|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Iron Man prints have locks (here we go again)
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 05-04-2008 01:49 PM
quote: Justin Hamaker
The one thing that does concern me when we don't get the print at least one day before the opening (especially for a Friday opening), is that there is little opportunity to get a replacement reel ordered before the weekend if it's needed. With Matrix Reloaded, we had a reel that almost went black for about 30 seconds and we weren't able to get the replacement reel until the second day of the run (seems like that would have been Friday morning).
Oh I can top that. I had to replace TWO ENTIRE PRINTS that were delivered to the theater about 6 hours before the first show. (Clarification, only the first 6 reels on one print since the reel 7 was new, but on the second print there was a horrible lab defect in reel 7 so even though that reel 7 was new, couple that with the first 6 reels being scratched from the screener theater and voila, an entire second print.)
The first 2 days of playing this movie had to run beat up, scratched, shitty prints because of this fucking horseshit. The big boys at Deluxe in California need to learn to ALWAYS send back a screener print to the theater that played it once and damaged it (probably half of every screener that goes out gets damaged in one pass, so these guys need to ASSUME that once a print goes out and is played once that it is damaged).
They also need to stop using the logic of "the print has only been played one time" doesn't mean anything. If a theater knows they will be getting that same print back, they WILL take care of it. However everybody knows that is not the case. They can rip through it, scratch it up, damage the sprockets or whatever they want to do with it and come opening day they will have a brand new print sitting there and the theaters closest to the shipping depot will have to deal with their laziness and incompetence.
Oh and Guttag, one of them came from a changeover house. It was the worst one with lines all throughout the image that got worse and worse as the end of each reel approached. It wasn't a simple misthread either because EVERY REEL was scratched like this.
There were 3 other used prints that I got which were not in the best shape, but weren't quite bad enough to warrant rejecting. So using Deluxe's logic, it is better to send a slightly damaged print out to a theater that would have otherwise returned the print in lab new condition and send out a brand new one to a theater that by the time this post is up is already much more worn than those 3 prints they sent me.
I'm telling ya, those Deluxe guys in LA who decide who gets what print are fucking stupid.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 05-04-2008 04:32 PM
John, the local depot manager has been trying to do what he can regarding not sending us screener prints, and that is VERY much appreciated. However Deluxe out in LA is sometimes assigning them to us because we are a "will call" account. I find that reasoning ridiculous because when they have to overnight out a print from another depot direct to a theater, what difference does it make? So what they end up doing is punishing an entire chain that is on a will call account and making it extremely difficult for us to get the prints assembled in time. After all, many of my staff is still in college and we do not run shows during the weekday morning/afternoons. Other theaters like an AMC that DO run shows all day long could have easily dealt with it. Likewise if they are (for example) 10 prints short, they should've shorted us one, Cinemark two, AMC two, some small chain one, Regal two, etc rather than slamming it all onto one small group. Plus we are about the only theaters that actually return the prints in lab new condition too.
And before anyone posts up some lame "maybe they think you are a bootlegging theater", from a security standpoint it is just impossible for a customer to bootleg a movie since there are wait staff that are in each auditorium constantly monitoring the customers throughout the show. No other theater chain can boast that. Also nobody can operate the projection except for a very small group of projectionists. Not even someone with experience could make it run, because they would have to have certain keys and such to "unlock" the equipment so it could run. Even if a projectionist tried to run a movie in the middle of the night, he couldn't get away with it because every single button that is pushed in the buildings 24/7 are logged. Better security does not exist anywhere.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-06-2008 04:35 AM
Coming home tonite I was listening to WCBS News radio in NY and here comes a report that Mr. Cuomo, our Attorney General, is going to institute stiffer laws to combat movie pirating (how this has become a state issue when it clearly is a Federal crime is the big question, but who cares, it got him air time, which is what 80% of politics is all about). And the report says he was in consulting with the MPAA....who would have guessed.
They played a sound bite of him saying how it hurts the New York film industry and he is going to seek jail time for the pirateers. Good so far. Then he says, "When movies are pirated in movie theatres and wind up on the internet and find their way as bootlegs copies in video rental stores, it is a serious threat to New York jobs." That certainly sounds to me like a very lopsided and stilted take on movie piracy. quote: John Hawkinson
Frank, where the heck do you get the idea that the studios "seem to put their efforts on only one side of the [aisle]"?
Precisely when I hear things like this, John. And in fact, that's all I've ever heard whenever there is any public piece on movie piracy. I've never once heard media talk about theft of movie tiles from the studio labs, or careless people in Hollywood having copies made so they can show off to their friends at wine and cheese and coke parties.
As an exhibitor I find this bias totally lopsided and a affront to people on our side of the isle -- exhibition. And truth be told, yes, it gets me pissed off.
And it just so happens that this particular bootleg of IRON MAN which got Cuomo on is high horse in the first place was a satellite transmission capture, NOT an off-screen copy; the street vendors selling them in NYC are selling pristine copies, making Cuomo's statement in which he maligns exhibitors, at best inaccurate and misleading and at worst, deliberate slander and even a way to throw suspicsion in the wrong direction.
The report also said he was in direct talks with the MPAA, although that does seem in perfect MPAA style that they were in no rush to correct his erroneous notion that this bootleg happen in a movie theatre. Maybe they didn't want to mention that perhaps he needed in this case to investigate some of studio labs or directors' or producers' or celebs' private home theatres.
So once again the idea is promulgated to the general public that if it weren't for the dishonest people who work in movie theatres, there would be no such crime as movie piracy. There is no question in my mind that this stilted public perception comes directly from the MPAA and the studios' persistent campaign against piracy that has been intent, almost in its entirety, to implicate theatres and projectionists either directly or indirectly. And when these theatre pirates are not making copies, it's their fault anyway because obviously they are not stopping the patrons who are doing it right under their noses in their own theatres.
Listen, I am sure the retail industry looses millions of dollars in theft every year, but you don't see FBI warning on big red signs all over the store when you walk into Macy*s telling every customer to be on the lookout for shoplifters and reminding customers that it's a crime. We know they are very aware and concerned about theft and have sophisticated security in place to stop shoplifting, but they don't seem to feel the need to slap you in the face about it at every turn or go on as many news programs who will have them so they can tell the world how victimized they are and how many billions they loose to shoplifting.
I see the whole lock thing as just more of the same. They know it wouldn't stop jackshit, but they put the locks on anyway. They can't come outright and accuse exhibitors of aiding and abetting piracy, so instead they can make life just a little more annoying than it needs to be for us. I see the locks as a loud and clear statement, "Yah, we know you are theives stealing our property, and these locks are telling you we know it."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Stambaugh
Film God
Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 05-06-2008 11:07 AM
NY Piracy Protection Act
NY Piracy Protection Act no panacea for P2P problems
By Nate Anderson | Published: May 05, 2008 - 10:37PM CT
When the director of a recent feature film wanted to get some insight into how piracy was affecting his product, he asked one of our staffers to troll the murkier backwaters of the Internet to see 1) if his film was available, 2) whether it had come from the hand-delivered, always-guarded screener DVDs or from camcorders, and 3) what the quality was like. It didn't take long to find the film, a poor camcorded job complete with heads in the picture and stereo sound. The director was philosophical. "Well, at least they didn't get it from the DVDs," he said.
The quality difference between a screener DVD and a film taped directly off the screen in a local cineplex is huge. Unless you like head shots and crowd noise in your films, camcorded films in no way approximate the experience of watching a legal version in the theater or on the DVD player. Still, according to MPAA boss Dan Glickman, these camcorder versions form the basis for 90 percent of all street and Internet piracy. What's more, half of all Hollywood camcorder rips take place in New York, according to the always-reliable industry reports. That's why Glickman, NBC Universal boss Jeff Zucker, and actress/writer Tina Fey were all on hand today to promote a new state bill called the Piracy Protection Act.
Sure, it's a horrible name (no one realized that it sounds like a bill to protect piracy?), but it's yet another in New York's string of attempts to boost the movie and TV businesses that work there. The PPA would make illegal recording a misdemeanor, rather than just a fineable offense. First-time offenders could spend up to a year in jail and face a $1,000 fine. Repeat offenders would be charged as felons. According to New York's Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, the moves are designed to crack down on "illegal crime syndicates" that profit from the making and distribution of illegal recordings.
In addition, the law would set up a Special Assistant Attorney General charged with coordinating state and local efforts against film piracy. Befitting the emphasis on organized crime, the new assistant will work with New York's Organized Crime Task Force.
"New York has become the hub for a criminal network dedicated to film piracy," said Attorney General Cuomo at a press conference announcing the new bill. "The wide distribution of pirated films originating from New York costs our state vital economic resources, including thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue. We are all paying a price for the leniency given to this type of organized crime, and I will not let it continue on my watch."
The announcement was backed by a host of media and political insiders. Tina Fey, who both acts in and writes for 30 Rock on NBC, reminded listeners that "when you buy a DVD, you should not be able to see the heads of people watching it in a movie theater at the bottom of the screen." The Senate Majority Leader, Joseph L. Bruno, said, "When someone participates in multimedia piracy, they are stealing from artists and hurting the entertainment industry that is such a large part of New York's economy." (Ed. note: "Multimedia piracy"? Are dial-up connections and double-speed CD-ROM drives involved?)
There's certainly nothing to defend about the practice of making camcorder rips, so more power to New York if the state can put a dent in the practice and cut off its links to organized crime. If organized crime is really "organized," though, it will no doubt just outsource its ripping operations to states and countries where penalties are less and enforcement is lax.
The MPAA, though, is out to get pirates wherever they travel. John Malcolm, who heads the group's antipiracy operations, recently told us that the MPAA operates in more than 50 countries. While the group hopes to shut down the key sources of camcorder rips, it also expends significant energy and resources going after burning labs in China, Russia, and Malaysia. With the move to Internet piracy, though, everything gets harder: a single film rip from DVD or camcorder plus a BitTorrent client can bypass even sophisticated antipiracy operations.
That's why maintaining tight control on screener DVDs and on the staff at replication facilities is so crucial; camcorder rips might be hard to control, might be easy to do, and might prove easy to find, but the quality is fairly dire. While they might suffice for those too cheap to buy or rent a film anyway, such rips aren't of much use to anyone who has invested more than a couple hundred bucks in an entertainment center.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-06-2008 12:30 PM
OK, that about sez it all. And I'll leave it at this -- most people are not doing searches on the internet to fully understand the phenomenon; they gets most of their information from news reports on radio and TV. The point being, if you ask the average Joe where movie piracy comes from, he's going to say from the guy in the theatre with the cam. And that's just wrong.
The general public has been left with the impression that 90% of this criminal activity comes from dishonest theatre personnel, either directly by projectionists or others in the theatre doing nefarious deeds after hours or by lax and lenient theatre owners simply allowing people with cams to do it under their watch. That's the impression the MPAA has promoted and wants the public to have. According to MPAA boss Dan Glickman, these camcorder versions form the basis for 90 percent of all street and Internet piracy. There it is from the horse's mouth. And that distortion has been promulgated long before Glickman's reign; he's just carrying that distorted flag.
And sure, it's not in the studio's interest to trumpet the leaks in their own system, and I understand that -- but I don't at all appreciate it because it is at our expense. It's accusatory and what's worse it's just not true, yet the MPAA has been on a campaign to promote this distortion for years....and it's worked. How many of us here who work in theatres our entire careers, have EVER seen anyone screen ripping? A handful at most? I never have. I would bet, though, that the majority of the public if asked if they would spend money to see a theatre rip "with people's heads in the picture" and that horrid sound would say definately not. Off-screen copies are simply not where the big money comes from. Organized crime is not pressing hundreds of thousands of copies of nearly unwatchable off-screen rips; they are getting the real deal because that's were the money is.
I ran into a street vendor in Brooklyn had his wares out on the sidewalk and who could tell you exactly which of his copies were "theatre versions" and "clean versions." And I can tell you I had him go thru more than a dozen and they were MOSTLY "clean" copies. He sold those for twice the price. There were two titles which had just opened and all he had were off screen copies, BUT he confidently said that if I came back in two days he would have clean copies. The MAJORITY of his ill-gotten product were "clean," definately NOT MPAA's claim of 90%
There is a severe disconnect between what is really going on and what is being told to the public and it an affront to our profession and I am really quite surprised and a little disheartened that you guys seem to be not only OK with it, but are defending the MPAA's misinformation that makes your profession look like a bunch of shady fellons.
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Stambaugh
Film God
Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 05-06-2008 12:43 PM
What would the MPAA gain by lying, i.e. the 90% camcorder statement? I mean I don't understand why they would grossly inflate that number. I guess they could be over-emphasizing the camcorder aspect of the problem because exhibition is an area where MPAA has the least direct control.
If piracy takes place on just 0.5% of the 38,000 indoor US screens, whether theater personnel are involved or not, that's 190 screens. It's unlikely anyone here would see it or be a part of it, yet it's still a significant number of screens. That's just the US too.
Don't take it personal Frank, I just don't think you're being any more objective about the issue than, say, the MPAA, whom you're accusing of not being objective. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic