|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The stupid are spreading their stupidness
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 06-15-2008 11:55 AM
The mistake with the archive departments at the studios is that they make the mistake about platters being a threat and so they insist on change-over. They need to wake up and understand that instead of insisting the prints can't play a platter house, they just need 1) get to know the theatres where they are sending their prints and what their record is for treating prints with care or not and 2) instead of insisting on playing prints only in change-over houses, insist that a qualified projectionist STAY WITH THE PRINT the entire time it is running thru the projector, platter or not. Problem with platters isn't with the equipment, it's that it allows the theatre owner think because it's automated and plattered that he doesn't have to have a projectionist in the booth at all times. Even those rep houses that have change-over setups still mount the prints on 6000ft reels and then they have operator go down and work concessions or whatever until time for change-over. If no one is in the booth or is not attentive to the system from the time the projector starts until it stops, THAT's where the potential for substantial print damage exists. And either system can malfunction and cause irreversable damage to a print and anyone who thinks change-over won't just hasn't seen sprocket punctures throughout an entire reel. Thing is, with a changeover booth, it pretty much requires at least that there be a human being running the show. Automation and platters tend to encourage the absence of a human. That's the key.
Instead of the studios ranting about No Platters, they just need to demand that if an archive print go to a platter house or LP reel house, the print is always attended by a human who can, at the very least, turn the damn system off before irreperable damage is done.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andy Frodsham
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 238
From: Stoke on Trent, Staffs, UK
Registered: Nov 2006
|
posted 06-15-2008 12:55 PM
You are, sadly, spot-on Frank!
Even in the early days of our operation we were getting archive prints (still with integral leaders and tails) which had been absolutely trashed while being screened at other theatres. I recall, on one occasion, receiving a brand-new archive print from the BFI, screening it and returning all the parts in the same pristine condition. We needed to screen a copy of the film again four weeks later and the same copy arrived. This time, it had about 30 splices per part, regular perforation damage (warped reels, perhaps) and running abrasions throughout its length. The leaders and tails had still not been removed!
It made me so angry to see how someone could have done this in such a short time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 06-15-2008 03:39 PM
OK, maybe that was a little bit of a generalisation. There are some crappy 'specialised' (as the UK Film Council, known as FCUK to its friends, likes to call them) venues too. University film societies are particularly high risk: you can have a student projectionist who really knows what (s)he's doing and takes care, then leaves and is replaced by a film mangler.
quote: Andy Frodsham
What's the official line?
It's softened a lot in recent years, largely because of FCUK's line that access is everything. In other words, the BFI's paymasters are pulling funds from everything except what the public can see on the screen, and denying access to prints on what they would see as a mere technicality is a big no-no. There are some National Film and Television Archive (a separate division of the BFI from their main theatrical distribution department) prints which are still guarded jealously: despite having been out of the booth professionally for seven years now, I was recently asked to check out a venue near here which wanted to show a hand tinted and toned print of a recently restored late silent, because the cost of replacing that would be eye-watering. But it's certainly true to say that they're more hands-off about the bulk of their circulating print stock than was once the case.
Platters have become the bogie-machines of a lot of old school archivists, and there's no doubt in my mind that this attitude has stopped film shows from happening that would have given a lot of taxpayers the chance to see some of the films their money was paying to preserve and restore. But there's also a risk that the pendulum will swing too far the other way and that archive access officers will feel too scared about trying to make sure that their prints are handled professionally, for fear of being accused of throwing up unnecessary barriers to public access. IMHO the key to the issue is for archives to hire more people who've spent time in the booth and can use that experience to make a judgment call as to whether a venue is OK or not.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 06-15-2008 05:31 PM
Here is something from todays Atlanta Journal-Constutition
AJC story
You say sabotage, I say checklist for my job
By Richard Halicks
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/15/08
Sixty-four years ago, U.S. intelligence issued a "Simple Sabotage Field Manual" for "citizen-saboteurs" in Europe, showing how small acts could cause big headaches for the Nazis.
The section of the 36-page manual that explains "general interference with organizations and production" provoked some laughs, however, when observers spotted parallels between 1944 sabotage techniques and 2008 corporate culture.
Some examples:
> Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit shortcuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
> Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.
> When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible —- never less than five.
> Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
> Be worried about the propriety of any decision —- raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.
The manual, declassified long ago, came up last week at the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston during a presentation by the CIA, said conference general manager Steve Wylie.
Sean Dennehy, the CIA's "evangelist for Intellipedia and Enterprise 2.0," and Don Burke, "Intellipedia Doyen," were describing efforts to share information among agencies in the wake of the intelligence failures before 9/11. Intellipedia uses the same software as Wikipedia to connect analysts in one agency with those in another.
The conference Web site posted a link to the "Simple Sabotage" manual, which quickly became a bit of a sensation online. The headline on Boingboing.net, for example, noted: "Sabotage manual from 1944 advises acting like an average 2008 manager."
But if that part was for managers, the manual seemed also to have a part for contemporary workers. To wit:
> Give lengthy and incomprehensible explanations when questioned.
> Act stupid.
> Be as irritable and quarrelsome as possible without getting yourself into trouble.
> Cry and sob hysterically at every occasion, especially when confronted by government clerks.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic