my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » 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                        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                  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                        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                  Joe, I can handle ***anything*** you can feed me....  |  IP: Logged Mark Lensenmayer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1605 From: Upper Arlington, OH Registered: Sep 1999 posted 07-01-2005 08:34 AM                     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                        Phil, you are my hero. 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.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-01-2005 12:08 PM                        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                     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: 1517 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Aug 2000 posted 07-01-2005 01:12 PM                     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 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: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 07-01-2005 01:44 PM                       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                        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.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-01-2005 04:19 PM                        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                  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. quote: Joe Redifer 60 fps is just too much for movie-people to handle. Ummmmm... Showscan is 60fps FILM.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-01-2005 06:12 PM                        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                     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

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.