Batman V Superman.

[John Holland]

This film is being shown in IMAX 15/70 at the BFI IMAX also a 70mm print is being screened at Odeon Leicester Sq London from 25th March. Does anyone know of other screenings in the same formats in other parts of the world ?

[Doug Palmer]

Great news ! I'll definitely be making a trip to London. I thought maybe BFI Cinema's 15/70 projector was already being hauled outside onto the skip. I saw Jurassic World there (digital 3D) but it looked rather flat ;)

[Doug Palmer]

Apparently the Science Museum is also showing it in 15/70 Imax. Never tried that one.

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/visitmuseum/Plan_your_visit/IMAX/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-70mm-imax-2d?gclid=CPz3_eeqrssCFc1uGwodGWYAAQ

[Manu Delpech]

The question is: 2K or 4K DCP, it seems it's 4K.

[Tyler Purcell]

Complete list of screenings: http://in70mm.com/library/blow_up/year/2016/index.htm

 

Looks like it's a 4k finish.

[Doug Palmer]

It seems it was filmed on several formats: Alexa, super-16, 35mm Panavision, 65mm and Imax 65. Does anyone know roughly the percentage of each ?

[Manu Delpech]

I wouldn't believe IMDB technical info a lot of the time.

[Tyler Purcell]

According to a friend who worked on the film in the camera department, the vast majority of the movie is shot on 35mm. I didn't ask him about the Alexa, but the 16mm stuff is for a particular scene and the 65mm stuff is also only for a few particular scenes.

[Manu Delpech]

Alexa is probably for aerial shots. 16 mm no idea what scene this could be for, the flashback scene with Bruce's parents is supposed to be IMAX.

[Tyler Purcell]

Ahh, aerial sounds right because he wasn't involved with that unit.

[Manu Delpech]

Per someone who interviewed Zack Snyder, the 16 mm footage didn't make it into the film, some GoPro shots did.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Manu Delpech

[Manu Delpech]

Studio: Warner Bros.
Rating: PG-13
Feature Run Time: 02:31:27:10
Credit Start Time: 02:23:43:06
Crawl Start Time: 02:23:43:06
Image Format: 2048x858 2K Scope
Audio Format: 5.1/7.1

 

 

Looks like it's a 2K DCP...........

[Tyler Purcell]

Yep, another 2k DCP. The film prints were made from a 4k master, that's already been confirmed. So why would they make a 2k DCP? Ridiculous!

[Phil Rhodes]

Perhaps we should organise some sort of meet. I dunno. Call me friendly.

[Manu Delpech]

Yep, another 2k DCP. The film prints were made from a 4k master, that's already been confirmed. So why would they make a 2k DCP? Ridiculous!

 

So there is a 4K version of it, that's what I thought, anyway, funky. They'll probably save the 4K master for the UHD release.

[Tyler Purcell]

Well, I saw it last night! :sigh:

 

I will start with the good. The 70mm print projected at Arclight Cinema's in Hollywood was absolutely flawless. Actually, it was beyond flawless, it looked damn good. Reminded me of the Interstellar 5/70 print, just flat out perfect. No registration issues, no color shifting, no flickering, nothing at all, just a perfect image. What shocked me the most about the presentation the most was how crisp and steady the text elements were. With a digital projection, you would see aliasing around text on most releases, but not with the film out. I want to say they did more then a 4k film out. Of course you could tell it was a digital film out because it was missing much of the grain particulates and the real big grain nastiness from the underexposed 500asa shots, were blurry, not so with the original camera negative. The IMAX shots stood out like a sore thumb, they were grain-less and beautiful, almost looking like digital. Unfortunately, there weren't very many, which was disappointing. I only counted Four occasions where they used large format for capture and one of 16mm, which actually looked pretty cool and worked well.

 

So those were the positives... now for the negatives.

 

The film is a real mess both cinematically and technically. The filmmakers shot in the dark incessantly, forgetting that 500T isn't quite as clean looking at an Alexa would be. So the vast majority of the film was underlit and grainy as all get out. One of the reviewers said it looked like 16mm (which there is a scene shot in 16mm early in the film and it looks pretty good) and I agree, it really did. Sure, the few daylight exteriors looked great, crisp and beautiful. What frustrates me the most is that they COULD have shot all those night scenes on 5/70 and been able to push the stock even harder if they wish to underlight. Still, it would have been nice for scenes to be lit properly. But it was a huge movie and I understand they had to move along, they couldn't dwell too much on things.

 

In terms of the movie itself? Just one solid piece of poop. To me, it seemed like a 200+ minute movie which was cut down substantially. There wasn't a moment to rest, contemplate, nothing. It was solid poop from the credit sequence with the Batman origin story told once again, through the end where it was clearly leading up to a sequel. Jessie Eisenberg was good at Lex Luther, and some tracks of Hans Zimmer score was interesting, nothing great, but interesting. The rest was just background noise with crazy VFX that were poorly done in most cases.

 

So in the end, really the 70mm print was the only reason to go! LOL :)

[Robin R Probyn]

I think I predicted this film would be rubbish way back.. :)

[cole t parzenn]

Yep, another 2k DCP. The film prints were made from a 4k master, that's already been confirmed. So why would they make a 2k DCP? Ridiculous!

 

What percentage of screens are 4K? Perhaps they wanted to optimize for the prevailing format?

[Tyler Purcell]

What percentage of screens are 4K? Perhaps they wanted to optimize for the prevailing format?

I think only the 3D are 4k