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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Running flat trailers on scope (Page 4)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: Running flat trailers on scope John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-19-2006 07:58 AM                     quote: Dieter Depypere What I also have noticed recently: I got a movie in Cinemascope, and the distributor's logo was still flat... Kind of a dumbass idea... Indeed...lop off that logo. If they can't add the correct ratio logo for their own damn feature...it doesn't deserve to be on screen. But DEFINATELY don't show it in the wrong ratio.  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 06-19-2006 11:01 PM                        Yes. And we're running a Scope trailer at the moment where we have to set the format change after the classification tag and the distributor's logo which are flat. But isn't it great to have Scope trailers for Scope features again? They all went flat a few decades ago.  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 06-20-2006 02:17 AM                        Maybe this is a spoiler... though I agree with Brad's approach. I did the same thing all the time, when I had waterfall curtains and moveable masking. It was very dramatic to drop the curtains, pull the masking out, then bring the curtains back up on a 'Scope picture. Running a drive-in now, I find it much easier to build my trailers in the same format as the show. Simple... effective... no more than one lens change (at intermission). Over the course of the season, we accumulate enough of the trailers we want to show, in both formats.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-20-2006 06:39 PM                     Ron You mean it was printed that way? John  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 06-20-2006 07:04 PM                        You've got it John. It's no big deal as long as you have a flexible automation - but I couldn't handle the format change that fast manually (or even twice a year) without dropping a lens.  |  IP: Logged Warren Smyth Expert Film Handler Posts: 158 From: Auckland ,New Zealand Registered: Aug 2003 posted 06-20-2006 08:19 PM                     When I read the start of this thread, I thought it was satire. The fact that this practice is being even debated, reflects the sad state of the industry in some parts of the world. The real winners are the home theatre equipment manufactures.  |  IP: Logged Eric Hooper Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 532 From: Fort Worth, TX, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 06-22-2006 10:52 AM                     quote: Manny Knowles Frankly, I am SHOCKED that people on this forum are actually entertaining "alternate" ways of doing this. Whatever happened to "Film Done Right" ? 'Cause basically, the audience doesn't care.... It's only us theatre nerds that notice these details.  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 06-22-2006 11:11 AM                        quote: Eric Hooper basically, the audience doesn't care.... Hooooo, boy! That's also where the audience starts dropping off. Where have we all heard that statement over the years? No SR, just optical (the audience doesn't care). No digital (the audience doesn't care). Poor alignment/b-chain, too loud (the audience doesn't care). Uneven, flickering, poorly lit screen (the audience doesn't care). Obnoxious rolling stock at obnoxious volume levels (the audience doesn't care). John Fithian on above (the audience LIKES the advertising). Poorly maintained seats, sticky floors, dirty screens (the audience doesn't care). Rude staff, rude patrons, ludicrous concession prices (the audience doesn't care). With that, Warren's statement begins to sound plausible. quote: Warren Smyth The real winners are the home theatre equipment manufactures.  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 06-22-2006 11:51 AM                     basically, the audience doesn't care.... Actually, the audience does care. What they don't do is complain. They just stop coming back.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-23-2006 07:08 PM                     Ron What's the trailer? Reason enough to give the distributor a public slap on the wrist. John  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 06-23-2006 08:11 PM                        It's an indie distributor, John. They probably can't afford to make logos in two formats. So it's a bit like those Scope/flat Terrytoons in the fifties.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-23-2006 08:42 PM                     It's probably more of a 'it's a multi-format logo'...whatever the hell THAT may mean. The censorship tag issue is something completely different though. The lab should make sure scope censorships go on scope trailers. Anything else is just plain lazyness.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Jones Master Film Handler Posts: 314 From: Geelong Victoria Australia Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-23-2006 09:04 PM                     G'Day John hope all is well up in Mackay, As far as censorship tags go ,if I have one thats W/S on a scope Trl I will remove it and replace with one that is in the correct ratio as I have several of both ratios and of all classifications in the draw for such a purpose. I agree that all ratios must be shown as they are intended and is unprofessional not to do so.Due to trailering requirements we often have to run Scope and W/S trls together eg Scope first the W/S stuff next etc and have several programes in the automation to do this with out any problems. Cheers Steve  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-23-2006 09:17 PM                     Hi Stephen Yes, all's well here...wish the rain'd bugger off though. The distribs should make sure the labs are doing their job properly in the first place. As far as I know, they have to approve the final cut before it's sent to the printer. I know this'd never happen on a Fox film as the print controller used to be one of my projectionists. There should never be a time you get an opposite ratio's tag on its trailer. Lazyness.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-23-2006 10:38 PM                        quote: Ron Curran They all went flat a few decades ago. Originally they were ALL flat because 90% of the theatres had curtains and side masking and we followed the protocol that Jack outlines: It was very dramatic to drop the curtains, pull the masking out, then bring the curtains back up on a 'Scope picture. We still do that here. The rule-of-thumb has always been to emphasize the feature -- make the audience understand that the feature stands above all else (hence the word "feature" ); nothing can do that better than having it open wider than the attraction reel. Since the advent of CinemaScope and well into the 70s, trailers of scope titles were almost always flat and most times letterboxed flat at 1.85, so keeping everything before the feature on a separate reel and at the narrower aspect ratio was easy. Today we still run trailers and cartoons at nearly Academy -- 1.4/1 (the sight difference only because of lensing considerations). So even if we are running a 1.85 flat feature, it always opens wider than the attraction reel. We almost never run scope trailers unless that's the only cut of the trailer that's available to promote a film that we will be running.. This idea of promoting titles that we are not playing for the sole benefit of the distributor and thus giving away free screen is relatively new....and I must say, pretty stupid from a business perspective. I will never detract from the impact of having a feature open wider just to play a scope trailer that promotes a feature that we are not going to book. If the distrib attaches a scope trailer to the feature -- that's why the splicer was invented -- off it comes. Because we run our attractions before the feature with a curtain close (the feature ALWAYS opens with a curtain pull and a mask move), any trailer that's attached to the print of necessity must be removed and spliced in the attraction reel anyway. If it's a scope format trailer, it just doesn't get played. Before they went to scope trailers, there was never any issue like this one. Once automation took over the industry, the old protocols fell by the gutter mostly because early crude or I should say limited animation couldn't mimic what the projectionist could do, so they couldn't make it happen even if they wanted to; curtains disappeared and were replaced with torturous, gawdaweful preshow schlock and that truly deadly attitude "the public doesn't notice or even care," crept in and became exhibition's mantra. Who cares about those little presentation niceities -- it all became utilitarian, assembly-line cinema. And to amplify Jack and Mitchell's sentiment, my belief is that Eric left off the last part and most important part of that statement; it should read: "Basically the public doesn't care....to come to see movies at the multiplex anymore". Could it possibly be that attendence continues to erode maybe, just maybe, because all those little touches that added up to a sense of "spectacle" and an "awesome experience" about The Movies has for so long Gone with the Wind? Maybe IMAX still captures it and SUPERMAN in that spectacular format will no doubt out-draw that same title at the godzillaplex where it is just another title amoung 24 others. What amazes me is how exhibitors are willing to sink $120.000 into a digital projector and incredibly, actually think that's going to somehow boost attendance, but they never once contemplate getting rid of that junk....that crass, ugly commercial garbage with which they preface their new digital presentation, making an audience hate their held-hostage plight before the movie even begins. Not to mention that video commercials make the theatre "experience" no different than broadcast television that they get at home. Oh, wait, yes, it is very different, Joe Public doesn't have to pay $10 to watch two hours of broadcast TV with commercials thrown in free. I notice IMAX doesn't run commercials before their "IMAX Experience." And I also notice that even though SUPERMAN had all kinds of digital rendering done with IMAX's proprietary digital DMR process, nowhere in any of their ads does IMAX feel compelled to shout the word "digital." That might give us some insight into what they consider more powerful -- word "digtial" or the word "experience." [ 06-24-2006, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Frank Angel ]  |  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

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.