Another complication could be foreign or alternative release versions. For example, if the BBFC (UK censors) demanded cuts to a scene, then I guess the way you'd do it is to edit the dupe neg which is used to strike the UK release prints. Take, say, 3-4 minutes of footage out of a reel that way and it could end up being annoyingly short.

Ironically, the worst offender I had towards the end of my time in the booth was Dancer in the Dark - 10 reels for just over two hours, but the original shooting was on video! So it wouldn't be a case of cutting the negative, because there'd be no negative to cut until the video editing was finished and a tape-to-film transfer was done. So why they then needed to produce 10 tiny reels I really don't know.

Mind you, it was worth all the effort to see Björk being hanged!

 |  IP: Logged

Brad: Editors can and should consider the shipping ramifications. There aren't that many rules to follow. Aim for 1900 feet per shipping reel and don't begin an "a" reel or end a "b" reel with black frames.

As for "rush jobs," I didn't heard about them very often, but that doesn't mean they weren't common. They certainly could be more common today...digital editing has shortened the (already meager) post-production schedule on the average movie.

In film school (USC) we were taught to consider the number of reels and how shipping cans generally work (3 or 4 per can) and how it's not a great idea to end reels with black frames or fades (in or out). It's considered bad form, but that doesn't stop folks from doing it anyway. By the way, I worked with another editor who was considerate of the shipping and real-world projection ramifications...I just can't remember her name. The movie was never released commercially (it was called "omaha").

"Sphere" is a movie in recent memory that had reels beginning/ending in black.

"Scorpion King" is a current release with reel 1 ending and reel 2 beginning with black frames. I had to break-down and re-make the splice on one of our prints because the projectionist didn't read the notice that came with the print. I'm sure she wasn't the only one in the world...and I'm sure they won't all get fixed, either.

------------------
And, hey! Let's be careful out there.

Some video-to-film converters can't accept loads greater than 1000-feet. I suppose they could join two reels, but if the film was originated on video it's a good bet they couldn't afford a negative cutter.

------------------
And, hey! Let's be careful out there.

This CHELSEA WALLS *was* shot on video and transfered to film (which possibly accounts for the horrific quality of the image?). Ethan Hawke has been making the talk show circuites bragging about how he made this film for $100,000. It certainly looks it. It also might be that, given that the film has no direction, with scenes meandering on and on all over the place, Lion's Gate execs might have stepped in and insisted on some post production editing on their own, trimming down what might have been a few excruciatingly long (and pointless) scenes, hense the irrationally short reels.

 |  IP: Logged

"Dancer in the Dark" (or as some have titled it "Dresses in the Dark") was another. It went back out with one reel empty and a note explaining about a missed splice and a shipping deadline.

More than one film comes in with reel three short. Sometimes not even 1000ft on the reel. Why? I can understand the last reel being short, but why #3? In a lot of cases, if the first five reels were full (2000ft or so) there would not even be a need for the sixth (or read first six and no need for the seventh, etc.).

TWENTY reels. FIVE cans.

'Das Boot: Director's Cut' was half an hour shorter and shipped on eleven reels.

-Aaron

 |  IP: Logged

For TES, we (usually) pay $55/print (that covers both directions), and for ETS, we pay zero, but our local delivery folks (FilmTrans) charge $107/month (not at all usage-sensitive). I don't know if there's much variation for other folks.

I guess the weights are factored in here somewhere in that if everyone started shipping 9-reel 3-can movies we'd see an increase, but it's not a direct or clearly visible thing. Also, I assume there's plenty of shipping cost that we don't see. Prints from Hollywood, Toronto, etc. have to make it to TES in Ohio somehow, and to whichever regional ETS depot. That cost has to fall on studios, right?

I do remember a few years back Technicolor raised the $55 rate up from $50 and sent a letter to that effect. Perhaps I should go dig it up. I think the excuse was rising jet fuel prices?

I guess the new policy ought to be "once the first 35mm print in ANY stage of production is struck, the reel changes may no longer be altered." Had they kept the movie on 7 reels and just had a couple of short reels, that never would have happened. Well, either that or if Deluxe had not have screwed up the reels and leaders on the re-edit print. But then again, the theater that ran it is also partially at fault because if they had've pre-screened it this would have been caught. Taking it one step further though, did the depot get the film to the theater the night before so they COULD pre-screen it? Maybe it's not the depot's fault because someone at Paramount gave orders to not allow the film to get there early? Maybe the depot wasn't involved at all and a courier was late? Hmmmmm. Who knows. Anyway, what a mess!