This is topic Tarantino on 16mm in forum 16mm Forum at 8mm Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001869

Posted by Steven J Kirk (Member # 1135) on September 11, 2018, 08:17 AM:
 
Surprised to see this one listed...

Even more surprised at the price, a level which I would never go to myself for a film print...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/16mm-Feature-Film-PULP-FICTION-1994-LPP-Flat-Print-/232916162392?nordt=true&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.m43663.l10137

£3200!!!

[ September 11, 2018, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Steven J Kirk ]
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on September 12, 2018, 01:59 PM:
 
There has been a bit of talk about this particular one elsewhere.
As much as i would like to have a copy, anything over 200 (and thats really pushing it) is OTT for us.
While it is a film i like, it isn't exactly a big screen action packed drama or classic.
Personally i think i would prefer my Dances with Wolves and Robin prince of thieves. Of course, its each to there own and at the end of the day, the seller started it very very low, like 0.01p. I got a bit suspicious when the bid jumped from £680 straight to 2000.00 with nothing in between. I've not seen that happen before.
Even if you viewed this movie every week for a year the cost of each viewing would amount to almost £62 per viewing!!!!!
Not hat im counting [Big Grin] [Wink]
 
Posted by Steven J Kirk (Member # 1135) on September 13, 2018, 10:12 AM:
 
£3200 is more than my hobby budget for a year or more. Some collectors must just be in another financial bracket. There was a 16mm print of Apocalypse Now a little while back and that is one of my favourites but even at around £1000 - which is what it went for - too much. There are a lot of great 16mm titles around £100 or so. Much more like it...
 
Posted by Nigel Higgins (Member # 4312) on September 13, 2018, 01:48 PM:
 
Plain crazy i wonder if this is a modern day record for most paid for 1 16mm feature .makes the derann star wars meek and mild.
 
Posted by Robert Crewdson (Member # 3790) on September 13, 2018, 02:19 PM:
 
Maybe I'm missing something, it says theatrical print, then says it's flat. Wouldn't it be in scope?
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on September 13, 2018, 02:28 PM:
 
I dont think this film was in scope to start with.
I wonder if it got paid as the buyer had zero feedback. If he did then the seller did very well indeed.

Where do these films come from? I would have thought this sort of stuff would have to be returned to the distributors. How does this stuff actually get out?
 
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on September 13, 2018, 02:58 PM:
 
The Internet Movie Database says the ratio is 2.39:1 which is 'scope, however, they are not always correct!

I still have visions of showing it on 35mm using Christie platters, some ten minutes from the end of the film the overhead ventilation blew the remaining film onto the floor causing an auto shut down and leaving me to sort out probably about 1000 feet of film. The film ran 2hr 34 mins, plus ads and trailers, so was on the extreme edge of the platter. (Note the feed is from the centre with the end of the film on the outwards edge.)

It was an Odeon 5-screen multiplex and I was working single manning. In the importance of keeping the remaining four screens going, it took some time to unravel and return to the platter. We lost the next showing of it.

The manager was not pleased.
 
Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on September 13, 2018, 03:15 PM:
 
Its pain bonkers, I have it on dvd which is really good and looks close to decent Blu Ray.

Looks very filmie 10 feet wide on LCD as well.

I have the trailer in scope on 16mm LPP.

Maybe should list it !!!

Best Mark.
 
Posted by David Guest (Member # 2791) on September 13, 2018, 04:04 PM:
 
same guy won both a new bidder with 0 feedback
 
Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on September 14, 2018, 07:51 AM:
 
This print loses a lot by being a flat print! So much of the picture area is lost! Just compare a pan & scan DVD of this and others to their full widescreen versions. Not worth it [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on September 14, 2018, 12:02 PM:
 
I cant think of a film worth over 500 let alone 3200 [Wink]
 
Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on September 14, 2018, 12:57 PM:
 
Right Tom, maybe the seller is hoping that Tarantino himself will buy it. He is a 16mm collector
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Can Sanalan (Member # 5988) on September 20, 2018, 03:12 PM:
 
I also noticed the buyer had 0 feedback and instantly I assumed it was a time waster. Making the price jump up that high and not pay for it.
I would of loved to have won the 16mm print of Return of the Living Dead.

I purchased the Mission Impossible episode that was sold by the same seller.
When I messaged him in regards to his user name, “ucicinemas”, he said he was a manager at one of the branches. Perhaps when they closed down he was given the films! Don’t know.
Happy with my purchase though.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on November 25, 2018, 08:31 PM:
 
Pulp Fiction was indeed a scope movie. This one might be "flat letterboxed", or of course it could be pan-and-scan.

Still though, 3x 1600 reels would mean 2 hours of run time unless my math is off. The movie is about 2 hours and 30 minutes.
 


Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2010 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2