TCM Presents "Jaws" in theaters ..... Cinemark quality (1 Viewer)

Thought this would be interesting to folks.


So 1975's Jaws is going to be released in (USA) theaters June 21 and 24, 2015 for its special 40th Anniversary via TCM (Turner Classic Movies).




A friend of mine told me that he believes it will be presented off of Blue-ray (??). I didn't know, so I emailed our local "Cinemark 17" theater 97477 built around 1999 w/ all stadium seating.



Anyway, the General Manager told me this:


"Hi Jim, The classic series TCM events are streamed via satellite similar to what we do with the Met Opera. I personally watched the event for Rear Window last fall, and it looked great, so based on that I would anticipate a very good image source for this one [Jaws].

Our 35mm equipment was replaced with the 4k digital projectors in 2011. None of our films are blu-ray - the films are run off of what they call DCP’s (digital cinema package) and the amount of data is something like 10 times what blu ray is. Hope that helps clarify! -Lee"

I kind of wished it were more technical, but I thought it would be interesting for readers to hear. ....btw, I am curious about their audio choice of this Jaws presentation, I'm guessing it will be the stereo/surround mix, rather than the original mono. Not sure how I feel about that.

Thoughts on any of this?

On the fathom website they said it was a 4K equivalent. I'm going Wednesday. Any opportunity to see Jaws on the big screen. [emoji106]

Tino said:

On the fathom website they said it was a 4K equivalent. I'm going Wednesday. Any opportunity to see Jaws on the big screen. [emoji106]

Click to expand...

I've seen Fathom events that look great and some that don't but I try to go to them with the mindset where I'm placing more importance on seeing the movie with a crowd/the theatrical experience than on the quality of the presentation.


As an aside, if Sony could pull off a week-long Ghostbusters re-release last summer, I can't believe that Universal couldn't do the same for Jaws.

I'd like to go, but it's rather a long drive for me (about 45 miles) and it's in an older theater with small-ish screens and non-stadium seating. So we'll see if I feel like making the trip when Wednesday comes.

I'm going Sunday as it's playing in a six month old movie theater.

Still waiting on Jaws 16. . . .

Tony J Case said:

Still waiting on Jaws 16. . . .

Click to expand...

I prefer "Jaws 23":

Today is the 40th anniversary of the release of Jaws.

Yup. Just got done watching the excellent documentary "The Shark Is Still Working" on the blu Ray gearing up for the Fathom event.

Tony J Case said:

Still waiting on Jaws 16. . . .

Click to expand...

I'll see it the day the Cubs beat the Florida Gators.

Anyone go to the 2pm show?

Yep, it was packed (maybe even sold out). Thanks to Jurassic World & Inside Out and to a lesser degree Jaws, I had never seen the theater so crowded during the day time. I always say it but the movie still plays great.


Speaking of Inside Out, it amuses that Jaws has the same rating as that movie.


They used a 2K projector but it was a solid one. The projector wasn't a piece of garbage using an old bulb or a flashlight or anything. Once again, the level of video quality can certainly vary from theater to theater.

I'm going Wednesday to the 7pm show. Maybe the 2pm too. [emoji38]

Saw this tonight with my 18 year old daughter. Even though she has seen it several times, she still jumped at a few scenes. Looked great on the big screen. If they showed this every year or every other year, I'd go each time.


I also had a packed theater and people clapped both at the beginning and end of the movie.

I saw the 2 PM showing here in Wilsonville (OR) and there was a decent crowd.


It did look pretty great. I have never seen Jaws in theaters, as I was only in my single digits when it was first released.


After watching at least 30 times at home over the years, I saw things today I never noticed at home.


I also noticed there were some scenes that looked soft, but that seems like it is how the film was, as it was mostly the shots of the boat chasing (or being chased by) Bruce.


I loved it!


I will have to go see Double Indemnity in a few weeks.

I only had about 50 people in my 2:00 p.m. showing today. It looked pretty good, but I can't remember how it looked 40 years ago during my first theatrical viewing of this great film.

I went to the 2 p.m. screening yesterday with my brother. The theater was mostly full, primarily with middle age or older folks, but a few younger people and even some young (too young!) children.


Apparently, the PG rating fooled some parents, since I saw at least two kids under the age of five there. Given the amount of gore, violence and suspense in this movie, the warning "May be too intense for younger children" really needs to be emphasized, or possibly it needs to be updated to a PG-13 or R rating.


I really have to wonder whether those young kids were traumatized by the movie. I saw it when I was 8 in 1975, and it scared the hell out of me. I can only imagine what it would be like to a 4-year-old. There was one small boy sitting near me who kept asking his mom questions the whole time, which was distracting but somewhat understandable due to his age. I still think it was inappropriate for any young kids to be there in the first place.


Anyway, the audience was enthusiastic and appreciative. There was a big round of applause for the "You're gonna need a bigger boat" line, and applause at the end of the movie. There were a few screams for the Ben Gardener's head moment and the shark's first appearance. Overall, it was a great day at the movies, and much more satisfying than watching it at home with a small audience. Seeing it on a big screen is also much more impressive than watching at home, even on my front projection setup. I felt real awe at how big and scary the shark was during the final battle scenes, which is something it's hard to appreciate at home on a smaller screen. Jaws really needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible, with an enthusiastic audience.


As far as the picture quality and sound, it looked very much like the Blu-ray to me. The picture was very good most of the time, but seemed a bit soft for some of the long shots of the Orca in the final battle scenes. I also noticed some compression noise in some of the nighttime scenes. Overall, though, it was quite good, and sometimes better than some of the 35 mm prints I've seen of the movie over the years, which were often much worse for the wear.


The soundtrack was the same as the one for the Blu-ray, which is to say that it sounded pretty good but had some noticeable differences from the classic mono track. Gunshots and explosions were louder and more realistic, but some of the distinctive sounds made by the shark, like the bubbles in its wake hissing, were missing or different than in the old track. The new track is not bad at all, and it does make the movie more immersive at times (the underwater sounds are cool), but I still miss the original, Oscar-winning mono track. Still, the sound was more than good enough, and I doubt that most people would ever notice the difference.


Overall, the movie still holds up amazingly well, and puts most modern wannabe blockbusters to shame. Anyone who wants to learn how to make a great action suspense thriller should watch Jaws, then watch it again.

EliAmador said:

I went to the 2 p.m. screening yesterday with my brother. The theater was mostly full, primarily with middle age or older folks, but a few younger people and even some young (too young!) children.

Apparently, the PG rating fooled some parents, since I saw at least two kids under the age of five there. Given the amount of gore, violence and suspense in this movie, the warning "May be too intense for younger children" really needs to be emphasized, or possibly it needs to be updated to a PG-13 or R rating.

I really have to wonder whether those young kids were traumatized by the movie. I saw it when I was 8 in 1975, and it scared the hell out of me. I can only imagine what it would be like to a 4-year-old. There was one small boy sitting near me who kept asking his mom questions the whole time, which was distracting but somewhat understandable due to his age. I still think it was inappropriate for any young kids to be there in the first place.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think the PG rating "fooled" parents. I think some parents today need a friggin lobotomy or something. PG means Parental Guidance Suggested, which means under 17s may need some oversight in seeing and understanding the violence, NOT "take your pre-adolescent children to it, and then take them out for ice cream in the misguided hopes that will cure whatever emotional distress you've just subjected them to."

After the Colorado movie theater shooting, I was astounded to hear that parents were taking children under 10 to a Dark Knight movie ... at midnight!

Seems we do indeed need to start requiring a license to procreate.

I still laugh at the fact that my parents thought I was too young, at 11 or so, to watch the movie....but they were fine with me checking the book out of the library, without so much as skimming it over beforehand. I got quite the adolescent education with all the explicit sex, but hey, at least I didn't see any blood on-screen!

ChromeJob said:

PG means Parental Guidance Suggested, which means under 17s may need some oversight in seeing and understanding the violence, NOT "take your pre-adolescent children to it, and then take them out for ice cream in the misguided hopes that will cure whatever emotional distress you've just subjected them to."

Click to expand...

What the PG rating was 40 years ago isn't what it is now. Since the introduction of the PG-13 rating, PG has basically become the rating for kids movies. Now, I don't see how anyone would take a kid to see Jaws thinking that it was a children's movie but looking solely at the way movies are rated today, movies that are appropriate for kids get a PG rating, not movies where people get eaten alive onscreen. If they re-submitted Jaws to the MPAA today, there's literally no way that it would get a PG (if it didn't have Spielberg behind it, it would likely need some slight edits to get a PG-13).