Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "What the.......Who the hell did this"?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » "What the.......Who the hell did this"? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: "What the.......Who the hell did this"?

Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-16-2001 11:28 AM

Ah! You did mean what I thought you meant. I have a guess that the print with all the splices might not be a single print, but a print that was put together from a couple of badly damaged prints by some collector. You can check the edge marks to see if they match up from section to section.

I can see a collector who had only a wet splicer, or no splicer at all, trying to get a runnable print that wouldn't "book" at the splices. A platter dump is still a possibility, but I would expect the cuts to be more haphazard. The cut you show looks as though it was done with a guide.

| IP: Logged

Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-16-2001 12:07 PM

Yea, somebody dumped this print on the floor. The easiest way to sort it our is to grab a section and put it on the platter. If you cut it with sissors then you do a diagnal cut so that you splice it in frame each and every time.

My partner dumped The Big Blue on the floor and we took two and half hours to sort it out. I started out making big diagnal splices like the one pictured, but as I prgressed and thought about it, I started to make diagnal splices on one frame only. The print looked good when we ran it. Yes we ran it with Film-Guard. I confess, I did not "fix" the print after the run. It was running well.

We were able to grab very large sections at first. Sometimes we were able to grab two reels. As we progressed to the more tangled part, we were making splices every 12 feet or so.

We aren't proud of it, but we only missed one show and the we never got a complaint.

| IP: Logged

Josh Jones
Redhat

Posts: 1207
From: Plano, TX
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 01-16-2001 01:49 PM

Yes Randy, It is Princess Mononoke or Mononoke Hime if you are luky enough to have aquired the japanese print. The charactor you see is Ashitaka, the hero of the storyline. Hurray, reel six has no splices

Josh

| IP: Logged

Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 01-16-2001 02:33 PM

>If you cut it with sissors then you do a diagnal cut so that you splice it in frame each and every time.

Huh??? If I cut across a frame line it and tape it back together it will get out of frame? I can't recall a print ever doing that to me. I've gotta be missing something here.

| IP: Logged

Bob Minge
Film Handler

Posts: 43
From: Fergus Falls, MN, USA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 01-16-2001 03:10 PM

Hi Tim Johnson. What was the name of the theater in Red Wing? Just wondering if it was one in our chain. I think we have a new manager down there so they may not know everything (like I do??) If it was Red Wing Cinema 5, then it probably was ours. Let me know so I can tell our general manager to check it out...could have been wrong apature, no apature??? We DO need to find out stuff like that and get new managers on the right track. Thanks for the comments.

------------------
Bob Minge
Manager/Projectionist
Westridge Cinema 5
Fergus Falls, MN
http://geocities.com/lakesandriverscinema/westridge_cinema_5.html

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 01-16-2001 08:20 PM

Just for the record: any print of a movie that is still covered by copyright cannot be shown publicly without agreement of the distributor. The print is still the property of the distributor, even if you "bought" it from someone else.

Chances are that prints without identifying leaders and cut into several pieces were destined for recycling, and "found" their way into collectors' hands.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

| IP: Logged

Pete Lawrence
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 192
From: Middleburg, PA
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 01-16-2001 08:49 PM

I agree with John's statement about this print cannot be shown publicly. I do believe that once the content is released to video tape or DVD those rules now apply regardless of the medium. There is no question that the performance for a fee rights remain the property of the copyright holder. But lets say a print is cut into several pieces and then discarded in a dumpster. The new owner, the garbage disposal company, now owns that copy of the print and can further dispose of it any way they want (baring any special agreements). Usually it's just buried, but maybe it's recycled into the hands of a collector. Is that such a bad thing? I no lawyer (thank goodness), that's just my opinion.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 01-16-2001 10:08 PM

This has been discussed before and the bottom line is so long as the collectors do not charge admission nor make a profit in any way whatsoever (like selling popcorn and soda), they may exhibit the movie in any format they choose perfectly legally once the flick has been released (and licensed) for home use via videotape/DVD. Whether it is presented on VHS, DVD, satellite broadcast, local tv, Betamax, 3/4inch video, or 35mm film does not matter.

I know of no collector who would ever even consider charging for a show. I have heard many a time where someone with a big fancy video setup will charge for admission and concessions, though. Regardless of the format (film or video), no one but the STUDIO may profit from the exhibition of a given movie. I think all collectors understand and abide by that. If anything, it is the collectors who "may" ultimately do the studio a favor by having a print years and years down the road that has survived where the studio copy has deteriorated beyond useability.

| IP: Logged

Dave Bird
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 777
From: Perth, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 01-17-2001 06:49 AM

I was informed by a "non-theatrical" distributor, that here in Canada at least, I could show movies to persons in my home without a licence. However, if my "home-theatre" just happened to be in the hayfield out back, my own personal drive-in so to speak, even if only guests watched, and even though it would not be visible anywhere but my property, I would require a "non-theatrical licence" because it was literally "outside the home". Didn't make much sense to me, as these things are more for community groups who DO charge nominal admissions, but there it is......

| IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 01-17-2001 08:47 AM

Just for the record, I do not run anything for the public, and have never charged admission of any kind.

OWNING the print itself is much different from owning the film. I would never try to gyp the studios. Even collectors have some morals, even ones that drink FilmGuard!

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-17-2001 09:30 AM

Let's also say for the record that the prints that end up in private hands almost always were on their way to be destroyed anyway, and are essentially considered to be "trash" by the distributor. I am not a lawyer, but I don't see any ethical issues with what amounts to the same thing as dumpster diving. As long as the film is either PD or has been released in some home format (videotape, DVD, etc.), I don't see any ethical issues with running a print of the same film at home for a few friends any more than I see any problems with doing the same thing with a videotape, provided that no advertising is done and no admission is charged.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who steals a print out of a theatre or delivery truck or warehouse (which is not intended for destruction) should be drawn, quartered, shot, and then _really_ hurt.

(Note, too, that there are cases where 35mm prints have been sold to the public in the past. Of course, film producers and directors often have prints of their own work, too. There are definitely legitimate ways for private individuals to acquire prints of feature films.)

| IP: Logged

Josh Jones
Redhat

Posts: 1207
From: Plano, TX
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 01-17-2001 01:40 PM

**UPDATE**

I finished checking the print on tuesday night. turns out reels 6, 7, and 8 have no splices in them

reel 9 had only one!
Hurray

Josh

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-17-2001 07:45 PM

Most of those prints that I ran, back at the college had one or two splices in each reel. It was pretty rare to get a "clean" reel.

From what I remember of P.M., if you lose one or two frames from a splice it will probably go unnoticed. (The animation/artistic style or "anime" films is rather jerky to begin with.) However if there are a lot of splices, or if they cost you more than a couple frames it will get noticed.

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 01-19-2001 08:09 PM

In the case of Princess Mononoke (Mononoke Hime in Japan), it does depend where you lose those frames. Some short segments of PM were rendered in full animation, so one would definitely notice a discontinuity in those shots. But you're right in that most of the time Studio Ghibli (along with most other animation studios) does animation on 2's or 3's, 3's being the standard in Japan resulting in somewhat-less-than-flowing animation. Still a very beautiful film to watch though. Absolutely stunning Japanese watercolor background art! Kazuo Oga has been art director or backgrounds supervisor on most of Studio Ghibli's films including PM. He is the master of light and shadow!

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-19-2001 10:36 PM

I enjoyed the film very much. It was one of my favorite films we showed in the college's film series.

Most of the people who came to these films were older (OR should that be "more experienced") people. They just didn't appreciate the style of the art form.

On the other hand, we DID draw a lot of younger, college-aged fans of Anime films. They all loved it.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.