Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Lovely Technicolor ads

This is topic Lovely Technicolor ads 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=001923

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 02-13-2001, 09:50 PM:

Has anybody else seen or run the "Hot Jobs.com" ad from Technicolor? It looks awful. There's tons of dirt and what appears to be hairs in the gate. An absolutely unwatchable picture. I've watched these in a few different theatres and they all look terrible. I'm assuming they were all printed this way. Of course, TES has not had a good track record so far with their lousy ads. Sometimes I am tempted to refuse to run ads that look this bad, but when the theatre is contractually obliged to show them, there is not much of a choice.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-13-2001, 10:17 PM:

Maybe they did that on purpose to disguise the REAL dirt on the film that gets deposited by your average booth monkey?!

Posted by John Scott (Member # 520) on 02-13-2001, 11:34 PM:

I know it sounds like everyone so loves the Technicolor ads, but what about NCN?

Our circut is going to start NCN preshow ads (we already do the slide projectors) in the very near future and I was just curious about other's experience with them and the quality of their product?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-14-2001, 12:37 AM:

Ncn is just as bad. They do have these snipes that they use telling you who does the pre shows and a countdown trailer that told you how long befor the actual trailers started. You do not have that with technicolor at least as far as I know. We use Technicolor now and I have never seen any of these snipes for them. I personaly do not like pre-show advertising. I believe it takes you out of the movie going experiance to a degree. But it is a form of revenue for the chains.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-14-2001, 06:38 AM:

Whenever you see a film where you feel the production values are lacking, write to the company and provide details. Chronic underexposed camera negative (grainy or smoky shadows) or hairs in the gate may dictate using a different production company. Reporting excessive white dirt may help the lab identify problem areas in negative cutting or printing. In the past, many ads were not printed on Kodak film to cut costs, as they were considered expendable. Some ads are produced on video, and transferred to film. The best ads maintain full film production values from original negative to prints.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
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

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 02-14-2001, 07:24 AM:

On screen advertising is of course much more widespread over here than in the States .
In the UK our worst nightmare is an ad shot on NTSC video, standards converted to PAL then transferred onto 35mm!! That and post -frog Budweiser ads

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-14-2001, 08:16 AM:

Unfortunately, most of the NCN ads (I haven't seen the Technicolor ones) are shot on film, but then are edited on NTSC video and transferred back to 35mm film. They usually look quite bad. Not bad for video, but bad compared to anything that has been properly printed from film negatives without going through an NTSC (or HDTV) stage.

You'd think that the advertisers who do this would realize that: a> budgetary considerations aren't generally a problem for advertisements, since the cost of getting them shown (in theatres, on TV, etc.) far exceeds the cost of production; b) people are more apt to pay attention to the ad if it looks good on screen; and c) video->film transfers look like crap.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-14-2001, 08:35 AM:

Dick: WhasssssssUpppppp

I didn't know Bud was popular in the UK

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 02-14-2001, 08:55 AM:

Here is my opinion of the whole Technicolor / NCN ad deal.

1. Technicolor ads are spliced together and run for generally 4 weeks.

2. NCN are piece parts. You have to solice together the intro, countdown clock, then the ads in the correct order. Then in a couple of weeks, you will have ad changes. Either remove one, replace one with another, add one all together. Oh, and they request them to be in a certain order. And again, this happens almost every two weeks.

3. NCN would trust that we were playing the trailers although we had a slide person checking up on us anyway.

4. Technicolor REQUIRES that we fill out an affadavit that gives them information such as screen #, print name, rating and whether the ad played or not.

5. Technicolor does tell us if an add is rating restricted. Like, DON'T PLAY ON A G or PG feature.

Anyway, I feel that NCN was more of pain because of the constant change out and order sequencing.

Paul
Cinemark

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-15-2001, 05:35 PM:

John - Bud is NOT popular in the UK. That's why they're advertising it so heavily...

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-15-2001, 05:39 PM:

After many enjoyable visits to pubs in the UK, I already knew that, and was saying it tongue-in-cheek.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-15-2001, 07:08 PM:

The tongue was firmly in mine, too (sorry if it didn't come across that way).

The Bud adverts really wind me up, the reason being nothing to do with Anglo-American relations: our company policy is that all alcohol commercials must be removed from any supporting programme for a U, PG or 12 certificate feature. The companies which supply the adverts make sure that the booze ads are never placed one after the other, thus making it a real chore to pull them out. On a long reel, it can take almost as long to get the booze ads out as it does to make up a feature.

I'm just as pissed off at the Boddington's ads (a brewery in Manchester) as the Bud ones, so please be assured that there's no racism going on!

BTW, one of the most popular commercials we've had (so popular that customers have actually requested that we re-show it) is for Miller beer. It shows someone walking in a Scottish glen, with a dead fox on his head. He faces the camera and says "When I told my folks I was going on vacation to Auchtermuchty [a tiny village in Fife, Scotland], they said - 'wear the fox hat'." Miller logo appears, then fade to black. The pronunciation difference between British and American English is designed to suggest "f--k's that?" in place of "fox hat".

Whether it boosted sales of Miller I don't know - we don't stock it in our bar...

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-15-2001, 08:27 PM:

That sounds funny. I wish I could see it!

What sounds even funier is the thought of Miller or Budweiser beer being an import!!!!

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 02-17-2001, 09:21 AM:

Ah, yes - ads! Good point, Scott, about video to film transfers of ads.

I've always wondered about this aspect of production. For example, there might be a tourism commercial. It will feature beautifully photographed aerial-view landscapes, shot with a Wescam mount in 35MM to get the 'film look'. Absolutely no expense spared. Then the ad is post-produced on video and then transferred back to film! The 'film look' is somewhat retained but vastly compromised due to the intermediate video stage. When I ask most people why this was done, they usually answer, 'in order to save money'. Surely the cost of the helicopter, Wescam, pilot, DP, camera equipment, director, etc. must have cost a fair amount, so this argument doesn't seem logical to me, yet why would someone go to all that trouble then not go the extra mile to get it to look incredible instead of OK? It doesn't make sense...