Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Age of starting Projectionists

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Age of starting Projectionists (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Age of starting Projectionists

Steven Privett
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 208
From: Pasadena, TX, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 01-31-2002 03:27 PM

You think they only spent $5,000 on that print? After hiring actors, set designers, cinematographers and everything else that goes into making a film, I could never understand how they can just hand it to someone with no experience. Presentation IS everything. The customers do have a choice and will not come back, even with a free pass.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 01-31-2002 05:51 PM

Steven is correct. Although each 35mm release print may cost only between one and two thousand dollars, it literally represents tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in production costs. Hundreds of skilled artists and craftsmen spent about a million man-hours to produce the images and sound you present every time you show the print. With a successful movie, each print entertains an average of about 10,000 people during its' lifetime. It's easy to see why "Film Done Right" is so important to the health of the movie industry.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-03-2002 11:05 AM

The thing that baffles me is that the house is allowed to take the "house nut" off the top. So the distributor is actually paying for whatever that house nut represents -- the cost of operating the screen his picture is playing on. You would think that he would insist that the house nut include a trained projectionist and that he/she be in the booth at all times while his print is running. As mentioned before, the Loews Astor Plaza (for all intents and purposes, a showcase theatre in a large market) was running one of only two newly struck 70mm prints of special release of 2001 with NO ONE IN THE BOOTH! Any rational person would think that Warners would demand that there be a projectionist in the booth while their very expensive investment was running through equipment with revolving TEETH. Seems there are no rational people over there at Warners. Through the house nut deduction they were paying for the concessionairs and porters, but not for a projectionist.

Go figure.

| IP: Logged

Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 02-03-2002 11:50 AM

That "house nut" is a negotiated price that may not reflect the genuine costs of operating the theater.

Plus the typical contract is a sliding scale or percentages (diminishing with time) versus a typical 90/10 split over the "house nut." The distributor receives the greater amount.

Once a feature is out of first-run and second-run the contracted rentals become more favorable to the theater, like a flat percentage or even a flat amount.

If you're non-theatrical, then you're always screwed.

I agree that the distributors should demand a minimum quality for their presentations. This should include a full-time fully qualified projectionist and the correct projection and sound equipment to play the motion picture at SMPTE standards.

| 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.