|
Author
|
Topic: Repertory Titles In Digital
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 2878
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-10-2008 11:33 AM
This seems very odd given that POLAR EXPRESS was released digitally. I can understand if you were asking for a title that never was transfered to digital, then sure they wouldn't accomodate. It costs the studios, depending on the length of the feature and assuming they have viable a viable internegative, between $2,000 and $5,000 for a 35mm print (that was a figure I heard a few years ago so it might even cost more today). But it cost's much more to make a digital print from existing elements. Any studio will weigh what it costs to make a "print" (either film or video) against the potential for return, i.e. profit, and that will determine if they will go through the expense of supplying an exhibitor with either format.
Chances are, if they are not willing to spend the money to strike a 35mm print because there are not enough art houses that will book it, then it is almost certain that they will not go the even more expensive route of mastering a digital print.
At least for now, the number of art theatres that are equipped with digital are few, which means that the digital print has even less of an earning potential than a 35mm release print, makine the chances of them accomodating a request for a digital print even less likely. An arthouse would probably have a better chance of getting the license for playing a Blu-Ray version than the studio shipping them a hard-drive of a classic title.
But like I said, POLAR EXPRESS was a digital release so if WB won't let you play it in digital, then you'll have to chalk it up to just another one of those Alice in Wonderland decisions that are part of our delightful industry. What's the objection to playing it in 35mm?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic