Production of film-based cameras has now ceased

Started by O., October 15, 2011, 03:13:29 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Quote from: tpfkabi on August 22, 2013, 11:50:53 AM
At least 3 theaters in the area that were open in the 90's-00's and closed have now become churches.

Yeah, the oldest, coolest theater in my town that became a cinerama and where 2001 was shown on 70mm back in 68' is now a church parking lot. It's disgusting





Kodak Emerges From Bankruptcy Vowing To Continue Supplying Film To Hollywood
September 3, 2013
via Deadline

Entertainment is a small part of the overall company as it sheds the Chapter 11 protection for which it filed in January 2012: Kodak CEO Antonio Perez characterizes the photography pioneer as "a technology company serving imaging for business markets" including product goods packaging and electronic touchscreens. Still, Kodak has the lion's share of the film market as the number of movie and TV show creators who prefer to work with film instead of digital images diminishes and rivals including Fujifilm abandon the movie film business. In June Kodak struck an agreement to provide motion picture film to Fox's movie and TV studios. That gave it contracts with six major studios including Disney, Warner Bros, NBCUniversal, Paramount Pictures, and Sony Pictures. Kodak Entertainment and Commercial Films President Andrew Evenski calls his operation "a stable and profitable division of the company" adding that he remains confident in "our ongoing ability to provide value to the motion picture and television industries." Kodak emerges from bankruptcy with more than $800M in cash, $500M in equity, and $695M in debt. That should make it "a formidable competitor" with "a strong capital structure, a healthy balance sheet, and the industry's best technology," Evenski says. It turned its Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging business over to the pension plan that covers its UK subsidiary.


End of film: Paramount first studio to stop distributing film prints
17 January 2014
by Richard Verrier
via The Los Angeles Times

In a historic step for Hollywood, Paramount Pictures has become the first major studio to stop releasing movies on film in the United States.

Paramount recently notified theater owners that the Will Ferrell comedy "Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues," which opened in December, would be the last movie that would it would release on 35-millimeter film.

The studio's Oscar-nominated film "The Wolf of Wall Street" from director Martin Scorsese is the first major studio film that was released all digitally, according to theater industry executives who were briefed on the plans but not authorized to speak about them.

The decision is significant because it is likely to encourage other studios to follow suit, accelerating the complete phase-out of film, possibly by the end of the year. That would mark the end of an era: film has been the medium for the motion picture industry for more than a century.

"It's of huge significance," said Jan-Christopher Horak, director of the UCLA Film & Television Archive. "For 120 years, film and 35 mm has been the format of choice for theatrical presentations. Now we're seeing the end of that. I'm not shocked that it's happened, but how quickly it has happened."

A spokeswoman for Paramount was not available for comment.

Paramount has kept its decision under wraps, at least in Hollywood.

The reticence reflects the fact that no studio wants to be seen as the first to abandon film, which retains a cachet among some filmmakers. Some studios may also be reluctant to give up box-office revenue by bypassing theaters that can show only film. About 8% of U.S. movie theater screens are equipped to show movies only on film.

Other studios were expected to jump on the digital bandwagon first. 20th Century Fox sent a letter to exhibitors in 2011 saying it would stop distributing film "within the next year or two." Disney issued a similar warning to theater operators. Last year, many industry watchers expected Lions Gate would make history with an all-digital November release of "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire."

Paramount's move comes nearly a decade after studios began working with exhibitors to help finance the replacement of film projectors with digital systems, which substantially reduce the cost of delivering movie prints to theaters.

In addition to relying on digital hard drives, theaters are installing satellites to digitally beam movies into cinemas. That could significantly lower the cost of delivering a single print, to less than $100 from as much $2,000.

Digital technology also enables cinemas to screen higher-priced 3-D films and makes it easier for them to book and program entertainment.

As a result, large chains have moved quickly to embrace digital technology: Ninety-two percent of 40,045 screens in the U.S. have converted to digital, according to the National Assn. of Theatre Owners.

The dwindling number of film screens has made releasing movies on 35 mm less attractive, especially given the rising cost of film prints for major movies. Film print costs have been rising rapidly as suppliers have scaled back production.

Last month, Technicolor, the French-owned film processing and post-production company, closed a film lab in Glendale. That lab had replaced a much larger facility at Universal Studios that employed 360 workers until it closed in 2011. Also last year, Technicolor closed its Pinewood film lab in Britain.

The march to digital also puts further pressure on some small-town community theaters that have been struggling to finance the purchase of $70,000 digital projectors.

Those theaters are at risk of going out of business if they can no longer obtain film prints of movies. As of last year, about 1,000 independent theaters had not transitioned to digital. Some are turning to their communities to raise funds for digital equipment.

"The Wolf of Wall Street" would seem an unlikely choice for an all-digital wide release given that movie was partially shot on film and that Scorsese is a a passionate advocate for film preservation. What's more, he directed a movie that was a homage to the early days of film, the 2011 3-D movie "Hugo."

A spokesman for Scorsese said the director was traveling and not available for comment.


Quote from: wilder on January 17, 2014, 09:16:03 PM
higher-priced 3-D films

this is what i don't understand. the use of digital technology in production and distribution is cutting costs DRASTICALLY across the board, so why is a ticket to see them still so fucking expensive? has there ever been any justification as to why 3D films are priced higher than 2D?

the answer is of course, tentpole 3D blockbusters cost a LOT to advertise, that's why the budgets are still skyrocketing. but from all the talk of cutting cost you would think movies are cheaper to make and distribute than ever, which they are. so wtf? it's all a bubble of bullshit that i can't wait to see burst catastrophically in an industry-collapsing meltdown that will result in a restructuring that realistically reflects the cost and value of films.

prob not gonna happen for a while though, not while some of the greatest proponents of cinema fall victim to the very thing killing it from the inside:

Quote from: wilder on January 17, 2014, 09:16:03 PM
"The Wolf of Wall Street" would seem an unlikely choice for an all-digital wide release given that movie was partially shot on film and that Scorsese is a a passionate advocate for film preservation. What's more, he directed a movie that was a homage to the early days of film, the 2011 3-D movie "Hugo."

A spokesman for Scorsese said the director was traveling and not available for comment.

"i'm sorry but the scorsese you want to speak with went travelling sometime in 1999 and hasn't been heard from since. We can put you through to Businessman Scorsese, please make an appointment and he will be with you as soon as he finishes counting his money."
under the paving stones.


The glasses? Producing a 3D movie and rendering out 3D effects and such probably adds an extra expense directly associated with that. And also because, so far, people will pay it.


I would hope it's the glasses that make them so expensive because my method of watching a 3D movie goes:

1. Buy a ticket to a normal movie

2. Fish through the receptacles outside of the theater for a pair of 3D glasses

3. Watch in style


I think prices were initially set higher for digital 3D releases to offset the purchase of new projectors and have stayed high, yes, just because people will pay it. Years back in Canada we had a rash of giant multiplexes spring up all over, then a buy-out/conglomeration between our two biggest theatre chains. Prices sky-rocketed insanely. Like from $5 to $15 in six months and for a while they eliminated cheap Tuesdays. People complained and boycotted and the price came down to $12 and that's where it's stayed since -- and this was over a decade ago.

I'm sure major studios and theatres are somewhat in cahoots, but it's my understanding that theatres determine their own pricing. I don't think the costs of production or marketing factor in. I could be wrong. The thing I can't figure out is why advertising revenues haven't trickled down to consumers. Half an hour of pre-show shit, eight commercials before the trailers, monitors outside the bathrooms running non-stop, and yet tickets cost just as much or more than they did previously. Are movie theatres really so unprofitable?


Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Judd Apatow & J.J. Abrams Team Up To Save Film Stock
via The Playlist

A couple of years ago, things were looking grim for Kodak. The legendary film company couldn't keep up with the digital age, and were on the brink of bankruptcy, but managed to bounce back last fall. While the company promised to be more contemporary in their approach going forward, they also said that film stock was part of their future as well. And a bunch of filmmakers teamed up to make sure the industry ensures that in an increasingly digital age, there is still room for good, old fashioned physical film stock.

The Wall Street Journal reveals that behind-the-scenes, Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Judd Apatow, and J.J. Abrams went to the heads of studios to make the case for film, and to have them invest in the format. How? The studios have agreed to buy an unspecified amount of film stock each year from Kodak, even if they don't know how many movies will be shot using it. It guarantees Kodak a consistent flow of money, and a reason to keep making celluloid, even though the photo company initially tried to get the studios to invest in a manufacturing plant. And the feedback, as you might expect, is a bit mixed, but mostly supportive.

"It's a financial commitment, no doubt about it. But I don't think we could look some of our filmmakers in the eyes if we didn't do it," said Bob Weinstein, likely referring longtime pal, and film enthusiast, Quentin Tarantino.

Meanwhile, Apatow just wants the option available. "[Digital and film] are valid choices, but it would be a tragedy if suddenly directors didn't have the opportunity to shoot on film," he said. "There's a magic to the grain and the color quality that you get with film."

But as you might expect, there are practical considerations to make too. "I'm a huge fan of film, but it's so much more convenient digitally," "Transformers: Age Of Extinction" producer Ian Bryce stated.

But real test will be how this plays out in the longterm. For younger directors, digital is still a much cheaper way to get movies made on a reasonable budget, so it remains to be see if this solution is merely a minor hold what is the inevitable demise of film stock. That said, if the studios do stay supportive, and make it an option for directors who aren't just marquee names, we could see celluloid survive for years to come.


NYC's Last Film Lab Is Closing
via studiodaily

Film Lab New York, opened in 2011, will shut down on December 19. It's the last motion-picture film processing and printing facility in New York City.

In announcing the impending closure, Technicolor-PostWorks New York, joint owner of the lab at 110 Leroy Street with Deluxe New York, noted that HBO's shot-on-35mm Boardwalk Empire, one of the last TV shows shooting film, wrapped a few months ago and aired its season finale last weekend.

"Technicolor-PostWorks has a strong and unwavering commitment to the New York film and television community, a community that passionately championed film as an acquisition format," said Technicolor-PostWorks New York COO Rob DeMartin in a prepared statement. "Working with Deluxe NY, we continued to provide laboratory services to our clients long after laboratories in most other regions had closed. We are sad to say that the demand for that service is no longer sufficient to sustain the lab and still maintain a world-class standard for quality."

Among the final projects to take advantage of Film Lab New York's services were Darren Aronofsky's Noah, Steven Spielberg's St. James Place, and Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck's Mississippi Grind.

The two companies stressed that they both remain fully operational to provide services not related to motion-picture film processing and printing.

"The Film Lab NY was built on the hard work and long hours of dedicated technicians who are true artists in their field," DeMartin continued. "Our team, under the leadership of long-time lab veteran Tony Landano, devoted their careers to providing exemplary service to the film community. We are extremely proud of these individuals and of all their accomplishments."


With Help From 'Star Wars,' Kodak CEO Says Its Film Business Will Return to Profitability
via The Hollywood Reporter

The force is with Kodak, the last remaining motion picture film manufacturer.

J.J. Abrams' Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which premiered Monday evening in Hollywood, was shot on film by cinematographer Dan Mindel. Also shot on film are a string of additional Oscar contenders including The Hateful Eight from Quentin Tarantino — which will also be offered as a 70mm film Roadshow — as well as Sam Mendes' Spectre, Tom Haynes' Carol, David O. Russell's Joy and Steven Spielberg's Bridge of Spies.

Looking ahead, Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke said, "It is our understanding that director Rian Johnson and cinematographer Steve Yedlin are planning to shoot Star Wars: Episode VIII on Kodak film. They are in preproduction and we are working with them to bring their vision to the screen the way they intend it."

Clarke estimated that, in total, 90 studio and indie movies (in addition to television work) were shot on film this past year. And while that's a far cry from catching up to digital cinematography, Kodak is bullish on keeping film alive as another option for filmmakers. According to the chief executive, thanks to its film push and restructuring efforts, Kodak went from losing $100 million annually on its film business to "breaking even the last three quarters," and he expects it to be profitable in 2016.

Speaking with The Hollywood Reporter as The Force Awakens premiered, he called Abrams "an extraordinary supporter of film. His advocacy was a key part of Kodak's decision to keep making film when we were down 96 percent."

The film manufacturer was considering pulling the plug until roughly a year ago, when filmmakers including Abrams, Tarantino and Christopher Nolan worked with all of the major studios to see that they inked supplier deals with Kodak, ensuring film's existence for the foreseeable future.

"We are not longer limited by these deals," Clarke claimed, noting that its overall film business across industries is up. "We are building and investing in it to grow, including supporting and building labs around the world. There's so much artistic interest, and renewed support from studios. When artists spoke, it saved an art form."

Kodak efforts include expanding availability of lab capabilities in production hubs such as New York, whose last motion picture lab closed this past year. Clarke noted this past year, Kodak partnered with Alpha Grips to expand its mobile lab program, and is currently working with cinematographer Ed Lachman (Carol) and other partners to bring a lab presence to major cities such as New York.

Observing a "trend back toward wanting to shoot on film," Lachman, who photographed Carol with Super 16mm film, said in a recent THR interview: "If Kodak is going to make film, we also need labs to process the film. Right now, the New York Film Lab [a partnership between Deluxe and Technicolor that was created to respond to film's shrinking footprint] is closed. They were going to throw out all the equipment. I inquired about it, and the general manager let me have the lab equipment. I have it in storage. We can develop film at Fotokem in Los Angeles, which is a very good lab. ... But there's a market and [we need] a lab on the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S."

Lachman said of his decision to use Super 16 for Carol: "I like to think of it as another skin over [leads Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara]. The grain created a certain emotional quality. ... I think part of the reason people respond to Carol is they feel the granularity, the texture and the emotion of what film presents."

Titles scheduled for release in 2016 all or parts of which were shot on film include Zack Snyder's Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, The Coen brothers' Hail, Caesar!, David Ayer's Suicide Squad, Damien Chazelle's La La Land, Paul Greengrass' Bourne sequel, and Antoine Fuqua's The Magnificent Seven.


Sometimes I forget that I'm a nerd and then I encounter posts like these last two posts which fire up my brain and then I remember that I'm a nerd. (Thanks wilder)