That sounds ominous. Do you mean they're running a lot of digital now, or what?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Studios aren't supplying prints / keeping them in the circulation and the programmers are either dead set on showing a particular film, even it's via a DVD, OR they are not turning over every stone (collectors) to find a print. There have been a number of screenings I've been to where I've sat down in my seat and been surprised--not pleasantly--with a DVD projection. :f I'm of the opinion that, whenever possible, an exhibitor should show something else--on film--if their initial choice is unavailable on a presentable 35mm print. Obviously, it's becoming tougher on repertory venues in the current climate, with some studios doing everything in their power to force the change over to digital, but if something is readily available on DVD, i.e. really not very rare at all, it should not be shown publicly if it's going to be in that format; DVD is fine for home consumption, but it's nothing that anyone should be paying $10+ to see in a theater...if that does happen, it should be a very rare occasion and caused by something unforeseen.Chas in CT said:That sounds ominous. Do you mean they're running a lot of digital now, or what?
I went to the screening at the Walter Reade last night. It wasn't a big audience, but this may have been because they had a sign at the box office warning about the faded print! The editor of Film Comment gave a short introduction and mentioned that he was told it was a great print (which they got from a collector), but was disappointed when they received it. The whole movie had an orange tone. And there were a few splices early on. BUT I still enjoyed the experience, having not seen it in the theater since its initial release. And if you can call this movie anything, it's an experience.Film Comment magazine is screening the movie at NY's Lincoln Center on Friday, Feb. 24, at 9:30pm.
Warner Bros., sadly, is notorious amongst repertory programmers these days for making it extremely difficult to show their films via 35mm prints. They have substantially raised their licensing / rental fees, making it cost prohibitive for most rep houses and / or they have taken the prints out of circulation. Hence, FSLC going to a collector for the print. Programmer friends of mine have told me that they are now often told to "just show a DVD" by the studio. A shame, truly.Chas in CT said:Well, I hate to say it but I'm glad I didn't schlep down there for it. At least they showed a print, but what a disappointment. Does this mean that this film can't be gotten from the studio now, or what?
Yes, you heard right.Chas in CT said:"Just show a...what?"
The problem is this is a systematic, industry-wide issue. It does not start with some lowly employee who just doesn't feel like fetching and shipping a print one day. It is part of a directive from much further up the chain and is another symptom of that pesky digital revolution / death of film thing everyone is writing, shouting, posting, blogging about, etc. The raising of licensing / rental fees, which I mentioned earlier, is another related directive...it is a dis-incentive for programmers to attempt to program and project 35mm prints of older films.Richard--W said:That is unprofessional behavior. When studio personnel say something like that, write down the person's name, position, department, and the nature of the discussion or transaction. Then complain. But do more than complain. Publish the name and the quote in your announcement or newsletter of the screening. Let everybody know where the attitude problem is in this chain of events that forces an exhibitor to settle for a faded print from a private collector.
The Film Forum in NY is currently presenting a series that's about film vs. digital restoration. I'm all for it, as long as the film looks as good. But what about all those movies that haven't been and never will be restored? Is the DVD of "Altered States" the best we'll ever have?It is part of a directive from much further up the chain and is another symptom of that pesky digital revolution / death of film thing everyone is writing, shouting, posting, blogging about, etc.
Sweet. Thanks, Bob. Too bad they couldn't ax that atrocious reissue artwork for ALTERED STATES and restore the original one-sheet art. Wonderful news about OUTLAND and "chilling thriller" MEAN STREETS as well.Bob Cashill said:ALTERED STATES comes to Blu-ray on July 10, along with OUTLAND (a DVD botch job), BRAINSTORM (83), COMA, and other sci-fi/thrillers: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=8416
The ALTERED STATES cover is pretty darned nondescript, in addition to ugly, to my eyes. And, for the record (in case anyone is wondering ), it first appeared when WB reissued ALTERED STATES in a keepcase for DVD a couple years back. When one considers how striking the original key art for ALTERED STATES and MEAN STREETS is, it's pretty disappointing.Mark Edward Heuck said:It's been told to me that for the most part, WB Blu-Ray releases will be using newly-created cover art. Not enthused at this, but I don't think the new art for ALTERED STATES or MEAN STREETS for that matter is all that bad - at least some thought went into it. And gratefully, Archive releases use original key art.