8mm Forum: Studios forcing end of 35mm?

This is topic Studios forcing end of 35mm? in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007091

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on May 11, 2012, 12:21 PM:

Haven't read LA Weekly for years (too liberal/racy/crass for me) but saw a link to this article and thought it was a good read:

Movie Studios Are Forcing Hollywood to Abandon 35mm Film

This article is peppered throughout with technical inaccuracies, and some of the source information is called into question in the comments section. Still, while this isn't a new subject to us, some of the information of this article seems unique. Is it to be trusted?

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on May 11, 2012, 01:01 PM:

Hi Bill,
I haven't even read the article in your link but in answer to the question posed by your thread title - Yes, of course they are. There's no doubt about it, surely.

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on May 11, 2012, 01:54 PM:

So, it costs $1500 to print a feature on 35mm. Would it be somewhere close to that to print on Super 8, or even 16mm?

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on May 11, 2012, 02:52 PM:

Thats one helluva article Bill,and as Michael said,thats the way it's
going regarding film.If Hollywood were run by people like ourselves
that have a genuine love of the "slippery stuff,"then there would'nt be a problem,but as the late Michael Carreras of Hammer
Films fame said,"they only know how to make deals,not films"
and the bottom line is profit.Well for what it's worth,and I'm not
a great lover of modern film makers,if my local intends to show
digital then they can watch 'em themselves,I refuse to pay to
view something I can view at home,more conveniently on my
own DVD.The bottom line is CORPORATE GREED and that can
only be fed if you're willing to go along with them,and I for one
will boycott them,The greed of these people know no bounds
and the article shows how they really feel about the medium.....
they could'nt care less.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on May 11, 2012, 03:30 PM:

Intereting article, Digital is here to stay and it will push 35mm cinema presentation out the window. For small cinema operators they will have to decide if they can afford it, or is it even worth it in the long term to make that kind of change.

One thing I liked about that article was "Hug a Projectionist" from someone in Switzerland I think thats a good idea. I tried that with the staff I worked with. I used to come downstairs and with open arms "shout", group hug...group hug [Eek!]

they used to run a mile [Big Grin]

scary stuff eh! [Big Grin]

Graham.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on May 12, 2012, 02:54 PM:

Have to agree with Graham on this one. Even though I love film, businesses will do what makes economic sense, and studios are seeing too much cost involved in printing and distributing film prints.

However, with the move to digital projection in cinemas, why in the heck should I shell out $10-$20 a ticket when I can watch digital at home on my HDTV (and see the same film[s] on pay per view a few weeks/months later for $4)? I know some will say that "it's not the same as watching movies in a darkened theatre," but with the inevitable move to digital anyway, what's the benefit of going to the cinema given it's the same technology that's available at home?) However, I'll continue to watch real film in my basement cinema.

Posted by Wayne Tuell (Member # 1689) on May 12, 2012, 03:50 PM:

quote:
So, it costs $1500 to print a feature on 35mm. Would it be somewhere close to that to print on Super 8, or even 16mm?

In short, yes. Studios get much better rates because when they print, they print A LOT. Even though there is is a lot less footage length in S8mm or 16mm, the costs are higher per foot than what the studios pay (soon to be paid) for 35mm.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on May 13, 2012, 03:55 AM:

John
I think a lot of people are thinking the same, it cost around $16 for an adult ticket about $11 a child, for a family the hole thing gets expensive. I used to cringe when I was downstairs at what folk were paying. I once asked a lady who was with her young family, did she go to the movies often, she replied, no it was to expensive and added with a smile. Its a pity we have to mortgage the house to go to the movies. Although she was only kidding about the house, she was getting the point across all the same. Times have changed for home entertainment, we can enjoy good digital sound etc, even 3D at home. The cinema industry is living in the past and the expensive switch to digital presentation wont help, as most folk think its a video projector anyway so its not a selling point. I still like going to the movies every so often but not a regular thats for sure.

Graham.

Posted by Oscar Iniesta (Member # 1731) on May 13, 2012, 04:41 AM:

A famous spanish cine fan and professional, write about this time ago, and he told us a date (2017, I remember?), due to the plans decided by Buenavista. But I see that things are going faster probably forced by the finantial problems worldwide. I have read the same views about why paying expensive prices for a technology we can have at home (big LED screen or projection one, with Blue Ray and multichannel sound). In my opinion, they don´t have anything new or different to offer. I believe IMAX and monthly superproductions, as the ones released on the 50/60´s where the way to follow, but they insist on that psychotropic 3D experience.
Last weeks, a new 35mm print of The Goonies were projected near home. An spanish fan bought explotation rights and ordered the prints. He believes in 35mm classics and cine lovers answer as an alternative way to the recent Hollywwod trash.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on May 13, 2012, 06:41 AM:

I think you're absolutely right Oscar,and the way things are going
if they drop the 3D idea, Hollywood has nothing to offer.I do
believe we're witnessing the end of cinema as we know it,because
people,myself included,aren't going to pay exorbitant prices to view something that they can view in their own homes for a
fraction of the price.I would think that the only ones who are
going to be watching "proper film",will be the private owner or
collectors like ourselves.It's a bit like history repeating itself,
colour television dealt a body blow to the cinema,so they gave
us cinemascope and 3D,now it seems they are resurrecting 3D
but the novelty is wearing off and the accessability of home
projection and huge TVs coupled with unlimited access to
streaming TV channels & DVD, what has the cinema got to offer? it seems the experience of watching a film in other folks
company will be a thing of the past.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on May 13, 2012, 07:30 PM:

Much as I love film and don't want it to be forced out, I disagree that admissions in digital screens will be damaged by significant numbers of people taking the view that they won't go to the cinema because they can have a similar experience at home. A lot of film collectors have digital projection because they are the most receptive group and are already used to home projection. But in my social circle, I can't think of a single person who is not a film collector who has bought a digital projector. I bet many of us here would say the same thing - it hasn't 'crossed over' into the general public in a big way. What might be more problematic for distributors could be if they cease distribution of 35mm in countries where maybe 10% or more of screens are still 35mm and in cinemas where the owners cannot afford to change. That would be a LOT of lost revenue. I wonder if some smaller screens might try to survive by installing high quality domestic-type projectors, but I don't know if distributors would supply to them if they did.

[ May 14, 2012, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Adrian Winchester ]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on May 13, 2012, 11:33 PM:

As for the future of cinema digital projection... as Scotty from "Star Trek" once said "The more they overtech the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain". [Big Grin]

food for thought [Wink]

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on May 15, 2012, 12:23 AM:

Of all the people I know around here who've moved up to HD, I can only think of one who did it via a projector. So I agree with Adrian's observation. But when you have Lucas giving millions of $$$ to the USC film school under the stipulation that students will never shoot on film, and the distributers giving financial incentive to exhibitors for removing their film projectors permanently and showing digital prints alone, the aesthetics, artistry, and public interest aren't even on the radar.

Posted by Allan Broadfield (Member # 2298) on May 15, 2012, 02:05 AM:

As an ex projectionist and more lately film technician who has been made redundant due to drastic results of decline in 35mm releasing, the march of digital, at least in the UK, is inevitable. Major labs have been forced to close down, and it is no exaggeration to say that there are many printing machines now languishing in breaking yards.
If I want to sound realistic I would say that 35mm has had a damn good run, it has, after all, been in use since the late 1890's, and I remember when I joined the business in 1959 I was advised that it didn't have much longer to go!

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on May 15, 2012, 03:44 AM:

Pat sent me this photo of the demolition of Hoyts 8 cinema here in the city. The building like so many were damaged due to earthquakes since 2010. The reason for the photo, the "Kinoton" projectors and platters "still in place" were being destroyed along with everything else. Although some of the equipment was damaged from past shakes a lot of it was still fine. It seems such a waste. Hoyts themselves would not sell any of it, but would rather scrap it rather than anyone else getting a use out of it. Although these days 35mm might not be worth much, I think we are going to see more good film projectors heading to the scrap dealer, what a waste.

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on May 15, 2012, 12:38 PM:

An interesting prediction in this article "15 Current Technologies A Child Born Today Will Never Use".

quote:
Movie Theaters

Pundits have been predicting the death of the movie theater since the first televisions hit the market, but this time, it's really going to happen for a number of reasons. First, with large HD televisions going mainstream and 3D sets becoming more affordable, the average home theater is almost as good as the average multiplex theater. Second, studios and their cable partners have begun releasing some movies for on-demand viewing on the same day they debut in theaters, a trend which is likely to continue.

Finally, the cost of going to a movie theater is so out of control — movie tickets in New York cost around $13 each — that nobody is going to keep paying it. In a world where an on-demand film that's still in theaters costs $7 to rent and one that just left the theater streams for $2.99 from Amazon, who will spend more than $50 for a family of four to go see the same movie surrounded by annoying patrons, dirty seats and overpriced popcorn? Art house theaters that offer specialized films and a sense of community may remain, but the average multiplex will be gone before my son notices it was ever there.

So the only theaters that will survive are the ones that use film. [Big Grin]

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on May 15, 2012, 01:09 PM:

Exactly Bryan,these are the days of "belt tightening" what with
recessions,I prefer depression,but lets not frighten the horses.
I think that the visits to cinemas will be somewhat rarer,and when
one sees what is being charged to view a film,i'm afraid the end
is nigh.Lets be quite honest about this,the standard of film
making nowadays does leave a lot to be desired,what with the
ubiquitous "shaky cam" and mumbled dialogue from actors
and actresses that have little or no idea of diction,who is going
to pay top dollar to sit through what passes for threadbare
stotylines and overblown effects.This is all now going to come
to a head and the local "flea pit" will go the way of the Music
Hall.Hollywood has spoonfed the public this drivel and charged
a fortune for it,so Television will undoubtedly win, and the
public will be charged privately to watch the drivel in their own homes

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on May 15, 2012, 01:35 PM:

What's astonding to me is the way "The Movies" is becoming ever more like just a big TV set for a large audience. Back 20 years ago it would have been outragious to see a commercial in a movie theater, but I see that all the time now. Then I go home and flip on on the 'tube and there that same commercial is.

What's interesting is digital cinema will be able to show live events like sports and concerts, so someday soon "going to the cinema" won't absolutely be the same thing as "going to a movie".

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on May 15, 2012, 02:09 PM:

quote:
What's interesting is digital cinema will be able to show live events like sports and concerts, so someday soon "going to the cinema" won't absolutely be the same thing as "going to a movie".

They will need a gimmick to get people to come in. The only theater that I go to anymore is Cinebarre. They took out every other row of seats and installed tables. You can order food and drinks from your seat while you watch the movie.

Posted by Oscar Iniesta (Member # 1731) on May 15, 2012, 04:40 PM:

Bryan has said what I tried to do. I know digital projectors are not so common at many homes, but large HD TV screem has been a revolution the last years. Don´t know why, but all the people, young and old, are crazy about thin TVs here in Spain. So, for our small flats and living rooms, that it a BIG screen, and DVD/Blue Rays an easy way to enjoy a movie. Now think on the other option; driving to a Mall (local cinemas closed), paying a high price for a ticket, no employers inside to keep or look for your seat, nobody taking care of projection quality or annoying non polite viewers with their f***ing mobile phones, and, of course, a poor script from 21th century Hollywood.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on May 16, 2012, 07:09 AM:

IF SONY MAKES DIGITAL VIDEO CAMERAS (both domestic and industry)

IF SONY MAKES DIGITAL PROJECTORS (both domestic and industry)

IF SONY IS ONE OF THE BIG 6 STUDIOS

what do you expect.....?

Sony will ask cinemas to turnt into digital or will not films supply from the studio.

This is what anti-trust law should look at and scrutinize.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on May 16, 2012, 10:29 AM:

Winbert, that seems like a GREAT point. Particularly with the amount of control being wielded.

Bryan, I'd like to say I agree with you that if all cinemas die except for the art houses, then 35mm will be all that's left. But the article I originally linked to describes the pressure distributors are placing on exhibitors to screen even classic repertory digitally. Seeing what goes on around town here, I can't deny that trend is happening. So ultimately it's up to whatever the film libraries are willing to support.

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on May 16, 2012, 02:40 PM:

So what happens to all those 35mm prints that were distributed to theaters in the past? They must have mountains of them somewhere or were they destroyed?

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on May 16, 2012, 03:54 PM:

I'm afraid Bryan that's exactly what happens to them,sometimes
they are used by the film industry as leaders etc.Usually an axe
or pick axe is used to destroy them then they are buried.It was
common practice for someone from the industry to be present
while they're destroyed.One of the reasons why I applaude anyone
that can salvage a print or two,lets face it there's a lot of stuff out there on 8mm that wouldn't be there if someone hadn't been
naughty.........thank God.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on May 16, 2012, 09:43 PM:

Actually, Bryan, I think that would depend on the country a bit, because here in the US there is a recycling facility (or WAS!) that melts down the polyester and recovers whatever silver is there. The majority of theatrical prints meet their demise in that way, so I've heard. Then a few prints (traditionally) are kept in library storage for "repertory" rentals, unless there's a legal reason not to (e.g. George Lucas preventing it). So now these huge repositories of 35mm repertoire are also slowing down in favor of shipping a hard drive.

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on May 17, 2012, 10:59 AM:

The prints are all recycled; they have mostly been polyester since the 90's. Only a handful of prints survive after 18 months in release. There are no large stockpiles of release prints; very few escape destruction 5 years out.

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on May 17, 2012, 11:31 AM:

I assume that the studios mandate the destruction or recycling and choose how many copies go into repositories but I see 35mm full features on ebay. Are these illicit copies that somehow escaped destruction? Why can't people purchase 35mm copies? How is that different than purchasing a Super 8 print of a disk?

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on May 17, 2012, 12:25 PM:

Are these illicit copies? In a word, yes. Someone with better professional knowledge could explain this better than I, but my short take is that the theatrical prints are rented with the understanding that ownership of the print is strictly held by the studio and exhibition is only legal under a contract. Sure, there are exceptions to this, and old theatrical stuff floats about due to the odd expired copyright, defunct studio, or non-rental situations to begin with.

Like it or not, it's all about control of intellectual property for the purpose of generating revenue for its owners. That's why you can't buy 35mm copies because they're not supposed to actually be for sale. They're intended for public exhibition under strict control

Purchasing classic Derann prints and video discs is different because they're made under a license arrangement with the copyright owners, and they are "licensed for non-commercial exhibition in homes" only (or the like), and not for public or revenue-generating gatherings. I respect that, but still do my best to edit those annoying cards out of the Disney releases because I don't think my audience needs to see that EVERY time a new title begins.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on May 18, 2012, 05:36 AM:

If you would like to do something in support of maintaining the availability of 35mm in relation to revival-type cinemas, I'd suggest pledging a donation to this project that's a constructive effort from Julia Marchese and her New Beverly Cinema in Los Angeles. Following a petition that gained a massive response, she's trying to get a documentary made. I know she has the support of the Prince Charles Cinema in London, where I hope to see her presenting a double bill in September.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1101489177/out-of-print-a-documentary-about-the-new-beverly-c

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on May 24, 2012, 03:46 AM:

Good news - the project mentioned directly above will go ahead. The sum needed was reached with a few hours to spare.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on May 24, 2012, 04:00 AM:

Tht's good news.

Is the Prince Charles remaining film only?

Posted by Bryan Chernick (Member # 1998) on July 12, 2012, 10:50 AM:

This was on the front page of the Seattle Times this morning: Small-town theaters struggle to survive in the digital age

Yes, I still have the newspaper delivered, another thing that is on it's way out. My dog will be the most upset when they stop printing newspapers, she loves running out to the street to fetch it for me every morning.

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on July 12, 2012, 11:43 AM:

Bryan

Thanks for the link. Another one bites the dust. We had a twin cinema in town here that was torn down 2 years ago. having a school right nest door to it they addes right on to the school aafter demolition. It worked out great for thr school. But, too bad for the cinema. i saw my first James Bond film (Dr No) there in 1962 for 40 cents!

PatD

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on July 12, 2012, 11:49 AM:

Bryan - Depressing reading but the more stories like this the better. People need to know that distributors are killing off these cinemas. The article says that "small-town cinemas have to find some $80,000 each to convert from film projectors to digital ones" but doesn't mention that even if they succeed, they are likely to have to do so again to replace the equipment 10 years or less. How can that be viable for a theatre that "maybe makes $10,000 profit a year"?

Michael - I'm afraid I've only just seen your question. The Prince Charles does use digital, but seems committed to still presenting some 35mm screenings as well.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 12, 2012, 12:52 PM:

With this inevitable decline in "reel" projection and all, I'm so proud of Gian Luca and myself, when we came out with that super 8 animated reel, "Saturday Morning Madness".

Like all of us, Gian and I wrote back and forth, musing as to how we'd love to release something on super 8, just to add to the legacy of Super 8, instead of just posting and whining about "No one releasing anything" and other such arguments.

Yep, it was expensive, but I'll always hold in my hands, (as well as others, for it's still being printed, in small quantities) a film print that I and a few others involved, were able to bring forth, in 2010 no less! At, literally, the very "precipice" of the demise of film, in any guage.

I love being an "old fart" when it comes to film. I love the scratches, I love the splices, I love the un-ending cursing as I adjust the scope lense for the "umpth-teen" time ...

... as I chase a reel of rapidly unspooling film down the hall, cursing all the way, to the giggling of my son!

What makes me so sad, is that, expect for cine-loving folks like us, (on this forum and others and those we never hear of), we have become such a disposable society (humanity in general), that the loss of actual film is addressed with a collective yawn and a "ho-hum" as something that involved an earlier generation and therefore, it's not worth the time of day.

(grrrrr!)

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on July 12, 2012, 01:13 PM:

Adrian,
Thanks for the reply. I have fond memories of the Prince Charles back in the 80's when I first arrived in the UK.

Is it a privately owned cinema do you know?

quote:
Depressing reading but the more stories like this the better. People need to know that distributors are killing off these cinemas.

Yes, but my feeling is that generally speaking, the film-going public don't care. As long as movies are still presented ( I hesitate to use the word "shown") at their local multiplex they're happy. "No more 35mm" means absolutely nothing to them.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on July 12, 2012, 02:59 PM:

Well facts have got to be faced gentlemen,the old fashioned
method of displaying a moving image,has at long last been
superceded by an electronic process.You can have all the
collections,petitions you want,it wont make the slightest bit
of difference,eventually 35mm is going the same way as the
dinosaur.Funding a private cinema to show 35mm doesn't seem
viable,especially in today's climate,there are more deserving
cases,even though the UK seems to be run on volunteers and
charities.No,I'm afraid the writing is on the wall,as Adrian has
rightly said,the public couldn't care less, as long as it is some
well trod shit from Pixar or some equally mindless shoot 'em up
as long as they can sit and chew something it doesn't matter.
Pearls before swine springs to mind,the mass market dictates
and in my view is fine,let them have it,if the public want to be
taken for a ride thats fine,it doesn't mean I have to be taken
with them.I will wait for the DVD.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 12, 2012, 03:43 PM:

Even The Enzian, our local bastion of 35mm classic and indie films here in Orlando, has now installed a digital projector. They will continue running some 35mm, at least for a while, but I suspect it is just a matter of time before its all digital.
So here we are in 2012 in an all digital world. Kodak, the greatest film company on the planet, will probably cease to exist in the next few years, and the present and upcoming generations will know nothing about film.
As Hugh correctly points out - most people could care less. They will run around with their infantile cellphone cameras shooting every ridiculous thing that comes to mind, posting it on the net, and then deleting it all a few weeks later - this is the sad state of consumer photography today. The archiving of family snapshots in photo albums or shoeboxes or whatever for future generations is now gone, and all the family pics are stored in some remote file on some hard drive known only to the computer owner, or up in the sky somewhere, until it all crashes and everything is lost. One of films greatest assets is its permanence, we all know that 8mm Kodachrome shot in the 1950's looks today like it just came back from processing. Try that little trick with digital. Ask yourself how much of your digital memories holed up in your computer will still be locateable and viewable by your family's next generations?
Yes its a sad day indeed for film lovers, still or movie. I for one will probably never visit The Enzian again, unless I know the show will be 35mm. So I will content myself with my small collection of favourite films and the joy of running them on my Elmo's or Eumig's in my small home cinema which replicates, at least a bit, the cinema experience of the golden age.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on July 12, 2012, 04:15 PM:

Well said Paul,at least we all have our own films to show and exchange,and of course the fan mags and our beloved forums.
It is a tragedy,when one considers all the old cinemas that have
been destroyed or turned into something else,the same thing
happened with burlesque shows,music hall,to a certain extent
the theatres.Imagine how the people then thought at the advent
of motion picture theatres,it wont last,was no doubt said at the
time.Nothing stays the same,perhaps that's how it's meant to be,ever evolving,always changing...........well it might be for
joe public,but not this horse, I've always been a non conformist
and I refuse to alter now.I intend to be found dead either with
my hands round an MPs throat or siiting in my favourite chair
with the projector whirring in the background and a blank
white screen.After the cremation I would like my ashes to be
thrown over a government minister......while they're still hot.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on July 12, 2012, 07:40 PM:

Gentlemen,
I'll regret the loss of 35mm as much as anyone, but the link posted by Bryan above points to another aspect of the situation that's NOT the usual film v digital angle. I don't dispute that most couldn't care less about the switch from 35mm to digital (in fact said by Michael, not me), but the article highlights that in some cases it will be a switch from 35mm to nothing. In situations where a cinema has been an important social hub of the communuity, that's a lot more serious for the communities in question than one type of projection replacing another.

I greatly applaud the New Beverly Theatre getting their documentary about the impending loss of 35mm, and its consequences, into production. You can see progress reports via: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1101489177/out-of-print-a-documentary-abo ut-the-new-beverly-c

Forums/Facebook/Twitter, etc, are OK for talking and letting off steam, but the above is passionate people actually DOING something in support of what the believe in. Even if it turns out to be completely futile, they will have the satisfaction of having made their points via the very medium they want to support, and communicating their view to large numbers of people.

Michael - I think the Prince Charles is still privately owned, Nothing there appears to indicate a link to any chain.

Posted by Bradford A Moore (Member # 426) on July 13, 2012, 07:00 AM:

For starters I'm completely against this whole digital thing! I strongly feel if the people who make movies went back to the simple way of making a film, prices could go down to at least $6 dollars for admission. All these gimmicks like 3D, and special effects are driving the high costs up! More and more people are not going out because of the prices.

With a lower cost for admission, and less high tech films would bring the people back! But at least lower the prices, because its better to have people going into the theatre's, instead of very little, which is causing theatre's to be torn down!

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on July 13, 2012, 07:44 AM:

Well I'm quite sure for the powers that be in Hollywood Adrian,
the thought of some little community suffering through their
search for more money,must have them crying into their pillows
at night.In your own country don't forget,communities were
destroyed overnight by Thatcher and her arrogance,when mining
in this country was killed off,but she was quite happy to import
coal mined by children from foreign climes.The idea that some
little village or town won't have a cinema in the long run doesn't
really matter that much,how many have already lost their local
Post Office or local Bank,that didn't seem to concern the powers
that be ,so why should the loss of a cinema,we've been there
before when they turned them into Bingo Halls.No,like I've said
already,you can complain all you want,decisions have already been taken,the die is cast.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on July 13, 2012, 08:56 PM:

Hugh - I honestly think you're promoting a defeatest view. I have relevant experience to draw upon because in my home town (Croydon) a small 'art house' type cinema was closed in April last year, because it was run by the council on council premises and it was part of major arts-related cuts. It was no ordinary cinema, local people really loved the programming and pleasant atmosphere it offered, and in the afternoons it was often packed with retired people, who felt the loss of it more deeply than anyone. I started a campaign to reopen it, which now has approaching 500 members. We have had support from Julian Fellowes, our local MP and the BFI, and regular local press coverage. We presented a petition to the council with nearly 1500 signatures asking them to engage with constructive proposals that could enable the cinema to reopen. The council were completely negative at first but seem to have eventually realised that there negativity was damaging their reputation - and there's a limit to how unpopular they can become if they want to have a chance of being re-elected next time. Now we are talking to them about hiring the cinema for occasional screenings, prior to a likely reopening as a Social Enterprise next year. In the meantime, we present regular seasons of modern films (in the same vein of the closed cinema) in a well-equipped pub a few yards away, where we are building up a support base to make a reopened cinema a success.

I know it's a bigger challenge for some of the threatened cinemas in the USA and elsewhere to survive, but where people are actally prepared to do something, acting with determination and intitiative, great things CAN sometimes be achieved. There have been some inspiring examples in the UK. In Croydon, it's not a matter of changing the minds of "the powers that be", it's a matter of taking over the management of the cinema from them, because they were incapable of doing it well.

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on July 14, 2012, 02:51 AM:

That's admirable, Adrian - what you're all doing about that cinema there in Croydon. Good luck with it.

Regarding the showings in the pub, is this 35mm, 16mm, Super 8, Digital or a bit of all four?

I think that Hugh, though, was speaking generally, in that the big picture is and will be cinema closures. There may be, here and there, situations such as your own there, where efforts by locals manage to keep a cinema open. Good luck to those that do this.

Regarding the general switch to digital presentation - that, in my view, is irreversible, and to most people it doesn't matter. As long as there's a picture on screen the vast majority of the cinemagoing public care not where it comes from. That's what I meant in my post above.
Even in the smaller cinemas such as the one you're striving to keep running - would the audience care whether they were watching film or a digital image?

I'm not trying to be defeatist, and as I say, it is admirable that you have fought and continue to fight to keep that particular cinema open, but this is how I see it.

Posted by Mark L Barton (Member # 1512) on July 14, 2012, 05:47 AM:

Digital production and projection..hmmmm? Like all of you I'm in favour of wet film (celluloid) So heres a conundrum for Hollywood. I recently watched Prometheus at the Showcase Cinema (mix of Sony 4k Digi Cinema and traditional 35mm) Prometheus was shot on the Red Epic digi camera and when I watched the film it was a celluloid projection. Film will never go but the studios will rely on it less as it eats into the production budget, digi is vastly cheaper, plus the distribution on hard drives is around £150 per drive, as opposed to several reels of film (easier to transport...easier to pirate???) Having just watched The Amazing SpiderMan as a digital projection I felt like I was watching a glorified HD television, the film, adverts and trailers were crystal clear, and sterile, I might as well of watched the whole performance on blu ray at home. I want the grain of film, to see negative sparkle because it all adds up to the warmth that is film, its very organicness that connects the spectator to the film, digital is cold and humourless. I read some where that the BBC archives were reverting back to film stock, as the various updated digi formats were more costly per minute than archiving on celluloid, plus film has a longer storage life than digi media (some 100 plus years in the correct conditions etc) So if its good enough for the BBC.......

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on July 14, 2012, 09:01 AM:

I echo Michaels comments there Adrian,it is commendable what
you've achieved,but the fact remains that public or private,where
are you going to get the film to show if no more 35mm is
available.I'm sure there are laws that dictate what can be shown.
A thing I omitted to mention in my post above regarding the
things that have been a threat to communities and that was the
amount of pub closures in the UK,some little villages only having
the one until they closed it.That is why I mentioned more worthy causes, as the local pub is the heart of a community and
functions every day as a meeting place. In my village there is one,in the neighbouring village of Little Clifton,it has just one.
There must be scores of places in the UK that don't have any.
They were closing in Cumbria at the rate of ten per week!
So it is with the local cinemas In my home town of Whitehaven
we had three,now they are all closed,the public are indifferent.
In the long run, showing film will be a thing of the past,the
industry has ordained that, showings in Art House cinemas or
at home will be the only way to view cine film.I am not by nature defeatist,I've 17 years experience fighting peoples battles, but the one thing I can do that hurts Hollywood in a
small way is to deny them my custom,which is why I asked on a
different thread about the film "John Carter of Mars" because
I had no intention of viewing it in the cinema.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on July 14, 2012, 03:31 PM:

Thanks for the good wishes regarding the cinema campaign I mentioned.

Michael - the screenings in the pub are DVD or Blu-ray via a digital projector. The pub has a Public Video Screening Licence so it's all above board. We/they cannot charge admission but we accept donations for our finds. However, we have done two shows on film (one S8, one 16mm) and we will be doing a one-off 16mm show in the pub in October. We find that some people consider it more of a special occasion when they see film in use.

Regarding the cinema, it has digital projection but it still has the 35mm projectors and the Campaign is proposing that these should be retained for certain special presentations, as with the Price Charles.

I'd agree that broadly there is no stopping the march of digital, but I still think that the worst and most damaging aspects of this should be given the maximum possible exposure so that people know who is reponsible. The average cinema-goer won't be too worried but anyone losing their cinema has a right to know what has caused it.

Regarding the pro-film initiative and 35mm documetary that the New Film Cinema are involved in (and they do have some very supportive film industry people such as big name directors involved), I'm not sure if they are campaigning for a limited amount of new 35mm prints to still be produced. What they definitely are asking for is the continued availability of existing features on 35mm, as even this seems threatened. As they are a revival house specialising in films from all eras, they would probably still need 35mm even if they were equipped for digital.

Hugh - I take your point about the significance of pubs, but I expect it would be very unusual for support for a cinema to be at the expense of support for a pub. In fact the pub I mentioned started screening films because they missed the trade provided by patrons of the closed cinema! People now often buy a meal as well as having a drink during the film, so it is a good initiative that some pub managers might find worth considering, if they have a suitable room.

It's highly regrettable that your 3 cinemas in Whithaven have gone, apparently with little regret, considering the UK success stories such a sthe Rex in Berkhamstead and other smaller cinemas. I believe that overall, cinema attendance is holding up well here but no doubt that doesn't prevent the smaller independents being vulnerable. Ironically, we could have too many screens in my area, with town centre developers wanting to build one - and possibly two - new large multiplexes very close to where we already have a 10-screen one!

Much as I love film, I wouldn't place myself in the category that find digital completely unwatchable. It's hard to generalise - e.g. I saw the latest 'King Kong' via ultra-shap digital at the NFT and it had the sterile look mentioned that detracted from the enjoyment, from my point of view. However, dare I say that I have seen digital features (the 2008 'Sweeney Todd' and 'The Orphanage' come to mind) that look a lot more 'filmic' and even I had to look for tell tale signs like the lack of movement, to make sure that I wasn't watching 35mm. Perhaps this reflects film stocks they were shot on but I'm no expert.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on July 14, 2012, 04:04 PM:

Thay's good that it helps the pub as well Adrian,sort of "one hand
washing the other".A couple of miles up the road,we have the
multiplex type cinema,which is very comfortable and clean,but
I miss the special smell that the old cinemas had,the plaster
decoration and atmosphere that these old buildings exuded.Mind
on the minus side they were bloody cold in winter,but time
marches on and change,not always for the good,is always present,
It's to your credit,and the other folk involved to try and keep
what you have, as the industry only see profit margins,in a way
it's very much like "The Smallest Show on Earth",where people
running the show are the first ones through the door.I remember having a conversation with the late Ken Smith of
Ritz Films,and he explained how difficult it was to try and run
a private cinema in the face of the opposition.It must be worse
now with all the "red tape" and the 'elf & safety mob.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2