Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What is good enough?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » What is good enough? (Page 5)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: What is good enough?

Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-31-2003 11:48 AM

About 25 years ago, the auto industry in this country let their greed get to them. They cut corners to make more profit, but that is not what happened. Their quality went to crap, and people stoped buying their cars. They almost went out of business, in fact, if wasn't for the government bailout of Crysler, they would have been gone. They had to relise that quality is important (Ford: quality is job one). The theaters, and labs seem to be headed in the same direction. Cut corners to feed their greed, and push the coustomers away. It is interesting how one greedy corporation cannot learn from the mistakes made by another greedy corporation. The theaters need people in the booth who know what they are doing, and they need ushers who can attend to unruly coustomers, before no one comes to the theater any more. Quality is realy the only thing they have to sell.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 01-04-2004 04:18 PM

Going back to what Kevin said near the top of this thread;

quote:
the big difference is that in the theatre industry we are tyring to faithfully display someone else's vision released in a format that he is expecting to do just that. In that case it SHOULD be about the filmaker's vision and not what is acceptable to me or any customer.

This should be the starting point for all theatre decision makers, whether it be a new-build project or a refit. The task is to communicate that better!

Dolby produced a wonderful Electronic Press Kit a couple of years ago ("Explore Our World" on DVD / VHS for anyone who isn't familiar). It really got across how the technical art of presentation is fundamental to the artistic process of filmmaking.

We all know this - but it seems to me that what's missing is an awareness of this in the ranks of people who draw up the budgets, plan the venues, etc. etc. (OK I'm generalising but it seems very common).

When people get the link between the technical and the artistic, the change in attitude is amazing. It's no longer about "we've no money for a proper sound system" but, "we'll raise the money so the sound can be reproduced as it should".

People build cinemas not only because they want to make money, but because they love movies. I've found they're generally not technical, but they are very knowledgeable about the creative side - actors, directors, etc.

What we need in fact is for the leading creatives in the industry today to help advocate that message somehow. Perhaps Mssrs Spielberg / Lucas / Cameron / Wachowskis / Jackson et al could join forces with THX / Kodak / Dolby / DTS / SDDS etc. and the Projector / Screen / Lens / Lamp manufacturers in some joint initiative which would be positive and inspiring. Bodies like the AMPAS, BAFTA, the DGA, the ASC etc. could play their part too.

The other thing is how equipment / fitout / refit costs are presented. (BTW it should never be a "cost" but an investment , because that's what it is - "costs" are negative quantities.) I think Steve hit the nail on the head when he said :

quote:
so if you spend money on new lenses and you anticipate you will still be open in 10-years...that is a mere $1,000 a year for one of the single biggest factors on the picture quality. Boy that is a lot of bang for the buck. Heck...compare that to most of your other expenses and it is pretty darn cheap. Think you are going to be around in 20-years? Your lens expendature is a mere $500/year..for the biggest quality improvement in your picture you can buy. It is a great deal that any bozo can see...

That's just it - $10K seems a lot of money in one go...but it is in fact an investment with up to 20 years return. That's what's so great about film too (as has often been said) - the initial investment lasts many, many years if the equipment is looked after.

So a theatre owner / investor / manager etc. has the vision and desire to help the filmmaker communicate with their audience and understands why the technology is fundamental to that - then perhaps those 5 points that Brad raised will fall into place.

Happy New Year!

| IP: Logged

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 01-04-2004 05:35 PM

unfortunately, if that lens is scratched then it's out the window. the number one investment has to be competent and careful operators who will not nullify the other investments.

carl

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-04-2004 08:41 PM

Just to put the quote in context...were were discussing a 2-projector system with 4 formats each or 8 lenses, adapters...etc. So you would only scratch one lens...something that is, quite possibly, repairable.

Also scratching lenses must be a talent because I don't see it that often...now with turrets..I see the ends of the barrels getting beat up on pad roller arms and such as the turret spins but not the glass area so much.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Kevin Wale
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 167
From: Guymon, OK USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 01-05-2004 01:35 AM

What I don't understand is...

It seems to me that the Directors of these films should be shouting at the rooftops about the way thier movies SHOULD be presented.

I remember hearing a conversation when I first started in theatres about how George Lucas was a pain because of his screen selection process. I thought then and still do think, Heck yeah, more power to him. That is the way it should be.

I really do think that the studios will figure out that they will make more money if they charge less for film rentals so the smaller guy who loves movies has a chance to make it financially, and if they adopt a GL type theatre screening process.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 01-05-2004 02:47 AM

I recall reading that there were actual studio visits to theatres that were going to show "The Exorcist" when it was first released back in the 70s.

They reported finding potholes and rips in screens in addition to antiquated loudspeaker systems behind them. The filmmakers were understandably quite upset to discover that few theatres could accurately reproduce the film over which they had so carefully labored.

(The book was called "The Making of The Exorcist" or "The Story Behind The Exorcist" or words to similar effect.)

Why don't the filmmakers get involved? A few possible reasons spring to mind:

1. The individual filmmakers are quite possibly not aware of any widespread problems because they tend to see their films in the better theatres.

2. Politics -- If filmmakers speak out openly against "poor presentation" they run the risk of being criticized by the exhibition industry (and probably the distributors, too). I guess those occasional "love letters" that come in the cans are the extent to which the filmmakers are prepared to tell us how to do our jobs.

3. Time is money -- Time spent mounting a campaign for proper presentation is time away from other projects. The filmmakers won't get involved until/unless there is a dramatic decrease in ticket sales which can be traced back to widespread presentation problems.

4. My personal favorite...The Conspiracy Theory -- a.k.a. "Give them enough rope to hang themselves!" -- The jist of this theory is that Hollywood doesn't want 35mm to reach its potential in theatres. As the overal level of presentation quality declines, the industry moves closer to a shift toward dCinema which, at least as far as the distributors are concerned, is a less expensive/more efficient mode of release and, hence, more favorable from their standpoint. It would thus be counterproductive to assist in any way with the elevation of 35mm presentations. The so-called "crap code" is also tied to this theory.

| IP: Logged

Edward Jurich
Master Film Handler

Posts: 305
From: Las Vegas USA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 01-05-2004 11:30 AM

Scratched lenses....I knew an operator in Chicago back in the 60's who cleaned the lenses with paper napkins [Eek!]

, the kind you wipe your hands on. Those lenses has so many scratches they looked like slightly fogged glass, image wasn't bad though.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 01-05-2004 05:46 PM

Manny, I hope that conspiracy theory doesn't turn out to be true!

Here's some reverse psychology: set up a dubbing theatre that promises to "faithfully mix the sound as it is reproduced in the theatre".

So...you'd have lousy acoustics, drop a stage channel, disconnect some of the surrounds, omit the subs - that kind of thing. For the picture you could have those scratched lenses!

But to be serious, maybe it's the approach that doesn't work; laying down the law saying "you're not doing it properly" is surely going to get people's backs up.

Everyone knows they're "supposed" to have good sound and picture, but perhaps they don't know why.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 01-05-2004 07:08 PM

A friend of mine was a manager at an old Moyer theater here in Eugene in the early 90s (W. 11th Movieland, now closed). They ran a private sneak preview of "Arachnophobia" - I think the story was Jeff Daniels (the star) was from Eugene and he was attending the screening with a bunch of other industry people or some such thing. Anyway, the studio sent a couple engineers up ahead of time to thoroughly check out the theatre and make whatever changes they thought were needed. Funny thing is, this was one of those very wide, short-throw rooms with a very large wall-to-wall screen, and it couldn't put up a really good image no matter what they did (my opinion). It was always dim and not very sharp.

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 01-05-2004 11:56 PM

This has no bearing on your story but actually Jeff grew up in Michigan. Friend's mom used to babysit him.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

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.