This is topic Short reels in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000387
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-1999, 11:23 PM:
Ok, what the hell...Ms. Joan of Carbon Arc (Messenger) is TEN reels, but will fit on two 6000' reels!!! There are 2 reels in this that aren't even halfway full and actually NONE of them are very full at all! Who decides where the reels are cut? I haven't screened the film yet, so I can't say if it was cut in this manner for aesthetic reasons, but to put a movie that would've fit on 6 reels (7 REAL comfortably) on TEN...this is a bit extreme.
As I understand it, this isn't in ANYONE's best interest. The studios get charged by the depot "by the reel". It seems like someone told me the junk heap charges by the reel as well. I'll bet the lab charges more if the print is on 10 instead of 6. Surely a 3 can shipment costs more than a 2 can shipment. The projectionists have almost double the work to do (whew, glad I have a platter)...and the print will suffer (in most theaters) NINE spots of excessive dirt and wear, instead of 5.
So who's benefiting here? Anyone care to hazard a guess?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-1999, 11:37 PM:
Excellent question! The same could be asked of "Music of the Heart" (8 reels) and to some extent, "The Insider"(10 reels). I'm surprised that Pokemon wasn't 17 reels (1 reel per frame of animation)
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-11-1999, 07:01 AM:
Don't forget the 1996 "Shall we Dance" (122 minutes, 9 reels) or the 1996 "Hamlet" (4 hours or so, 19 reels of 35mm or 20 reels of 70mm)...
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-11-1999, 10:46 AM:
If I remember, "2001" was only about 2hr 20min, but came on 11 reels. I'm guessing that was because some stuff was cut out.
I ran a 70mm print; I pretty sure that c/o's are at the same place for both 35mm and 70mm films. The print we ran (in 1982) was a bit pink. I was very tempted to splice some reels
together, (I even tested it by winding one reel onto another; they easily fit onto a regular 70mm reel) but no one before me had cut the head/tails off, so it seemed "bad karma" for me to do it.
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-11-1999, 08:53 PM:
Actually Scott, the 35mm 'Hamlet' was also twenty reels... and could EASILY have fit on 11-12 reels! The 1996 reissue of 'Das Boot' was only a half hour shorter than Hamlet and fit on 11 reels (and was acetate compared to Hamlet's Estar, so both prints took up the same amount of space on a platter-right to the edge)Whats with these short reels? sheesh
Aaron
Posted by Scott Ribbens (Member # 180) on 11-12-1999, 01:53 AM:
Hey, It could be worse. I've had occasions to run film markets where they bring in a movie, sans cores, in 1k rolls. Nothing like building up a 13 reel show that is really 5 to 6 reels long, no cores, and the leaders chopped off with no id on them just thrown into the tin (and finding a r2 head and a r3 tail).------------------
Scott
Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 11-12-1999, 04:05 PM:
WE sometimes rent the theatre to Indian community people, and other ethnic groups, which bring in their films. Some of those films are composited of 17+ reels, some not bigger than trailer reels (les than 1 k ft). This is a real treat for our projectionists, making up the film and to break the film down from the platter at 1 in the morning.
Most American films at least have decent reel sizes, but it seems, reels were larger 15 years ago, even considering polyester film.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-12-1999, 04:16 PM:
Personally, I like having reel-1's that are slightly less than full; that way, it's easy just to splice a trailer or two onto the head of the first reel of the feature rather than having to make up a separate trailer reel. Obviously, this isn't an issue when using large reels or platters, but it does make life a little easier when running 2000' reels.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-12-1999, 04:36 PM:
That makes it nice for changeover booths running large reels too! I always loved short R1s back in the changeover days. Wouldn't it be nice if labs started on the last reel and wound between 1900-2000 feet, found a good spot to cut, then proceeded with the next to last reel until they just put the "leftover" footage on R1? It would make breakdown on platters easier too. I've seen many times where a short final reel will result in the entire print being broken down "not" at reel changes.
Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 11-12-1999, 05:16 PM:
I once ran a festival in which most of the prints were on 1k reels, some on cores in metal tins. And there were 9 prints to build in one day. That was fun. Assembling animation festivals can be very frustrating as well.
Posted by Scott Ribbens (Member # 180) on 11-12-1999, 05:16 PM:
That would be nice, but those people who break a film down like that just don't care enough to do it right, and they would still just find the wrong place to cut it at anyhow.I got a re-release print of Grease after the first couple of weeks that it came out, and some idiot did the fill a reel/cut fill a reel/cut thing, except they did not fill the reels, they just saw they went past the splice and cut the film. Upon building up the print I saw that they had even used opaque tape (white no less!). They wound up with, or I should say, I wound up with the opening credits/cartoon cut in half on reels #1 & 2.
But enough of that, it is not the lab that decides where where the reel changes go, it is the people who make the film,(editor,director), who make that decision.
------------------
Scott
Posted by Tom Ferreira (Member # 70) on 11-12-1999, 10:59 PM:
My all time favorite "what the hell" moment was the Don Bluth animated film "Rock-A-Doodle". The final reel change was in the middle of the end credits. If I remember correctly, this was the fifth reel of a movie that ran about an hour and a quarter.------------------
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-15-1999, 04:33 PM:
If I remember right, ther was a reel change in the credits of Scream. Yes, that was a "What the hell..." moment.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-15-1999, 06:13 PM:
There were, if I remember right, about a dozen frames of "picture" at the head of that last reel of "Scream." When we ran that film, I of course received a used print, and thought there had to be more "picture" area than that, so I requested and received a replacement reel. It was a brand-new reel. So we didn't gain much "lost" footage, but at least it enabled me to put the splice in the proper place (the previous used reel had been cut too far into the short "picture" area).
Posted by Tom Ferreira (Member # 70) on 11-15-1999, 06:28 PM:
Indeed, the final reel change for Scream was just before the end credits. There was about five frames that flashed the mask of the killer on the screen. Perhaps a subliminal hint at the sequels?------------------
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-20-1999, 05:37 AM:
There was also a C/O into the credits of Apocalypse Now. In the re-issue a few years back, they simply didn't print the last reel. We had people coming up and abusing us for dropping the credits!
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-20-1999, 11:00 AM:
In the 70mm version of "ApN" there were no credits, just a little copyright notice in the corner after the fade out.The three versions I've seen:
70mm (on opening day at the Zig!): no credits except for above. You were given a program booklet, which I still have.
35mm version: (Over F.F.C.'s objections) shots of the village being destroyed from air strike while regular end credits appear.
VHS version: Regular end credits only.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-20-1999, 02:26 PM:
The lack of credits on Appocolypse Now in70mm causes no end of grief when we show the 70mm print at Cinesphere and have people lined up at the booth door accuseing me of cutting the movie even though there is anouncement made at the beginning and on posters to the effect that the roadshow 70mm prints have no credits.
Posted by Johanna Innes (Member # 228) on 11-21-1999, 07:22 PM:
We had a Polish film festival at the theater I work at. What a nightmare.Instead of coming in the usual 2-3 reel cans, the movies came with each reel in an individual tin. The reels were on cores (instead of actual reels), and each reel was only around 10 minutes long.
The longest of the three movies we got was 33 reels (yes, 33). As if that wasn't bad enough, the film was old, brittle, dirty, and we don't have a split reel.
Oh, and did I mention that the Polish community group called us on Thursday night and told us they'd need the prints to ship out by the next morning at 7? Gotta love those 4 AM nights in the booth.
Posted by Ed Johnson (Member # 94) on 11-22-1999, 01:59 AM:
Is it normal for older foreign films to be on short reels? I was watching a video of Kurosawa's Rashomon recently and it had c/o marks every 9 or ten minutes. There must have been at least a dozen c/o cues in that movie... Is there any good reason for this? The film does date back to the '40s, but doesn't seem like it should matter.------------------
Ed Johnson
Lawrence University
Appleton, WI
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-22-1999, 04:13 AM:
We had an Isrealli film at Telluride called "Kadosh" that had changeover cues and a very loud and chunky splice every 10 minutes. Obviously it used to be on 10 minute reels, but the filmakers decided to splice them together, probably to reduce the amount of shipping. It would never be to reduce the workload of the projectionist.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-25-1999, 05:01 AM:
We're running that film as part of our Festival of Jewish Cinema. There are a few others with the 10 minute gig happening aswell. Also, a Mexican fest recently had most films come in in 10 minute segments... on flats AND without cores!
Grrrrr...------------------
John
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-26-1999, 06:28 PM:
Goldberg makes what they call the ASIAN Split REEL that has a expandable core that drops into a reel that has no core and you expand out to the film and then screw on the flange.
At the end you wind on to the centre and then shrink it and out it pops
very handy and rather pricy over $200.00
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 12-04-2001, 07:43 PM:
Mike B, Tom F: R7 of Moulin Rouge was credits only. The R6 > R7 picture cue comes as the curtain closes.John W: Apocalypse Now Redux is 10 full reels -- with all credits at the end of R10. Francis Ford Coppola went to the Orson Welles School of Film Editing. Why? The re-edited (1998 version) Touch of Evil has all its credits at the end.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-05-2001, 07:25 AM:
This topic has come up before - if you do a search for 'annoyingly short reels' under subject only, that will find the thread. The explanation given (by Bill Carter) was that:
quote:
Generally, shorter reels like that mean that the film was changed/shortened after negative cutting had already begun.
Usually, the physical number of reels is "carved in stone" once the negative cutter begins conforming the camera negative. Changes may still be made within a reel, but footages per reel generally don't get rebalanced. Once the cutter has made certain shots "head" and "tail" shots for the various reels, that can be difficult to change. Major handling of camera negative like that is avoided as much as possible, because of the potential for wear and damage.
Everyone showing 'Kadosh' has my sympathy. Makes the last scene from 'Dancer in the Dark' look like light entertainment!
On the issue of older films being on 1,000ft reels, this is at least partly to do with fireproof spoolboxes that are built to withstand being nuked by so much nitrate but no more. In this country some (but not all) local councils insisted that nitrate film be run on reels no longer than 1,000 feet, but needless to say almost all modern reprints are 'doubled up'.
Posted by Bill Carter (Member # 156) on 12-06-2001, 10:34 AM:
I believe the 1,000' reel was standard in America until about 1933. Before that, 1,000' reels were the standard for shipping and projection.1,000' reels remained the standard in the cutting room and the lab until fairly recent times. Until probably the 1960's, the release prints from the lab were spliced together onto 2,000 footers at the local exchanges.
Even after labs started delivering prints on 2,000' reels, you still often had a physical splice in the middle and, depending on the lab, sometimes cue marks.
Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 12-07-2001, 05:32 PM:
My brochure on the Phillips FP 3 portable projector states 1000 ft magazines as standard due to local fire regulations "in most counties". Actually all projectors I saw were 2000 ft or, when built after 1957, 6000 ft.
One reel over here was actually 1000 ft, for fire safety on nitrate film. Late 1920's, with arrival of slower burning film, a standard reel became 2 "acts" or 2000 ft. It was still considered illegal to rum more than 2000 ft before 1958, even though safety film was used from early 1950's. 6000 ft magazines had to be equipped with a limiting bolt to barely fit a 2000" house reel.The last film I ran, that made me furious was "Moulin Rouge. It came in 2 shipping boxes, and 9 reels. The film easily fit into 5 cans, this procedure would have saved 50 % shipping costs.
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 12-08-2001, 02:10 AM:
I think the worst "Short Reels" story I heard was from a friend, who used to work at an advertising agency in NYC, and screened TV commericals. He worked there in the middle 1970's.He would have to thread up a projector and three mag dubbers (one for dialogue, one for music, and one for effects.) The projector would not go backwards, so he had to rewind that film. The dubbers would go backwards, but not synchronously, so he had to watch, stop and put each one at their sync points, while trying to rewind the picture and then re-thread it.
The advertising hotshots would be telling him to hurry up and show it again... all for only 30sec worth of action.
Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 12-09-2001, 01:40 AM:
Gordon, that 'asian split-reel' finally clears up the mystery of why, when I work film festivals, most of the films shipped from asia are missing their cores. I, too, have had the pleasure of running a 3 hour polish film off 1000' cores (with the cores missing no less!)right out of the cans. Oh and it was heads out so I had to rewind to inspect then rewind again. Sure kept me on my toes and what a long night! I had no time to wind the reels back onto cores until after the film ended. Oh yes that was the night the previous projectionist had busted off the last key on the kelmar rewinds and I was trying to make do with a bent nail and scotch tape... You know, this same night my truck had broken down in the rain and I was late getting there. I better stop now or I might break down in tears again.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-09-2001, 06:38 PM:
I believe that Goldberg brought out the asian split reel to accomodate that bad habit of the cores being poped out
I have had Bollywood films that they used the rewind spindle directly as there core
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-10-2001, 09:17 AM:
IMHO, handling a film roll without a core or reel is just asking for CINCH MARKS. 
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion