One Battle After Another (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2025)

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

It really is unfortunate that they've manage to make something as laudable as actual film screenings for the heads into this weird gatekept free-for-all. Don't forget of course there is also a 1.85:1 35mm/digital print as well. Nevertheless looking forward to seeing something next week.

I don't think there actually are any standard (i.e., non-VistaVision) 35mm prints. The press materials from WB only mention the three large formats and I haven't read anything elsewhere about a standard 35mm release. There's a couple of venues I know would jump right on a 35mm print that are only showing DCPs. It's a shame since there are lots of cities and towns with 35mm venues but no options for 70mm, IMAX or otherwise.

[Zot!]

It really is unfortunate that they've manage to make something as laudable as actual film screenings for the heads into this weird gatekept free-for-all. Don't forget of course there is also a 1.85:1 35mm/digital print as well. Nevertheless looking forward to seeing something next week.

Are there actually any standard (i.e. non-VistaVision) 35mm prints? I haven't read anything about that and there are venues I know would jump at the chance to show it on 35mm that are playing DCPs instead, like the Texas Theatre in Dallas (which is even screening prints of Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love this month). I hope it isn't the case that WB are only doing large-format prints—Dallas actually has a 15/70 screen, but there are lots of places where the only film option is 35mm.

Sorry to mislead...standard 35mm is NOT being promoted as a viewing option from what I can tell. I think the 1.85:1 is mostly referring to digital. I got the 1.85:1 35mm/digital designation from a cinematography forum. Perhaps they are mistaken, or there might be a few prints in play just to cover any far-flung locales which still might only project 35mm. Honestly it would have been more sensible for it to be be a VistaVision + standard 35mm roadshow, but I guess people probably only queue up for 70mm and IMAX.

[therewillbeblus]

Review embargo has been lifted and this is expectedly getting near-perfect marks

[okcmaxk]

Preaching to the choir, but I hope this makes Sinners-tier money. Not sure WB knows what they've got, marketing's been scatterbrained. Probably the most excited I've been to see something in years.

[therewillbeblus]

They're clearly scraping at the walls to market last minute. Leo even launched a YT channel, which he first played off in an interview as being primarily to promote his philanthropic work to get recognition out there in addition to the film, but then when asked another question, his response was something like, 'Who knows what else they'll make me do to promote this movie.' Being such a private person, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes it down as soon as this leaves theatres

[domino harvey]

Review embargo has been lifted and this is expectedly getting near-perfect marks

I’m not sure I can remember the last time we saw such remarkable and consistently effusive responses. Critics don’t just love it, they’re basically all calling it an instant classic

[domino harvey]

Also the Letterboxd review spread is hilarious

[therewillbeblus]

Review embargo has been lifted and this is expectedly getting near-perfect marks

I’m not sure I can remember the last time we saw such remarkable and consistently effusive responses. Critics don’t just love it, they’re basically all calling it an instant classic

The last movie I can think of is Boyhood

[Never Cursed]

Review embargo has been lifted and this is expectedly getting near-perfect marks

I’m not sure I can remember the last time we saw such remarkable and consistently effusive responses. Critics don’t just love it, they’re basically all calling it an instant classic

Just using Metacritic as a metric (not saying it's a good one, just using it) Boyhood, Moonlight, Parasite, and Roma all did about as well when the reviews dropped. Anyone who was following the awards season during those years surely remembers how inescapable and successful they were. Of course, none of these were giant action blockbusters with Leo and Sean Penn.

[domino harvey]

Let’s hope it’s less Boyhood and more the rest so PTA gets his Oscar(s?)

[Never Cursed]

Alana Haim's character is named Mae West, while Wood Harris' is named Laredo. Junglepussy appears to be playing herself, or a character also named "Junglepussy."

Which lengthy, auteurist, swing-for-the-fences California epic featuring Wood Harris as a militant left-wing activist with a weird name will be better, this or Southland Tales? (If you answered Southland Tales...uh...)

[pistolwink]

Does anyone know if the VistaVision and/or 70mm prints of this were made without a digital intermediate? IIRC some of the 35mm and 70mm prints of The Master had entirely "analog" workflow, which is extremely rare.

[Never Cursed]

Does anyone know if the VistaVision and/or 70mm prints of this were made without a digital intermediate? IIRC some of the 35mm and 70mm prints of The Master had entirely "analog" workflow, which is extremely rare.

The Master has visual effects, as does every PTA film post-Boogie Nights. I think what you’re referring to is that the film was partially edited and color timed without digital tools. Here is a link about some of this.

All of that is to say I doubt the post-production team on a movie of this size, with a significantly larger VFX expenditure than The Master, would spend time making a separate version of the film that VFX didn’t touch just for the sake of making an entirely analog print. You would have to redo a lot of work on the movie, and to what end, especially if the film scans are at a high enough resolution?

[pistolwink]

Ah, thank you for that. I guess I had bought the hype a bit -- or at least bought how the press sometimes rendered "partially edited and color timed without digital tools" into "no digital."

[Zot!]

There was an unsubstantiated (but seemingly informed) comment on cinematography.com that "The VistaVision prints were struck from the original camera negative." PTA even made it a point to say "Seeing Film on Film is the way Nature intended" in his Twitter announcemnt of OBAA, so who knows, but I think you bring up a valid point that contact prints are entirely a thing of the past even when there are no VFX, and also restorations of old films. So why bother with film projection at all?

Edit: A little digging later....From Filmmaker Magazine:

Though Licorice Pizza was cut digitally, the process of blowing up the film to 70mm for release remains a strictly photochemical process: “Once we have the 35mm cut negative, we will do a photochemical color time of that,” Jurgensen says, noting that FotoKem handles all celluloid aspects, from dailies to final prints. “Once we’re happy, we make an interpositive, which then is used to make the 70mm blowup. There have been 70mm prints made of various things—Joker, whatever—but that’s just a digital film out. So, we’re happy that we keep it analog throughout the entire process. The goal is almost no visual effects, so that we can keep the integrity of the negative. So, I know that I’m not going to do a split screen or some speed effect, because it’s not going to fly.”

But then what does "almost no visual effects mean?" That seems to conflict with the previous statement. Maybe just the titles?

[Never Cursed]

There was an unsubstantiated (but seemingly informed) comment on cinematography.com that "The VistaVision prints were struck from the original camera negative." PTA even made it a point to say "Seeing Film on Film is the way Nature intended" in his Twitter announcemnt of OBAA, so who knows, but I think you bring up a valid point that contact prints are entirely a thing of the past even when there are no VFX, and also restorations of old films. So why bother with film projection at all?

Edit: A little digging later....From Filmmaker Magazine:

Though Licorice Pizza was cut digitally, the process of blowing up the film to 70mm for release remains a strictly photochemical process: “Once we have the 35mm cut negative, we will do a photochemical color time of that,” Jurgensen says, noting that FotoKem handles all celluloid aspects, from dailies to final prints. “Once we’re happy, we make an interpositive, which then is used to make the 70mm blowup. There have been 70mm prints made of various things—Joker, whatever—but that’s just a digital film out. So, we’re happy that we keep it analog throughout the entire process. The goal is almost no visual effects, so that we can keep the integrity of the negative. So, I know that I’m not going to do a split screen or some speed effect, because it’s not going to fly.”

But then what does "almost no visual effects mean?" That seems to conflict with the previous statement. Maybe just the titles?

Maybe on that film it was just cleanup? If the thing that the 70mm blowup is made from is an interpositive, they could just splice in the specific shots that have that work. Inherent Vice has one shot with an extremely obvious visual effect plate and matchmove; when I saw it on a 70mm print this summer I kept an eye out for it and I remember the texture of the whole shot looking a little weird.

I doubt there's an "original camera negative" to strike prints from for this new one. That sounds like uninformed website users parroting the language used in Criterion booklets.

[Zot!]

Yeah, I think you're right that it's really just a matter of there being a very small amount of VFX shots in the film, or none at all...from the link above regarding The Master the transfer's supervisor says "there are a grand total of three effects and two optical in the movie" So it's legitimately just inserts like they might do for printed optical effects which are similarly "artificial". But pragmatically it sounds like PTA does a legitimate film to film workflow (including color correction and grading) in parallel with a DCP.

[EddieLarkin]

A cut negative will have all of the visual effects placed in already. They will just be filmouts, spliced in. So you can strike a print direct from the neg and screen it without issue. But obviously any shot that has a visual effect, won't be true OCN (nor could it ever be). This is no different to a cut negative from 50 years ago, it will have all of the non-OCN optical fades and what not spliced in.

[Zot!]

A cut negative will have all of the visual effects placed in already. They will just be filmouts, spliced in. So you can strike a print direct from the neg and screen it without issue. But obviously any shot that has a visual effect, won't be true OCN (nor could it ever be). This is no different to a cut negative from 50 years ago, it will have all of the non-OCN optical fades and what not spliced in.

Yes, that is what I was trying to get at, less authoritatively. That sounds exciting, and they should make a bigger deal of it, but maybe it's too nerdy...or are there other productions still approximating this?

[yoloswegmaster]

I thought the Fortnite news was just a bit

[EddieLarkin]

That sounds exciting, and they should make a bigger deal of it, but maybe it's too nerdy...or are there other productions still approximating this?

No, it's been rare for a long time now for a film to even have a cut negative at all let alone to produce prints from one. As alluded to above with Joker, movies shot on film (and this even goes for Tarantino, excepting The Hateful Eight) are simply scanned in 2K or 4K and all editing and grading is done digitally. Once you have the finished intermediate, in effect a digital cut negative, you can film-out so as to screen prints.

[Never Cursed]

Joker was shot digitally, it was just printed to film.

[GaryC]

Further details about the filming, with details of aspect ratios and formats from Indiewire here. Some of the film was shot in 4-perf Super 35.

Yorgos Lanthimos's new one, Bugonia, was shot in VistaVision and will also be shown in a ratio of 1.50:1 - certainly the trailer I saw recently was. I don't know how 35mm prints will accommodate this - 1.37:1 letterboxed into 1.50:1, or 1.66:1 pillarboxed into 1.50:1? DCPs no problem of course.

[EddieLarkin]

Joker was shot digitally, it was just printed to film.

Thanks, my mistake!

[Farley Flavors]

No, it's been rare for a long time now for a film to even have a cut negative at all let alone to produce prints from one. As alluded to above with Joker, movies shot on film (and this even goes for Tarantino, excepting The Hateful Eight) are simply scanned in 2K or 4K and all editing and grading is done digitally. Once you have the finished intermediate, in effect a digital cut negative, you can film-out so as to screen prints.

True that it's vanishingly rare, but the IMAX prints of Dunkirk, Tenet and Oppenheimer were all struck directly from the 70mm negative. There were also a handful of The Dark Knight prints struck this way for "prestigious locations". The BFI IMAX got one.