2126771831_8be06d84a6_o-56927.jpg
16335_1196409763466_1625148282_517551_4106340_n-56927.jpg

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "jamesa1102" <JamesA1102@...> wrote:
>
>
> I've always thought that Nicolas Cage would make a good Taylor. He may
> not have the physique but he does have the intensity.
>
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@ wrote:
> >
> > ?
> > OK, so who today would make a good Taylor?
> > ?
> > -- Rory?
> >
>

img227-56931.jpg
img226-56931.jpg

img227-56933.jpg
img226-56933.jpg

!Bkhvv,QCGk~$(KGrHqUH-CkEs+T,q!(EBL(5b75F0w~~_3.jpg
!Bkhvv,QCGk~$(KGrHqUH-CkEs+T,q!(EBL(5b75F0w~~_3-56934.jpg
!Bk(3GQ!!2k~$(KGrHqYOKiYEsnul0o3)BL(PPhJzGQ~~_12.jpg
!Bk(3GQ!!2k~$(KGrHqYOKiYEsnul0o3)BL(PPhJzGQ~~_12-56934.jpg

!Bkhvv
!Bk

2397138291_1ea0c8da3d.jpg
2397138291_1ea0c8da3d-56955.jpg
!BkQPrOgBGk~$(KGrHqMH-DMEs71t!jDkBLW0cc4U+w~~_12.jpg
!BkQPrOgBGk~$(KGrHqMH-DMEs71t!jDkBLW0cc4U+w~~_12-56955.jpg

Thanks William. That pic of Cher and the gorillas is great. I remember that skit. I was on their show just two days before Beneath aired on CBS.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, William Burge <billburge48@...> wrote:
>
> dear group, found another planet contact sheet from matt soltis on ebay and a strange photo from a planet skit on the sonny and cher show dated mid 70s- also  on ebay. enjoy from william burge
>

Not the same person but twins seperated at birth! LOL

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, LordTZer0@... wrote:
>
>
> Don't dig too deep Rory.
> You may not like what you find.
> Wouldn't it be ironic if Mike and James
> turned out to be the some person?
> Dun Dun Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!
>
>

How's this?

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "Mfx_specialprojects@..." <mfx_specialprojects@...> wrote:
>
> May day to all pota fans"
> I am in need of any pics that show the bars of the jail cell that held Brent and Taylor in "Beneath the planet of the apes" You all are so good about this type of thing and I just thought I might ask, thank you for any and all help. mfx_specialprojects@...
>
>
> RD
>

> Thanks William. That pic of Cher and the gorillas is great. I remember
> that skit. I was on their show just two days before Beneath aired on
> CBS.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "jamesa1102" <JamesA1102@...> wrote:
> Thanks William. That pic of Cher and the gorillas is great. I remember that skit. I was on their show just two days before Beneath aired on CBS.
>
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, William Burge <billburge48@> wrote:
> >
> > dear group, found another planet contact sheet from matt soltis on
> ebay and a strange photo from a planet skit on the sonny and cher show
> dated mid 70s- also on ebay. enjoy from william burge
> >
>

Yes, didn't you know I was a child star in the early '70s? I was often called the white Rodney Allen Rippy;-)

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "rassmguy" <handleyr@...> wrote:
>
> You were on the show? :)
>
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@... wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The Spirit of Community
> PubliCola (blog)
> ... a 35mm film screening of Planet of the Apes on the same date and at the same time (1/28, 7pm) as SIFF's BluRay screening of the sci-fi classic. ...
> See all stories on this topic
>
>
> Ah, so there was -- and still is -- going to be a showing of the PLANET Blu-ray. (That announcement was very badly written -- which was my point.) Well, even though Blu-ray hasn't the resolution of 35mm, the print (a 35mm one) that's been transferred is mostly certainly cleaner than what they would have gotten from whatever 35mm print they were going to show, and now we'll be able to read what the panalists have to say about the movie.
>
> By the way, James, there is high-definition 35mm film -- it's called 70mm!
>
> -- Rory
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff K." <veetus@...> wrote:
>
> A little biased are we, T?
>
> He may be washed up but "Wall Street 2" is going to rock. Here's the brand new trailer (oh, OT):
>
> http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi875627545/
>
> They remade the damn Fox logo for him. That's Foxese for "He's going to direct "Caesar". : )
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 7:02 AM

Subject: Re: [pota] Re: "Caesar" and Scott Frank

 

and his dog Spot?

 

In a message dated 1/25/2010 12:07:48 P.M. Central Standard Time, pota1968@yahoo. com writes:

Sam Worthington has my vote.

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:40 PM

Subject: [pota] Re: Google alert Planet of the Apes

 

Sorry to post again , but forgot I-max is the highest resolution of them all, but it really only suits action films with its odd dimensions and such. It belongs in Disney Land. John M.

IMAX is 70mm, only it's shot sideways and I forget how many frames per second, higher than 24 fps.

 

Yes, the old "70mm Roadshow" pictures were actually shot in 65mm then printed on 70mm with magnetic sound strips.

 

All of it higher resolution than 35mm, but a "high definition 35mm" could be possible with a super fine grain structure and photographed with really sharp lens -- I would think.

 

-- Rory

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Sorry to post again , but forgot I-max is the highest resolution of them all, but it really only suits action films with its odd dimensions and such. It belongs in Disney Land. John M.
>
>
>
>
>
> IMAX is 70mm, only it's shot sideways and I forget how many frames per second, higher than 24 fps.
>
> Yes, the old "70mm Roadshow" pictures were actually shot in 65mm then printed on 70mm with magnetic sound strips.
>
> All of it higher resolution than 35mm, but a "high definition 35mm" could be possible with a super fine grain structure and photographed with really sharp lens -- I would think.
>
> -- Rory
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, LordTZer0@... wrote:
>
>
> Meh... The guy's a douch.
> Unless he's going to expose
> the Goldman Sachs, AIG Scandal
> and tie in Barney Franks and the
> whole Fannie Freddie Scam? I
> won't bother. But I doubt he
> has the balls to turn on his
> Hollywood cohorts.
>
>
> In a message dated 1/28/2010 3:23:50 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> veetus@... writes:
>
> A little biased are we, T?
>
> He may be washed up but "Wall Street 2" is going to rock. Here's the
> brand new trailer (oh, OT):
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, LordTZer0@... wrote:
>
>
> The Hand? What about Alexander?
> I heard that was actually worse than
> Troy! Now rumor has it they're doing
> The Odyssey and Brad Pitt will play
> Ulysses. I think I'd rather watch the
> Kirk Douglass version ten that.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/28/2010 12:04:53 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> Haristas@... writes:
>
> The director of THE HAND!!!!! THE HAND!!!!! THE HAND!!!!
> AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH AAAA
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "jamesa1102" <JamesA1102@...> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, didn't you know I was a child star in the early '70s? I was often
> called the white Rodney Allen Rippy;-)
>
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "rassmguy" <handleyr@> wrote:
> >
> > You were on the show? :)
> >
> >
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, LordTZer0@... wrote:
>
>
> Now you made me go and look it up. Yesh!
>
> 70 mm film (or 65 mm film) is a wide high-resolution film gauge, with
> higher resolution than standard _35 mm_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm)
> _motion picture film format_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_formats) . As used in camera, the film is 65 mm (2.6 in) wide. For projection,
> the original 65 mm film is printed on 70 mm (2.8 in) film. The additional 5
> mm are for magnetic strips holding four of the six tracks of sound. Although
> more recent 70 mm prints now use digital sound encoding, the vast majority
> of 70 mm prints predate this technology. Each frame is five perforations
> tall, with an _aspect ratio_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)) of 2.20:1. The vast majority of movie theaters are unable to handle 70
> mm film, and so original 70 mm films are shown with 35 mm prints at these
> venues, in the regular _Cinemascope_
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinemascope) / _Panavision_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavision) aspect ratio
> of 2.35:1.
>
>
> In a message dated 1/29/2010 12:02:11 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> johnmermigas@... writes:
>
> Thats true to a point but their was a process that filmed in 65/70mm and
> down sized it to 35mm(some Todd-Ao 35mm) to get the finest grain and
> sharpest picture.
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "JohnM conquest-idor" <johnmermigas@...> wrote:
>
> If the film was exclusivly being played in DTS sound a seperate disc,like a dvd would sinc up with the film for the dvd contained the dts sound. John M.
>

Have to agree. Some of the entries on wikipedia for POTA have been riddled with errors. Plus there is a certain wikipedia user who goes nuts when you correct his entries even though they are wrong.

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "JohnM conquest-idor" <johnmermigas@...> wrote:
>
> Be wary of wikipedia. I enjoy the site but its written by fans and alot of the so-called facts are wrong . Pick a topic that you know for sure(apes for instance) and you will find alot of dicrepinces. John M.
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@... wrote:
>
> It was done for alot of reasons and esprcially for theaters that could not project 70mm films. their were alot of those. John M.
>
> I've never heard of that practice. I can't imagine a studio would spend the money on 65mm negative stock only to release 35mm dupe prints no matter how good the image might look. Somewhere there'd be a 70mm release and then for the majority of theatres released to, which wouldn't have 70mm projectors, they'd reduce to 35mm, but the inherent grain of the film stock would pretty much yield something that looked as if it was shot on 35mm.
>
> You might be thinking of something else. A good place to research this is:
>
> http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
>
> -- Rory
>

>
>
> Have to agree. Some of the entries on wikipedia for POTA have been
> riddled with errors. Plus there is a certain wikipedia user who goes
> nuts when you correct his entries even though they are wrong.
>
>
> --- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "JohnM conquest-idor" <johnmermigas@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Be wary of wikipedia. I enjoy the site but its written by fans and
> alot of the so-called facts are wrong . Pick a topic that you know for
> sure(apes for instance) and you will find alot of dicrepinces. John M.
> >
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Thats true to a point but their was a process that filmed in 65/70mm and down sized it to 35mm(some Todd-Ao 35mm) to get the finest grain and sharpest picture. A professor told me that Conquest was or was to be filmed in that way. It then gives the illusion(though its not an illusion) that its sharper than conventional 70mm. The benefit of 70mm other than the obvious was that a smaller theater could project a larger picture from a closer distance( a smaller throw for the projector). Its a very, very complex topic with the lighting playing a major role along with film stock. John M.
>
>
>
>
>
> I've never heard of that practice. I can't imagine a studio would spend the money on 65mm negative stock only to release 35mm dupe prints no matter how good the image might look. Somewhere there'd be a 70mm release and then for the majority of theatres released to, which wouldn't have 70mm projectors, they'd reduce to 35mm, but the inherent grain of the film stock would pretty much yield something that looked as if it was shot on 35mm.
>
> You might be thinking of something else. A good place to research this is:
>
> http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
>
> -- Rory
>

hopeforabettertomorrow.jpg
3676835449_f218ac8087.jpg
22592-charlton-heston-aux-golden-globes-1967-637x0-1.jpg

>
>
>
> Thats true to a point but their was a process that filmed in 65/70mm and down sized it to 35mm(some Todd-Ao 35mm) to get the finest grain and sharpest picture. A professor told me that Conquest was or was to be filmed in that way. It then gives the illusion(though its not an illusion) that its sharper than conventional 70mm. The benefit of 70mm other than the obvious was that a smaller theater could project a larger picture from a closer distance( a smaller throw for the projector). Its a very, very complex topic with the lighting playing a major role along with film stock. John M.
>
>
>
>
>
> I've never heard of that practice. I can't imagine a studio would spend the money on 65mm negative stock only to release 35mm dupe prints no matter how good the image might look. Somewhere there'd be a 70mm release and then for the majority of theatres released to, which wouldn't have 70mm projectors, they'd reduce to 35mm, but the inherent grain of the film stock would pretty much yield something that looked as if it was shot on 35mm.
>
> You might be thinking of something else. A good place to research this is:
>
> http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
>
> -- Rory
>

>
>
>
> Rory went to that site widescreen museum and on page 6 of the cinemascope section it shows how Fox unveiled its 55mm to 35mm downsizing for a clearer picture. Not exactly what I was talking about but the practice was done also with 65/70mm to 35mm like I was taught. Anyway its fun history, Planet of the Apes was going to be filmed in Cinemascope but changed to the new Panavision for cost sake, but Panavision was better anyway because it was able to use Zeiss lenses and other benefits that escape me now. John M.
>
>
>
>
> I went where? Oh, never mind. Anyway.....
>
>
> Lens manufacturer Panavision was initially founded in late 1953 as a manufacturer of anamorphic lens adapters for movie projectors screening CinemaScope films, capitalizing on the success of the new anamorphic format and filling in the gap created by Bausch and Lomb's inability to mass produce the needed adapters for movie theaters fast enough. Looking to expand beyond projector lenses, Panavision founder Robert Gottschalk soon improved upon the anamorphic camera lenses by creating a new lens set that included dual rotating anamorphic elements which were interlocked with the lens focus gearing. This innovation allowed the Panavision lenses to keep the plane of focus at a constant anamorphic ratio of 2x, thus avoiding the over-stretched "mumps" effect found in CinemaScope. After screening a demo reel comparing the two systems, many US studios adopted the Panavision anamorphic lenses. The Panavision technique was also considered more attractive to the industry because it was more affordable than CinemaScope and was not owned or licensed-out by a rival studio. By the mid-1960s even Fox had begun to abandon CinemaScope for Panavision (famously at the demand of Frank Sinatra for Von Ryan's Express). Fox eventually capitulated completely to third-party lenses by 1967. In Like Flint, a spy spoof with James Coburn, was Fox's final film in CinemaScope.
>
> I got all this from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinemascope
>
> Yes, I use Wiki -- AND I LIKE IT!
>
> Doubt the story about PLANET going to be shot in CinemaScope is true. IN LIKE FLINT was released in March 1967, two months before PLANET started shooting.
>
> -- Rory
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff K." <veetus@...> wrote:
>
> Let's be real. Lucas did change sci-fi. Whatever you think of "Star Wars" (I loved the first two), it created the FX industry and sci-fi franchises as we know them today (with a little help from POTA and "2001: A Space Odyssey"). And with "Jaws" it created the blockbuster factory we enjoy every summer. If it wasn't for "Star Wars" we wouldn't even have POTA2001 so bow your heads and show some respect!!
>
>

--- In pota@yahoogroups.com, LordTZer0@... wrote:
> Perhaps I should have clarified.
> I meant changed it for the better.
> Let's face it, Empire only gave us
> a glimpse of what Star Wars COULD
> have been. But they imaged of Ewoks
> and the agonizing sound of Jar Jar Binks
> were burnt into our respective senses and
> it stinks to this day. I would take a dozen
> steadily deteriorating Apes Sequels over one
> or those Star Wars episodes that was the ruination
> of the entire series. Let's face it! You can't kill enough
> Jawas and Sandmen to come back from that. Ever!
>
>
> In a message dated 1/30/2010 8:50:39 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> veetus@... writes:
>
> Let's be real. Lucas did change sci-fi. Whatever you think of "Star Wars"
>