| Message/Author |
|
|
 Anonymous posted on Tuesday, August 25, 1998 - 01:28 pm
|
|
|
| Has anyone heard even a nibble on what is happening with this Paramount/IMAX flick? IMAX has it listed on their "Coming Soon" page. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, September 30, 1998 - 01:25 am
|
|
|
IMAX STAR TREK MOVIE PUT ON HOLD
Plans to produce the 10th Star Trek film as a 40-minute 3-D Imax feature
have been placed "on a very far back-burner," producer Rick Berman has
told the Cinescape online newsletter. "It's not a dead project," Berman said of
the much heralded enterprise, adding only that "for a variety of business
reasons dealing with Paramount and Imax, [it] is being held in abeyance."
|
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, September 30, 1998 - 02:33 am
|
|
|
What is the true feasibility of such a flick making any money? The cost of producing such a film must be extreme, since in addition to "regular" large-format costs, one would also be faced with a big-budget director, very expensive/intensive effects, and talent (actors).
Would a 2-D version be distributed as well? How many institutional theaters (science centers, museums, etc.) would show the film, and would the distribution be limited to 15/70, or would one also be able to see this film in 10/70, 8/70, 5/70, and/or even conventional 35mm houses?
I know the project is "on a very far back-burner," but I can't think of any non-educational 15/70 projects that have been all that successful (yet). And don't get me wrong... I think people would come out of the woodwork for anything with the words "Star Trek" on it, but the bottom line for the filmmaker will be to rake in as much money as possible, which would be much better achieved with a 90+ minute feature showing on thousands of conventional screens.
Now, taking this message back to the statement in the last post... Anyone have any idea what the "business reasons" between Paramount and Imax were/are? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Saturday, November 22, 2008 - 03:35 pm
|
|
|
| Hey, with the new Star Trek movie coming out next year., Maybe it will be in IMAX 3D and that would be awesome!! |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Monday, November 24, 2008 - 05:52 pm
|
|
|
| Uhm...you had better keep your phasers on stun for now. This film has not yet been officially green-lighted for DMR conversion. Right now, there's an inter-galatic battle going on between The Borg (FOX) and The Cardassians (Paramount) over how to deal with the illogical 2 weeks-worth of time that lies in the neutral zone between the 2 release dates of 'Trek' on May 8th, and NATM 2 on May 22nd. And...IMAX is caught right in the middle of the Nexus, whereby IMAX is the rope, and FOX is tugging on one end, while Paramount is tugging on the other. And if you know anything about The Borg, well, they basically do not get along with anyone - whereas The Cardassians aren't much better, (but at least they seem open to negotiation from time to time.) Now if I were Capt. Kirk or Capt. Picard, I would lamblast a photon torpedo right at The Borg, and send them packing into Hyperspace where they belong. Let them suck the blood off some other species, and leave us IMAX Humanoids alone. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 - 08:01 pm
|
|
|
| Well, it's official! The trailer for it will be ready for "The Day the Earth Stood Still" |
|
|
| Bob Brown posted on Friday, November 28, 2008 - 02:44 pm
|
|
|
| I know that this will be released in IMAX, but has anyone heard if it will be in 3D? |
|
|
| Dan Suomi posted on Saturday, November 29, 2008 - 09:57 pm
|
|
|
| Do you mean the IMAX trailer for star trek will be on day earth stood still in IMAX? I have already been running it on the front of Bond in regular theater. |
|
|
| Bob Brown posted on Sunday, November 30, 2008 - 09:31 am
|
|
|
Dan, Here is the notice from Kelly at DKP
"Dear theatre projectionist/managers,
We would like to give you a heads-up regarding trailers for The Day The Earth Stood Still. We will be sending you a new Star Trek trailer either with your print or in a separate shipment. This will be the only new trailer."
-Bob |
|
|
| Dan Suomi posted on Monday, December 01, 2008 - 12:56 pm
|
|
|
| Well, that is awesome. I think people have been waiting for an IMAX Star Trek for years. I know I have. |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Monday, December 01, 2008 - 02:43 pm
|
|
|
| I don't think it would've helped "Star Trek V". :o) |
|
|
|
|
*raises hand* Count me in on that. Next year is going to be a good year for DMR releases.  |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 09:25 am
|
|
|
| That's for sure, Sean. I don't know what's coming in the fall, but the spring/summer already shapes up as "Watchmen", "Star Trek", then the next "Harry Potter". Cha-ching! |
|
|
| Tim Rectanus posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 11:35 am
|
|
|
I agree that the lineup next year for DMR is really strong but we, and most of us I think, will have to cut that lineup in half because of the release dates. Asssuming that 2-3 week runs are not on the table, which with the titles, I don't see attendance dying down taht quickly.
Watchmen and Monsters V Aliens are both released in March
Night At The Museum 2 and Star Trek are both released in May.
Further down the road A Christmas Carol (Disney's back in the IMAX game)and Avatar(Fox)are both in December. That should make for an intersting contract negotiation. |
|
|
| Dick Vaughan posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 01:50 pm
|
|
|
We're a bit luckier in the UK.
Watchmen is 6 March,Mon V Ali April 10(Easter)
I thought I saw a November release date for Christmas Carol. The other challenge for Avatar is it is said to be over 3 hours ! |
|
|
| Tim Rectanus posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 - 02:40 pm
|
|
|
That is Lucky!
You could be correct about a Christmas Carol, I couldn't remember the date. But if you are planning on running it, you will likely want to run it through Christmas, so I included it b/c of the Avatar crossover. I thought the challenge with Avatar would be Fox, but over 3 hours is definitely more of an issue. |
|
|
|
|
Theatres lucky enough to have two QTRUs would be able to run alternate shows of both DMR films (the long-running Watchman and the 3D MvA, for instance), perhaps with a show or two of a traditional in the morning.
At least Under the Sea 3D will have a good few weeks of unimpeded runs before March. |
|
|
| Tim Rectanus posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 - 12:35 am
|
|
|
| I was talking more about contracts than physical ability. I forget sometmes that our theatre tends to show more movies (titles) at a time than most,or atleast that is what I gathered from reactions when talking about our schedule at GSCA this year. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 09:00 pm
|
|
|
| I think there are titles coming out so close to each other is to support all the IMAX digital that are being installed. |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Friday, December 12, 2008 - 10:52 am
|
|
|
| I've got the "HP" teaser, "Watchmen", and "Star Trek" all on the front of "TDTESS". Just watched the "Trek" trailer... Got me all goosebumply! :o) |
|
|
|
|
| Contracts are the major issue. Unless they studios are willing to budge, theatres are going to have to choose one or the other... |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Monday, April 13, 2009 - 11:08 pm
|
|
|
| Has anyone heard any news of there only being a limited amount of film prints for "Star Trek"? Say like 10? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 09:05 am
|
|
|
| more like 40, not 10. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 09:36 am
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed that Imax is insisting on a minimum number of shows per day for these "limited" non-digital
releases while apparently giving digital venues the luxury of scheduling fewer shows?
I noticed that with Watchmen...limited prints, absolutely nothing less than five shows per day, but at a local digital Imax that just opened, they were running as few as three shows per day the opening week and even when they ran four shows, there was up to an hour between shows. IMO, exactly backwards...no rewind or prepartion time (projector cleaning and reloading) and an hour between digital presentations...but in a true LF venue, you get 20 minutes to clean the theater, and prepare the film for another show and you have to schedule either from 9am to midnite or 10 am to 1 am with no chance to accomodate school groups on weekdays (which is part of the mission of most museums). This smacks of a conflict of interest and supports Imax Corporation's agenda of favoring its new, inferior digital system over the genuine Imax experience only available with a film presentation. I don't know about you, but I'm worried...and I'm angry. |
|
|
|
|
So who's getting Star Trek on film? We are. Also getting Night at the Museum, Transformers, and HP.
Let's say the 60 or so digitals run Star Trek, and the 40 (?) prints struck run in film theaters. That's 100. Out of 350+ theaters in the IMAX network. I think they'll strike more than 40, especially since it's 2D.
IMAX doesn't insist on number of shows per day...the distributer does, i.e. Paramount, WB, etc. To the anon above, you mentioned the IMAX digital "just opened" and was running fewer shows of Watchmen. Its been out a while. Are they running anything else in there?
We satisfy our mission statement until 3PM. Then its four shows of Monsters vs. Aliens, with five on Saturday and Sunday. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 05:55 pm
|
|
|
The three shows I mentioned were opening week (after the 1st weekend) that Watchmen opened-the theater was actually open already...they just coverted one auditorium to an "Imax Digital" theater.
And despite what the distributor may request, I have heard-that Imax can "pressure" a venue to run a certain number of shows...Imax needed a commitment so they would strike just enough prints for those theaters that agreed to it.At least, that's what I heard. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 09:18 pm
|
|
|
| theyre pressuring the film theaters to run more shows each day because the studio wants to make the print cost back and theyre worried that they wont get there with the grosses unless theyre really great. Negligible print cost in digital means less pressure = fewer but fuller shows. |
|
|
|
|
| Hm...Interesting points. What is the average seating capacity of an Imax digital theater? I'm sure it is less than that of a film theater....? |
|
|
| James Hyder posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 09:33 am
|
|
|
Here you go Patrick.
Average seating capacity, multiplex IMAX theaters:
GT: 437 (37 screens)
SR: 287 (31 screens)
DIG: 339 (68 screens)
Total: 358 (210 screens)
The average for the digital theaters is taken from only 21 of the 68 screens open to date. But it's probably fairly accurate. |
|
|
| James Hyder posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 09:39 am
|
|
|
| Also, it's interesting to note that from now on, digital IMAX screens will outnumber IMAX film theaters in multiplexes. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 12:23 pm
|
|
|
i could really go for some of that NEW COKE......mmmmmm
does anyone have any? |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 03:56 pm
|
|
|
James,
Those avg. seating cap.'s are interesting.
But you left out MPX theaters.
I assume they're close to the Digital average?
WasMax |
|
|
| James Hyder posted on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 05:46 pm
|
|
|
Oops, sorry. Yes.
GT: 437 (37 screens)
SR: 287 (31 screens)
MPX: 348 (57 screens)
DIG: 339 (68 screens)
And since I left out the MPXes, I was wrong about digital screens outnumbering film in multiplexes. It will take a little while to cross that threshold. Late this year or early next year, perhaps. |
|
|
|
|
| Back on subject, we've got Harry Knowles and 379 of his friends here in Austin hosted by Paramount.... Woohoo! 8PM! |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Monday, May 04, 2009 - 05:47 pm
|
|
|
I'll see your film critic and raise you one CEO of Paramount and I'll toss in Jack Nicholson. :o) They were at our screening last week.
Side note: ever hear the story of the Sonics guy who was in the booth during a showing for a U.S. President, and he reached over and turned down what he thought was the monitor volume but was actually the house volume? Talk about a good way to get the Secret Service overreacting--and yourself shot, LOL...
Side note from the side note: who's the most famous person you've ever had in your booth? In Syracuse, I had Hillary Clinton whiz in our projection booth bathroom. :o) |
|
|
|
|
Yep, you had a "bigger" hand than I have tonight! I'd have to say Robert Redford in Nashville on location of "The Last Castle". I was doing dailies for them. They shipped in a bunch of flatbed editors, no AVID! Let's see...Meatloaf from the film Black Dog at it's Nashville Premiere. Earl Scruggs (went to school with one of his sons in Nashville TN.) Johnny Cash at the premiere of "Gospel Road" at the Madison Square theater way back when. Gave me an autographed Bible. Saw him in the hospital too...he shared a semi-private room with my father when they both had heart surgery on the same day. Burt Reynolds came in the booth at the Bel-Aire Drive In where some of the footage for "W.W. and the Dixie Dancekings" was filmed. We were running what was on the screen when the cameras were rolling.
Never heard the one about cutting the house volume down....bet that was a nervous moment for some poor Sonics guy!
Hillary in your bathroom? Hmm...there's a joke there somewhere.... |
|
|
|
|
Kid Rock was at our theatre for a preview showing of All Access. He and his entire band were pretty cool.
Eminem stopped by a few times here and there with his family. And some president of some country whcih i cant remember has been to the theatre. Ambassadors, namely from Middle Eastern countries, pop up on a somewhat regular basis (we have the largest population of Middle Easterners outside of the Middle East. |
|
|
|
|
Star Trek 2D (of course) build question, anyone else wondering why the Feet Splice Here portions are soooo DARK?
Is it just my print (47)?
Are they like this whole way?
The Heads are super bright and clearly visible while the Foot Splice line is hardly legible, even with a 250 watt halogen
shining on it so I can build while running shows.
Not a huge issue, just a bit annoying. |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 05:36 pm
|
|
|
| My "Star Trek" print is having the same issues as my "MVA" print did. Pinkish-white powdery deposits on the rollers and PTRs; pinkish-white waxy deposits on the film path and stator segments; hard blackish dirt buildup on the rotor gaps. Have to give everything a fairly thorough fingernail-scraping after each show. Rain-X Wax on the field lens and Sailkote on the rotor keeps the image pretty clean on screen, though, and hopefully this will diminish (since my "MVA" print did show improvement after a couple of weeks). |
|
|
|
|
| Ditto for me Jim (with my Trek print that is; we did not show MvA). My Watchmen print was fine. What gives do you suppose? I have some theories. Give me a call. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
| Our Star Trek print in Bradford had pink / red deposits on the rotor on the first run as well. My guys ( I'm in Toronto right now) said it took 10-15 minutes to clean the rotor on our SR machine |
|
|
| David Booty posted on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 04:37 am
|
|
|
Same problem here, and we’ve actually had some complaints over the past 2 days.
I watched it again last night before our service and it was embarrassing.
We’ve been running it through all 4 PTRs in an attempt to get as much off the print before it ends up in the film path. Might give it a blast with Rain-X to see if it helps.
Strangely enough our MvA print is perfect. |
|
|
|
|
We had the same issue as you guys with deposits on the rotor, rollers, and the such with Star Trek, as we did with MvA, but we are now some 15 runs in and the buildup on the rotor has greatly dimished and continues to with every show. Rain X on the FF has kept the image on screen very clean, except one of our test screenings late at night/early in the morning that I forgot to reapply the Rain X.
I had some issue with a dislexic moment with one of the trailer frame counts that had me thinking much longer and harder than is healthy for boothfolk but once that was figured out, I liked the movie, and the crowds even more. |
|
|
|
|
Our print is running dirty as well--depositing tons of junk on the PTRs and roters--ive never seen a print this bad before! Thankfully, it seems that most doesn't make it to the screen (we are using Rain-X and manually running the FF). I wasn't there for the first three days, but today it ran fairly clean on screen, sans a couple chunks of emulsion or something here or there.
On another note, i thought it was a good film (im not a trekie), but was disappointed in the DMR conversation--personally, i thought it looked grainy... |
|
|
|
|
Hey, Tim, was your trailer issue with "Harry Potter 6"?
We have white dust on the rotor, but no red waxy or other deposits and clean-up has been fairly easy. I did notice something that was a surprise to me and I think it deserves comment: At the end when the IMAX DMR credits come up, it says at the very bottom: "70mm Prints by CFI Technicolor". Since there were not DMR credits for MvA, this is the first time I have ever seen that and it gives me pause...has DKP been using an outside lab to run prints all along? I thought the whole process was strictly an inhouse process.
Finally, I saw a clip on the internet (I forget exactly where) of an interview and mini-tour with David Keighley and it was mostly about the new digital process of converting mainstream features. I would hate to think David has decided to spend most of his efforts on digital and is now farming out print production. Perhaps this is why prints are limited all of a sudden (or hopefully, they're giving all their attention to HP 6-a much better scenario!) |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 11:22 am
|
|
|
Frank
A number of issues here but as I am about to head out just a quick response to one or two.
DKP do not and have never AFAIK physically printed all the copies of the film. This is done by CFI Technicolor. DKP carry out work to supply the labs with the required interneg and post processing quality control prior to shipping the prints out to the theaters. |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 03:29 pm
|
|
|
Frank Dracman posted on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 09:08 am
We have white dust on the rotor, but no red waxy or other deposits and clean-up has been fairly easy.
Are you sure, Frank? I get hard deposits in the rotor gap that can only be scraped off, but they're hard to see unless you use a good flashlight. |
|
|
|
|
| I am going to call DKP today and simply ask if anything - anything at all - was done differently with the Star Trek and MvA prints than any of the DMR prints that came before those 2 films, beginning with Watchmen on back. |
|
|
|
|
Frank
It was HP6 that I couldn't get the sound synced up for but it was because instead of using a FFP for the Transformers trailer of 3,672, I used 3,762. 90 frames difference. I don't stop the projectors at the end of trailers to sync them up, had a problem with that one time, so I use the FFP + 47 frames method. I originally took out the extra 47 frames from the DTAC regions for Transformers and HP6 which got the Feature back in sync (almost-4 frames off but at 2am I didn't notice it) while I was running it the first time. I questioned why that worked but it did so I went with it. So I thought it was good, then ran it again and the HP6 trailer was off. Luckily, I write all my notes for frame to time conversions down (show all your work in math class) so looking it over with my theatre manager, we eventually noticed the Pic Start and FFP numbers I wrote down for Transformers were less than 192 frames different. And wallaaah! It was just dumb luck that the 90 extra frames in the sound region I started with was close to the 94 frames that were added (and then taken out) for the trailer regions to have the feature get synced, almost.
Anyway, won't make that mistake again I think. No real harm done in the end, it was run 2 more times before the first public show to make sure everything was good. |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 10:51 am
|
|
|
| Hey, Tim... yeah, it's nice that they supply the numbers at the front of the trailer now. I double-check the math by subtracting 145 to the "PicStart to LFB" number and adding 47 from the "FFP to LFB" number, to make sure they add up the same. |
|
|
|
|
| Yes, Jim, I am sure. I ran the film all weekend and only had what I described. We have never used Rain-X or Sailkote. Maybe the print stock has changed slightly and it reacts negatively to Rain-X (a wax) which is where the waxy build-up may be coming from. |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 12:26 pm
|
|
|
I don't think so, Frank. The amount of Rain-X used on the field lens is only a few drops. It wouldn't account for what we're all seeing on the rotor and rollers. I've used Rain-X and Sailkote for years, and they do nothing but make the film look better on screen and make the field lens spotless.
It just seems like this is some sort of protective outer layer that's wearing off. It would be interesting to know if it's better or worse on GT, SR, or MPX systems. Which are you running? |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 12:28 pm
|
|
|
Oh, I forget to mention, I have a problem with my "Transformers 2" trailer.
The scene of Megan Fox bending over the motorcycle isn't long enough.
(Well, SOMEONE had to say it!)
:o) |
|
|
|
|
Ron
I e-mailed David K last week. He says Kodak told him they haven't changed their film stock and DKP don't know of anthing else that has changed.
he did request earlier that if any one can supply samples of the dust/ deposit tha may help in tracking down the problem.
Dick |
|
|
|
|
| We have the GT system. |
|
|
|
|
I'll gather some tonight and send it to DKP and let them see what I'm getting. Hard white waxy substance that takes a popcicle stick to scrape off the "nose" and "tail" of the rotor segments...
Pat |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 11:50 am
|
|
|
| Careful sending white powder through USPS!! |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I was thinking about that. I'll label it properly and include a little film sample to make it look legit. It's not like I'm loading up an envelope with a 1/2 cup of stuff. Probably send it UPS.
I figure a little bit and a ziploc bag will give them them info they need. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 08:19 am
|
|
|
| We had a complaint yesterday about the Focus and I see it but don't think there is anything I can do to fix it. I have seen it and even he mentioned it in his complaint, that there are "certain scenes" that are out of focus. Seems to be prevelant in scenes with Spock in it, is that a side eeffect of being half human? Is it just me? and this guy who complained? Or do you guys notice it too? |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 08:32 am
|
|
|
| No problems here, my print looks pretty sharp (and I watched the whole thing from the theater yesterday, again). I do remember one scene where I think Spock was out of focus but then they cut back to Kirk and he was nice and sharp so, if you have sharpness in one scene but not another, I'd chalk it up to a master negative kinda thing. |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 10:00 am
|
|
|
| I noticed it, too, but I think it's the way it was shot...probably looks ok in 35mm but becomes more noticeable after the conversion. The feature is definitely in focus for the most part...no complaints here. |
|
|
|
|
| No, it looks worse in 35mm. Particularly in the final face-to-face scene (no spoiler) one face is completely in focus while the other face is out of focus. Very distracting. |
|
|
| Back to top |
