Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: GRINDHOUSE HeadsUp

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » GRINDHOUSE HeadsUp - Missing Reel, Dirt (Page 6)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author

Topic: GRINDHOUSE HeadsUp - Missing Reel, Dirt

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-03-2007 10:44 PM

The Weinsteins did leave Disney, but Disney retained the Miramax name as a specialty label along with its library. So the brothers had to form a new company with the new name, The Weinstein Company. They no longer have a connection with Miramax.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-03-2007 10:54 PM

The movie is probably not good enough to be on digital.

| IP: Logged

Dustin Mitchell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1865
From: Mondovi, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 04-03-2007 11:23 PM

Yes, there is a 42 minute difference between 150 and 192. Runtime I have is 186, though I suppose there could have been a last minute change. Point I was trying to make was that even with 150 minutes there was room to spare, probably room enough for another 36 minutes though I can't say for certain. In any event if they wanted to distribute it digitaly the 2-print solution would have been fine. If the print would have been handled by AccessIT (drive distribution is different from virtual print fees, so although AccessIT collects all virtual print fees at its onctract theatre other companies may distribute the drives) it would probably have been dropped in via satellite to the booked locations with that capability anyway.

My bad on the Mirimax thing though, I meant Dimesion. Same conclusion, probably no deal with AccessIT for paying of virtual print fees thus no digital release in AccessIT theatres.

| IP: Logged

Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-04-2007 09:27 AM

Yes, they could have split the data between two drives if necessary.

Someone thought they were being helpful by sending an internal email noting all the features of a Grindhouse print, and of course, it was distributed to at least our region. I just shook my head as this thread already told us about it 3 months ago. Didn't the trailer already give away that it would look like that?

Guess I should put up a notice for the usher staff about the 'intended' presentation of the directors. Takes the fun out of fielding calls from staff about projection quality.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 04-04-2007 03:55 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
apparently there isn't any digital cinema version of Grindhouse

This appears to be correct. Two all-digital exhibitors have confirmed for me that they will be screening "Grindhouse" in 35mm.

| IP: Logged

David Kilderry
Master Film Handler

Posts: 355
From: Melbourne Australia
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 04-05-2007 04:35 AM

Whilst I'll admit we had some bad prints back in the drive-ins in the 1980's, most of the indoor houses running double features had reasonable prints; certainly never a missing spool.

I recall that some prints had numerous repairs and splices especially at the Rapallo in the city (downtown) where I was an assistant projectionist. The Marx Bros and Woody Allen were frequent visitors on our screens as double feature subjects. So were films like Tank and The New Adventures Of Fanny Hill!

Once we ran a revival of American Graffiti, and for those of you who know the film, the start of spool one had so many splices that the soundtrack went " one o'clock, two o'clock, eight o'clock rock"! The three, four, five, six & seven had all been edited out of the Bill Halley intro. song! After that the print was not too bad, although it was only mono.

As a bit of reverse payback; a major Hoyts multiplex here in Melbourne ran the openning few days of Pulp Fiction on first release with two spools out of order. That's right a few days! This was at a major location and it took that long for projection staff to be alerted and rectify it!

David

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 04-05-2007 08:19 PM

Missing spools? I do know one occasional poster here, who went through a phase in the early 90s, where getting out on time was his primary focus. He did occasionally drop a spool. He stopped doing this after a screening of the Led Zeppelin concert film THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME, when he dropped the spool that contained Stairway to Heaven!

As for piss poor prints, well when I worked in repetory cinema, I do remember a few shockers, scratched, oily, and so dirty at least one whole spool must have found its way on the ground. Films from the 70's often had gone pink, overall though most were watchable. Woody Allen prints in general, did tend to be well preserved for the huge number of screenings they had.

I find it interesting that films wear and tear, due the effects of a limited low budget release are the basis of this films visual style. Its a reminder to me that what I find as issues or negatives with film, others find are emotional strengths of the medium.

Is there any use of pink colorshift in the release of Grindhouse?

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Also apparently the film is in scope (could cheap productions afford widescreen in the 70's?) so running out of format is something to add to the list.

As for 2 perf 35mm, It is still used today, Its biggest advantage of all for low budget film making is that on location, a standard 10 minute reel lasts for 20 minutes! so production stock costs are cut by up to 50% and it fills the big scope screen. The Australian film called THE CROP was filmed this way and is one of at least 2 films, that I know were shot in this process, over the past few years here in Sydney.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-06-2007 03:04 AM

Wow, that is REEEALLY low budget -- I know the pornos that were made in that weird forward<->reverse system with each physical reel actually containing two reels -- double images in each frame, both printed in opposite directions. When the reel finished playing in one direction and it was Tails Up, it actually was Heads Up and ready to play in the other direction; you just took it off the takeup spindle and put it back on the top feed spindle and you were ready to go after the other projector played out. Quite ingenius, actually, but my understanding was that at least the O neg was shot normally in only one direction (how would you edit a negative roll that had desperate images in opposing frames?). Although the release prints had a pretty miniscule film geography, they still could counter that a bit by reduction printing it down to the smaller forward<->reverse release print from a larger, standard negative.

I ran a bunch of these years ago (these were prints you didn't really didn't want to see coming in with leaders not attached or attached to the wrong reel. Talk about confusing -- each Heads leader was the Tails leader for the reel printed going in the other direction; same on the other end.

Another quirky thing was that you really had to pay close attention to what you were doing -- no medicinal herb smoking. Focus was especially knarly because with every reverse of the reel, the focus would be slightly off (the emulsion was now on the other side of the base, either closer or further way from the lens). Picture focus you could compensate for, but there was nothing you could do about the fact that the sound was also out of focus half the time and soundheads don't have any easy way for refocusing the slit lens for each reel.

You also had better be paying very close attention to your threading instead of gawking at what's going on on the screen because there was no room for error with these prints when it came to framing. Out-of-frame on a forward<->reverse print and you'd be getting the wrong reel altogether and everything would be upside down and backwards, not that diehard porn fans care much one way or another. Those horny Aggies would probably just have stood on their heads to watch upside down porn without so much as a howdy-do. [beer]

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 04-06-2007 11:45 AM

quote: Brad Miller
Are they going to mix the tracks to simulate a mono auditorium complete with blown speakers??? I hope not.

No need to simulate that at any of our theaters.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 04-06-2007 05:35 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
apparently there isn't any digital cinema version of Grindhouse

quote: Michael Coate
This appears to be correct. Two all-digital exhibitors have confirmed for me that they will be screening "Grindhouse" in 35mm.

A third all-digital exhibitor has confirmed for me that "Grindhouse" is not available in a D-Cinema version. However, another exhibitor, Carmike, is advertising a digital presentation on their website at a number of locations (as of Friday morning), including the Summit 16 in Birmingham, AL; the Royal Palm 20 in Bradenton, FL; and Carmike 15 in Columbus, GA. These are probably errors and I bet the web listing will be corrected in a matter of time. But then, maybe Carmike, with their 1600+ digital screens, is being given special treatment.

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 04-06-2007 07:17 PM

Well, now I have confirmation that Tarantino has absolutely no concept of exhibition. Evidently, he's drawn wildly incorrect conclusions from movies he's seen on VHS.

I saw some of the Kurt Russell title today at one of my theatres. It was just like watching a rough cut WORKPRINT, except with M&E tracks. There are Rivas-style perforated tape splice marks ON EVERY CUT I saw (and some during the shot with no frames missing-as in a cut that was made but changed back, again, in editing).

Mr. Q.T. has released A WORKPRINT and thinks that B-pictures were exhibited that way!

I don't care how cheap the picture was, release prints simply were not made off of workprints!

And, the on-screen "announcement" that some reels are missing is completely unrelated to anything in reality on two levels: that reels would routinely be missing to begin with (as previously discussed), and that there would be a snipe to ANNOUNCE that reels were/are missing!

What the hell is this kid thinking?

| IP: Logged

John Plasket
Film Handler

Posts: 16
From: Berks County, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 04-06-2007 11:57 PM

The rumors appear to be true...
Carmike Cinema 5, State College, PA

I won't actually see it until tomorrow... but it seems as though the world is making slightly less sense.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 04-07-2007 12:31 AM

just because there is a DLP listed on the marquee does not guarentee that the movie is presented that way.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-07-2007 01:16 AM

Incorrect format listings are nothing new, and those DLP listings for Grindhouse at a few Carmike locations are very likely errors.

Speaking of errors, there's another one that often shows up in Carmike's show time listings. In many digital cinema engagements they often show the Dolby Headphone logo as an icon to denote 5.1 digital surround sound. The audio is LPCM 5.1, not Dolby Digital. Many of theaters didn't have Dolby Digital processors in the first place. Many had DTS players removed from the booth racks as well.

That kind of gets back to the overall visual problems I have with Carmike's web site re-design. It isn't as good as the old version they trashed a few months ago. The old version was a little more accurate with the sound format logos.

| IP: Logged

John Plasket
Film Handler

Posts: 16
From: Berks County, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 04-07-2007 02:44 AM

quote: Darryl Spicer
just because there is a DLP listed on the marquee does not guarentee that the movie is presented that way.

Which is why I disclaimed that I haven't seen it yet.

Did I forget to mention that this is on the actual marquee, not the website? I'm guessing that whoever had it put there might have known something about how the film was going to be exhibited.

Of course, it could just be a marketing ploy.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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.