Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Money Talks the Language of Stupidity even with 70mm....

This is topic Money Talks the Language of Stupidity even with 70mm.... 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=001931

Posted by David Miller (Member # 412) on 02-15-2001, 05:37 AM:

Typically I do not rant and very rarely complain about anything that has to do with theater operations here at the Cinerama. I can usually put up with the mountain of red tape and corporate politics it takes to get anything done here. And it is twice as much as usual because GC runs the theater, but a private party owns the theater. But this is the last straw!!!!

With special thanks to Gordon McLeod, I managed to track down a set of 70mm "Indian Jones Trilogy" prints in Canada. Except for a little fading on "Raiders" these prints look and sound brand new. If anyone keeps track they are all over ten years old. This little endeavour started out as three weekends of midnight movies on Friday and Saturday nights, it has turned into a three week run. And quite a bit of money has been put into shipping the prints here and a bunch of extra advertising.

I have a union contract for a guaranteed 32 hours/week, the rest of the time the managers run the booth during their shifts. The managers do an excellent job at threading up and pushing the start button, but for the most part this is the end of their knowledge. The head manager who has been here for close to a year just found out last week what the two boxes on the wall of the office were for. They are the remote boxes for the projectors and the CP500. Perhaps, this is a separate training issue on my part, but that is beside the point I am about to make. So of course, knowing that the managers have never run 70mm before and I am only one person I called on another trusted projectionist to come help me run the booth. Earlier this week I found out that General Cinemas is only going to allow one week of a fulltime projectionist on duty. During this one week we are supposed to train the managers on how to run 70mm.

Yeah right. Sure. No problem. Just two weeks ago we had a week long run of "The Matrix" and it left with scratches in it because one of the managers threaded the platter wrong, pushed the start button, and came back two hours later to thread up for the next show. This is not to talk down the managers abilities to do their jobs, because that rarely happens. However, about 5% of their job is to run the booth. The other 95% of their job is to keep the downstairs up and running. The projection booth is the last thing on their mind.

Scratching a 35mm print of "The Matrix" is one thing, but damaging a 70mm print of Indiana Jones is a whole new ball game. Especially, when I spent a half an hour on the phone with the guy at the Paramount Film office in Toronto discussing the apalling treatment of 70mm prints in general. Then, I gave the guy my word that we would be careful with the prints and he would get them back in the condition that he sent them to us. With two midnight screenings of each print this was no problem.

If General Cinemas wanted to commit to a week long run of each print then they should have figured on spending the money to atleast have a fulltime projectionist for the three weeks. I don't know maybe I am just out of touch with the whole budgetting process and shouldn't even be worried. But it seems like a lot of preparation and money has already went into this and then to skimp on show quality is a little backwards. The managers can get away with pushing the start button and running back downstairs in a world where replacement reels are readily available, but doing this when there are some very rare 70mm prints being run is definitely not alright in my book. Plus the whole process of running 70mm and mag sound takes a little more babysitting, especially when we are expecting a huge turn out for this.

Although I doubt there is any solution to this problem because I have no say in the matter, I felt I at least needed to post this ridiculous situation here for everyone to be aware of. Oddly enough even the managers here at the Cinerama were shocked when they heard the news of this. Since my reputation and the Cinerama's relationship with Paramount is at stake I will probably end up coming in to work for free on my off hours because I am not letting anything happen to those prints, at least not while they are here at my theater.

------------------
David Miller
millerdk@plu.edu
Projectionist, Seattle Cinerama

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-15-2001, 06:58 AM:

David:

Your dedication to "Doing Film Right" is wonderful. You are very correct that the scarcity of good 70mm prints today DEMANDS that only people SKILLED and EXPERIENCED in running 70mm should be allowed to handle the film. Is this something that Steven Geiger (GCC Booth Manager) or Tim Reed could support you on as your try to convince GCC management of the need to "bend the rules" for this special engagement?

------------------
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 Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-15-2001, 08:41 AM:

THose 70mm prints of raider better not get trashed as we have them booked here in the spring

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-15-2001, 09:38 AM:

when we used to run 70MM prints here in town unfortunatly years ago, it was policy that we were to sit with the projector the entire run of the show. The people who have provided the prints should demand that only a fully trained experienced projectionist may be allowed to run these prints and must stay in the booth while the film is running. These prints are going to be very sensitive do to their age. one wrong move could be disaster for sprocket holes and scratching. Even destroying the magnetic soundtracks is possable if not done correctly.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 02-15-2001, 10:03 AM:

In the UK last year a so called "chief technician" who said he had 70mm experience wrecked a brand new print when he laced it up round the optical soundhead

Never take anything for granted and never let anyone except someone who has demonstrated that they can actually can do the job and ,most importantly, is competent to react quickly to any problem anywhere near the dwindling supply of good quality 70mm prints.

We always have a fully trained projectionist in the booth at all times when 70mm is running. Not to do so should be considered criminally negligent.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-15-2001, 10:55 AM:

That's pathetic. At least you can take comfort in knowing that Paramount reads this forum and if those prints get damaged GC can expect to be paying replacement value of well over $10,000 per print, which they would so rightfully deserve.

By the way, there is only one other 70mm print of Raiders in circulation, and it is damaged beyond belief. If something happens to that one...that's the end of it.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-15-2001, 11:08 AM:

Yes, it's sad... too many people think that 70mm is just like 35mm- only bigger.

Ranting is very much justified in this case(I think, anyway.) It's typical that one of the workers cares more about the prints than the upper managment. And it's common for upper managment types to "forget" that untrained people are being made to work the booth, and blame the operators for any screw-ups.

I purposely disconnected the start button at a theater I worked at for the exact reason Dave described. It is not needed at theaters with only a few screens, and in fact causes more trouble than it's worth. I suggest you cut the wire to the start button.. the shit you might get for that will be less than for trashing a 70mm print.

No wonder no one wants 70mm prints....

It sucks you have to go in on your days off, but it is the right thing to do (for yourself, not for them.)

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 02-15-2001, 01:33 PM:

I would quietly appeal to Paramount on this one. Even if going in on your time off can resolve this particular situation, GC is effectively saying that they don't care what happens to expensive, historical, one-of-a-kind 70mm prints after the first week and Paramount (and any other studio with people who care) should know this. Additionally, is there any possible way to get the ownership of the theatre (Paul Allen, right?) to pressure GC? Doesn't he care if his theatre puts on a crappy show and damages film?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-15-2001, 04:33 PM:

The real pisser is that if they do get trashed they will not get restruck.
The best thing you could do would be to sabotage the 70mm end of the booth so they can't run them at all. Ya can't train a manager to run 70mm. Been there, tried doing that, didn't work out. Actually, come to think of it, the Union operators in this location could barely deal with 70mm either but they finally got an operator in that could. When the union went bye-bye there they quit running 70mm at all. Personally, thats the best thing you could do at the Cinerama. Trashing thise prints out would only bring an absolute end to 70mm even faster.
Personally I don't know why PAul Allen got General Enema in there in the first place???
Here's a guy that can do what he wants to and then he gets the worst chain in to run his place??
Mark

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-15-2001, 05:27 PM:

I hit my head against a similar brick wall last week. With 'Shadow of the Vampire' about to be released, we've had lots of enquiries about a screening of the original 'Nosferatu'. They were duly passed on to the rep programmer at head office.

Thinking that we would certainly be showing it, I got three-bladed shutters for our screen 1 machines, cut plates to show full-gate silent with our scope backing lenses, worked out a way of offsetting them for the optical centre of the full-gate frame and added an extra intake fan to the lamphouses in order to cope with a bit of extra current (this being to compensate for the light loss from the shutters). Several hours of blood, sweat and tears later we had a perfect, 16 foot lambert, totally flicker-free picture running at 16fps.

Then I found out that programmer had not been quick enough in booking the only print that's available for general distribution over here. So I called a contact at the National Film and Television Archive and she agreed to loan us their hand-tinted print of the 1998 Munich Film Museum restoration. Normally they would never let that print go anywhere besides the National Film Theatre in London, but my contact knows that I'll look after it, and agreed to let me have it.

I rang HO again to let them know what I thought they would regard as very good news - and got brushed off with excuses about how it would be difficult to publicise the show at short notice blah blah blah. Not only would it have been a chance to have about the only screening of this tinted print outside London, but I did all the work for them, and even provided contacts for musicians to provide the soundtrack. But it seems they're just not willing to follow it up.

Oh well, back to four shows a day of 'Almost Famous'...

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-15-2001, 06:02 PM:

Y'Know, I often get the feeling that most "managers" or "corporate types" in the exhibition business regard film (and the "product" in general) as CHATTEL... a nusiance... something to be thrown away when it no longer suits your needs.

That really PISSES ME OFF! I spend a lot of my time putting their friggin' machines back together after they are done tearing them apart (and sometimes LITERALLY tearing them apart!) only to see them tossing film on the floor as if it doesn't matter!

One of these days I'm going to loose it and go POSTAL! I swear! -- Facetious humor there

Posted by Rick Green (Member # 313) on 02-15-2001, 09:31 PM:

David, my hat's off to you! This makes me furious. Once upon a time GC wouldn't have even thought of operating like this. Now, they're just like all the other circuits, maybe even worse.
I'm a 25 year member of the union here in Sacramento, and I saw 70mm go away once UA & Century got rid of us. They flat couldn't run it. Oh, they tried- but there was quite a trail of destroyed prints. As a matter of fact, there was a near riot at a Century theater here in 1982 during a 70mm run of "E.T." Management couldn't keep it on the screen, but wouldn't give refunds either. Actually made the local papers. So this is nothing new, just very frustrating to all of us. Brad's right, Paramount will find out about this. Maybe a whopping bill for print replacement might open GC's (and others) eyes a little.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-15-2001, 09:48 PM:

The sad thing is; If a 70mm print get damaged (and the company has to pay) the management types will NOT say; "We need good operators."

They will say; "Running 70mm is not cost-effective, so let's stop."

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-15-2001, 10:59 PM:

David,
I have forwarded your message to Steve Geiger.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-16-2001, 05:26 AM:

The other upsetting thing here that no one else seems to have mentioned yet is that if the print gets trashed, the chances are pretty good that Paramount won't strike a replacement print and send GCC the bill, which is what they should do. They'll probably just say "sorry, no more 70mm prints" instead.

Sadly, this sounds like a lose-lose situation for someone (like Dave) who genuinely cares about both presentation quality and print condition. If he works for free, then the audiences are happy and the print stays in good shape, but the corporate types don't learn their lesson. If he lets the managers run it, the print probably gets damaged, audiences get upset when problems occur, yet Paramount probably won't strike a new print and send a bill, so the corporate people still don't learn their lesson.

I can't believe that anyone would consider allowing inexperienced operators to handle the only existing 70mm print of something. Personally, I've been pretty nervous when running 35mm prints that are either one-of-a-kind or one-of-a-handful...I never damaged one, but I certainly wouldn't consider letting one run in an unattended booth or with any type of automation.

As for film being a nuisence to managers--of course it is a nuisence, because running film isn't their job, and having to deal with film reduces their ability to interact with customers and do other tasks which are more in line with the job description of "theatre manager."

Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 02-16-2001, 10:59 AM:

David,

I just wanted to say that I admire your dedication. I hope, against hope (I've been there, in a situation like yours, and it seemed that nothing I did or said mattered), that things will work out in the end.

Good luck.

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-16-2001, 04:17 PM:

I only hope that the now confirmed cinemas in the UK to screen the "2001- A Space Odyssey" in 70mm will treat this print with extra care and that all projectionists are fully trained to show 70mm film, it will be a great shame that this print also gets damaged as has happened in the past!.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 02-17-2001, 05:18 PM:

My english may not be good enough to put this correct - but i try to make myself clear:

If the choise is between keeping the 70mm print OR the in-booth-manager without scratches, i'll certainly go for saving the print, but on the other hand; if somebody does not like his job or the company paying his sallery, i think he's free to quit, at least outside China.

All right to be concerned - but be loyal, too - meaning: don't shit in your own nest. Those 32 hours of yours, i'm afraid, also were 32 hours, before you made the deal with the distributor.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-17-2001, 05:54 PM:

I agree that film isn't, and shouldn't be a manager's job.

It's just that I don't even think that people "respect" film anymore. I really think many people just think film is a "throw-away" item. They don't even seem to take the time to think about what it is they are doing when they thread up a projector. They might as well be threading up TOILET PAPER!

Posted by Ned Fairbairn (Member # 759) on 02-17-2001, 05:56 PM:

I work in Projection in Hollywood Ca.Been a good Union man for many years. Have run a LOT of 70mm. The fact that theatre chains don't want to deal with 70mm and have managed to eliminate it from the scene may be coming to an end. There are RUMORS that 70mm MAY be making a comeback. Movies such as "Pearl Harbor" would be BETTER in 70mm!!SMILE!

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 02-19-2001, 03:57 AM:

Ned, that's a very interesting rumor. Are you saying that there are plans for some 70mm prints of "Pearl Harbor"? If so, that would be very, very exciting.

However, "Pearl Harbor" is being produced and distrubted by Disney's Touchstone company, and we all know how Disney feels about film. They will probably want to use this movie to show off digital projection, rather than 70mm.

On the other hand, money talks; and Michael Bay's movies have certainly made a lot of money. So in all probability, if he wants 70mm, he gets 70mm. I can certainly imagine Bay preferring to go with 70mm rather than digital. Recall how in "The Rock" Nicolas Cage holds up a vinyl LP of the Beatles and declares, "These sound better!" Bay seems like one of those people who likes to stick with high-quality analog rather than digital.

Even more interesting would be if "Pearl Harbor" were shown in both 70mm and digital projection, giving audiences a chance to do a side-by-side comparison. That would be much better than today's worst-case scenarios which proponents of digital use to puff up their arguments. Let people see just how good film really can look so they will know what they're going to be missing when digital takes over.

Perhaps that's not what you meant, and I'm reading too much into your post, but it would be interesting (to say the least) if this rumor turns out to be true.
------------------
Aaron Haney
Professional Complainer
Apple Computer, Inc.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 02-20-2001, 03:15 AM:

Unfortunately, "Pearl Harbor" wasn't shot in 65mm, just 35mm anamorphic. I very much doubt a 70mm release but do have hopes they'll go with dye-transfer. I remember hearing a rumor here (I think) a while ago that Disney's "Atlantis" might get a 70mm release-- any substance to that?

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 02-20-2001, 03:36 AM:

quote:
Unfortunately, "Pearl Harbor" wasn't shot in 65mm, just 35mm anamorphic.

Yes, I know. But I'd still love to see some 70mm blow-ups. I'm sure any such prints would end up being DTS instead of mag stripe, since that's less expensive.

70mm may have fallen out of favor with the bean counters, but surely it's not impossible for someone with clout to get 70mm prints made even today. After all, James Cameron did it with Titanic, which wasn't even shot in 35mm anamorphic; it was Super-35, but people still said the prints looked great. (Unfortunately, I didn't get to see one myself.) Of course, Cameron had to pay out of his own pocket to do it...

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-20-2001, 09:07 AM:

Hey! If Disney can release Beauty and the Beast in IMAX, then I do not see why it can't release Pearl Harbor or Atlantis in standard 70mm process. One thing to remember is that the most expensive part of the process is the magnetic striping of the soundtracks. I know Atlantis will be a scope (anamorphic) release. I wonder if it was done using the technirama process or computers.