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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Sex and the City (2008) (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Sex and the City (2008) Galen Murphy-Fahlgren Master Film Handler Posts: 405 From: Canton, MI, USA Registered: Oct 2007 posted 06-01-2008 04:26 PM                     Luckily, I only have one print, but even that has been doing poorly. A couple sellouts for the whole weekend, and no rowdiness. The Strangers has been busier, and those are the people being escorted off the premises by the cops. Perhaps my competitor down the street has done better by it, since they have a liquor license, and looks like they have it on three screens. Canton is not really a drunk-friendly town, you can't get anywhere without driving, so it would be optimal to get liquored up at the theater, rather than having to commute.  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 06-01-2008 11:03 PM                        CINEMA: Regal Cinemas Kansas City 18, Kansas City, MO AUDITORIUM: 5 PRESENTATION: 35mm/Dolby Digital PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four) WARNING: "Women come to New York for the two L's...Labels, and Spoilers." THE PLOT: Big screws up. Wackiness ensues. I actually watched the show in its original run for a couple of seasons before the novelty wore off. I did catch up on the DVD's later in a whirlwind weeklong marathon. (What...they were on sale at Costco.) The show is so special to women because it taught the Lite FM crowd how to think with their dicks, so to speak. It was a revolutionary fantasy world to the women who today still support Rick Springfield tours, yet think of themselves as being just as glamorous or clever as Sex and the City's fabulous foursome. The movie plays out like a completely written season with the filler cut down to make it more like five episodes long. It IS the TV show. Exactly the TV show. There's nothing special done to it to dress it up for the big screen unless you count gastric noises, which is more like dressing down. But the women in this audience laughed hardest at that scene. It seems to be exactly what the hard core fan base had hoped for, and it did $55 million, so I'd say it came out just fine.  |  IP: Logged Allison Parsons Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 630 From: East Peoria, IL Registered: Oct 2004 posted 06-02-2008 01:16 AM                        There were reports that you could see the boom mics in a lot of the scenes. Anyone notice that? I just figured maybe whomever was running the film had the wrong lens on the projector.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 06-02-2008 02:22 AM                        Check the random news links thread or whatever it is called for the boom mic story. They had it out of frame because it was run by retards.  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 06-02-2008 03:08 AM                     My guess is that the boom mics were close to the frame line, but I screened this thing and didn't see any at all.  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 06-02-2008 08:09 AM                        I didn't notice any.  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 06-02-2008 11:54 AM                        Looks like lots of so-called projectionists still don't get the concept of framing a 1.85 picture that's been printed open matte. But then again these people are most likely the same ones that HAVE to rack the framing on EVERY start since they don't even know to set the intermittent BEFORE threading up. What Joe said.  |  IP: Logged Galen Murphy-Fahlgren Master Film Handler Posts: 405 From: Canton, MI, USA Registered: Oct 2007 posted 06-02-2008 02:08 PM                     I haven't seen the mics, but there was either a notice in the cans or an "urgent fax" stating that the film was "to be projected at an aspect ratio of 1.85:1" and that "when properly projected, no booms will be visible" on screen. Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure it was a fax, as my GM and I had a good chuckle about it when it came in.  |  IP: Logged Louis Belloisy Expert Film Handler Posts: 120 From: morris, ct usa Registered: Jun 2006 posted 06-02-2008 05:12 PM                        We have had the boom mikes showing, usually by a young person who does not know how to properly frame the movie, kudos to management for sending the kids up from the floor. i am sure you remember "disturbia" it was known as the "mike movie", the microphones and booms were below the heads of the actors, especially in the bedroom scene. we received a fax from paramount to the effect "if the booms or mikes show, its the fault of the projectionist". i found the email of the post production manager at paramount and sent him a lengthy email, asking how a mess such as this was released. we eventually talked by phone and he explained that there was limited room in the bedroom and consequently the equipment was seen. he did apologize for the fax and sent out a follow up email to everyone who complained about the fax. no matter how we framed that movie, the booms were visible. he actually offered to send someone up from Manhattan to ensure proper display. by that time it had been moved to a smaller theater. so much for quality control. Louis  |  IP: Logged Galen Murphy-Fahlgren Master Film Handler Posts: 405 From: Canton, MI, USA Registered: Oct 2007 posted 06-03-2008 07:40 PM                     I got a follow-up fax today from WB which absolutely appalled me. I would post it up, but I don't have a scanner, so I will paraphrase the most egregious portions of the solid block of text. If someone else has this fax and can post it up, it is pretty fantastically condescending. Points 1, 2, 3, 4 all suggest that I and all other projectionists don't know what aperture plate and lens to use, or how to frame. Also, perhaps some of us run around swapping plates between projectors with no regard for differing screen sizes. "Different sized screens have slightly different sized aperture plates." No shit, thanks for telling me something I learned in my first week. Point 5 says to check the framing, then goes on to give some great recommendations on just how to do this, including this gem: "If you still can't verify your framing, check by looking into the front of the lens (with a small amount of light coming in from the xenon bulb) to make sure that the number on your leader or other frame information is centered in the square." In all fairness, it does provide a warning to limit the amount of light hitting the film, etc. Points 6 and 7 pretty much say to turn the framing knob until you can't see the boom mikes. Thanks. So, from my perspective, this is pretty much their fault. How many chances did they have to keep this out of the release print? They could have not shot it in the first place, they could have just deleted it in the digital intermediate, or hard matted it out at the lab, at the very least. Thank you WB, for screwing up royally at your job and then getting condescending to the hardworking projectionist. For the record, I haven't even seen this mike, but I still am insulted by the assumption that we are idiots.  |  IP: Logged Allison Parsons Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 630 From: East Peoria, IL Registered: Oct 2004 posted 06-03-2008 08:10 PM                        um....is it normal to film boom mics anyway??? I remember watching a trailer for The Break-up and noticing the boom mics. Then I realized that I was *that* dumb projectionist and forgot to change the lens. Luckly I was screening whatever movie the trailer was one and fixed it.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-03-2008 10:43 PM                     With everyone using digital intermediates these days, there really is no excuse not to hard matte the entire film. Furthermore, each print should have a thick black hard matte edge, with thick CLEAR framelines. The black hard matte edge is to compensate for a poorly overcut aperture plate and the CLEAR fat framelines is to guarantee idiots can't run the show out of frame.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 06-04-2008 12:45 AM                     I am strictly speaking as an audience member here, not as a projectionist. While the points Brad makes are obviously good ones here as to twhyat the studio could/should have done, there ARE still some incompetent operatios out there that would still screw it up. There was a UA theatre locally that always projected out of frame for flat films and operators refused to accept this, even though all the rating bands would be way off center and the preview credit cards would be massively cut off. One time I went to the usher and pointed out the obvious. His answer? "It don't matter." He did this twice to me. I even wrote corporate suggesting that they hard matte their feature presentation snipe to act as a guide. Whether or not they were responding to me, the new snipes a couple of months later had gthe hard mattes, and they STILL weren't used to properly frame. And the hard matted flat films (few as there are) would STILL show huge black bars at the bottom of the screen. And still no one at the theatre woiuld believe me. (Even more jaw-dropping, at a grindhouse downtown, I pointed out that a scope movie was being shown through a flat lens. The actual "projectionist" peeked in and couldnt understand what I was talking about. It took TWENTY MINUTES of me complaining before something was done about it. The girl at the snack bar had to explain it to him and even commented, "he obviously doesn't know what he is doing." No shit! So it is unfortunate that the true professsionals at this site have to be seen as guilty by association, but I have seen too many obviously bad framing issues (among other operator problems)to not think that this letter sent out isn't needed. (This doesn't excuse the sloppiness of the filmmakers for allowing boom mikes in the first place, though).  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 06-04-2008 03:26 AM                     I've seen boom scenes in Scope movies also.. The classic boom/pencil mic shot was in "Grease" - where Sandy and Danny are by the jukebox in the soda shop. As they were talking back and forth together, one can see the pencil mic swing back and forth in the reflective plastic dome of that jukebox to each other's conversations.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-04-2008 05:07 AM                     Paul, with clear frame lines, it would be pretty damn hard to run it out of frame. If the studios really wanted to ensure their movies were run in frame, they could print "the manager is now giving away 10 free passes for pointing out to him that this movie is running out of frame" in that clear area.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.