Oppenheimer (2023) (1 Viewer)

[Joe Wong]

I don’t believe MI has any scenes shot in 1.43:1? If that’s the case, then the screens that can do 1.43:1 should stay with Oppenheimer. There are plenty of non-1.43:1 IMAX (aka “Liemax”) and other premium large format screens to go around for 1.85:1 and wider ratios.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Mission Impossible didn’t shoot with IMAX cameras. Oppenheimer’s access to premium screens has been locked down since September 2021. If Paramount had an objection to this, the option was to move the date. Clearly they want a prime summer release spot. It strikes me as incredibly unlikely that somehow they didn’t know what screens were available, and now somehow think that if they show their movie to exhibitors, those exhibitors will violate already-agreed-to contractual obligations in deference to Tom Cruise’s feelings. It strikes me all as made up nonsense.

 

[Malcolm R]

This would mean Tom Cruise is dumber than dog dirt about the realities of theatrical exhibition and really casts him in a bad light if true. Cruise may be a lot of things, IMO, but I've never thought of him as dumb.

 

[Edwin-S]

It sounds like nonsense to me. If.the distributor failed to line up IMAX screens for their film that is on the distributor. Cruise has been in the industry for decades. He know how it works. He knows that "furiously showing his movie to vendors and hoping they change out films that with signed contracts" isn't how it works.

 

[TravisR]

That doesn’t really pass the smell test. Christopher Nolan signed a deal in September 2021 that called for a number of stipulations for the release of Oppenheimer, including a multi-week IMAX run. IMAX always gives longer-than-usual runs to films shot with their proprietary equipment. This cannot have been a surprise to anyone working in the industry. More clickbait.

Agreed. That being said, I think Paramount are a bunch of fools for setting themselves up to only have one week of IMAX for Mission: Impossible.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I'd love to be wrong but I just don't think that this movie has much of a financial chance. I'd also say that I think the movie looks like it will be fantastic so money be damned.

Well, if someone else was pitching a film about Oppenheimer, probably would have to be a small budgeted drama. Nolan is a prestige director, and not many of those left. He's got a good story and a huge cast. Hopefully, he tells it in such a way that people are not confused by it. I'm all in on this and again, I think it is a great and important story that personally I want to be done by a director that can get whatever he wants to do it.

I realize an R rating is not really what backers tend to want on a big picture but I think if you are going to risk doing this with someone, risk it with a guy like Nolan. I think it has the potential to be the best film of his career.

 

[Malcolm R]

Rated R for "some sexuality, nudity, and language."

I guess if you want people to sit for a 3-hour history lesson, you need a little titillation to keep them hooked.

As is usually the case in 'Merica, sex and nudity trumps the "intense sequences of violence" of Tenet and the "intense war experience" of Dunkirk, both PG-13.

 

[Joe Wong]

We know 70mm is bigger than 35mm, but still cool to see the difference!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Rated R for "some sexuality, nudity, and language."

I guess if you want people to sit for a 3-hour history lesson, you need a little titillation to keep them hooked.

As is usually the case in 'Merica, sex and nudity trumps the "intense sequences of violence" of Tenet and the "intense war experience" of Dunkirk, both PG-13.

It's funny, in the 1980s if you were submitting a story like this they would likely have said "This is good, but where is the sex and nudity? Can you add some?" because they did feel that would make sitting through a film about science and making a bomb that could kill us all more exciting, I think particularly to women. They probably would have said the same in the 1990s. Now, I think the question would tend to be the opposite. They probably would ask "This has some sex and nudity in it, can we take that out?"

Tarantino was asked why he does not have sex and nudity in his films because he obviously likes it in other films but he never does it. He said because it was too much of a pain in the ass and required a whole bunch of other people to be on the set. Intimacy coordinators, coaches, people that advise you how you can shoot the scene, where you can put hands, stopping things over and over to ask if everybody is alright...he feels you lose control of your picture to these other people, so he said they are not worth doing.

Plus you have things like Frank Langella getting fired from a show because he put his hand on the leg of the actress that was playing his wife while both were fully clothed. The actress walked off the set because she said him touching her was not supposed to be in the scene. It was said to be a love scene/intimate moment of some sort but his hand on her knee with clothes on both of them was unacceptable. They said they had to fire him because the actress made a complaint about it and it is a no exception rule. That kind of thing would make me not want to have a love scene in a picture.

Oppenheimer did have a mistress and was cheating on his wife. So, there could be something about that in the film. It did become an issue and they wanted him to break it off with the mistress.

 

[TravisR]

Tarantino was asked why he does not have sex and nudity in his films because he obviously likes it in other films but he never does it.

Tell that to Bridget Fonda and Robert DeNiro in Jackie Brown. Now that one is basically a joke and they're mostly clothed but they still have sex.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Tell that to Bridget Fonda and Robert DeNiro in Jackie Brown. Now that one is basically a joke and they're mostly clothed but they still have sex

That's true. I don't recall that scene very well. I think they are not nude and it is pretty quick. I seem to sort of remember that the scene consists of a shot of De Niro looking like he is struggling through it comically. That was done before they were required to have intimacy coordinators and coaches on the set too. It does seem that scene is played for comedy, not sex, and to add a bit to the punchline of Fonda's fate.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is about "Oppenheimer"! Stop taking this thread off-topic. I'm sick and tired of the same posters doing so in various threads. Respect the people that read specific threads and the subject matter of those particular threads.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Based on the showtimes at my IMAX 70mm location, I’m really wondering if that specific presentation will feature an intermission. I know from prior experience the IMAX platter can hold about 165 minutes’ worth of film. Oppenheimer is reported to be 180 minutes. Depending on how much of that is credits, it’s possible that they could make a special version for IMAX like they did for Interstellar that speeds up/reformats the credit roll to shave some time off and force it to fit the platter. But an intermission also seems like a possibility.

Opening night has showtimes staggered at 4 1/2 hours apart - that would fit perfectly for 3 hours for the movie, half an hour between show times, fifteen minutes for pre show trailers and such, and fifteen minutes for an intermission to change platters.

But then on day two it shifts to 4 hours between showtimes which makes that all a bit tighter. So who knows?

None of the other projection formats on offer require an intermission. Nolan knows the intricacies of IMAX better than any other modern filmmaker so if it winds up requiring one in IMAX that wouldn’t be something that took him by surprise.

Guess we’ll find out on July 20!

 

[Edwin-S]

I'd love to be wrong but I just don't think that this movie has much of a financial chance. I'd also say that I think the movie looks like it will be fantastic so money be damned.

I felt the same way when TITANIC was released and it turned out to be a huge hit. I'm not normally interested in biographical pics, but the trailers on this one have me interested enough that I may even take a trip to see this in IMAX. The way it should be seen.

 

[Joe Wong]

Based on the showtimes at my IMAX 70mm location, I’m really wondering if that specific presentation will feature an intermission. I know from prior experience the IMAX platter can hold about 165 minutes’ worth of film. Oppenheimer is reported to be 180 minutes. Depending on how much of that is credits, it’s possible that they could make a special version for IMAX like they did for Interstellar that speeds up/reformats the credit roll to shave some time off and force it to fit the platter. But an intermission also seems like a possibility.

Opening night has showtimes staggered at 4 1/2 hours apart - that would fit perfectly for 3 hours for the movie, half an hour between show times, fifteen minutes for pre show trailers and such, and fifteen minutes for an intermission to change platters.

But then on day two it shifts to 4 hours between showtimes which makes that all a bit tighter. So who knows?

None of the other projection formats on offer require an intermission. Nolan knows the intricacies of IMAX better than any other modern filmmaker so if it winds up requiring one in IMAX that wouldn’t be something that took him by surprise.

Guess we’ll find out on July 20!

This could be what's happening to accommodate 180 minutes.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Nice! Nothing like a plastic doodad to the rescue. It would be ever better if it was attached via duct tape

Changing platters on an IMAX system is really difficult - you need a forklift to do it, and IMAX HQ actually used to advise against it in a rush (their head office used to specify screenings of different films should be scheduled a certain number of hours apart to avoid rushing the process; I briefly worked at a museum IMAX decades ago and the head projectionist would laugh at that - he’d switch films in ten minutes because there was a different documentary scheduled every hour, when the official guidance said there should be at least an hour break between different films).

 

[Wayne_j]

Nice! Nothing like a plastic doodad to the rescue. It would be ever better if it was attached via duct tape

Changing platters on an IMAX system is really difficult - you need a forklift to do it, and IMAX HQ actually used to advise against it in a rush (their head office used to specify screenings of different films should be scheduled a certain number of hours apart to avoid rushing the process; I briefly worked at a museum IMAX decades ago and the head projectionist would laugh at that - he’d switch films in ten minutes because there was a different documentary scheduled every hour, when the official guidance said there should be at least an hour break between different films).

Maybe the platters for the documentaries are lighter than those for feature films.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Joe found the answer - they’re using a little bit of plastic to slightly extend the diameter of the platter to accommodate the extra 15 minutes or so of running time.

 

[Joe Wong]

Nolan himself confirming the runtime of 3 hours and 9 seconds (and it takes 11 miles of film!!):

 

[Josh Steinberg]

They couldn’t find nine seconds to cut?