element of the scene, which completely eliminates the "walking cardboard cutout" effect you get when the depth of field is out of kliter with the perspective. (As seen on "The Great Gatsby". But WHY 3-D for that movie anyway? Or WHY that movie period :P )

 

The biggest problem is the quality of both the 3-D glasses and the projectors themselves.

[Keith Walters]

FotoKem here in Los Angeles still processes negative (ECN2) and prints (FCP). I had tests printed for the 35mm movie I shot last spring.

So there must be some market for them still. I know there are afficionados for whome celluloid projection is still king, but I wouldn't have thought there would be enough of them to keep the line going.

[Jay Young]

So there must be some market for them still. I know there are afficionados for whome celluloid projection is still king, but I wouldn't have thought there would be enough of them to keep the line going.

 

Having workprints done at FotoKem is FAR cheaper than scanning negative to digital. Last month I sent in some testing footage and development cost + two prints came about to about... $0.60/ft or less.

The cheapest scan option when I talked with them was $500 per hour which they said netted about 20 minutes of digital footage; that's the same as $0.65/ft of JUST SCANNING, then there is the development cost on top of that plus the fact that 40 minutes of your $500 is wasted on "computer processing". One could develop and print almost 1200' of 16/35mm for the same cost.

 

And that's just me spending tiny money.

 

I wonder how many millions was spent on the 70mm of The Hateful Eight?

 

I believe there is still enough demand.

[Bill DiPietra]

There are 15/70 prints, but not in LA or NY.

 

Now, that's ridiculous.

[Tyler Purcell]

Now, that's ridiculous.

No theaters! IMAX has pulled all the film projectors out of LA and NY.

 

The only theater in LA capable of playing 15/70 is the science museum. My guess is, they will get a print eventually. But they aren't really capable of showing first-run films. I went there for 'Interstellar' and it was a mess.

[James Compton]

70mm IMAX prints of STAR WARS 7 can be viewed at these locations:

 

McWane Center IMAX - Birmingham, AL

US Space & Rocket Center - Huntsville, AL

Hackworth IMAX Dome - San Jose, CA

Museum OF Discovery & Science- Ft. Lauderdale, FL

IMAX Dome, Museum Of Science & Industry - Tampa, FL
IMAX, Indiana State Museum, Indianapolis, IN

IMAX Dome, Science Center Of Iowa - Des Moines, IA

Branson's IMAX, Entertainment Center - Branson, MO
St. Louis OMNIMAX Theater & Science Center - St.Louis, MO

Tuttleman IMAX, Franklin Center, Philadelphia, PA

Kramer IMAX, Saskachewan Science Center - Regina, Canada

Lockheed Martin IMAX, National Air & Space Museum, - Washington, DC

Fort Worth Museum of Science & History - Ft. Worth, TX

 

 

All science centers excepts Branson, Missouri.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2015 by James Compton

[Bill DiPietra]

Saw it today and it was so much fun. A real treat for anyone who grew up with the original trilogy. J.J. Abrams hit on all the key points & motifs - from some of the same angles of the Millennium Falcon shooting out of orbit, to the display of the targeting computer, to some of the sound effects. Everything really put a smile on my face & took me back.

 

I saw it in 4K and I thought the visual effects looked very realistic. The CG didn't stand out to me at all and everything blended in rather seamlessly. The only projection issue was some significant soft focus, but it was corrected about 15 minutes into the film after I mentioned it to the staff.

[Keith Walters]

Well, so much for the "death of film".

I always expected film acquisition would take a long time to die, but I'm really surprised that projection prints are still available, contrary to what a lot of people insisted here and elsewhere a couple of years back.

It's not just a case of: "Well, we already have the equipment" either; processing chains require a lot of expensive maintenance.

 

Then again Polaroid still lives too :-)

[David Mullen ASC]

As some article I saw online said, this was a good year for every format, I don't think I've seen such a diversified year in a while, from Super-16 to Super-16 + Alexa, to Alexa 65, to Ultra Panavision 65mm (who would have thought we'd ever see THAT format used again?) Unfortunately, 15-perf 65mm IMAX continues to decline in use, though it was used briefly in "Star Wars". Even I managed to shoot a movie in 35mm again.

[Keith Walters]

Maybe after the next two installments Disney will go back and re-boot the prequels :rolleyes:

Just imagine; no video, no pointless Pod races, and no Jar Jar Binks.

[Keith Walters]

Even I managed to shoot a movie in 35mm again.

This is a cycle I've seen before , though.

Some new "breakthrough" video format becomes flavor of the month, there's a brief surge in its popularity until enough people are brave enough to comment on the excessively diaphanous nature of the Emperor's new wardrobe, and everybody gradually drifts back to film.

 

Every cycle, film loses a bit more ground it's true, but they still haven't managed to kill it off yet.

 

The sad legacy is the sheer number of otherwise excellent TV shows that look positively putrid on a 40" + digital TV, even in standard definition. Meanwhile, lesser productions shot on 35mm scrub up extremely well with a re-scan and basic digital cleanup.

[Freya Black]

The sad legacy is the sheer number of otherwise excellent TV shows that look positively putrid on a 40" + digital TV, even in standard definition. Meanwhile, lesser productions shot on 35mm scrub up extremely well with a re-scan and basic digital cleanup.

 

 

The odd thing is that video doesn't seem to always downscale so well.

I'm not at all sure why that is but I think people need to check what their videos look like in SD too!

 

It's quite an odd phenomenon but I've seen it happen to many times to be coincindence.

 

Freya

[Robin R Probyn]

Ok now we have the reason Stars Wars went to hell in a hand basket ..

 

http://nypost.com/2015/12/18/george-lucas-brilliant-ex-wife-was-secret-weapon-in-original-star-wars/

[Guest]

So I'm quite confused by the use of the word "IMAX." It's thrown around a lot but the IMAX I was brought up with was the giant screen movies shown at the Cinesphere at Ontario Place in Toronto, and few select locations around North America. The camera ran the film horizontally across the lens vs vertically like 35mm. But that is not what we're talking about here is it?

 

Yet on the IMAX site they are promoting all these Hollywood films, like Star Wars, as being "IMAX".

 

http://www.imax.com/

 

That doesn't mean they were shot with a proper IMAX camera though does it? Last time I saw a film that they promoted as "IMAX" there where huge empty spaces at the top and bottom of the screen. When you saw a proper IMAX movie at Cinesphere the entire screen was used.

 

So what's going on here? What are they actually shooting on?

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

They shot ONE sequence using 15/70 IMAX cameras. So yes, there is some actual good'ol horizontal IMAX material somewhere in the film.

 

The rest of the film was shot on 35mm anamorphic. So those scenes would have big bars at the top and the bottom of the screen.

 

The reason filmmakers don't shoot entire films using IMAX 15/70 cameras isn't cost, it's really because the cameras are so big, unwieldy, loud and temperamental, it causes shoots to be a lot longer then they should be. Christopher Nolan has experimented with mixing IMAX and 35mm more then any other filmmaker and on Interstellar, the final film has 90 minutes of 15/70 material in it. However, it just makes the 35mm stuff look bad.

 

Jurassic World took a different approach. They shot the VFX scenes in 65mm and the dialog scenes in 35mm, but full frame. Since the new digital IMAX format is 1.9:1 aspect ratio, it was very easy for them to make the 35mm material full screen on digital IMAX screens. Thus, an IMAX presentation that looked pretty darn good, without the bars at the top and the bottom.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Ok now we have the reason Stars Wars went to hell in a hand basket ..

 

http://nypost.com/2015/12/18/george-lucas-brilliant-ex-wife-was-secret-weapon-in-original-star-wars/

Fascinating read, thanks Robin. I've never heard Marcia Lucas's side of the story before.

 

Caught 'The Force Awakens' yesterday at the new Alamo Drafthouse. Loved it for the most part. Beautifully shot by Dan Mindel. Some of the CG environments seemed a tad excessive, but the Maz Kanata character design and performance was charming and worked for me.

 

The story fell a bit flat. My biggest complaint is that the map plot device did not pay off in a way that was both logically and emotionally satisfying. It would have been smarter to just make it a Macguffin, which would have eliminated the need for two clumsily constructed scenes right at the end of an otherwise very enjoyable film. Death Star 3.0 was dumb but not a deal breaker since it was a second or third story thread.

 

The characters were the strength of the film, which was a refreshing change from the prequels. I like these people and want to spend more time with them. Great work all around. Looking forward to the next one.

[Robin R Probyn]

Yes I really think there is alot to her not being around to honestly tell Lucas then his idea,s just were not good.. and the fact that really after she had no input ..IMHO .. the films really took a nose dive.. and no one could or would tell Lucas.. hey George .. Jar Jar Binks.. thats really quite an offensive and stupid character... to say nothing of her editing skills..

Of course there are two sides to every story and of course I dont know either of them ! (but I did see him when he turned up on the set of Labyrinth with Linda Ronstadt ! . ..) but the fact she has been written out of history is very telling..

 

I think personally Star wars really needs a total make over.. I think JJ Abrams is of course a very able director and he has proven he can handle the monster budget films.. where Im sure there is alot more going on that just directing..but its made more for the fans how.. with tons of references for those in the know.. it needs the Nolan Batman treatment.. to get serious .. a real story.. some darkness.. it needs to mature with the right director away from pop corn tent pole.. well in my opinion anyway.. but as such a money printer I doubt the formula will change anytime soon.. or any studio exec is going to put their career on the line to make it happen..

[Tyler Purcell]

After my 2nd screening tonight (it's 2am now) I understand more clearly why they made 'Force Awakens' this way. It was clearly that "bridge" movie between the old franchise and the new one. Similar to Star Trek 'Generations' where they past on the torch, it's the same concept here. It was never meant to be anything but a way to gauge/judge the current interest in Star Wars and in my book it worked well.

 

You look at the story, you look at the characters and you say, "hey, this has been done before" and you'd be right. It's absolutely been done before and making things bigger and more menacing doesn't make it any different. However, one can't argue the simple fact, it's a "safe" movie in every sense of the word. The title in of itself is insinuating a new beginning.

 

We're going to get two more movies in that time line, with that cast and two more films about the breakup of the empire before 2019, a total of 5 movies, two of which are already in production. I've been told by people who have read the next scripts that they are much darker and more interesting then 'Force Awakens'. So it will get a make-over for sure, it's just a question of the fan's will like them. Disney spent quite a bit on acquiring the franchise and it will require a lot of money to make their investment back. JJ did an outstanding job making a re-boot that works for people who haven't seen the other films and/or are die hard fans of the series. Now he's handing over the reigns and only time will tell how good the next one is, which incidentally comes out this time next year and is shot digitally.

[Freya Black]

So how did it turn out with the acting? I know people were saying they thought Carrie Fisher was maybe not up to the part these days but she did a fine job right? Along with the other actors?

 

I still havn't seen this as there are only 3D screening so far at the cinema I'm hoping to go to but I've always felt that the actors would really be able to do a great job whatever the other shortcomings are.

[David Mullen ASC]

I just heard an interview with JJ Abrams and he makes a point that this movie, more so than the "Star Trek" reboot, had to feel like it was part of the series, not a re-imagining of the series, but that it actually fit in as a sequel/continuation to Episodes 4-6. "Star Trek" went through a lot more permutations in look and style even if you just consider the TV series and then films with the original cast, not to mention the other series (is there a plural for "series"?)