I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.
It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy
No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.
Ok? That’s a moot point tho
No, it’s not. gmarsh1996 is trying to understand why users in this community go through the trouble of reapplying a 35mm color palette and grainy texture— byproducts of the only available delivery format available in 2004– to a digitally sourced movie that was never intended to be visually presented that way. You thought his point was that the filmmakers never intended to show the movie on analog film in theaters, which is not what he said.
He’s questioning the altering of the movie’s visual quality because, as I stated in the last post, had digital projection been available at the time of the film’s release, it absolutely would have been presented that way since slightly altered colors and a dip in sharpness and resolve are anomalies the filmmakers would have preferred sidestepping altogether. Hope that clears things up.
Ok sure, but still, the first question they asked was why have a digitally created movie on 35mm.
Correct, that’s how he phrased it, before clarifying that he wants to understand why users “feel the need to recreate the film feel,” not literally “Why put a digital film on 35mm?” He even points out that was done “because of necessity,” so he clearly knows why.
littlejoe416 said:
Digital projection isn’t relevant to the history of this movie regarding how it was shown in theaters
Yes, it is. The abscense of that option is, anyway. Once again: had it been available, the movie likely would’ve gone straight to digital and not 35mm. The only reason I bring this up at all is because the discrepancies typical of that format conversion would betray the filmmakers’ original intent, which was gmarsh1996’s whole point in the first place; why take the time to re-create a look that was a byproduct of converting digital film to analog and goes against what the filmmakers intended when they colored and graded the movie in an all-digital environment?
That is what he’s trying to understand, and why I brought the absence of digital projection into this, but we can go back and forth on this forever so let’s forget I ever brought up digital projection. Gone. The fact remains that however different the movie looked on 35mm in palette and texture was not how it was meant to look, and— to finally answer your query, gmarsh1996— recreating that look is most likely fueled by nostalgia and a fascination with how a personal favorite may have looked when it first played in theaters. You’ll find tons of projects like that on OriginalTrilogy, and there will likely be plenty more to come in the future.
littlejoe416 said:
nevermind whether the filmmakers would have preferred digital or not, it wasn’t ever an option to begin with. So that’s why.
Exactly. I repeat: re-creating a look that came out of necessity due to the lack of a digital delivery option, and not creative intent, is what was put into question.