Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan in 70mm

[Captain Rob]

RobertScorpio wrote:

---

One of the most fascinating threads on this site...love the behind the scenes stuff you folks are texting about...keep it up..

Rob

Hey Rob. It's Rob. Nice to meet you Rob.

[RobertScorpio]

Captain Rob wrote:

---

Hey Rob. It's Rob. Nice to meet you Rob.

Im the Rob from Earth two..LOL..nice to meet you to Rob. We should have a thread like this so we can ask behind the scenes questions..like this one....how much $$$ do theaters get for each ticket? or is their money generated by concessions only?

Rob

[Captain Rob]

RobertScorpio wrote:

---

Im the Rob from Earth two..LOL..nice to meet you to Rob. We should have a thread like this so we can ask behind the scenes questions..like this one....how much $$$ do theaters get for each ticket? or is their money generated by concessions only?

Rob

How do you react if anyone tries to call you "Bob"? Generally I ignore them until they get the message. Otherwise I warn them that I only answer to "Robert" or "Rob". Over the years I've worked with two "Bob"s , and they were both complete idiots. Which is really bad for theatre managers.
As for movie tickets. It can vary wildly. Remember the first 8 - 10 percent goes to state and local sales taxes, depending on your location. The split between the exhibitor (theatre) and the film company is determined by the booking contract. Which can be done on a location by location basis.
In the DFW (Dallas/Ft. Worth) market, contracts were done on a zone basis. The cities were split up into zones usually corresponding to the large shopping malls, where most theatre chains had locations. During my time, the DFW market had a huge presence from UA, General Cinema (GCC), AMC, and Loews. Cinemark, which is headquartered in Dallas, became a major presence around 1990. All of them had at least one theatre in each zone. GCC sometimes had two theatres in a zone. If the first theatre was successful, they'd build a second one nearby. As a general rule, no two theatres in a zone would play the same movie.
The booking contracts were done on a percentage basis. With the film company geting the lion's share; usually 60 - 75 percent. And sometimes more. Usually the theatre got a higher percentage the longer a movie played. In the particularly luctrative zones, the theatre companies might negotiate a lower percentage for themselves to guarantee getting a particular movie versus their competitors. The theatre would make their money if the film had a long run. Sometimes this can get theatres in trouble if they do something illegal. When I was with GCC they had a practice called "guaranteeing grosses" with the film companies. They would guarantee that a certain location would make at least a certain dollar amount and would promise a huge percentage of that amount to the film company. Essentially a bribe.It finally caught up with them the Summer of 1990. Ever heard of a film called "Dick Tracy" with Warren Beatty and Madonna? That movie had been built up all year to be the huge blockbuster of the Summer. It tanked. Just about every GCC location played it. Every location lost money on the extra floor staff that Corporate told us to have on hand. GCC had to pay the film company money that the film never even made. Plus the theatres lost even more money on the films they gave up to play "Dick Tracy". I'm not completely sure but I believe that the government got wind of it and fined GCC even more money. The next year GCC started closing alot of locations, including mine. It took GCC ten years to die but it was that one act that killed them.
In 2002, both Regal Cinemas and UA declared bankruptcy. UA did because they had overextended themselves building new stadium-style theatres. Plus the CEO, Stewart Blair, stole $900 million of a deal with Merrill Lynch to build additional theatres. Regal was just stupid. They were too busy worrying about paperclips, coupons, and pennies from advertising deals than the big picture. They still are. I'm just waiting for Regal Entertainment Group to do something just as stupid.
I've gotta be careful. The Regal assasins might come after me for divulging sensitive data. They consider everything confidential company information.

(Ex United Artists - Regal Entertainment Group employee)

[TServo2049]

Well, I saw TWOK in 70mm. Anthony Pascale of TrekMovie.com moderated; he said it was the only 70mm print in existence, and warned us that it was faded because it was a Metrocolor print. He said that they tried to filter it, but it still looked reddish. Also, the sound was quite shrill - one of the audience members I talked to seemed to think that it was because the print was played back without proper Dolby decoding (meaning that it was unbalanced analog? - the treble was quite high).

I was able to take a video clip of the title off of my friend's digital camera, but it was an old camera so the video clip was a 160x120 MPEG clip. I converted it to XViD and did some resizing and brightness-contrast adjusting just to make it legible. (Surprisingly, this cam-rip didn't pick up the reddish tint of the image, so the color looks more "accurate"...weird.) Finally, there is a visual record of the "II"-less title screen, however crappy it may be..

http://www.supload.com/vid/TWOK-no-II/1393374575/avi/

And here's a still picture:



I should have just used the digital camera or even my cell phone to make a still, but oh well.

Why is it that the 70mm prints lacked the "II", while the trailers and posters had it? I'm guessing that the change was made late enough that the "II"-less version had already been shipped out to make the 70mm blowups (due to the longer lead time), and it was too late to change it for the 70mm.

I am assuming that somewhere down the line, the "II" version was cut into the 35mm negative, which is why the "II"-less version was never seen after the original theatrical run. (Can anybody recall if the no-"II" title was ever on any 35mm prints, or was it only 70mm?)

My theory would explain why even the "original theatrical" Blu-ray has the "II"; the fact that the title was changed probably never crossed Paramount's mind. Perhaps the "II"-less version of the title doesn't even exist in their vaults anymore, or was misplaced somewhere.

[TServo2049]

[Delete this redundant post]

[Therin of Andor]

TServo2049 wrote:

---

Why is it that the 70mm prints lacked the "II", while the trailers and posters had it? I'm guessing that the change was made late enough that the "II"-less version had already been shipped out to make the 70mm blowups (due to the longer lead time), and it was too late to change it for the 70mm.

I can tell you that the original "no II" 70mm prints of ST II were shipped out internationally after the first few weeks' screenings in the USA. In Australia, we got ST II an agonizing three months after the US premiere and we definitely had no "II" for the sneak preview, the premiere and the first few weeks of screenings Down Under.

Note that the novelization has no "II".

Sometimes, in the 70s and 80s, film companies were discouraged from shipping the original heavy reels back to the US after the premieres, to save on freight costs for surplus reels that would be destroyed anyway. That's why many "lost" films end up in countries other than their place of origin.

[Leathco]

I'll prolly never have the chance to see these in 70mm. All the theaters in my area only use 35mm or digital.

However I have a 55 inch HDTV and a nice surround system. Granted, most of what I own is just standard DVD (other that st11 on bluray) and I think it's pretty immersing.

[Epsilon-9]

KHANN!

KHANN!

KHANNN!

KAHHN!


Happy 29th STAR TREK THE WRATH OF KHAN (1982) 6th of June / USA 16th July UK

The 70mm 6trcak DOLBY STEREO prints eat and spit out bluray!

[KarmicCurse]

TWOK will be presented in 70mm at Detroit's restored Redford Theater!

July 22nd at 8:00 pm.
July 23rd at 2:00 pm and 8:00 pm.
Tickets are only $5.00.
http://redfordtheatre.com/movie/

[TServo2049]

Film reviewer Jason Whyte finally took a good photo of the original title screen when he attended the Seattle Cinerama screening of that faded 70mm print. (Well, it was taken with an Android phone, but at least it's high-resolution).

The full-size version can be seen here: http://twitpic.com/bdqpar

Here's a smaller version:



And here's an correction I did to get rid of the red hue of the faded print, and make it look less blown-out and contrasty. You can't see as many of the stars, but oh well:



Thanks again to Mr. Whyte for the photo. Finally, a clear image of the II-less title.

[jayrath]

I just want to say that I think all these accounts by fairly recent film projectionists are fascinating -- and valuable fim history. Forget Star Trek -- I want to hear much more about changes in projection booths and what it's been like. Kudos to all!