Announcement

**Jim Cassedy** · 04-09-2023, 02:33 PM

My recollection is that there were no trailers sent or attached to HATEFUL EIGHT, as it was a "roadshow presentation".
DUNKIRK had BLADE RUNNER and JUSTICE LEAGUE. My memory is a bit fuzzy but I think one came attached to
the feature, and the other one I seem to recall was shipped separately and I had to splice it on.
The last 70mm trailer I received was TENET, but we never ran either the trailer or the feature. I have a 70mm trailer
reel in the booth with THE MASTER, INTERSTELLAR & 2001 that I use when I want to test the 70mm picture & sound.

The Dunkirk DTS Thumbdrive Had Two Trailers On It (2017photo)
- And I recall that we ran both of them B4 the feature.
(This was at the Santicos Palladium in San Antonio Tx)
DunkirkDTS.jpg

Testing 70mm Picture & Sound With The MMI Trailer. (2021 photo)
MMI_ScreenTest.jpg
( New Mission Theater In SF)

**Randy Stankey** · 04-10-2023, 12:00 PM

This is the thing I have always envisioned digital cinema to be good for: Trailers and extra content that doesn't come with the feature.

You can have your feature in 70mm, 35mm or whatever. Then you can have your trailers, ads, policy snipes or PSAs in digital. With a little bit of tweaking, you can massage your digital picture settings to be as close to the feature film as possible then, with a little bit of magic from your automation system, the changeover to the start of the movie can be virtually seamless. Program in a few seconds of black screen and the audience might never know that they just went from seeing a digital presentation to film. Most people are used to seeing aspect ratios change, mid program, so even those who do notice will probably think nothing of it.

Yes, I understand about the cost differences between film and digital distribution/playback. Economies of scale come into play, too. When you don't have a lot of film content being produced, the cost of creating an individual unit of film goes up. Then there is the popular belief, "Anything digital is always better."

Personally, I don't believe in the broad brush statement that digital is better. I believe that there is a time and a place for each, film and digital. Each for its own best use. By using one to the exclusion of the other, I think that people are, to use an expression, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Movie theaters are in the business of entertainment. Entertainment comes in many forms: Digital Cinema, digital satellite, streaming, locally produced digital content, DVD/Blu-Ray and, of course, film in various formats. Sure, cost of film vs. Digital Cinema or maintaining a satellite system or a streaming system are important factors to consider but I think it equally important for theaters to be able to turn on their heels, so to speak, and show whatever content they need to regardless of format. If a theater owner wanted to show the Superbowl via satellite on Sunday, show vintage films Monday through Wednesday then show the latest superhero movie, Thursday through Saturday he should be able to do that. (With proper permission and signed contracts, of course.)

Everybody knows that I'm not big on digital movies but I don't actually hate digital. I just find it boring and uninteresting as the only means of watching movies/entertainment. If there was such a theater as I imagine, I would want to work there in a heartbeat. Operating and managing such a multi-media operation would be something I'd love to do even if showing film was only a small part of my duties.

It's the paradigm that megaplex theaters live by, trying to increase efficiency eliminate labor and boost profit by boiling everything down to the lowest common denominator that I don't like. To coin a phrase, instead of boiling down to the lowest common denominator, theaters should be building up to the greatest common factor. Otherwise, theaters are limiting their own horizon of possibilities by putting themselves into a box that they can't get out of.

I believe that most people understand quality and will pay for it when appropriate. Having a wider menu of content from (higher quality) films to (less expensive) digital presentations, will help theaters reach out to more customers of different preferences in terms of cost or quality.

Pet food companies like Puina offer products at different price points and quality. You can buy the premium "Pro Plan" cat foods or you can buy the cheaper, "Friskies" brand. Customers get to decide for themselves and the Purina corporation gets to broaden its market.

Why can't theaters offer products like "Pro Plan" (film) and "Friskies" (digital) ?

To come back and touch on the topic sentence: If more people thought of theaters in a similar way as I do, we would be having these discussions on how to show films in a digital age. We would just naturally show our movies on film and download the digital trailers when we needed to.

Yes, I understand that this might seem like simplistic thinking but it's hard to talk about all of the small details when I'm already the kind who posts "TLDR" messages. Believe it or not, this IS a summary!

To put a bottom line to my post: If the theater business wants to stay viable, they need to become more flexible or else they will eventually be out-competed by streaming at home.

**Nate Powers** · 04-12-2023, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Randy Stankey View Post

This is the thing I have always envisioned digital cinema to be good for: Trailers and extra content that doesn't come with the feature.

You can have your feature in 70mm, 35mm or whatever. Then you can have your trailers, ads, policy snipes or PSAs in digital. With a little bit of tweaking, you can massage your digital picture settings to be as close to the feature film as possible then, with a little bit of magic from your automation system, the changeover to the start of the movie can be virtually seamless. Program in a few seconds of black screen and the audience might never know that they just went from seeing a digital presentation to film. Most people are used to seeing aspect ratios change, mid program, so even those who do notice will probably think nothing of it.

Yes, I understand about the cost differences between film and digital distribution/playback. Economies of scale come into play, too. When you don't have a lot of film content being produced, the cost of creating an individual unit of film goes up. Then there is the popular belief, "Anything digital is always better."

Personally, I don't believe in the broad brush statement that digital is better. I believe that there is a time and a place for each, film and digital. Each for its own best use. By using one to the exclusion of the other, I think that people are, to use an expression, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Movie theaters are in the business of entertainment. Entertainment comes in many forms: Digital Cinema, digital satellite, streaming, locally produced digital content, DVD/Blu-Ray and, of course, film in various formats. Sure, cost of film vs. Digital Cinema or maintaining a satellite system or a streaming system are important factors to consider but I think it equally important for theaters to be able to turn on their heels, so to speak, and show whatever content they need to regardless of format. If a theater owner wanted to show the Superbowl via satellite on Sunday, show vintage films Monday through Wednesday then show the latest superhero movie, Thursday through Saturday he should be able to do that. (With proper permission and signed contracts, of course.)

Everybody knows that I'm not big on digital movies but I don't actually hate digital. I just find it boring and uninteresting as the only means of watching movies/entertainment. If there was such a theater as I imagine, I would want to work there in a heartbeat. Operating and managing such a multi-media operation would be something I'd love to do even if showing film was only a small part of my duties.

It's the paradigm that megaplex theaters live by, trying to increase efficiency eliminate labor and boost profit by boiling everything down to the lowest common denominator that I don't like. To coin a phrase, instead of boiling down to the lowest common denominator, theaters should be building up to the greatest common factor. Otherwise, theaters are limiting their own horizon of possibilities by putting themselves into a box that they can't get out of.

I believe that most people understand quality and will pay for it when appropriate. Having a wider menu of content from (higher quality) films to (less expensive) digital presentations, will help theaters reach out to more customers of different preferences in terms of cost or quality.

Pet food companies like Puina offer products at different price points and quality. You can buy the premium "Pro Plan" cat foods or you can buy the cheaper, "Friskies" brand. Customers get to decide for themselves and the Purina corporation gets to broaden its market.

Why can't theaters offer products like "Pro Plan" (film) and "Friskies" (digital) ?

To come back and touch on the topic sentence: If more people thought of theaters in a similar way as I do, we would be having these discussions on how to show films in a digital age. We would just naturally show our movies on film and download the digital trailers when we needed to.

Yes, I understand that this might seem like simplistic thinking but it's hard to talk about all of the small details when I'm already the kind who posts "TLDR" messages. Believe it or not, this IS a summary!

To put a bottom line to my post: If the theater business wants to stay viable, they need to become more flexible or else they will eventually be out-competed by streaming at home.

Here is why I don't see film coming back in any saleable way and will remain a specialty item at a limited number of venues for a very limited number of releases:

1) General public does not care about film vs digital. They just want the experience and (as much as it hurts to say) digital is just as good if not better for presentation. Theatres won't spend money on it.

2) Projectionist are long gone and the skill is dying. True projection professionals are hard to find today that want to still work the job.

3) Film is a toxic material that generates tons of chemicals to process it. To scale it up again would lead to a massive increase in chemical and material waste.

4) There are no parts, no people making projectors. To scale this up would lead to huge shortages and deplete the remaining tech that is in service today. It would spell a quick end to the craft. There isn't enough scale or money for the industries surrounding the business to pivot or be created. The film industry built up over a hundred years, and it scaled down in a decade. Even if people did show up, the cost to the theatres would be too high to justify it.

5) There aren't enough theatre chains left that would invest in film to the level required to rival digital presentation. It would look worse than going to see a film in a dollar theatre on super Tuesday in 1998.

6) Film stopped being film a long time ago. The workflows for creating the films is not a true analog experience. The film is digitized, sent into post production, then put back on contact prints. You haven't been projecting real film from Hollywood for a long time now. So in that situation, what the point? The grain you see on screen is either from the contact print or from the digital capture.

As much as I would like to walk in to a 90's multiplex and start threading projectors.....its over. Right now film is still alive in a specialized way and it is more special than it once was because its becoming a lost art. Showing 35/70mm today is a special experience. Putting it in every theatre again would just make in mundane. The sad part is the general public are perfectly happy watching movies on an iPhone screen.

It is nice to dream though.

**Randy Stankey** · 04-13-2023, 11:37 AM

I understand it's a cultural shift in the way people consume entertainment. That's okay but I don't like the shallow, superficial nature of it. It seems like people think that there's only one way to watch entertainment. That's where I differ with the rest. I believe that entertainment has many forms and that one-dimensional thinking is like throwing everything else away.

When I worked at Mercyhurst, it was a multi-use venue with three stages and three projection systems. We could show almost any digital format, 35mm film and just about any kind of stage performance you could think of. We had music recitals for the school, we had nationally known bands, dance recitals, plays, lectures and, in the summer when school was out, we rented the hall for anyone who wanted to put on an event. Basically, if you wanted to have a show, I could probably put it on for you, in almost any format you could throw at me. There was even a group, in town, that arranged a sneak preview of the movie, "Saw," almost two weeks before it opened at the local Cinemark.

I think the main reason for this cultural change is because corporations want to be "lean, mean profit machines" where economies of scale bring in more business. In so doing, they cater to the public's shallow desire for instant gratification. In so doing, the public starts to believe the bullshit they've been feed by advertisers and businesses.

1) We know, damn well, the public thinks that "digital is better," mostly because they've been fed a load of crap. Neither is better. Each has its own strength and weakness. Each to be used for their purpose. People want digital because it's more convenient for companies and they've been told to like it.

2) Projectionist are a dying breed because they've been summarily kicked to the curb. At the local Cinemark, they sent all the projectionists a letter telling them that their jobs were being eliminated and that they could take another job in the theater or else they would be terminated. Who the hell would want to go back to their old jobs after being treated like that?

3) The "film is toxic" thing is the biggest load of horse shit you've ever heard! Everybody knows it's bullshit but they keep repeating it because they don't know the truth. Semiconductor manufacturing is ***WAY*** more dangerous than film! Most of the chemicals I use in my home darkroom can be flushed down the drain after use. Color film needs some things that take a little more care in handling but, if properly neutralized before disposal, they can also be flushed down the drain.
Semiconductors use arsenic, lead, hydrofluoric acid, mercury and a whole host of things I can't remember, right now, but we all know that electronics production is FAR more hazardous. Oh, don't forget chlorine trifluoride! It's one of the most dangerous, reactive, poisonous and explosive chemicals known to man. It burns explosively on contact with air. If you dumped it on the floor, it would burn through six inches of concrete and another six inches below the dirt. It would actually cause the concrete to burn in the process. It has to be stored in special, stainless steel containers because it can't be stored in any other kind of regular container. Not even Teflon or Nalgene. Most of the chemicals used to make film can be used in open containers and, if you spill them on yourself, a little soap and water is all that's needed to clean them off. Again, the toxicity issue is just a manipulation. The truth is that each has their own pitfalls, in terms of toxicity, that needs to be managed accordingly. I worked in a electroplating factory and was partially in charge of managing toxic waste like cyanide and heavy metals. I don't understand everything but I get the basics. I don't think that there is any industry that's totally free of pollution. Just taking a shit and flushing it down the toilet could be considered hazardous if you take all the things that happen at the sewage treatment plant into account!

4) & 5) Again, that all goes back to the fact that companies have shifted from one thing to another and don't want to spend money. Okay, I get it. Business is business. I might seem like a Luddite but that's not totally true. It's not the "what." It's the "why." It's exactly the same sentiment that the Luddites who worked in the textile factories during the 1800's had. They didn't throw their wooden shoes into the machines (hence the coining of the word "sabotage") because they hated machines. They did it because they wanted machines to help them do more work, better and faster. They did it because the owners of textile mills thought one-dimensionally without considering alternatives. The same way, I think about the means that digital is being used, today.

6) I'm okay with "Digital-In / Film-Out" if it's done well. It's part of an overall workflow that I believe should include traditional film/film methods even if they only end up being a small part. Again, not the "what" but the "why."

My whole argument isn't, simply, "Digital is bad and film is good." However, I see most people who think the other way around and I believe that to be wrong.

If that wasn't true, I don't think we would be having this discussion. Michael wouldn't be looking for trailers to play with his movies and other people wouldn't be saying, "You can't get them, anymore."

**Jim Cassedy** · 04-13-2023, 12:12 PM

THANK YOU, Randy- - for addressing the "film is toxic" topic. I was debating commenting, but I wasn't
sure this was a pissing-match I wanted to join. I'm all for doing what we can for saving the planet, but
there are very few things in modern life that don't have some degree of negative environmental
consequences, and I think that we, and our "leaders" are doing a fairly decent job of protecting the
environment for us and future generations by eliminating some of the most egregious offending
manufacturing processes and products as much as is possible. Geez, even i-phones, solar panels
& Teslas have their own degree of environmental issues. I'm not sure exactly where film manufacturing
and processing falls on the 'save the world' priority list, but I don't think its' anywhere near the top of the
list of things that are going to doom the planet.

**Randy Stankey** · 04-13-2023, 12:59 PM

Many film developers of old, were made from the same ingredient used in those "fade creams" that elderly ladies used to put on their age spots. Fixer is made from the same ingredients that women used to use to perm their hair and fixer is basically vinegar. You can even develop film with Tylenol tablets if you know how.

It's funny how people will scream and cry at the mere mention of the word, "chemical," while totally ignoring other things, far more dangerous, just because it's convenient for them to believe something that isn't necessarily true.

I know many smart people but, in large groups, most people seem...in the words of Artie Johnson... "SHTOOPID!"

ArtieJohnson.jpg

**Kyle Mikolajczyk** · 04-13-2023, 01:32 PM

I think a lot of people still think developing colour film has formaldehyde in the process. I know last time I went to develop some my roommate freaked out on me, and I had to explain that formaldehyde was removed in the early 2000s. I also remember hearing that mag 70mm/35mm prints did some toxic stuff to get that mag stripe onto the film, but I can be mistaken. Overall film seems to be a relatively safe process these days.

**Paul H. Rayton** · 04-13-2023, 06:12 PM

You can put the formaldehyde worries to rest! Some, and probably most (?), photographic film can be developed without anything special, using just some rather basic and readily-available products from markets. The local Echo Park Film Center here in L.A. has had a program using various film emulsions -- including old Kodachrome -- and developing images on them using coffee grounds, vitamin C, and washing soda. The Kodachrome will, of course, no longer be in color, but it's an actually-usable image, esp. for artistic intents. The process will work with other emulsions, too. I gave them some totally-outdated rolls of Super-8 Kodachrome that I'd had in the freezer for ~30 years, and have seen some results, and it works. The lead artisan of EPFC is a guy by the name of Paolo, who does some occasional instructional classes around the country, as his schedule permits. You can try it at home, too: there's an article about it on WikiHow: https://www.wikihow.com/Develop-Film...d-Washing-Soda.

**Randy Stankey** · 04-14-2023, 10:57 AM

I have used some color developers that have formaldehyde in the final preservative step. It's not very concentrated. Probably less than 10% in the stock solution and even less in the diluted working solution. I never really thought much of it, to be honest. I know it's toxic but one just has to be careful. Wear gloves, apron and eye protection. Make sure there is plenty of ventilation. Don't drink it. Don't get it on yourself. If you spill, clean it up right away. Wash up with plenty of soap and water after you've finished working.

Most photography chemicals are less dangerous than other household chemicals like bleach, ammonia or drain cleaner. In fact, household ammonia makes a good neutralizer for formaldehyde in the concentrations we're talking about. ( < 10%) Dilute your waste solution down with plenty of water (at least 50/50) in a large container. Add ammonia...SLOWLY!...Exothermic reaction!...Stir well then let it stand in a safe place until cool. Dump down the drain using plenty of water to wash it away.

Most photographic chemistry is fairly non-toxic, relatively speaking. Back, when I was a kid, my father taught me how to use an enlarger and make prints. He used to test the fixer solution to tell if it was exhausted by dipping his finger in it then licking his finger. Expended fixer tastes sweet. Fresh fixer tastes bitter.

Yes, I know that sodium iodide solution makes a good test for fixer. Drop in a few drops. If it causes a white precipitate, the solution is spent. I have some of that solution but I still taste the fixer, though. The iodide test is kind of like the oil pressure light in your car. By the time the light comes on, the pressure's too low. Same with fixer. By the time the iodide turns white, your fixer is already spent. By tasting your fixer you can get a sense of how much life is left. The only other way is titration. Who's going to titrate in the darkroom?

I like to use a two-bath fixing process, anyhow. The second bath is freshly made fixer. The first is partially used. I use a clear water wash before fixing, after fixing and a drag-out rinse between the two. When the first bath just starts to taste sweet, move it to the second. Throw the second in your waste bucket, make a fresh batch and put it in the first position.

BTW: Don't throw your used fixer down the drain! There's dissolved silver in there! You can recover it and get some of your money back!
All of my used fixer goes into a 5-gal. bucket with a tight fitting lid. All my test strips, junk prints and scrap film goes in that bucket so that the fixer can dissolve the silver off the film. I let it sit in a dark corner until the image fades from the film/paper. I pull the scraps out, wash with water, dry them out, shred them and put them in the trash.

I extract the silver from the saturated fixer by electrolysis. I have a little, plastic box, lined with silver foil and a carbon electrode. You hook a wall wart power supply up to it and let it sit overnight. The silver plates out, onto the silver foil. When the box is full, I can take it in to any of those "cash for old jewelry" places and get money. At $20-$30 / oz. t. you won't get rich but you'll make enough to buy more film and fixer.

Anyhow, that's the most toxic stuff that anybody is likely to find in a photographic darkroom.

I have experimented with Monchoven's Intensifier. (Basically mercuric cyanide) It works as they say it does but the hassle of using the stuff just isn't worth it. I could imagine using it to recover some valuable or important photos that weren't properly exposed or processed but I wouldn't use the stuff again unless it was "do or die." Besides, any film that's been treated that way should be considered toxic. Most of the silver in the emulsion has been replaced with mercury. Not only that, you have to keep intensified film away from all the rest in case of cross-contamination.

You're better off just learning how to expose your film correctly in the first place!

**Michael Coate** · 04-14-2023, 07:27 PM

Randy’s initial comment is either a brilliant display of trolling to get back at me for my numerous TLDR posts or a colossal misinterpretation of my question!

Announcement

Are 70mm trailers still being made?

Are 70mm trailers still being made?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment