Where was the Intermission?
Ronie Mooney
I saw the movie "Titanic" at the theatre only once (unfortunately) but bought
the video as soon as it came out. I noticed the intermission on the video (end
of part 1) is when Capt. Smith turns to Ismay and says, "Well Ismay, I think you
may get your headlines" (a very appropriate break IMO). The first video is 1:49
long....anyway, I cannot remember where the theatrical version split...I think
it was about the time Roses mother was urging her to get into the lifeboat but I
cannot remmeber for certain...Does anyone know or did each theatre split it up
differently or maybe some not at all? Thanks for your info...
Dave
Gina
was there an intermission. That was a dinner theater, though, so I
expected it. The break was in the same place as in the video. I assume
from this that it was different from theater to theater.
--
it's...Gina
"Elvis has not only left the building, HE IS DEAD!!!"
Richard Hopkins
Ronie Mooney wrote in message <75tm5e$tm9$1...@news3.infoave.net>...
>anyway, I cannot remember where the theatrical version split...I think
>it was about the time Roses mother was urging her to get into the lifeboat
but I
>cannot remmeber for certain...Does anyone know or did each theatre split it
up
>differently or maybe some not at all?
Titanic is a 10 reeler, so technically at least there were nine splits.
However, all good theaters would have assembled these into a single
contiguous platter, and even older twin projector ones should have manages
seamless changeovers. Titanic is not intended to have an intermission in the
theater and you shouldn't have seen one...
Richard Hopkins,
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
Send all my spam to: r...@totally.buggered.org
ShadowStarŠ
number) and there was never an intermission.
Louis Epstein
:
: Ronie Mooney wrote in message <75tm5e$tm9$1...@news3.infoave.net>...
: >anyway, I cannot remember where the theatrical version split...I think
: >it was about the time Roses mother was urging her to get into the lifeboat
: but I
: >cannot remmeber for certain...Does anyone know or did each theatre split it
: up
: >differently or maybe some not at all?
:
: Titanic is a 10 reeler, so technically at least there were nine splits.
: However, all good theaters would have assembled these into a single
: contiguous platter, and even older twin projector ones should have manages
: seamless changeovers. Titanic is not intended to have an intermission in the
: theater and you shouldn't have seen one...
Ummm...professional projectionists are disgusted by platters.
I had earfuls of this years ago...
Richard Hopkins
Louis Epstein wrote in message ...
>Ummm...professional projectionists are disgusted by platters.
...Only because it gives them less opportunity to demonstrate their
professionalism, and slashed the number of projection staff necessary to run
a theater.
As far as the audience is concerned, you get a perfect changeover every time
with plated film, so it's a no-brainer. As far as the theater owners are
concerned, they need fewer projectors and fewer staff to run them... Equally
simple.
Yavaz
so you could put in the second video tape. Remember, the film is 3+ hours long and
is divided up onto 2 tapes. If its on 2 tapes, the first tape has to stop
somewhere in the film. There is no intermission. There wasn't one in the
theater. If there was an intended intermission, typically the videos include
intermission music as did "Gone with the Wind" and "Sound of Music", etc.
Richard Hyland
are you saying that the film is on two videos.
My version is on ONE cassette
Richard
http://www.kate-winslet.org
Yavaz wrote in message <3686E72B...@yavaz.com>...
Tom Pappas
<768h6u$hc2$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>I'm sorry if this is just me being stupid (no responses to that please) but
>are you saying that the film is on two videos.
>
>My version is on ONE cassette
>
>Richard
So - they stuck you with the short version, eh?
(Actually, due to differences in video technology, the PAL version comes on
one tape, and the NTSC is on two. Richard Hopkins' comprehensive technical
explanation can be found in this NG's archives.)
--
Could the collision be avoided?
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1/collision.html
Hitting the iceberg head-on
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1/headon.html
How many could have been saved?
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1/lifeboat.html
A tale of two icebergs
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1/icebergs.html
Could the ship have been kept afloat?
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1/pump.html
How many could Californian have saved?
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1/californian.html
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
Yavaz
All the official VHS video cassettes of James Cameron's "Titanic" came on 2
video tapes.
Mark
Richard Hyland wrote:
> I'm sorry if this is just me being stupid (no responses to that please) but
> are you saying that the film is on two videos.
>
> My version is on ONE cassette
>
> Richard
Richard Hyland
mentioned earlier that it is probably due to PAL making the film slightly
shorter!
Richard
http://www.kate-winslet.org
Yavaz wrote in message <3687EAFD...@yavaz.com>...
Tom Pappas
itself does not explain the difference in number of cassettes.
--
Could the collision be avoided?
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1/collision.html
Hitting the iceberg head-on
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1/headon.html
How many could have been saved?
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1/lifeboat.html
A tale of two icebergs
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1/icebergs.html
Could the ship have been kept afloat?
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1/pump.html
How many could Californian have saved?
http://home.earthlink.net/~tomswift1/californian.html
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
Richard Hyland wrote in message
<769937$r0c$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>...
Richard Hyland
cassette and 189 minutes (due to the PAL shortening)
Richard
http://www.kate-winslet.org
Tom Pappas wrote in message <76au2n$m0k$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Richard Hopkins
Richard Hyland wrote in message
>All I can tell you is that over here in the UK ALL Titanic videos are on
ONE
>cassette and 189 minutes (due to the PAL shortening)
As Tom mentions, there is more to it than simply the PAL time compression.
NTSC VHS tapes run faster as well, meaning you need a longer piece of tape
for a certain amount of running time. To fit more tape in a VHS cassette
body, the tape structure itself has to be made thinner, weakening it. This
makes high speed duplication more problematic and the finished cassette
becomes more fragile and wears more quickly. Thus the decision was made to
split the film and sell it on two tapes.
Janetamb
>number) and there was never an intermission.
>
>
In NYC I saw it three times in the theater. Never an intermission. I made sure
I didn't drink a thing for two hours before. :)
janet
Ronnie Clark
per seconds, whereas PAL only runs at 25 frames per second, so and NTSC runs
at a whopping 44% faster speed than our PALs do, so the tapes are only two
thirds the length.
Also, the PAL shortening on Titanic runs to 7 minutes 45 seconds. This is
because the film original runs at only 24 frames per second, so it is a lot
easier to copy the film frame for frame onto tape and let it run at 25fps.
Otherwise, you would have to do a lengthy correction routine whilst
transferring.
However, as NTSC runs at 36fps, this run-time correction is a necessity,
which is also why a film takes a lot longer to come out on video in the US
than it does in the UK.
Fred Tepper
In case anyone is still reading this thread and saw this last post
(above), you might be interested to know that all the info on NTSC is
incorrect. The paragraph in the middle about PAL may be right, but the
rest isn't. The last line is especially the funniest.
--
-=Fred=-
http://www.stationxstudios.com
-.-. --.- -.. -- --. -.--
Remove the x in the address to respond.
Richard Hopkins
Ronnie Clark wrote in message <76ts0j$fmi$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>The problem with the NTSC version is this: an NTSC tape contains 36
>frames per seconds
No, NTSC runs at 30 frames (60 fields) per second.
>whereas PAL only runs at 25 frames per second, so and NTSC runs
> at a whopping 44% faster speed than our PALs do, so the tapes are only
>two thirds the length.
Er, no...
>However, as NTSC runs at 36fps, this run-time correction is a necessity,
>which is also why a film takes a lot longer to come out on video in the US
>than it does in the UK.
<g> That's a patent load of rubbish. Authoring an NTSC video transfer from
24 fps film takes no longer than running a PAL one... The 3/2 pulldown is
easy, and automatic. No more difficult than cranking the filmed input up to
25 fps for a PAL transfer...
In any case, in the *overwhelming* majority of cases, films are released on
video far earlier in the US than in the UK. (FYI, Titanic was released on
VHS on Sep 1 '98 in the USA, Oct 12 (IIRC) in the UK.)
Whatever you were taking when you wrote this post, I hope it was worth
whatever you paid for it!
Richard Hopkins,
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
Send all my spam to: duise...@reichstag.org