LATEST NEWS

Paramount Pictures Still Releasing Film Version of Nolan's 'Interstellar'

by
January 28, 2014
Source: LA Times

Interstellar

Just over a week ago we learned that Paramount Pictures was moving to an all digital distribution model, with Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues being the last film the studio would distribute on physical film. However, LA Times has learned that certain exceptions will be made to distribute certain movies on celluloid. And one such example shouldn't be all that surprising. Paramount has already agreed to let Christopher Nolan, a proponent of shooting on film, will have Interstellar distributed in digital and film versions when it arrives later this year. It's only right since he shot it on 35mm and IMAX cameras too.

The exceptions will likely only be made for the most high profile filmmakers, or when the studio knows that the cost of film distribution will be worth it. Paramount vice chairman said, "Although we anticipate the majority of the studio's future releases to be executed in digital formats across the U.S., select exceptions will be made." At least we know that something as promising as Nolan's Interstellar will still be shown on film, but the move to digital is inevitable. In many ways it's sad, but with only 8% of theaters in the country not updated to show digital screenings, it's only a matter of time before film becomes even more obsolete.

Find more posts in Movie News

Discover more on ZergNet:

  • Nielsen700
    That's kewl.
  • conradthegreat
    Best movie news ever....
    • Guest
      I can't even think of a theater where I live that still projects film....it's the best news ever if you live in the 1990s.
  • Chris Groves
    Like others have said, the debate of SHOOTING digitally vs film can still be had, and currently, the best film image will edge the best digital image(although the gap is closing quickly, I don't think we've seen a movie shot on the Red Dragon yet) But as far as projection goes, as others have detailed, digital projection is superior in a lot of ways. One poster in the comment section of the original article went into pretty great detail regarding how once the film canister finally gets projected in a theater setting...the result simply isn't the top of the line image you would hope for. I understand the sentimental/nostalgic connection many have with the idea of film...but really, the transition of the industry shouldn't really be considered "sad" news at all. I feel that the people getting all torn up about the transition from film to digital are the same people that might have resisted the transition from black & white to color film. The same "There is an artistry to it that's lost" argument could easily be transposed from film over digital proponents onto black & white vs color discussions. Life is about change, and transitions, and moving forward. Digital is the future, and the future is now.
    • Bo
      Well, I know your well known feelings about digital and film and the future and etc. So be it. They are yours to have. However, I happen to think that you're over reaching with your analogy regarding black and white to color; or even silent movies to sound. I see the from film to digital as being much, much different than those analogies. Of course, there is always a resistence to change of any kind, especially spiritually or philosophically. This is pure aesthetics so therefore, to me, a complete horse of a different color if you will. Because it has to do with aesthetics and is in the eye of the beholder I certainly do not think my over whelming preference for film is sentimental at all. I abhor sentimentality, especially in films...like Rocky, Good Will Hunting, etc. So your arguement with that regard as us film perferrers being sentimental and nostlagic doesn't water for me either. Reminds me of a good and older Bob Dylan song The Times They Are A Changing'. Great song and great stance to have and embrace. Life is indeed about change and transitions and moving forward. Who can argue with that? Even so, I still prefer film over digital and can't see digital ever looking like film. It's different and always will be. But you are right. It's is here now and here to stay. Film is finished. In five years no one, not even Nolan or Tarantino probably although not sure about this, will be shooting on film. Agreed?
    • son_et_lumiere
      the fact that the studio now admit that 'select exceptions will be made' indicates that *shooting* with film still can indeed beat shooting with digital and provide a better end, projected result - for now at least. or that Nolan has a lot of final decisions in his contract! i think it's too easy to dismiss the general film / digital argument as analogous to the black+white / colour argument. there *is* an aspect of artistry, of having an option for how your film finally *looks* being permanently removed, like saying that you no longer have the option to use alternate aspect ratios or different film formats to get a particular look and feel for your film (Wes Anderson's Grand Budapest Hotel, Pablo Larraí's 'No' with Gael Garcia Bernal, filmed in the U-Matic format, etc). but the most films should reach the biggest potential audience. i have no doubt that cinema will move with the times.

FEATURED POSTS

GET MORE NEWS

Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main profile on twitter:
For the news posts only, follow this acct:
Add our feed to your Feedly: follow us in feedly
Subscribe to me on YouTube for interviews 

POPULAR COMMENTS

NEWEST PODCAST

FACEBOOK + LINKS