Filmmakers Lament Extinction of Film Prints

Film Jobs Decline As Digital Distribution

With the conversion of theaters in the U.S. almost complete, the end of movies on film is in sight

Significant cost savings in distribution drove studios to embrace digital projection of movies. Creatives still debate the technical advantages of digital vs. the romanticism of film, and preservationists fret over the fate of cinema classics. But with the conversion of theaters in the U.S. almost complete, the end of movies on film is in sight.

(From the pages of the April 16 issue of Variety.)

Martin Scorsese is holed up in an editing bay racing to finish cutting his latest film, “The Wolf of Wall Street.” But he’s not too busy to take a break before a family gathering to reflect on a profound and emotional milestone looming for him and the entire movie industry: the end of film.

The Oscar-winning director and impassioned film preservationist recalls a seminal moment from his childhood that sent him on his life’s path. He was 5 years old watching a black-and-white 1930s cartoon being screened at a family friend’s house in Brooklyn when he peered into the projector and saw the tiny images mechanically pass through the gate.

“That was, for me, a kind of mystical moment. That surprise, that pleasure, that urge to create movement somehow happened then and it continues today,” he says. “I grew up on celluloid.”

Little did Scorsese know then that some six decades later, film prints — which have defined motion pictures for more than a century — would be nearing extinction as the digital delivery of movies takes hold around the world.

“There’s a sadness about it, a sense of loss, certainly,” Scorsese says in a phone interview with Variety. “There was a sensual pleasure just watching celluloid … I loved being part of it.”

Scorsese, however, is no luddite, and like many of his fellow filmmakers has come to embrace the digital advances in theater projection as well as production. Filmmaking itself is evolving thanks to the creative possibilities that only digital projection offers — 3D, high or variable film rates, and more. Scorsese shot half of “Wolf of Wall Street” on digital because the medium needs far less light than film, an ideal situation for the streets of New York, the director says. He also opted to make his first family film, “Hugo,” in 3D, which relied on digital projection.

Of course, director James Cameron and his longtime producing partner Jon Landau are making movies that depend on digital technology both in the camera and at the theater. Digital projectors are more than just a replacement for film; they’ve proven to be an entirely new platform that opened up creative possibilities for filmmakers.

“We could never put high-quality 3D on the screen on film,” Landau says. The “Avatar” sequels, which the filmmaking partners are currently developing, will be shot at a high frame rate — another technology that is impractical on 35mm.

(Pictured Above: The Rise and Fall of Film: From the beginnings of flexible film to the dominion of digital – Click here to view full-size image.)

Still, there are holdouts, among them director Christopher Nolan, who remain committed to the film experience. Nolan simply isn’t satisfied with the quality of digital projection at the current standard, 2K resolution, which has only slightly more pixels than high-definition TV. “I think at a point where studios try to force theaters into converting by actually withdrawing film prints, that’s a very dangerous situation,” he cautions. “Because it means the vast majority of theaters will be showing something that frankly isn’t much better than what you can get in your house.”

Nolan maintains that 35mm prints offer “a depth to the image that digital formats don’t have. “You’re allowed to be in the world that is being projected in a profound way,” he says. “And, it’s what’s always distinguished the theatrical experience from the home entertainment experience.”

While many share Nolan’s and Scorsese’s deep appreciation for watching movies on film, the Hollywood studios, theater owners and technology companies have worked together — harmoniously, and then sometimes not — to push digital projection to the forefront as a more cost-effective way to get movies before audiences.

According to the National Assn. of Theatre Owners, 86% of the nearly 40,000 screens in the U.S. and Canada have already converted to digital, with the remaining 14% continuing to shrink.

SEE MORE: Victim of Its Success: Film’s Last Surge Plants Seeds of Its Demise

Two years ago at CinemaCon, NATO’s president John Fithian stated that the end of 35mm print distribution would come by the end of this year. His bold prediction was based, in part, on a letter 20th Century Fox had sent to exhibitors in 2011 saying it would stop distributing film “within the next year or two.” Disney had sent a similar letter to theater operators months earlier, advocating for digital conversion.

Neither Fithian nor any distributor is willing to wager exactly when the studios will deliver their final 35mm prints. Odds are that before the end of the year, one or more will decide that the meager returns from 35mm screens simply don’t justify the cost of prints, particularly for their tentpole releases. A candidate that makes the most sense is Lionsgate, which could (although it’s made no such commitment) debut its highly anticipated sequel “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” in digital on Nov. 22.

Right now, though, it’s a wait-and-see game for the studios.

Jobs on the Cutting-Room Floor

Billions of dollars have been spent on the transition to digital, in anticipation that more billions will be saved for studios in the long run. Eventually, when satellite distribution of movies becomes a reality, the cost of striking and delivering one print — which is about $1,000 — could be reduced to $100 or less.

But such savings come with another kind of cost: the human toll it takes on the thousands of people who either have already lost their jobs or are at risk of doing so in a soon-to-be all-digital world. Theaters that can’t afford to convert to digital — which costs approximately $70,000 per screen — will shut down, putting ushers, concession stand workers, ticket sellers and other staffers on the street.

Technicolor and Deluxe have already laid off thousands. Fujifilm has exited the motion picture film business, leaving only Kodak distributing 35mm film stock in North America. And, the Rochester, N.Y., company is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and has also pinkslipped thousands of workers.

SEE MORE: As Film Labs Wind Down Prints Business, Job of Preservation Falling to Archivists

Still, studios fear that if they stop delivering film prints entirely, they’d be leaving money on the table, especially outside the U.S. Nearly 60% of theaters in Latin America are still projecting film. Asian markets, however, are at the forefront of digital conversion, and with burgeoning local infrastructures, the new theaters are built to accommodate digital. Some territories are already fully digital, including Norway and the Netherlands. In total, the international market has 53,366 digital screens, which represents 61% of the total 87,063 overseas.

In this country, there are many commercially viable analog theaters still in operation. Consider DreamWorks Animation’s release last year of “Rise of the Guardians”: Though the film was a box office disappointment and lost money due to its high cost of production and marketing, it crossed the $100 million mark in ticket sales largely because of an extended lifeline from subrun print cinemas.

That said, the grosses from 35mm screens on DWA’s recent release, “The Croods” — the last movie to be released at 4,000 theaters or more — were marginal compared with those coming from digital theaters; the pic’s $43.6 million opening weekend saw just $1.3 million, or about 3%, contributed by film-based venues.

The digital revolution was what the studios wanted all along; it was distributors, not exhibitors, who wanted to be finished with film. In fact, the studios agreed to subsidize exhibitors’ cost of digital conversion via virtual print fees.

Yet the imminent end to the delivery and exhibition of 35mm has become a sensitive issue for everyone. No distributor is willing to kick up bad press for being the first to drop film. Distributors and studios are also worried about lawsuits by exhibs that can’t afford to convert, and as a result would be put out of business. On behalf of exhibitors, Fithian insists NATO is trying not to hasten the issue, either.

“It’s in our interest to have film exist for as long as possible. Having dual inventory means that all of our theaters can play movies,” Fithian tells Variety. “In estimating dates, we’re arming exhibitors with information to prepare themselves for the transition.”

Since the deadline for signing new virtual print fee deals expired last September (for drive-ins it expires in June), most smaller theater owners yet to convert now are left weighing their options: Convert or close.

“I thought a good number of the smaller accounts were going to go out of business,” says Robert Milgram, an East Coast booking agent, who represents mostly small theaters (with a total of 220 screens). “As it turns out, they’re converting, but it’s tough.”

Milgram says drive-ins (he represents 16) are finding it hard to secure bank loans in time to meet the June VPF deadline. “A lot of these guys are going through denial,” says Milgram. “Some of the guys are just trying to make it through the summer on 35mm and brace for the fall.”

The indie sector also could be hit hard if arthouse theaters are forced to close, though some small towns like Red Bank, N.J., are fundraising to keep their local theaters (in the case of Red Bank, the Count Basie Theater) up to date or alive.

The majors, who at one time seemed ready to trumpet the completion of the digital transition, have instead decided to pass the buck. They’re balking at providing any specific date as to when they’ll stop distributing film; instead they say the availability of film stock will be the deciding factor.

Most of the studios have stockpiled enough 35mm print stock to last two to nine months, depending on the orders. Universal has the largest reserve, according to one source, while Paramount has none. Studio sources also say they expect the price of a print to skyrocket, from roughly $1,000 per print to $1,600 or more. In fact, the cost of film stock has seen at least three price hikes within the last 18 months.

Kodak Keeps the Faith

Kodak isn’t sticking to the party line. According to the film manufacturer, it’s still producing billions of feet of 35mm stock a year and turning a profit from it — so much so that its 35mm business is a key part of the company’s plan to emerge from bankruptcy. Kodak has been focused on trimming costs — and workers — from its production line in Rochester so it can keep the price of stock reasonable as orders shrink.

As for that big bump in the price for a print, Wayne Martin, Kodak’s film manufacturing-flow manager, insists, “We’re not going to drive a 60% increase in the cost of a print being struck from a Kodak film supply standpoint.” That means the first digital-only releases could come while Kodak is still happily filling orders for 35mm print stock.

The cost of film could also see a major increase overseas: There is only one major lab left in Europe, and it’s unlikely to last through the year. If that happens, countries like Italy and Spain, at only 40%-50% digital deployment, will have to begin importing film from smaller regional labs outside Europe.

SEE MORE: Jobs Jolted by Celluloid Sayonara

According to one studio source, Kodak has promised to let the studios know before it decides if and when it discontinues film production.

In truth, as long as the distributors are still paying virtual print fees, which cost an average $900 per key, there’s little difference for them between the cost of a film print and a Digital Cinema Package (DCP, i.e., digital print). But once all VPF deals evaporate over the next seven to eight years, the studio’s costs for a DCP will plummet. And with satellite distribution, already facilitated by the newly formed Digital Cinema Distribution Coalition, the cost of producing and distributing a DCP will dwindle to $100. At that point, 35mm prints will no longer be economically justifiable for studios.

“This is an industrywide initiative, and it always has been,” maintains DCDC consultant Randy Blotky. “I’ve treated that with great respect in all of our dealings with content-providers and exhibitors.”

For Nolan, the focus on costs is misplaced, even if the savings from digital are real. “This is a professional format. This is about putting on a show,” he says. “It shouldn’t be about the cheapest, the most convenient, it should be about what’s best.”

But the urge to cut costs is nothing new in Hollywood, and it quietly drove the evolution of film — and the look of the movies — long before anyone could imagine a replacement. After the 1940s, for instance, less silver was used in emulsions as a cost-saving measure, with the result being the blacks in films became less striking.

As print orders went up and the time to fulfill them went down, the quality of film prints declined. Filmmakers and the studios had long complained of crummy projection at theaters, and theater owners griped about receiving crummy prints.

These are precisely some of the problems the transition to digital cinema is supposed to correct.

“Digital (has) a certain level of consistency that sometimes didn’t exist because film prints are physical, they get beat up and sometimes are not replaced on a proper schedule,” says Stephen Lighthill, president of the American Society of Cinematographers.

But Nolan doubts that advantage means much. “The multiplexing of the past 20 years has meant that prints don’t stay in movie theaters very long anyway,” he says, “so that’s not anything like the issue it was 30 years ago.” Still, prod a movie pro, and you’re likely to hear some tale of woe from a recent 35mm showing at a multiplex: purple fog from a safe light in the lab, a scratch through an entire reel, or worse.

Film vs. Digital

The larger question is whether the rock-solid, razor-sharp images that come from a digital projector are a plus or a minus.

“(Film) has an immersive quality, and frankly, a feel to it, a romanticism if you like, that hasn’t yet been equaled by any form of digital projection,” says Nolan. “There’s a depth to the image that digital formats don’t have.”

Cinematographer John Bailey agrees that projected 35mm “seems to have a kind of animation and life to it — a breathing quality. It has to do a lot with the film grain; it has to do a lot with the projection shutters and the fact that every frame in a film print is completely distinct.”

Digital also has as many fans as foes.

But even someone as rabid about digital technology as Landau, who for years has helped facilitate Cameron’s tech-forward pictures, acknowledges that filmmakers who enlist it have a responsibility to make sure the quality is topnotch.

“Digital empowers us and it challenges us because you can get away with less,” Landau says. “3D and high-frame-rate and digital exacerbate everything. The good looks better and the bad looks worse. So we have to have an even higher standard with the quality we’re delivering.”

Bailey also worries that once “films” become digital data, their corporate distributors will gain more power to alter the content, even after the picture is in release. Indeed, Bailey thinks that was part of the studios’ plan all along. “I don’t think this bodes well for the creative community actually,” Bailey says. “For me as a filmmaker, as opposed to a film financier or distributor, it’s worrisome. I don’t know that this is something that is going to jump at us right away, but it’s an inevitable kind of temptation for the distributors.”

For those films already fixed on celluloid, there’s a different problem: Once theaters are all digital, how will prints be seen? What’s more, how will they be preserved?

Despite their varied feelings about digital cinema, Scorsese, Nolan and Landau share a common concern: What will happen to more than 100 years’ worth of movies that live only on film? Without film, will cinema dissect itself from its own past?

“The problem is as the prints disappear, the world of the film collectors disappears,” Scorsese says. “So there are not going to be any more film depots, no more warehouses where there are old prints. It means really the end of a sort of accidental film preservation.”

On this score, Nolan, Scorsese and Landau are united: The digital transition demands that the entire industry take action to ensure legacy titles are not just preserved in vaults, but available for viewing in the same form they were seen in originally.

“I think the answer is making sure as an industry that we preserve the infrastructure needed to continue to show library titles as they were created by the filmmakers of the past,” Landau says. He argues for keeping 35mm projectors in many projection booths, and for keeping enough film stock around so that new prints can be struck when needed. (Fujifilm set aside a considerable reserve before it discontinued its film operation last month.)

Nolan agrees: “Even if it’s not the revenue driver for (the studios), it’s incredibly important that film fans get to see films they love from the past in a theatrical setting.”

Whatever happens with preservation and library titles, the end of film prints for new releases appears certain, a fact that Scorsese seems resigned to — but optimistic about as well.

“All things must pass, to be philosophical about it,” he says. “History of cinema is always changing. And now that there’s a big technological change, you can feel sad about what’s past, but I must say, it’s very exciting.”

Related Stories:

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 6

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Jesse Skeen says:

    Here’s a thought- since studios are saving a ton of money by no longer making and shipping film prints, and theaters don’t have to pay anybody to run them as digital systems run everything automatically, shouldn’t ticket prices be going DOWN as a result?

  2. Andrew Ward says:

    Greetings from Spain, where a local exhibitor is running a series of classics ‘En Espectacular 35mm !’. Making a virtue out of a necessity ?

  3. knighp01 says:

    Sorry for a bit of self plugging, but I have just launched a website called “We Can Still Show Film” – which aims to record all the venues, people and companies worldwide who are able to still show film. It is a free site to use. I understand the change to digital but know that there is still going to be a requirement for film expertise for a while to come.

  4. It is real simple people. Shoot it on any film format Super 8mm, 16mm, Super 16mm or if you have a decent budget 35mm and if you’re Coppola or Spielberg 65mm then transfer it to digital for a composite Master and for the distributors who would normally have to risk millions on thousands of 35mm or 70mm prints. That is if there are still any major house film projectors in operation. It is not digital or film. It is shoot on film and distribute on digital. That is the beautiful future. If we filmmakers compromise half way then more distributors will give us a deal as long as they don’t have to spend all that money of thousands of prints. Remember it is the film business. Not the film warm and fuzzy feeling association. It is a business and the core of any business is to make more money than spent. To shoot digital is too risky look what happened with Toy Story. Millions were spent on the production and then it was all accidentally erased. If someone on the production team had not had a back up copy at their house (by chance) then it would have meant disaster for producer and distributors and the investors. I personally would rather see one of the majors put more money into TV advertising than in prints. It the new way and it is better than the old way. So let us stop the division among ourselves and agree to shoot it on film and distribute it on digital. If you look at producer directors like Cameron and Lucas who now only shoot on digital, you also will see that they spend a fortune on these movies anyway. They prefer digital for artistic and other reasons like no blur when the action on scene is fast because it was shot to the equivalent of what would be sixty frames per second. But to me that is a pale comparison to what film even at 24fps has to offer from a look (overall) perspective. If you ever went to one of my late friend Brian England’s (A.C.E.) film and digital side by side comparison you would in no way choose to shoot on digital. There was no competition, digital looked like what it is and that is video and film looked like what it is and that is FILM!!! Digital shooting is still good for TV small screen or computer monitor so what difference does that make. But the theatrical screen belongs to film other wise it is like popcorn without the butter, salt and scent. Yeah you may be eating popcorn but there is the cost of taste flavor and joy. Also as technology changes in digital so does how you shoot it on digital what was good yesterday may not be workable tomorrow. Just shoot it on film and have it distributed on digital a perfect marriage.

  5. Chicago Joe says:

    Most people do not realize that film prints no longer look as good as they could because nearly all post production is done in the digital domain and then transferred back to film. So even though modern film stocks are terrific, even a movie shot on film and shown on film goes through a huge bottleneck in terms of resolution when posted digitally, particularly at 2K resolution.

    Each step of a purely film workflow (negative, interpositive, printing negative, print) takes a hit on resolution but there is so much on a 35mm negative that it can withstand this and a well-photographed film with decent lab work can produce terrific looking prints. But with digital post production, when you transfer to digital and take a huge hit on resolution. When you put it back on film and still have to go through these steps to make release prints, you end up with a print that may not look as good as the digital presentation. It absolutely won’t look as good if it was purely film from end to end.

    But why talk about quality when it’s all about money.

    Digital projection represents a big transference of costs from distributors to exhibition. Only this first generation of projection is subsidized by the studios’ virtual print fees — handing over money they didn’t have to spend on film prints (so, in effect, costing them nothing). Digital projectors are more computer than anything else and can be expected to become obsolete only a little less quickly than PC’s. Compare that to film projectors which last many decades. With film, the technology is in the lens and the film emulsion. So a projector made in the 1940’s, equipped with the latest sound reader, a modern lens, and playing a current movie, will put on a presentation that is completely state of the art. ”

    There are, or should I say were, film projectors whose makers went out of business in the fifties for which you could still obtain brand new parts. That’s because it was a matter of gears and shafts and so forth and a small machine shop could run off batches for certain popular models. This will not be true for digital projectors. Once the manufacturer decides enough time has elapsed and discontinues supporting a model, that’s it. It’s all proprietary circuit boards and chips. No one else can make them. So these very expensive machines will have to be replaced on a fairly regular interval. Going forward, it will be entirely on exhibition’s dime. I presume they have crunched the numbers and found it works out in their favor. Let us hope so.

    It’s interesting to note that while small exhibitors have no say in this matter, if even one of the largest chains had said, no we are not doing this, it would not be happening. But that would have been a difficult position to stake out as the competition would mock them as old fashion because in the public’s mind, anything digital is automatically better.

  6. There is nothing like seeing Nolan’s Batman movies in a theater and in IMAX especially. The amount of visual detail in IMAX is amazing. The last 35mm print I saw projected was of Skyfall on opening day. It looked terrible–a green tint in a car driving scene made me think it was a digital artifact and the view of Scotland was dreadfully dull. I saw the digital version at a different theater and it was gorgeous. I felt the print wasn’t properly made and color corrected–and the theater I saw it at was pretty lousy projecting it, anyway.

    I did see Fathom Event’s presentation of Casablanca and was impressed at how well it looked. The only blip I noticed was a scene with pixelation noise in the contrasts in Bogart’s hair–something I had witnessed a lot watching B&W films using satellite TV. (I did learn later that Fathom did satellite broadcast the movie at HD resolution). Otherwise, it looked as good as film.

    I did poster work on Jay Woelfel’s Season of Darkness and he specifically wanted the look of film so he shot it and did all the post on 35mm film “To pay homage to past tales of the macabre, Season of Darkness was exclusively produced on 35mm film to enhance the dark and moody atmosphere of the film.”

    I discussed with him about adding this to the poster as a marketing point, but we had trouble coming up with the correct terminology to use (or I disagreed with the director) to say this succinctly, finally deciding on “Entirely Produced on 35mm Film,”

    Then I had to laugh at myself when I finally saw The Dark Knight Rises on DVD and at the very end of the credits, it’s all spelled out perfectly: “This Motion Picture was Shot and Finished on Film.”

    Close to what the Director wanted to use. So much for my marketing know-how.

More Film News from Variety