What was the BEST movie-year ever?

[Terry Monohan]

Bobby***Most of the 80's 70mm film prints were blow ups from 35mm film. Too bad they did not release many movies shot on 70mm film after the roadshows ended. Who would think after all these years they are shooting a few new movies on true 65mm film again for Imax and regular 70mm projection theatres with a projectionist on duty in the booth. Must be hard to find any of the old roadshow 70 booth guys around anymore and the new projection crew needs to learn how to run the old large film format from 70 years ago.

[Bobby Henderson]

I know the vast majority of 1980's movies with 70mm prints were blow-ups from 35mm. Back then 70mm prints were the only way to play films with multi-channel discrete surround sound.

Very few movies in the 1970's and 80's were filmed on 5/65mm stock. Most of the development work in motion picture cameras was exclusive to 35mm. Very little was done with 65mm cameras until the late 1980's when Arri and Panavision introduced new models. 65mm shooting stocks were limited compared to the choices on 35mm. It's more challenging to shoot on 65mm than 35mm.

Even though 70mm blow-up prints made from 35mm sources have their drawbacks the film prints also had advantages both the movie studios and cinema chains failed to notice. In the mid 1990's when the stadium seated theater building boom was hitting its stride many of those new "megaplex" sites would have at least one or more giant screen auditoriums. The idiots only put 35mm projectors in those houses. 70mm projection would have been far better, even if the projectors were just showing blow-up prints from 35mm source material. The projected imagery would have looked better (brighter, more contrast) and would have been more steady. And DTS had a 5/70mm system available that got little if any use outside of 6 prints James Cameron had made for "Titanic."

If the theater chains and movie studios don't like how IMAX invaded the cinema industry the theater chains and movie studios have only themselves to blame for it. They created the stupid situation and IMAX took advantage of it. And then IMAX killed off much of the film-based stuff and stuck much of the movie-going public with an inferior 2K resolution digital replacement.

So 1989 was a great year in movie-going (at least in big city markets that had plenty of 70mm equipped cinemas). That was one of the last years before the dopey situation in the 1990's happened.

It is pretty ironic a decent number of new movies are being shot on 5/65mm film in this era. But very few movie theaters can show 70mm prints of these movies anymore. It's too bad the "film makers" didn't get their itch to shoot on 5/65mm back in the 1990's when it would have been far easier to put a lot more 70mm projectors back in service.

Today if a movie can be seen on 70mm is it really going to be worth the trip to the cinema? While some of these movies are being shot on 5/65mm they're often being routed through a 4K digital intermediate stage, removing most of the large format film DNA. A 4K Digital Intermediate made from a 5/65mm original isn't going to be noticeably different from a 4K DI made from footage shot with a digital cinema camera. The difference is really going to be negligible when so much digital back lot work, CGI compositing and digital colorizing work is baked into the imagery. The end result being laser recorded out onto 5/70mm prints end up being very different from what was recorded in the camera.

I wouldn't have such a negative attitude regarding digitally processed movie imagery output to 70mm prints if the productions would bother using a standard better than 4K. I'm not driving out of my way to see that. If they want to post-produce in 8K or higher then that might be something worth seeing on a 70mm print.

Right now we have a toxic situation of forced scarcity in these 70mm shows. Too few theaters can show the prints and the theatrical runs are far too brief. That makes the task of buying a ticket for a decent seat at a 70mm show a real pain in the ass. I don't have any plans to go out of my way to see "The Odyssey" next year, not with the bullshit already surrounding IMAX film ticket availability.

In 1989 I didn't have to pay any premium at all to see a movie in 70mm at a cinema in Manhattan. Even the Ziegfeld had ordinary prices. There were plenty of opportunities to see the show in 70mm since the print would play there for at least a few weeks rather than just a few days. Today people are already putting IMAX 70mm tickets of "The Odyssey" on ticket resale sites. It's a douchebag situation now.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I agree with Bobby, 1989 was also a pretty amazing year for cinema. I still think 1999 wins in my personal comparison.

As for 70mm... the heydays of the 70mm format really were the 1960s. Like Bobby indicated, many of the big "prime" multiplex auditoriums never saw a proper 70mm projector, even though the screen was often of sufficient size to benefit from 70mm, even if it would only see blow-ups. The extra light and picture stability would've greatly enhanced the experience. Unfortunately, almost none of those 70mm blowup prints made it to Europe.

I guess Hollywood considered 35mm good enough in general and it's just a handful of directors and cinematographers that became sufficiently influential to keep 65/70mm somewhat alive. Without the considerable efforts of people like Christopher Nolan, 15 perf 70mm IMAX would've gone the way of the dodo about a decade ago.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

<snip>
There will always be a handful of studios (re Disney etc) that will make animated stories that target children. <snip>

Disney is targeting children alright...for grooming. They have so lost the plot it will never be possible to go back. I can remember when "Song of the South" was their most controversial feature film...(and even then I think the controversy was overblown).

As I have said on many posts here, the studios are hell-bent on total self-destruction. The constant lack of creativity, rehashing sequel after sequel, political/woke agendas, the non existent "windows" to video (more like a pinhole aperture now)...the list of ways they are making endless stupid creative and business decisions is astounding. It all started when the creative greats (The Warner Bros., et al...) were replaced with bean counters and accountants, and young execs indoctrinated by certain film programs. Since then, it's been circling the toilet bowl.

At this point, a movie about how dysfunctional the industry has become may do better box office than what they are puking out now.

I was lucky..I got into this industry in the early 1980's and got to see and do a lot of great things in the waning years of film.... projection, technician, location projection, building Bel Aire screening rooms. I met many awesome (and a few not so awesome) people and celebs, worked hard, made good money and had fun doing it. The digital age was the death knell for me (and now, the whole industry it seems.)

I was told I am an old soul, which is why I despise the digital age so much. Film was a lot simpler, had a raw, organic edge, can be easily fixed or "McGuyvered" to keep the show on the screen. It required mechanical, electrical, optical, and dexterity skills to keep that equipment running it's best. Now..I couldn't care less about "cinema" anymore as both the creative and exhibition sides have lost all heart and soul.

[Ryan Gallagher]

At this point, a movie about how dysfunctional the industry has become may do better box office than what they are puking out now.

Isn't that the major sub-plot of "The Studio" series? I premiered the first two episodes, but haven't checked up on it since then.
https://tv.apple.com/us/show/the-stu...soobtsx30dqb52

[Marcel Birgelen]

Isn't that the major sub-plot of "The Studio" series? I premiered the first two episodes, but haven't checked up on it since then.
https://tv.apple.com/us/show/the-stu...soobtsx30dqb52

I've watched them all and I think the two first episodes are probably the best. All in all, not a bad series though... I agree with Tony, could do pretty well as a feature-length movie...

The whole situation is somewhat sad and ironic... We live in a time where Hollywood is able to practically tell all the stories they want to. Since the advent of CGI and nowadays even AI, technical limitations are no longer the big issue. If you can dream it, you can film it. While Hollywood got an increasing set of tools at their disposal over the last century, it has never been as good as it is now. Yet, somehow, it all fell apart. The only thing left barely functioning is a giant photocopier, making endless copies of scripts that have been filmed a 1000 times all over again.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Maybe it’s a generational cultural shift too… novels, comics, plays, and music were the primary creative outputs and insprational inputs for screen play writers for eons…

But more and more the well from which would be film makers and story tellers draw from now is PRIOR FILMS. Partly because people read and write far less now, but also because it is the vaunted art form of several generations now.

This Influence is aside and separate from the big studios only willing to profit gamble on known popular stories, but runs in parallel,

[Allan Young]

And DTS had a 5/70mm system available that got little if any use outside of 6 prints James Cameron had made for "Titanic."

It's been used for quite a few reprintings of classic titles. South Pacific, Cleopatra, Lord Jim, 2001 etc.

Today if a movie can be seen on 70mm is it really going to be worth the trip to the cinema? While some of these movies are being shot on 5/65mm they're often being routed through a 4K digital intermediate stage, removing most of the large format film DNA. A 4K Digital Intermediate made from a 5/65mm original isn't going to be noticeably different from a 4K DI made from footage shot with a digital cinema camera. The difference is really going to be negligible when so much digital back lot work, CGI compositing and digital colorizing work is baked into the imagery. The end result being laser recorded out onto 5/70mm prints end up being very different from what was recorded in the camera..

Yeah, this. There's also the occasions where filmmakers have used IMAX film cameras and neglected to produce 70mm prints (First Man, Wonder Woman 1984, No Time To Die). Is anyone going to notice whether or not a digitally projected image was captured on film? Complete waste of cash.

Unfortunately, almost none of those 70mm blowup prints made it to Europe.

Are you talking specifically about mainland Europe here? Certainly the majority of those 70mm blow-up titles made it to the UK.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Are you talking specifically about mainland Europe here? Certainly the majority of those 70mm blow-up titles made it to the UK.

Yeah, sorry, I forgot you guys are -technically- still somehow related to Europe.

As for mainland Europe: The situation for 70mm always has been pretty complicated: The economics barely make sense. In order for a movie to be able to be played for a mainstream audience in Germany or France, it needs to be dubbed. For a tiny market with like two or three venues even able to play 70mm like the Netherlands, it needed to be subtitled. And while it's possible to etch subtitles in existing film, the process is expensive and destroys that film for any other market.

For the dubbing issue, DTS became a cost-effective solution, but not until the mid 1990s, when the era of 70mm blowups was essentially over.

Eventually, a handful of those prints made it into art houses / alternative cinemas that were able to play 70mm over the years as special shows, but seeing an actual 70mm blowup during the initial release over here on "the mainland" was a very rare thing.

But more and more the well from which would be film makers and story tellers draw from now is PRIOR FILMS. Partly because people read and write far less now, but also because it is the vaunted art form of several generations now.

I was having a discussion with a good friend lately about the state of the videogame industry, which also is in some kind of twilight stage at the moment, mostly due to the greed of the studios, where easy money grabs via in-game transactions, half-finished games with pay-to-play downloadable content is all the mode right now.

The thing is though, if you look at a production like e.g. GTA 6, which will have consumed a purported $2 billion dollars by the time it hits general release, those productions probably include more story telling than Hollywood managed to write in the last 10 years. And there are many game franchises out there, that have really solid story writing backing them. Apparently, those franchises still connect with current audiences, even though the videogame industry is doing all they can to destroy this relationship.

Between 2.2 and 2.4 MILLION new books are being published every year, not all of them will be original stories, but quite a few of them are.

I'm not implying we should make more movies based on videogames (most of them have been lackluster, many have been utterly awful, a handful might have been good), but rather that people are still creating new stories. And while most of those stories will be based on some "prior art", that doesn't mean they aren't original in their own right.

Point being: there is so much material out there, if your mission, as being the collective studios that represent "Hollywood", really is to bring us the best stories, you're an abject failure at that mission, especially given the amount of money still being poured into those major Hollywood productions.