Jump to content

Dunkirk: Nolan's first all 70mm movie.


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Not true Tyler. "In70mm" has a list of what theaters are 5 perf and which are 15. This is how I found out the Langley theater here is showing it in 70mm IMAX. I already got my tickets for the show. Tickets are now on sale.

Ohh, I didn't know Thomas posted that. Good to know! cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Thanks for the In70mm heads up -- I ordered my ticket for the IMAX 70mm screening at the Lincoln Square 13 in Manhattan, where I saw "The Dark Knight Rises" in IMAX. After that, they took down their IMAX equipment but I'm glad that it was brought back for this release.

 

I see that a 5-perf 70mm screening will be at the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema, which is in my apartment building in Brooklyn!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'll be seeing it at the Cinerama Dome first and then at the AMC Universal City. I wanna see it two theaters like I did with Interstellar.

 

I hung out in the projection room of the Summerville theater today here in MA, with the projectionist. They're one of the theaters getting a print and it was awesome seeing the time and care they put into that new projection room. I really enjoyed my time talking shop and it was awesome to see people who really care about presenting a movie properly on film in this digital age. I'm upset I'll be headed back to CA before Dunkirk releases, but at least I know they exist and I can come out anytime to check out 70mm releases on the east coast. I wanna do everything I can in CA to get MORE prints made on 70mm for these little theaters to present and have special screenings for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just booked my ticket 15/70 IMAX BFI Waterloo London.

Me too !

I'm looking forward to seeing a period feature on such a large unforgiving screen. I don't think this has been done before in Imax ? I really mean making the sets and boats etc of that time look realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I was reading an article about the making of Dunkirk and how they did everything for real. The film is broken into three sections: Air, Water, Ground.

 

Some of the tricks they used for the air shots are really cool, like shooting the spitfire chase scene close up's on top of a hill overlooking the water. Nolan would run the gimbal which was just a cutaway of the airplane. The actual airplane maneuvers in the sky were done for real though. They had spitfires flying in formation with actors in the cockpit doing realistic maneuvers in the air over Dunkirk. Anything that was related to shooting down an airplane, were huge half scale replicas of the planes. They used physical explosions on the air planes that were shot, so it seemed more realistic as well.

 

For the boat scenes, they had over 60 boats in the water at some moments. Nolan focused his attention on the pleasure boat, piloted by Mark Rylance. But evidently there are huge boat scenes which were shot on sound stages after the beach scenes. All of them were done in-camera, including the sinking of a hospital boat.

 

For the scenes on the beach, Nolan had the Imax camera boxed up in a splash housing and put into the pounding waves, to get very gritty scenes of people wading out into the ocean, knowing they'd be killed either way. The beach was a terrifying place to be because the only way out was in the water and they were constantly being attacked. So there are some huge stunts with over 1000 extras on the beach.

 

Interestingly enough, Nolan doesn't like ADR and he will do anything to NOT loop a scene. So the 72 page script has very little dialog, this is why they can use the IMAX cameras for most of the movie. Most of the dialog scenes are 5/65 which Nolan proudly exclaims are much better then his previous movies which had dialog scenes shot in anamorphic 35mm. Nolan keeps the 2.20:1 aspect ratio of the 5 perf material on the IMAX prints.

 

Nolan said they did some conform trickery after the movie was finished editing. So I assume that means some IMAX material will have bars on the top and bottom to conform to 5/65 and maybe some 5/65 material will be blown up. Knowing that Nolan loves a photochemical finish, I assume a lot of that work was done in the lab, rather then digitally. It will be interesting to read the liner notes about the post production when more information comes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In70mm has some production notes about the film. I also read about the film not having much dialog, which Tyler mentioned as well, why they could use IMAX cameras for most of the film. If the film is really good, I may drive to see it in IMAX 70mm more then the one time I got tickets for. I don't know if there will be an opportunity to see true IMAX on film again after this movie, so I'm going while I can to see this one. Nolan is turning out to be one of my favorite directors and I agree with a lot of the decisions he makes on film making. If I were doing it, I'd probably do it the same as him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In70mm has some production notes about the film. I also read about the film not having much dialog, which Tyler mentioned as well, why they could use IMAX cameras for most of the film. If the film is really good, I may drive to see it in IMAX 70mm more then the one time I got tickets for. I don't know if there will be an opportunity to see true IMAX on film again after this movie, so I'm going while I can to see this one. Nolan is turning out to be one of my favorite directors and I agree with a lot of the decisions he makes on film making. If I were doing it, I'd probably do it the same as him.

I would think that the chances of seeing IMAX 70mm film used on another production is greater now than before Nolan made this one. He is trend setter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I would think that the chances of seeing IMAX 70mm film used on another production is greater now than before Nolan made this one. He is trend setter.

We shall see! Very few people want to put up with the complications of using that huge camera.

 

I gotta put it to him, even though Hateful Eight was a very flawed and not widely accepted movie, what the Weinstein's did, really pushed 70mm film projection to a level we haven't seen in this country for 20 years. So I don't actually credit Nolan actually, I credit PT Anderson on The Master and Quentin Tarantino on Hateful Eight. PT took those 5/65 cameras out of mothballs and proved the format was worthwhile and Quentin proved you could do mass distribution on film in the modern age.

 

Nolan plays things very safe, he won't take huge risks with distribution, which is why he's waited this long to do a mass-release on 5/70. Interstellar only had a few dozen prints struck, but we're talking about 125 70mm prints so far, which is pretty good. If the movie is a success, if there is a direct connection to theaters with prints being more money makers then theaters without prints (hard to quantify) then there is a chance others will tag along. Warner is already there, they already see the value, but what about the other studio's, will they even contemplate it? That's what I'm waiting for and if we get someone else -some non-film god like nolan- to shoot and release their movie on 70mm, I think we'll see momentum. Until then, the whole 70mm presentation movement is still hinged on filmmakers pushing for a special release. When it becomes "the norm", where those 90+ theaters ALWAYS get a 70mm print automatically for whatever studio movie thinks they can make money from it... that's when the film guys have won!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they need to do is make some sort of sound blimp for the IMAX camera, or design a new IMAX camera that isn't noisy, and you'll see IMAX film cameras in more movies. The only reason Nolan could do so much of it in this film was the lack of dialog. But that won't fly on the majority of movies.

 

Nolan started to use IMAX cameras on Batman. That was trend setting. Films like Star Wars used the same method afterwards by using it in special scenes. Use of 5/70 is different. Far and Away was the start of reusing these cameras, though on that film the System 65 cameras was brand new. Then Hamlet. Then PT Anderson.

Edited by Scott Pickering
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if there is a direct connection to theaters with prints being more money makers then theaters without prints (hard to quantify) then there is a chance others will tag along. Warner is already there, they already see the value, but what about the other studio's, will they even contemplate it? That's what I'm waiting for and if we get someone else -some non-film god like nolan- to shoot and release their movie on 70mm, I think we'll see momentum. Until then, the whole 70mm presentation movement is still hinged on filmmakers pushing for a special release. When it becomes "the norm", where those 90+ theaters ALWAYS get a 70mm print automatically for whatever studio movie thinks they can make money from it... that's when the film guys have won!

 

It won't be about theatres with prints vs theatres that are digital but it is about 70mm and Imax providing a special experience that people will pay more money for... like the 3D thing. I have even heard annecdotal stories about people not actually knowing what 70mm actually was but they just knew it was special in some way and wanted to go have a different and special experience at the cinema so they went.

 

I have had a very negative outlook on the future of cinema for a long time. We now have greater resolution for digital projection on the blu-rays than we have in cinema. It seemed like a really stupid move to me to remove what was special about cinemas especially at such an early stage in the technology. Not only was it a bad idea to start with but they rushed the transition to digital. Some cinemas now even use sub 2K projection. It seems like it would have also been sensible to at least make the DCP servers more upgradable than they are. The whole thing is a bit of a mess.

 

There isn't the same kind of compelling reason to go to a cinema anymore and I think that Quentin and Christopher Nolan realised that. I know that a lot of people aren't that keen on Quentin but actually getting all those 70mm projectors out there was an amazing feat. Something Quentin could pull off more easily that Mr Nolan too because he has a reputation as a rebel and Christopher Nolan has a different kind of reputation to upkeep... but once all those projectors were sitting there it was probably relativley easy for Christopher Nolan to say... we can have a big IMAX release and we can use these other projectors too to bring in more money. An easy sell all of a sudden.

 

I know it's been said that Time Warner bought the projectors off the Wiensteins lots of times but I question whether this is true or a rumour that got out of hand. If anyone finds anything concrete about that I would love to know.

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It won't be about theatres with prints vs theatres that are digital but it is about 70mm and Imax providing a special experience that people will pay more money for... like the 3D thing. I have even heard annecdotal stories about people not actually knowing what 70mm actually was but they just knew it was special in some way and wanted to go have a different and special experience at the cinema so they went.

IMAX isn't even really marketing the benefits of 70mm. The fact it's 2x the resolution or that fact it is the original format and what exists today is limax.

 

Also, I was more referring to standard 5/70 prints, rather then IMAX in my statement above. To me, that's the market as IMAX is very much against continuing 15/70 distribution as they feel their laser projectors are better in every way, even though the screens are smaller and resolution is far less.

 

I know it's been said that Time Warner bought the projectors off the Wiensteins lots of times but I question whether this is true or a rumour that got out of hand. If anyone finds anything concrete about that I would love to know.

Little confusion. Kodak bought the Hateful Eight fleet, not Warner. For the time being, Warner bought a bunch of 15/70 IMAX projectors, which are locked up at a warehouse in Inglewood. It's funny, we're trying to rent space in that warehouse and we walked right by the cage with the projectors in it.. I was like huh... so that's where they're being stored! LOL :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little confusion. Kodak bought the Hateful Eight fleet, not Warner. For the time being, Warner bought a bunch of 15/70 IMAX projectors, which are locked up at a warehouse in Inglewood. It's funny, we're trying to rent space in that warehouse and we walked right by the cage with the projectors in it.. I was like huh... so that's where they're being stored! LOL :P

 

 

I don't know whether it's even confusion or just a rumour that got copied and went wild but I feel a certain amount of skepticism about it but can't get any details.

 

Do you have a link to anything about Kodak buying the projectors? I think it would kind of make sense for them seeing as they are in the business of supplying the prints and everything!

 

Are you sure Time Warner bought any projectors? Maybe it is the Kodak projectors in the warehouse?

Where do you think Time Warner bought projectors from and why wouldn't they be out there projecting Dunkirk at the moment?

 

I also heard it suggested that the 70mm hateful eight projectors were just left in the cinemas after the screenings and some of them were subsequently destroyed but that's another rumour with no backing.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Do you have a link to anything about Kodak buying the projectors? I think it would kind of make sense for them seeing as they are in the business of supplying the prints and everything!

IDK what they're waiting for... maybe they want Dunkirk to be a success first? It's not public yet, but I deal with Kodak quite a bit and we've had very public talks. It's pretty evident what they're doing... but I don't want to connect the dots on a public forum.

 

Are you sure Time Warner bought any projectors? Maybe it is the Kodak projectors in the warehouse?

It's a Warner facility... I honestly don't think Kodak cares much about 15/70. The costs to run those projectors is astronomical, they're struggling to keep the 5/70 projectors running and those are a lot easier to deal with.

 

Where do you think Time Warner bought projectors from and why wouldn't they be out there projecting Dunkirk at the moment?

Initially I thought they would be putting projectors back into houses for Dunkirk, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I don't know why they're sitting around, maybe Nolan personally bought them and Warner is storing them? We don't know all the details and we just figured this out a day before I went on vacation. When I get back, I'll be making more inquiries.

 

I also heard it suggested that the 70mm hateful eight projectors were just left in the cinemas after the screenings and some of them were subsequently destroyed but that's another rumour with no backing.

They were, none of them were retracted. Only the prints and lenses were eventually retracted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a Warner facility... I honestly don't think Kodak cares much about 15/70. The costs to run those projectors is astronomical, they're struggling to keep the 5/70 projectors running and those are a lot easier to deal with.

 

 

I'm sort of sympathetic to that point of view. It's like you were saying Tyler... it's clear that IMAX themselves don't care about 15/70 and 5/70 is much more practical in a whole heap of ways.

 

In some ways IMAX is kind of a hinderance to establishing 5/70 as the special format although they are all kinda 70mm film.

 

I think the sensible thing to do would be to concentrate on spherical 5/70 for now. I think Quentin went to far in trying to get Anamorphic working at this point although I also kind of like the way he gave it a go but throwing anamorphic in there too vastly increases the issues you have to deal with. I think Quentin should make another film in just spherical 5/70 if he can.

 

If they can get spherical 5/70 off the ground properly then they can mess around with anamorphic lenses later.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDK what they're waiting for... maybe they want Dunkirk to be a success first? It's not public yet, but I deal with Kodak quite a bit and we've had very public talks. It's pretty evident what they're doing... but I don't want to connect the dots on a public forum.

 

 

It's a Warner facility... I honestly don't think Kodak cares much about 15/70. The costs to run those projectors is astronomical, they're struggling to keep the 5/70 projectors running and those are a lot easier to deal with.

 

 

Initially I thought they would be putting projectors back into houses for Dunkirk, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I don't know why they're sitting around, maybe Nolan personally bought them and Warner is storing them? We don't know all the details and we just figured this out a day before I went on vacation. When I get back, I'll be making more inquiries.

 

 

They were, none of them were retracted. Only the prints and lenses were eventually retracted.

 

 

There is a slight problem with all this. If Kodak bought the projectors off Weinstein (TWC) then why are the projectors in the Time Warner storage facility? Time Warner could be looking after them for Kodak as part of a deal I suppose. Also if the projectors were just abandoned in the cinemas then would they not still be there? That would account for how Dunkirk is able to open on so many more screens at the moment. However that would suggest there are two sets of projectors. The ones abandoned in the cinema and the ones that Time Warner have. If Kodak also have a ton of 5/70 projectors too then that is three sets of projectors.

 

I don't know what to make of it all. I'm actually more inclined to believe that there really could be 3 sets of projectors. I'm less inclined to believe that Time Warner bought the projectors off TWC. I think that is just something deadline said and kind of went viral because I've not seen anything substantial to back this story up.

 

It's all really interesting but I suspect something somewhere is made up.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... Time Warner have !!15/70!! projectors in a warehouse! I didn't catch that bit. That is mad! I thought all that stuff was the property of IMAX and they controlled it. Okay theres a bunch of stuff going on clearly.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Wait... Time Warner have !!15/70!! projectors in a warehouse! I didn't catch that bit. That is mad! I thought all that stuff was the property of IMAX and they controlled it. Okay theres a bunch of stuff going on clearly

Aye! 15/70!!!!! Not 5/70! My brain exploded when I heard this a few months ago and when we went to check out the facility, we were shocked as well.

 

For clarification purposes. The Weinstein 5/70 projectors were purchased by Kodak and they sent around service technicians to get them running better then during Hateful Eight. So that's the only projector set I'm aware of. These projectors will be used for a project up the road.

 

The 15/70 projectors, we don't know the story on yet. We know they're in Warner storage. We know they're NOT being used for Dunkirk because it's too late for them to be moved and tested for this release.

 

Obviously IMAX is done with 15/70, they're spending hundreds of millions on digital systems they want the film systems to die away. Again, it costs the theaters A LOT OF MONEY to run 15/70, even if you discount the projectionist aspects. So those theaters that still have 15/70 projectors, I assume still have leases on them and can't get out without penalties. When the leases are up, I bet they will ditch them and I bet that's part of what someone wants to prevent.

 

I will learn more about this and report back when I know exactly what the deal was.

 

Ohh and BTW... it's not "time warner"... it's just "warner".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...