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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Projectionist loses job after panning movie (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Projectionist loses job after panning movie Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 06-15-2007 09:31 AM                     The general rule of thumb on Press Screenings is you don't release your reviews till the release date of the picture. But because he was the projectionist it puts him in a kind of "In the know spot". That's what the studios would say. As if he was working on the production and made comments about the production's problems and other things related to it. The studios these days get funky on many different things. There are many rules to deal with as to reviews / to who can attend / security of prints / people bring in bags and phones. So the studios do look into pre-release reviews and pre-screenings (Beware of Lurkers here on your comments of how your chain theatre runs). I can not make comments about films till release dates other than Tech. info on the print.  |  IP: Logged Jason Burroughs Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 654 From: Allen, TX Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-15-2007 09:53 AM                     His firing ammounts to corporate censorship, if he was infact let go soley because of his review instead of other performance issues. It becomes a slippery slope when a vendor can dictate your hiring/firing practices. While Fox may not have come out and directly requested the employee's dismissal, you know it was implicated. If you hold true that he was justly fired because Fox leaned on the company, then we would all rightly be fired because of opinions based on this site if any said vendor chose to lean on our respective companies.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 06-15-2007 12:53 PM                        The only good news here is that at $7; it was a nothing job, easily replaced with any other nothing job. The tragedy is that a person who has enough interest to "post a review" probably is a person who likes film and is interested and connected to his job. This is never a bad thing; in fact we need more of them. Perhaps there is another exhibition job in Memphis where he might be better appreciated. Bill; I do understand that the "rules" are well known in NYC. Out in the boonies, it is not always true that anyone has ever articulated any guidelines. That is why a warning is more appropriate the first time. Louis  |  IP: Logged Jim Bedford Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 597 From: Telluride, CO, USA (733 mi. WNW of Rockwall, TX but it seems much, much longer) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-15-2007 01:40 PM                        You know, it's just not morally right to use your position with a company to benefit yourself (or even your blog) without permission. If you do this with special knowledge you gain while working for a company and use it in the stock market it's called insider trading and can be subject to criminal action. Isn't this just insider trading of privileged knowledge? Obviously this is a special case. My lord, if many employers got wind of the fact that nine out of ten projectionists who review films on this site hate nine out of every ten films they review everyone would lose their jobs!  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 06-15-2007 02:13 PM                     A little discretion sometimes goes a long way. If Mr. Morrison had used a little he would still have his job. Frequently critics see movies well ahead of the opening and are told that they can't release their reviews until a certain date under penalty of never seeing a prerelease screening again. Morrison would be in that same category. It is not corporate censorship, they own the product and have a right to control all aspects of it until it is public. He made improper use of his position.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 06-15-2007 02:43 PM                    The theater's owners/operators probably had to sign some sort of a non-disclosure in order to have the rights to show the film early. By them signing it, he is bound by it. But being a projectionist, and being pretty far away from the folks who work those deals, he may not have realized that. Unless he knew he was violating a non-disclosure agreement or some other rule, then the theater owners fired him for bad reasons since they were just as much at fault as he was. Unless he KNEW he was making a mistake, it wasn't fair to fire him. If they didn't make him aware of the policy, then they just got rid of him to cover themselves in the face of the studio. That being said, they are perfectly able to fire anyone they want for any reason what so ever if he signed that "at will" employment contract that most of us sign. But that doesn't make it a good business decision. Either way, I don't think we have enough information here to really pass judgment on anybody at this point.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-15-2007 03:56 PM                     If he didn't know panning an unreleased film owned by a major distributor on a high-profile website wouldn't get him into hot water, he must be mighty dumb (or maybe just mighty naive). In any case...he's learned the lesson now. Don't fuck with Rupert Murdoch.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 06-15-2007 04:16 PM                     quote: Mark J. Marshall That being said, they are perfectly able to fire anyone they want for any reason what so ever if he signed that "at will" employment contract that most of us sign. He didn't even have to necessarily sign anything like that. For instance, Washington is an "at will employment" state.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-15-2007 04:31 PM                        quote: John Wilson If he didn't know panning an unreleased film owned by a major distributor on a high-profile website wouldn't get him into hot water, he must be mighty dumb (or maybe just mighty naive). how would he know that without trying it first or being told so? sure, he couldn't expect they'd be happy about it, but neither hollywood nor anyone else gets to be happy about everything.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-15-2007 04:35 PM                     Simple...ask if it would be OK. Like I said... dumb or naive. Either way, he has lost.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-15-2007 07:50 PM                     It's all about the opening weekend grosses. It doesn't matter how awful the movie is. The studios are banking on the fact that their advertising campaigns will bring in the suckers opening weekend before anyone finds out what a turd they just created to make their money. I'm not sure what I find more pathetic. The fact that so many studios churn out shit week after week and knowingly screw the general public with the style of advertising that they do, or the way this guy was fired. In my personal opinion, the professional way to handle this would have been to bring him into the office and let him know that it was not appropriate to release information on a movie until the opening day (or whatever) and that if it happened again he would lose his job. This business of a theater chain just bending over to a studio (particularly over such an awful movie) and FIRING a good employee out of thin air without any form of warning is bullshit. Besides, had the movie actually been good, the review would have been positive and the studio wouldn't have had any problem with it.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 06-16-2007 06:34 AM                        Agreed completely with Brad. They shot themselves in the foot publicity-wise by sacking him (i.e. sent the message that they've got something to hide, that something being a shite film), but at the same time there are legitimate reasons for not wanting workers in the industry to publish their opinions about films before the release date. Ever since I got my first cinema job as a teenager and got to go to unofficial staff screenings of blockbuster new releases when the print arrived before the opening date, it was made very clear that I was to say nothing about the film before the Friday of the opening. This was especially sensitive if the place you worked was showing the blockbuster, but the rival cinema wasn't - if you put the word around that your film was crap, you'd effectively be handing customers to the opposition, especially in smaller towns where word gets around. My first experience of this was with Jurassic Park in 1992: it had been massively hyped, our print arrived on the Monday and the opening day was the Friday after next (i.e. we had it almost a fortnight early). Of course, all the staff were dying to see it, and so the chief caved in and allowed a staff preview after the last public show the following Saturday. Before I started the film, the manager went on stage and made a short speech to the effect that no-one was to breathe a word about what they'd seen to anyone outside this auditorium - family included - until 4pm the following Friday, when the first public show would be over. If word got back that anyone had, they'd be getting a P45 (the British tax certificate you get at the end of your employment with a company) right away. After that time, you can say what you like about it, even 'This is crap and don't bother coming to the cinema which pays my wages' if you like, he continued. But say nothing until 4pm on Friday. He then explained why, and everyone respected that. Staff previews are a valuable and important thing to do. They're a morale boosting perk for staff who are on pretty low wages, and they cost the cinema virtually nothing. If staff have seen the film, they can talk knowledgeably about it, especially when you get a couple or a group of friends coming to the box office and asking 'We're thinking about seeing a film tonight - what have you got on?'. If the person they talk to has seen the films on offer, the chances are that (s)he'll stand a better chance of making a sale. And of course from our point of view, a full-scale print rehearsal means that any technical bugs are ironed out before the public arrives, and the presentation quality is kept high. But criticising (i.e. writing reviews that make judgments about) films should be left to the professionals before that release date, or else you risk seriously undermining the legitimate sales and advertising effort of the industry.  |  IP: Logged Anslem Rayburn Master Film Handler Posts: 476 From: Yuma, AZ, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 06-16-2007 08:33 AM                     If he didn't have a NDA, then he did nothing wrong. If the only reviews allowed were the ones asked for by the distributor quote: John Wilson Fox never sent him there to review it...he was there to run it and that's it. then there would never be a negative review ever. I tell my customers the honest truth (this has been discussed previously). If Fox thought that this single review would be the down-fall of their film, then they should have spent more effort making a good film. If this theater company thought that being honest about the quality of a film (even though the reviewer separated himself from the company, and only became associated with the theater in question after his firing) was enough to undo them, then they should probably take a long hard look at their business. Corporate censorship is still censorship.  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-16-2007 09:21 AM                        quote: Anslem Rayburn Corporate censorship is still censorship. No it's not! To equate the legal practice of corporate censorship with the immoral practice of general censorship is absurd. Fox has every right to engage in corporate censorship regarding its products until they become public. There is nothing wrong about that. Nearly every company we all work for has some from of corporate censorship. This is not to say that corporate censorship is censorship at all. When you work for Coke, you are not allowed to give out the formula. It is what makes it Coke, and to give it away because you didn't know any better means you are stupid. This kid to not know that he wasn't supposed to write public reviews of movies from a trade screening means he is stupid, lacking any and all form of ability to survive outside of a projection booth. Censorship is something used by governments to prevent its citizens from knowing anything, or speaking anything, and therefore maintaining a power vacuum over them. Corporate censorship is necessary in order to maintain intellectual property rights and to protect large financial investments. I completely disagree with Brad that Fox needs to worry more about their shitty product then some dipshit who can't keep his mouth shut. They absolutely need to make sure that they have a tight lid on every single dipshit in their chain of command in order to maintain their shitty product, or they might just have to make better product. I am quite sure that FOX did nothing to incite the firing. We have absolutely no data proving that this $7 and hour moron was any good to begin with. The mere fact that he was paying more attention to his aspiring movie critic career than with his booth duties is enough for me to sack the jerk. If I were to go to press with every little change in our company policy before it became public by our own press people puts our entire marketing plan in jeopardy. It isn't my place to be stupid on my own, I need orders to be stupid, and this kid really should have been smart enough to understand that. He deserved to be fired, and I think he should take that mexican camera job, because projectors and cameras are the same thing, everyone knows that. My point is that there needs to be some common sense here. If you think it should be ok, then ask if it is ok, because it probably isn't. When you think it should be ok, that's just your stupid button getting pressed. Don't press it, just ask first if it's ok to be stupid before you do it. Ciao  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 06-16-2007 11:38 AM                        Seems I'm on the edge with just a couple others here, but I agree with Dave on this. This whole thing boils down to a matter of simple common sense. The employee was hired to run projectors. He added another element to the job description by taking content from his workplace and sharing his opinion of it in advance of anyone else. Simple logic would hold that you're doing something your neighbor can't, and it's entirely due to a side benefit of your job. Asking your supervisor if it's OK would seem obvious. On the other hand, even I don't expect my entry level people to walk in here, having made all those connections. At my place, people who have, almost always have previous job experience, and I usually recognize that, and pay more for them. They're better employees out of the box, because I can dispense with teaching them the basics of how to function as an employee, and concentrate on spinning them up on what I really need around here. It does look like the employer sacrificed this guy. On the other hand, I still maintain we've spent a lot of time on this without knowing whether they were already looking for a reason, and this just fell into their laps. There might be blame to lay on both sides here, but you just don't know. We've only heard from one side, and I suspect that for us, that's as good as it's going to get.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

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.