Disney decided between Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, their animation studio, and other properties that they really don't have room and money to spend on Bruckheimer extravaganzas.
"I am thankful to have had the opportunity to work with these amazing people at The Walt Disney Studios, many of whom have become my good friends. As we continue to make adventure films, we look forward to returning to films like Black Hawk Down, Enemy of the State, Beverly Hills Cop, and The Rock."
Saw Sailnger yesterday. It was a pretty cool story, but the documentary was done almost like an unsolved mysteries episode. I probably would suggest it unless you really enjoy his work and would like to learn more about him.
But, it was cool how they revealed all the posthumous stuff that will be released in the next 5 to 10 years. Definitely excited for all the Glass Family stories that were written.
tifosi77 wrote: One interesting thing about the newest updates is they've converted the auditorium to stadium seating, and in the process they've lost something like 500 seats.
I think I read this week its still the largest imax in America. they actually dug out the flooring to install the lowest stadium levels.
tif, being a cinema tech guru you might enjoy this
Yeah, they covered up the orchestra pit to make the floor in front of the screen many years ago. They just re-opened that pit to add several more rows of seating.
Hate hate hate HATE digital projection................... the advantages over photochem prints are purely economical. Yes, the 100th viewing of a digital 'print' is no different than the first, which cannot be said about a physical photochem print. But with digital 1) you're starting from a lower baseline of image fidelity, anyway, and 2) the lack of flicker and jitter keeps your brain in a quasi-depressed state that invites vegging out (like television); the flicker/jitter keeps your brain in an alpha state that keeps you engaged. There is no picture advantage for digital.
Digital projection is behind only 3D on my list of cinema pet peeves.
pittsoccer33 wrote:Disney decided... that they really don't have room and money to spend on Bruckheimer extravaganzas.
Between TLR and the acquisition of Lucasfilm, this probably shouldn't be much of a surprise. I mean, I don't want to blame TLR.... but if Disney were leaning this way (as it seems the were in recent months) then a boxoffice turd like TLR certainly doesn't complicate the decision.
My favorite Bruckheimer movies are the ones from the 80s up until about 2000. Beverly Hills Cop 1 and 2, Days of Thunder, Crimson Tide, Bad Boys, The Rock, Con Air, Enemy of the State, Armageddon. Most of those were rated R. The last one of "his" style movies he did with Disney was Deja Vu, which I think kind of bombed. Bad Boys 2 did pretty well at the box office but it cost too much to make.
I hope he has a market for new action thrillers, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
tifosi77 wrote: 1) you're starting from a lower baseline of image fidelity, anyway
I know in theory once you transfer to digital you are limiting the amount of detail. But I'd counter that saying:
1) LOTS of films are being shot on RED Epic/Scarlet, Sony F65, and others. So they're already peaking out at 4K or whatever resolution was used during filming. (fair argument to that is that most DCPs are only 2K)
2) even things shot on film are likely to be scanned into computers for post work. Not just cgifests like Transformers and Life of Pie. Directors use it for scenes that take place in a rainstorm but all they had to work with that week was bright sunny weather.
Smoking Aces was the first film I saw on a digital projector and I loved how much brighter, cleaner, clearer, and smoother it was. I've sought out digital presentations ever since.
1) The fact that so many films are starting out life as digital images does not trump the argument against digital being lower res. It may mean less generational degradation, but that still means even at 4k the image resolution is still only about equal to 35 mm film, never mind 65 mm, 70 mm or IMAX. (And as you say, 2k projection is still the standard)
2) Transferring things to digital for post work doesn't have an impact on the resolution of the output image. It's not like you put in a 70 mm image and the VFX guys do their magic and then they output that to something like 4k/35 mm. It is still output at full res. The only thing shooting digital does is save time (and money) on digitizing analog/photochem images; it's captured as a digital image.
To me, digital projection looks like I'm watching television. And I don't like it. If I'm not getting a different visual experience at the cinema.... why bother going to the cinema? (The same holds true for audio, of course.)
PensFanInDC wrote:I think you need to take this to the science thread. All this technical jargon is harshing my Manborg talk buzz....
its just like the debate audiophiles have as to which sounds better, record or cd.
an analog medium can capture a much larger swath of data. so a record (or film) should be able to capture everything that's happening to a large degree. the standard film size thru most of history has been 35mm. film doesn't have a built in resolution like 1080p or 4k (4k being the next high def tv revolution - roughly 4 times more detail than 1080). you can do visual tests to approximate what resolutions different reels of film are and 35mm shows about as much detail as 4k
a digital medium has a limit from the get go as it pertains to file size. that file size will limit the amount of information you can see or hear. so in the process of performing the song or shooting the scene you will lose a lot of the media information from the get go.
those are the technical reasons against digital media. it costs over $1000 to make each print of a movie. ive seen estimates that say $3000. so if a big movie like Iron Man 3 opens on 4,000 screens across the country youre tying up a lot of money just making and shipping large film reels to cinemas. those prints will also wear and fade a bit each time theyre shown. the new digital projectors read a file off a hard drive. you also need less people to work the theater because the entire place is run off a large server. the entire days programming - local ads, trivia, trailers, and the movie are queued up like a party playlist. nobody needs to change reels during the showing.
tifosi77 wrote:2) Transferring things to digital for post work doesn't have an impact on the resolution of the output image. It's not like you put in a 70 mm image and the VFX guys do their magic and then they output that to something like 4k/35 mm. It is still output at full res. The only thing shooting digital does is save time (and money) on digitizing analog/photochem images; it's captured as a digital image.
that's not what happened with Star Trek TNG. the actors and sets were shot on 35mm film (which has a really high resolution). the special effects masters were done with the idea it would be shown on ntsc television, which meant lowly 480i.
when it came time to release the show on bluray they could go back to the film and transfer that to digital at 1080p no problem. but the effects were only 480i and would have looked blown up and terrible. that's why it was a big deal for cbs (or paramount, whoever actually owns that now) to spend money to have all new special effects created for the bluray.
theres a cool short film with agent carter on the iron man 3 bluray. most of the marvel universe blurays have these. id really like to cut these films chronologically starting with the ancient thor stuff first then moving to the 1940s, intercutting iron man 1 and hulk, then iron man 2 and thor, the end of captain America, avengers, then iron man 3. id add these short films where they fit in too