Example: just made up 'Beloved'. It consisted of 10 reels, 4 of which were well under 1,000 feet (including one of only 466). The complete print is 15,502 feet long, so it need not take more than 8 reels.

I used to believe that this was how the labs used up short ends of stock. But as John P. and others have explained, there is no such thing any more as they just join a new 6,000 foot roll of raw stock to the end of the previous one as it goes into the printer. This is why we get so many lab joins in the middle of reels.

If we accept that lab joins are a price we have to pay, then I can't think of any valid reason why each reel of a release print needs to be significantly shorter than 2,000 feet (except for the last reel, if necessary).

A larger number of reels per print than is necessary means higher transport costs, longer to make up and pack off if using a platter and more rewinding and relacing if running changeovers. A greater amount of wear and tear will also result, as a higher proportion of the print's total footage will be near the head or tail of a reel and thus be exposed to handling.

Is there any rational reason why the labs still do this?
 

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.
 

That is a very, VERY bad and unproffessional practice.
 

Of course, if this was a perfect world, all prints would be 70mm DTS dye transfer. It's ashamed this isn't a perfect world!
 

Since I never wanted to see Beloved, and I never did. I do not know if this film is an example of that.

Honestly since so many films are edited on an Avid nowadays, I'm surprised this is even an issue anymore. The director should be able to choose the spot where the cuts are made. That way he can ensure the cuts are at scene changes and does not disturb the soundtrack if frames are missing. I see so many cuts in mid-scene nowadays it seems like some guy at the lab is making the decision.
 

I don't know if he is still alive right now, for surely by now someone has taken him out back of the theater and beaten him to death for that.
 

As for short reels, seems that I remember A Boy Named Charlie Brown (1969) having a long version, and a short version.

The last time I ran it, it was on 6 reels. I joined 4 and 5 to conserve space and found that the reel was full, but not too full. So when it went back, it was on 5 reels, with the 6th in the case, and a note telling anyone what I did. I never heard a peep.

As for the short version, there is a chunk cut from R1, I think, at a F/O. There is an audible neg. splice here. I used to have a copy of the soundtrack album, and there was a short sequence with Lucy and Linus just after this fade out.

I saw this film in 1969, and I think the scenes were there then. I wonder when it was cut?
 

At least I had the right number of reels though. Rudy, tell your people to stop that practice. If I ever get a 7-reel print on 6 reels, I'll be on the phone for a replacement whether the whole movie is there or not!

Incidentally, I get the impression that editors are now deliberately putting reel ends in the middle of a scene in order to minimise the chances of anyone joining the reels out of rack - exactly the opposite of what they did before the days of platters, which was to put a fade out to black on the end of a reel wherever possible, so that late changeovers did not look as gruesome as they would have done in the middle of a scene.