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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Part 2 (Page 33)

This topic comprises 51 pages: 1  2  3  ...  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  ...  49  50  51

Author Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Part 2 Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 11-01-2009 06:02 PM                     Am I allowed to give a "Hey you, you suck!" to my own theatre? Last week, while cleaning out a storage room behind screen two of my theatre, which is used primarily for seat parts, we found a cardboard box with a print of "Bollywood/Hollywood" sitting in it. The film, which had played at the theatre in 2002, was put back on cores (no reels) and was mostly closed, because the print was a little too big for the box, so when you try to close the top it resembles a oddly shaped pyramid. So to the chucklenut who broke down the print of "Bollywood/Hollywood" at the Beverly Center in December 2002 and decided it was best to throw it in a box and hide it in a storage room... YOU SUCK!  |  IP: Logged Jarret Chessell Master Film Handler Posts: 288 From: London, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jan 2009 posted 11-01-2009 06:12 PM                     quote: Brad Miller Do the Canadians have to deal with the DFS/Fox boxes? I do get fox films in a gray plastic film cans. They're very box like, but they hold only four reels (and possibly a near destroyed DTS disc). Maybe they aren't the same thing you call a fox box. I haven't seen any that look brand brand new in a while, I'm not sure if they were a trial thing that they gave up on or not. I'll take a pic of one and post it some time to see if we're on the same page. It's also worth mentioning, it's rare for me to receive more than two attached or otherwise enclosed trailers in the film can from any distributer. Oh, Monte, I wouldn't put a busted reel in one of those loose cans... if I received a film with a reel completely knotted and squished i'd request a new reel and the address of the cinema that the print was last at and go on a road trip  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-01-2009 06:25 PM                        I HATE DFS/Fox boxes! They are a bitch to carry! I hope whoever designed it gets cancer. I lift them and carry by holding both arms underneath the box which makes opening doors and the such nearly impossible. Try dealing with this in a theater which has a HUGE lobby, no elevator or dumb waiter, about a half-dozen different sets of stairs one must traverse and an auditorium which must be passed through with paying patrons to get to the booth. I complained to a guy at the local deluxe depot about them in passing and he professed that he likes them compared to film cans! I never thought that I'd appreciate TES or their orange cans, but damn, I sure do now!  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 11-01-2009 06:51 PM                     quote: Edward Havens The film, which had played at the theatre in 2002, was put back on cores (no reels) That's how they were delivered for all the Bollywood movies I've played in the past few years. quote: Edward Havens So to the chucklenut who broke down the print of "Bollywood/Hollywood" at the Beverly Center in December 2002 and decided it was best to throw it in a box Yet again, that's how they're delivered.  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Jorgenson Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1002 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: Feb 2005 posted 11-01-2009 06:56 PM                        quote: Jarret Chessell Maybe they aren't the same thing you call a fox box No, different than those:  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-01-2009 06:59 PM                        The other problem with the Fox Box is that the handles are clearly not strong enough for a 70lb box. I had a handle break once when I was carrying the box down a flight of stairs. The box tumbled down the stairs, the top popped open, and the reels rolled down the rest of the stairs and shattered at the bottom. Fortunately, the film was tightly wound and stayed together on the cores, but the reels were all trashed. On the other hand, the boxes are easier to transport by car. The cans roll or slide around in a trunk, while the boxes stay put.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-01-2009 08:24 PM                        I never use the handle on the Fox boxes anymore. If I have to carry it a distance, I grip it from the bottom like Joe mentions above; if I have to lift from the floor to the bench, I grab the sides of the top flaps (making sure it's securely closed first). I had a handle pop out once too, luckily I wasn't coming down the stairs at the time though.  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 11-03-2009 02:28 AM                     quote: Chris Slycord That's how they were delivered for all the Bollywood movies I've played in the past few years. Thanks, Chris... except Bollywood/Hollywood isn't actually a Bollywood movie. It's a Canadian movie that was distributed by Magnolia, and I've yet to see Magnolia deliver a movie in a plain cardboard box that didn't even fit the movie properly. Maybe that's how Eros and Yash Raj and the other Bollywood distributors do it (wouldn't know, since I've never played a Bollywood movie) but I've never seen Magnolia do it.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Althaus Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: Bedford, TX Registered: Dec 2008 posted 11-10-2009 01:11 PM                     A member of our management went to a local theatre last friday to see a film on its 1st day of release and they said it had multiple green and yellow scratches. How do you scratch a print that badly in 5 runs or so? Now I find out that this theatre will be releasing one of their old prints to us. Might as well request a new print before we even get it.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 11-10-2009 02:07 PM                     It's entirely possible that they received it scratched and were themselves waiting for a replacement to arrive...  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Althaus Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: Bedford, TX Registered: Dec 2008 posted 11-10-2009 02:45 PM                     We've received several prints from this location, and all have been scratched, dirty, and in horrid condition. Luckily I convinced our booker to get us a different copy.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-10-2009 04:47 PM                        It only takes one run if you never clean your film path.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-17-2009 02:25 PM                     OK, everyone who had DFS print #7001 of Annie Hall from its instantiation in Feb. 2008 through last week (that's you, LMU), you suck!. This print had a missing 3.8 seconds (5 feet 11 frames) from 1194'12F to 1200'7F on reel 6. But the missing footage was GONE FROM THE NEGATIVE. There were no splices in this print, it just cut from picture to solid green, and then back to picture: On the bright side, I suppose the fact that soundtrack continued uninterrupted is a good thing. It made what would have been a really irritating missing scene into some awkwardness. But hey, it's Woody Allen, it's all about the dialogue, right? DFS assures me that no one has complained about this lab defect before. What is wrong with those people? Here's where it starts (Sorry for my bad photoshop compositing here, I was dealing with some overexposed sections in the top half before the image cuts): You can even see indications of what's either a tape splice or an ultrasonic lab splice on the negative that printed through. 3-4 perfs beneath the last real frame of picture. Here's where we come back: again, no splice on the release print, just bam, here comes the picture. Thanks, Deluxe Lab. I found it really ironic that we were playing this on Saturday evening while Gordon Willis, ASC, the cinematographer, was off in Hollywood accepting a Lifetime Achievement Academy Award from AMPAS. Oh, and the picture's not all. Apparently there are soundtrack problems too. This was not so obvious, but the soundtrack was remastered in 2006 and the leaders clearly label it as an SR track (and they are the right leaders for this film, the edgecodes match). But the track sounds terrible in SR. There's no pumping, but there is sibilant distortion, it's way too loud at 7 (we normally run at 7, in Dolby SR this print sounded OK at about 5), and even at 5, there are some parts that are too loud and others that are too soft, like it's been expanded. This is a conventional silver-applicated track (which should make you suspicious -- who makes those in 2006?). Then Monday morning I got a look at DFS print #7003. Also made in 2008, but made by FotoKem (August 2008)! (Isn't that quite curious. I don't have the story on this one, but I'd love to hear it). This one is made from the same negatives (well, same leaders), but reel 6 is just fine. Also, this print is a high-magenta print! So I can only assume that we got sibilance distortion (and bad SR tracking) on #7001 because a high-magenta -optimized sound negative was printed as a conventional silver-applicated track and bad cross-modulation problems resulted. I wish I knew the right way to compensate for that. Anyhow, it feels good to get that off my chest. DFS (and MGM, I'm told) are now aware of these issues so hopefully nobody else will get stuck with them. (Oh, and DFS tried to get me another print for my weekend shows, but apparently someone failed to check the FedEx Saturday Delivery box, so...bzzt.) I'll post over in the FITA forum when I get my notes together. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Tom Maguire Film Handler Posts: 9 From: Keene, NH USA Registered: Jun 2009 posted 11-21-2009 02:51 PM                     I am in the middle of dealing with a print of District 9 that looks to have ONLY played in one theater previous to us. Here's the rundown so far: -Over 20 single sided clear splices randomly through out the print with no frames missing. Why? WHY? What could possibly be the reason for this? Were they having THAT much difficulty finding the reel change? -Splices held together with one one piece of masking tape - 1 so far. Let me repeat that - A one sided masking tape splice! -Splice with yellow reel change tape in the middle of a reel - 1 so far. -Masking tape used to tape ALL heads and tails together -Several instances of heads and tails with MANY frames at the end instead of just one -Print looks like it went through a meat grinder The print almost certainly has come from a piece of shit 6 plex in Brattleboro Vt called the Kipling Theater, a theater owned by The Boston Culinary Group. Just in the last three weeks at this theater I've witnessed a print of A Christmas Carol scratched from from one side of the frame to the other within it's first 4 days of release. I only stayed through the first reel. A coworker witnessed the same for Men Who Stare at Goats - scratched from trailers to end credits. The two films played in different houses. As for District 9, I'm honestly speechless at the condition of this print. This kind of thing makes me want to quit life as a projectionist. I am seriously wondering if the mentally handicapped person who sold me my ticket 2 weeks ago is also the projectionist. http://www.kscputnamtheater.org/  |  IP: Logged Paul Goulet Master Film Handler Posts: 347 From: Rhode Island Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-21-2009 05:48 PM                        quote: Tom Maguire I am seriously wondering if the mentally handicapped person who sold me my ticket 2 weeks ago is also the projectionist. More then likely it was the kid selling you the popcorn..BCG doesn't beleive in having projectionists.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 51 pages: 1  2  3  ...  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  ...  49  50  51

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.