|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers)
|
|
|
|
|
Casey Kamps
Film Handler
Posts: 5
From: Irvine, CA, USA
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 10-31-2002 05:53 PM
I realize I am a day late.. But I must interject something, especially as one of the techs that take care of the Writers Guild Theatre.First off, there is no platter there.. Second, they do not cut the heads or tails off of prints they show... Third, just because it originated from the Writers Guild, it does not mean he projected the film. Fourth, and most important, I know the projectionist and how much he cares about his presentation. I have informed him of these comments and I hope he does respond accordingly.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-01-2002 08:58 AM
This actually brings to mind a good point.Brad, when you rejected that Frida print, did you enclose a note in the cans saying, "We here at XXX YYY Theatre rejected this print and returned it to TES in the condition we found it. We suggest you do the same."? If you didn't, and TES shipped it off to another theatre, the anecdotal blame-chain just gets worse. Further, if the WGA had done so, they wouldn't have been under suspicion... --jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Grasic
Film Handler
Posts: 90
From: Toronto, ON, Canada
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 11-03-2002 01:09 AM
I was just browsing through the numerous pages on this thread and the one thing that stuck in my mind was the whole "film log" brought up back on page 1. Maybe it doesn't even have to be the distributors that should place a film log in the cans but rather the first-run theatres, the ones who play the print for the very first time. It would be nice to know if there is a scratch on the print (even a small one) or a splice because of a breakdown where you lose a few seconds (just to give an answer to the complaining customers when they bring it up) and geeez, if you "decide" to put a HUGE emulsion scratch on a print, admit to it, we won't be out to kill you, we'll just know not to play the print when we get it!! On top of that, for the second run houses, they'll start to know where they want their prints coming from and this way, it might even be able to provide a way to get all the prints from the houses that take care of them in the first place. I mean, I don't want to be too cocky to think this, but you can't get too much better than our prints when we ship them out after first-runs. I'm proud to know that we take care of our prints in the best way we know how. So what, if we all decide to do the "film-log" thing, would everyone be onboard??
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-03-2002 01:18 AM
Realistically, it is naive to believe that if you admitted to damage, you would not be subject to damage assessments or further legal challenges, unless you had some sort of agreement or indemnification.So no lawyer in their right mind would approve unilateral assertion of minor print damage, much as we would like to see it. And this pretty much guarantees that no chain is going to start doing it. Now, if it were standard industry practice, or if distributors agreed not to hold exhibitors liable for condition of wide release prints and merely to use the quality information in order to guide junking priorities, that would be a whole different ballgame. But given our litigious society, I think it's asking too much. Of course, that's simply my pessimistic opinion. I'd certainly be on the benefitting side of such a policy. I just don't think it is realistic. --jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 11-08-2002 04:59 AM
Here's one I've never seen (but probably happens a lot). Received a 6 reel film from TES. It was "Integrity Inspected" of course. Reels 1, 2 and 3's leaders were all jumbled up on the wrong reels. Reels 4, 5 and 6's leaders were all on the proper reels. Here's the kicker, there was TWO identification frames on each leader with clear (brightly lit) images on them that came nothing close to resembling each other...and they still sent it out!  Even more humorous is that the print was clearly built with opaque tape, yet it was broken down with single sided striped tape. Ahhhhhhm, what's the point in that?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 100 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 98 99 100
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic