Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Community   » Film-Yak   » AMC says: "No Charge for Cinderella Man!" (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: AMC says: "No Charge for Cinderella Man!"
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 06-30-2005 11:47 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
AMC says that if you go and see Cinderella Man and don't like it, they'll refund your $$$. Who would go see a movie titled "Cinderella Man" anyway? Could they have picked a worse name?

I saw an in-depth news report on my local news about this tonight. Luckily I just happened to have Final Cut Pro hooked up to the TV to record the news bit for all you to see. Remember, this was recorded off the air with a shoddy antenna. So suck it.

Click here to watch the super detailed news report 4.35MB
Quicktime format - 60 frames per second (can u handle it?)

Of course even if you like the movie, I highly urge you to lie and say you didn't just to get your $$$ back. You need it more than the studio does.

But is it worth going to an AMC theater for a free movie? Tough call.

 |  IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 07-01-2005 01:58 AM      Profile for Phil Hill   Email Phil Hill       Edit/Delete Post 
I saw that ad too... what I was wondering was "who" actually refunded the $$$... the theatre (chain) or the studio/producer/distributor/booker?

quote: Joe Redifer
60 frames per second (can u handle it?)

Oh PUHLEEZE Joe! I can do at least 61 FPS on my PC!

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 07-01-2005 03:08 AM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I know your PC can handle it, but the question was if U could handle it (notice the capital "U" for X-Treme emphasis). I bet u can't. 60 fps is just too much for movie-people to handle. They don't know what to do with it.

 |  IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 07-01-2005 03:23 AM      Profile for Phil Hill   Email Phil Hill       Edit/Delete Post 
Joe, I can handle ***anything*** you can feed me....

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1582
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 07-01-2005 08:34 AM      Profile for Mark Lensenmayer   Email Mark Lensenmayer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I really don't care that I could see it free. I just don't want to see CINDERELLA MAN. BTW, our local newspaper said that Cinemark was also making the same offer.

If you want to see a GREAT and little known boxing movie, check out THE SET-UP, directed by Robert Wise and starring Robert Ryan. Made in 1949, and a mere 72 minutes long, this is really worth seeking out.

 |  IP: Logged

Jennifer Pan
THE JEN!

Posts: 1219
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: Nov 2003


 - posted 07-01-2005 11:15 AM      Profile for Jennifer Pan   Author's Homepage   Email Jennifer Pan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Phil, you are my hero. [Big Grin]

60 fps is easy, I can't stand it for a long period of time though. That's way I don't watch very much television. [Eek!]

 |  IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4017
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 07-01-2005 12:08 PM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ya know, there's something about the combination of the title "Cinderella Man", and Russell Crowe, that triggers an irrational aversion in me to seeing this film. I don't know what it is. It's gotten great reviews, and I suspect I'd probably like it.

 |  IP: Logged

Ron Yost
Master Film Handler

Posts: 344
From: Paso Robles, CA
Registered: Aug 2003


 - posted 07-01-2005 12:55 PM      Profile for Ron Yost   Email Ron Yost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Apparently I got it wrong. I thought I understood from a TV report that NBC/Universal was behind the refund. I should have checked the web first.

It appears AMC did originate the idea of the refund after all.

Post edited by me to remove incorrect info.

Ron Yost

 |  IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1498
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000


 - posted 07-01-2005 01:12 PM      Profile for Jesse Skeen   Email Jesse Skeen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'd like to see AMC guarantee your money back if there's anything wrong with the presentation. Of course then they'd be giving back 90% of their money [Wink]
Haven't seen Cinderella Man, but that's got to be the WORST movie title I've heard of in quite a while.

 |  IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5244
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 07-01-2005 01:44 PM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Joey Redifer
Quicktime format - 60 frames per second
I thought TV was 30fps.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000


 - posted 07-01-2005 04:15 PM      Profile for Paul Mayer   Author's Homepage   Email Paul Mayer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, in 525/60/2:1 land TV is 30fps (frames) and 60fps (fields).

In 625/50/2:1 lands TV is 25fps/60fps.

TV: Bad radio with pictures. Quicktime doesn't even count as TV. [Smile]

 |  IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4017
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 07-01-2005 04:19 PM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
 -

There's also this:

 -

 |  IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 07-01-2005 04:31 PM      Profile for Phil Hill   Email Phil Hill       Edit/Delete Post 
Tim and Paul: I am VERY disappointed in you both. I guess I'll have to send Sister Mary Elephant in to enlighten yous as to what has been going on in NTSC-M land for the last 50+ years.

The frame rate is actually 29.97. [Razz]

quote: Joe Redifer
60 fps is just too much for movie-people to handle.
Ummmmm... Showscan is 60fps FILM. [Moon]

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 07-01-2005 06:12 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah and look what happened to it! The film industry could not handle Showscan, so Showscan auditoriums were converted into high caliber 35mm auditoriums in their place.

TV = 60 (or 59.94) independent images per second. Each of those independent images is a frame in my awesome quicktime. Doesn't it make it feel like you're really watching TV, what with the bad reception, 60fps, and compression artifacts?

 |  IP: Logged

Robert Burtcher
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 194
From: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Registered: Jun 2005


 - posted 07-03-2005 02:03 AM      Profile for Robert Burtcher   Email Robert Burtcher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
NTSC-M is 29.97 frames per second. The field rate is 59.94 hz. What this means is that each incoming NTSC-M frame is scanned onto the screen twice. If you digitally record at anything higher than 29.97fps, then you're not really getting a better picture, just bloating the size of the file, as you're duplicating each frame.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.