Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Part 2

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 5)

This topic comprises 51 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 49 50 51

Author

Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Part 2

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 11-29-2006 12:47 AM

quote: Charles Greenlee
I'd love to see the carbon Arc projection, side by side with a comprable Xenon, and see what the difference on screen is.

...just like night and day.... ."

Post edited...

-Monte

[ 11-29-2006, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 11-29-2006 03:02 AM

Bullshit Monte. Operating a carbon arc lamphouse does not automatically make someone a "projectionist" whereas apparently in your mind someone operating a booth of modern equipment is not deserving of the title.

You might want to proofread the shit you are shoveling before you make such assinine posts.

| IP: Logged

Charles Greenlee
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 801
From: Savannah, Ga, U.S.
Registered: Jun 2006

posted 11-29-2006 03:55 AM

Technically, anyone who can operate projection equipment could be called a projectionist. If they suck, they're a crappy one. I like Monte's "You haven't read Shakespere until you've read it in the original Klingon" concept. I think it's be fun, and at the very least a learning experience. Most of the projectionist I've met, personally, are lazy and gripe about having to brush out the trap and gates, it's hard to get them to do it once a day. Maybe, having to deal (don't read that in a negative way, but as being more challenging) with the high mantenance and hassle of Carbon arc and changovers, they will learn to appreciate the simplicity of the modern booth. I think it'd be a valuable lesson.

Of course Brad has a point, your tone does sound negative towards those of us who haven't had the chance to "get back to our roots." I do consider myslf a projectionists, even without working an older booth. Maybe I'm not the best, or most experienced projectionist, but I do try.

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 11-29-2006 09:53 AM

quote: Charles Greenlee
Most of the projectionist I've met, personally, are lazy and gripe about having to brush out the trap and gates, it's hard to get them to do it once a day.

Are these projectionists the ones that worked the plex you worked at?

quote: Charles Greenlee
they will learn to appreciate the simplicity of the modern booth.

The chains have built these large super plexes, where the equipment has been made simple so the leasted experienced projectionist could operate and put on a show. It all comes with experience from the trade. But today the chains have made it into a regular job that you can not make a full career that you can not fully live on. When I started out and worked the extra board in Los Angeles. I got sent to many different types of booths and ran many different types of booth setups (70MM/35mm). That's where you got your experience. With that experience you got to jump to better jobs and better pay. I guess the chains pay that flat rate to run X number of screens. We had a base rate and for every extra screen in the theatre we got .50 to .75 added to that rate.
Today I run a single screen xenon change-over booth with no automation. I push a button to open and close the curtains and change the masking. I have two video projection systems. I run 5-6 shows a day, reel to reel or film or video.
I did my time running carbon arc booths too.

| IP: Logged

Charles Greenlee
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 801
From: Savannah, Ga, U.S.
Registered: Jun 2006

posted 11-29-2006 12:32 PM

quote: Bill Gabel
Are these projectionists the ones that worked the plex you worked at?

This is the 3rd plex I've worked at. So far the guys here aren't that bad, but working at the other 2, I've met some real losers. Some of them I wouldn't trust to handle door, muchless booth, even if it's turned into the level of being almost bushbutton.

| IP: Logged

Blaine Young
Master Film Handler

Posts: 477
From: Kirkland, WA, USA
Registered: Sep 2006

posted 11-29-2006 01:29 PM

quote: John Hawkinson
Exchanges DO NOT open cans when they get prints back. And whether they open them outgoing tends to depend (Technicolor should do so always), but you should not rely on it (and, at that point, it may be too late).

The exchange or depot may not open the cans on all prints, they do on some. For example, Technicolor sent out around 800 prints of "The Guardian" for a sneak back on September 15. It included a printed attached trailer for "The Prestige". When I shipped the print back to Technicolor, I reattached the trailer (seperated for inclusion of a Dolby Digital trailer) to the print. When we opened the film 2 weeks later, we got two different prints (I wished we had kept the original - much better condition), that were both used for the screening, and neither had the original attached trailer - both had spliced trailers for "The Prestige" attached to the print (and both spliced out of frame - but that's another rant).

Unless I don't have the original attached trailer, I always re-attach the original printed trailer.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 11-29-2006 01:42 PM

okey, sorry .. didn't mean to cause any ill-feelings here, I removed my statements that I shouldn't have place in this forum in the first place. My apologies..

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-30-2006 07:59 AM

Call me crazy, but I actually think that theatres (in general) seem to be sucking progressively less lately. Though the sample size is admittedly small, it's been quite a while since I have received a print that required major work in order to be runnable, and have even gotten quite a few that were runnable without any repair work (not even re-splicing leaders). I couldn't have said that five years ago.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-30-2006 09:53 AM

Sorry, Blaine, I didn't mean to suggest that they never open cans. Merely that they cannot be relied upon to do so, and usually they do not. So if you have a damage issue, communicating it to the exchange with a note in the can is not an effective strategy.

I'm not sure how your example demonstrates that Technicolor opened the cans on return, rather than sending them out, though. (And I'm not sure it isn't explained by other theatres splicing things around and/or different dup negatives without the attached trailer).

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 11-30-2006 11:41 AM

Just to pick up on this point:

quote: Charles Greenlee
So far the guys here aren't that bad, but working at the other 2, I've met some real losers. Some of them I wouldn't trust to handle door, muchless booth, even if it's turned into the level of being almost bushbutton.

Why is that? It's interesting. Why do people like this apply for jobs as Projectionists? And why are they hired? Or - is it purely a consequence of low pay? Do lazy, disinterested people go for badly-paid jobs as a rule? Or is the Projectionist's job incorrectly seen as a "cinderella" occupation that any old schmuck can do?

Why are things the way they are? Do they have to be that way? How could things be improved? (Sorry if this is getting too philosophical!)

| IP: Logged

Charles Greenlee
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 801
From: Savannah, Ga, U.S.
Registered: Jun 2006

posted 11-30-2006 11:45 AM

quote: Brian Guckian
Or - is it purely a consequence of low pay?

I beleive this to be the culprit, that and poor managment. Uusually, at the other 2 theatres, the projectionist is "promoted" from existing floor staff.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 11-30-2006 11:59 AM

OK! That's really great. So clearly the task is to lobby for better pay and conditions. How does one go about that? What is Management's reply to honest decent people who say "look, you have to pay staff higher wages if you're going to get the quality the audience deserves, and that means bigger box office"?

Is it true (as is often reputed) that margins are tight in the industry because the studios are taking too much upfront? (This all leading to Bad Film Handling down the line).

I guess my ultimate line of enquiry is would Bad Film Handling end if everyone was properly paid?

| IP: Logged

Blaine Young
Master Film Handler

Posts: 477
From: Kirkland, WA, USA
Registered: Sep 2006

posted 11-30-2006 12:54 PM

I'm not sure if proper pay would weed out the riff-raff in the booth. From my experience - and there are exceptions to this without a doubt - but most booth staff are lobby/usher staff that want an 'easier' job, get to sit down more and can text on their mobile phones like they are going out of style. The fact that a starting booth employee makes about $0.25 more than an usher perpetuates this.

Now, if they paid booth staff like it was a career instead of an hourly gig with an 80% turnover rate, I believe we would have a different calibre of people in the booth (no offense to the film gods here, of course).

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-30-2006 01:07 PM

quote: Brian Guckian
would Bad Film Handling end if everyone was properly paid?

I think that it would probably attract better people to the job, but I also don't think that anyone who could make a difference really cares. Let's say that a good projectionist can be had for $20/hour. For a theatre that runs 80 hours per week, that's $83k and change per year for the projectionist position (probably 2 full-time operators and some part-timers). By getting rid of projectionists and having managers do their work (in addition to attending to managerial responsibilities), that's upwards of $16 million/year that can be "saved" by a large chain with 200 theatres.

Now, we all know that these "savings" aren't anywhere near as great as they look at first glance, but I doubt that AMC or Regal or any of the other major chains really understands this. Nor do they seem to understand that every negative aspect of a customer's visit to the theatre--from scratched prints to uncomfortable seats to dirty restrooms to obnoxious advertising--decreases the customer's enjoyment of his visit, reflects poorly on the industry as a whole, and discourages people from choosing movies as a preferred form of out-of-home entertainment.

This, in short, is what is wrong with the exhibition industry today.

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 11-30-2006 01:15 PM

Paying bad film handlers more will not make them good film handlers. It will, however, allow theatres to employ better people who take pride in their work.

Projection used to be a career, and paid a wage that you could live and raise a family on. Not any more. While we often blame the technology that allows for automation, the real cause is that theatre owners as a whole have been willing to sacrifice quality for profits. The technology is just the tool. We see the result of this trade off now as overall attendance continues to decrease.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 51 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 49 50 51

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.