|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers)
|
|
|
Jeremy Fuentes
Mmmm, Dr. Pepper!
Posts: 1168
From: Corpus Christi, TX United States
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 03-10-2004 06:53 AM
A little behind here, seeing that the movie came out last week. But did anyone else get a used print of Starsky and Hutch. This was the first used print of a new movie that I have received, so I was a little worried. Dont have the print # at this time, but I will post it later. Anyways, I was surprised to see that the heads and tails were all correct. But, it looks like the previous theater added something between the attached trailer and the print. And they spliced it back together out of frame. ![[Mad]](mad.gif) This was the only problem I had with it, but then I went to see the entire movie at a Cinemark, and their print was totally ruined. I found out that they received a used print as well, and were waiting on a replacement. This one was scratched horizontally through the whole print. It started on the right side of the screen, then moved to the middle of the screen. How does that happen? Whoever had these two prints before us sucks. ![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-10-2004 11:26 AM
Chris, you are right to be amazed; as I have said in the past, when distribution patterns were very different from what they are today, when prints were rotated through many theatres from roadshow to first run to the subrun (underbelly as they were called) neighborhood cinemas, prints rarely came in with the kind of damage such as Jeremy described. Severe damage today can be seen when a print has played only a handful of theatre, and sometimes even from just one other engagement -- even a single show!.
The fact is, the distributor amazingly doesn't seem to have any interest in insisting that his rental property -- the print -- be returned in the same condition as when he sent it out. This only proves that, unfortunately, today the print is considered a throw-away element in the chain from a production's creation on the set to its delivery on the screen. And the audience suffers.
Imagine if other rental industries regarded their rental property with the same disregard as the distributor does his print inventory! Imagine renting a car and returning it in the kind of abused condition that can be seen on prints that have played only in only one theatre Is there any doubt that a car rental company would force the renter to pay for scratches and dings and dents? Given how few theatres a print plays, it wouldn't be difficult to track down a theatre that causes damage and charge it back to them. If a theatre gets a few print replacement bills they might find it's cheaper to hire a competent, contentious projectionist than to keep paying for print damage.
If the MPAA members would focus half of the energy they spend protecting the medium on which a production is delivered to the audiences as rigorously as they protect the contents of the prints, perhaps audiences would get the level of presentation that they pay for. How bout getting the FBI to "investigate and prosecute" those who DAMAGE the prints on which the copyrighted material is recorded?! Yah, I am being facetious, but you get my point.
Why is it that in all the minutia and legalise that fills the volumnous pages of their Master Contracts, the distributor doesn't insist that a trained, certified projectionist handle their property? After all, since the distributor is allowing the exhibitor to skim off a nice chunk of the gate to cover his house nut (operating costs), wouldn't it make sense that the distributor insist that part of that nut must include the a cost of a trained, certified projectionist to handle his property? In that car rental analogy, the rental company doesn't let untrained, unqualified people rent and drive their cars; reason would dictate that the distributor should insist on nothing less from the person who is handling his expensive prints.
Then there is the consumer issue -- exhibition doesn't give discounts for theatres where presentation is substandard; the consumer pays $10 (or $12 in the case of IMAX here in NYC) for a presentation whether or not the theatre is a spanking new build with state-of-the-art presentation, or a crumbling dive that is a better habitat for the vermin that are the permanent residents than the patrons who come to see a film.
Distribution....Exhibtion; a pox on both their freakin houses.
Frank
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-10-2004 02:16 PM
I didn't post it last week because I was so busy, but I got TWO used prints of Starsky and Hutch that were most probably ran one time (or maybe two if there was a pre-screening). One had been run changeover and had cinch scratching at the head and tail of each reel, in addition to being amazingly dirty around the reel changes. It came from a military facility judging by the label dated a week prior on the shipping boxes. The other print had been plattered and had a scratch running down the right edge of the screen AND green loop scratches in the middle of the screen. This print came from Cinemark Tinseltown in El Paso, TX.
Both prints were rejected. I hope those stupid morons have to pay for them. I also hope the ETS people enjoyed the extra work they put on themselves from shipping me a used print with damage on it in the first place.
=============
Chris, my unused replacement prints did not have an anti-piracy snipe on them. Were yours printed on, or spliced on at the depot? In fact, I have never seen an anti-piracy snipe of any sort. Not that it matters all that much, for as long as Valenti is at the helm, I'm throwing those in the trash on principle alone.
And really...what's up with the depot not sending that Cinemark print to another Cinemark house somewhere? ETS should know that the outstanding odds are that once the film has played one time at a theater somewhere, it is no longer a print that would be acceptable for theaters with professional operators. Sure there are exceptions, but I'm willing to bet that in a random survey of 100 prints, only one or two would return back to the depot in flawless condition.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-11-2004 01:41 PM
quote:
I'll run it as I think my audience (critics) will find it amusing. I play it on the closed curtain and hit the open button just as the snipe fades out so we nicely catch the Warner Bros. logo on opening curtain just as I would on a normal start which looks pretty cool.
I love it.....good showmanship and a good sense of humor -- way to go Steve!
quote:
Unfortunately yes I do, Scott. I don't get control over stuff like that, if the home office wants us to do it then I have to do it.
Chris, are you sure the home office specifically wants that particular anti-piracy snipe run? I mean, have they actually sent a memo or something around to the booth operators? Lots of times projectionists assume that every piece of film that comes with the print is supposed to put it on the screen, and that that's management postion. Not necessarily so (see the lively thread about "green bands." and rating snipes). You might want to get a definative answer about that specific piece of film. And if they say yes, they want it played, then perhaps they would welcome input from some patrons or even some of us here expressing an opposing viewpoint as to why this particular hokey screenplay is not in the service of good showmanship but is mood-distroying, accusatory in tone and implies that their patrons are potential criminals -- not the kind of preshow mindset one would want to create just before a feature presentation, in much the same way the FBI WARNING on the ugly red background on all video is an affront to the viewer. Ask anyone what they think of that 15 seconds of wasted screen time. Would the home office want that played before their feature? Well, the crappy antipiracy snipe is the same thing, just dressed up in a Sunday suit.
Give me the word and I'll be all too happy to write to them to give them an earful.
Frank
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 03-11-2004 02:04 PM
Scott, I've worked the art house circuit before, and believe me just the sheer fact that it is an art house, you MUST drop your standards of presentation A LOT to be able to show movies. Almost every print received is used and what I would call "unacceptable" for mainstream presentations. However therein lies the problem. There are so few prints of art house movies around, if you manage to get one without scratches (or only light ones), and one without too much dirt and cinch scratches at the reel changes (because ALL of them are), then you are better off keeping it because any replacement is bound to be worse.
This is why I cannot stand working the art house circuit. It is depressing looking out at the screens and seeing nothing close to what it should be. I'm sure Ky or Ian will be along shortly to set me straight on this one in their eyes, but I'd say there is a 99% chance that any print seen at a randomly selected art house would not pass my "mainstream print" quality standards. It's just how it is. Fortunately people go to art houses because they are the only game in town to see that certain movie or because they like the atmosphere over a competing theater.
=============
Getting off of the art house rant, over the years I have received plenty of used prints in first run houses. I can tell you how many of them arrived in condition that I was pleased with:
Wild America - was circuited from trade and press screenings at GCC Northpark
Schindler's List - played the film for a special rental well after it's release. Got the GCC Northpark print that had been running for months.
There you have it. That's the complete list. Big surprise.
Now sure there were other prints that I received used that weren't bad enough to actually reject. I've probably played a few dozen like that over the years. It certainly annoyed me to no end, but there has to be a legitimate defect in the print for me to reject it. That being said, the MAJORITY of used prints I get are rejected entirely, whereas any print received new is generally acceptable. (I typically have to reject 1-2 reels a month due to lab defects above and beyond typical sloppy lab work on new prints.) People don't know how to handle film and that's not an acceptable excuse for my presentation to be degraded.
If I get your print and there's something wrong with it, you're going to get a bill from the studio.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Topic Closed
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Lots written about this in the Film-Tech "Tips" and in other threads.
![[scream]](graemlins/scream.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic