Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Kino shipped coffee stained print.

This is topic Kino shipped coffee stained print. 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=002254

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 05-10-2001, 01:09 AM:

I received this print of The Legend of Rita today.

It had the following note in the can.

4-17-01

To whom it may concern,

"I have been a Projectionist for 30 years and this Print is without a doubt the worst (although most unique) mess that I have ever seen. The film itself is in good condition, but whoever ran this print before me, spilled what appears to be a cup of cappuccino in the cans holding reels 1, 2 and 3. (It now resembles molasses) They also neglected to clean up the mess, I tried but without success because it is so thick. Fortunately the film ran OK and did not stick together but it is a problem. I hope they realize that there is a special hole in hell reserved for those who screw up a print and leave it for the next unfortunate sot to sort out.
I wrote this note to emphasize that the damage was done PRIOR to the film arriving at Allegheny College, and also to alert you to the problem

Gary Williamson
Projectionist
Meadville, PA"

He not only wrote this note, but he called Kino International to complain. They knew about it. Yet almost a month later, they sent it to me.

So immediately get on the horn to Kino and demand another print. They tell me there aren't any others available, so I have to live with this.

I am spitting mad. I haven't touched the print yet. I guess I will try to build it up tomorrow. I will try Film-Guard on the print. But what I really want to do is tell Kino that the engagement is off and I will not show this print.

What would you do?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-10-2001, 05:14 AM:

Duh Ian. Don't even take it out of the can. Make a stand and DO NOT SHOW THE PRINT. If you run this print, it will just be one more person telling them that prints in this sort of condition are acceptable. If you go through and clean it up, it will just make things even worse. Cancelling playdates is the only way IMHO to get through to the depots and studios.

Besides, most of the time when I hear the phrase "that is the only print", another one appears the next day. In these situations, they do not care and do not want to have to deal with you. It's "to hell with Ian's presentation" in their minds.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2001, 06:46 AM:

Praise to Gary Williamson for doing the best he could with a bad situation, and informing the distributor about the problem. Of course Kino International should have made the theater that did the damage pay for a new print, and take this one out of service. Shame that the print stayed in circulation when the damage was so well documented.

Some labs offer the Kodak "Rewash" process RW-1 that may be useful in removing any stains and in rejuvenating the print:
Kodak Rewash Process RW-1

------------------
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 Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 05-10-2001, 07:16 AM:

I agree with Brad and John's assesment of your Problem. I would not play this print and let Kino Know it will not be going on the screen. Your patron's deserve and are entitled to a top quality presentation, which this print will not give them. I would then book another picture in it's place.

I would also put an "A frame" poster out front explaining to my patrons why they are not seeing the picture advertised.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 05-10-2001, 08:04 AM:

Did you guys miss the comment "The film itself is in good condition"?

I'd verify that, then trash the offending can, reels and leader when it came time to return the film. I'd ship back on cores in whatever box was handy. Only if the print itself were in fact damaged, would I refuse to run it as was suggested.

In a case of a missed showing, when the print is in good condition, you are only punishing the customer. Always try to on the correct party.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2001, 08:14 AM:

Jerry: Mr. Williamson's note said "Fortunately the film ran OK and did not stick together but it is a problem.", so it does sound like the print is runnable. But "...it is a problem." implies that there was some damage. The photo shows spilled goop on the film itself.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 05-10-2001, 08:32 AM:

Which is why I would take the time to check it before writing it off. I'm wondering if the drink was spilled while the film was in the can or when the can was empty and the film just put in on top of the mess. In any event, the note is ambiguous.

Verifying something before taking action only takes a second and can keep the embarassment level down. As I mentioned, I wouldn't run the print if it were damaged.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-10-2001, 12:25 PM:

I think the point here is that Kino knew about the problem and had a month to do something about it. At the very least, they should have told Ian when he booked the film that, "yes, we have a print available for such-and-such-a-date, but it is not in good condition, would you like to screen it before confirming your booking?"

is in the business of running a theater, not a film inspection depot or AFI's film restoration department. I'm sure he has enough bombs being dropped on him from other sources. Can you imagine if Technicolor sent out films like this? Okay, bad example.

Personally, I would have a look at the print. If it's okay, I'd run it and send it back and tell Kino that I'll never book with them again, thank you very much. (Even better if the film does well!) If it's not okay, I'd cancel the booking and (after re-reading my booking agreement) send Kino a bill for all of the marketing, etc., I did for the film that I couldn't play. They are responsible for providing useable product.

But then again, I'm an a-hole.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 05-10-2001, 05:07 PM:

Gee, I guess they figured out I was pissed!

They are sending me reels 1, 2 & 3 from the DVD mastering print. (Do you think they have scanned it yet?)

I pulled out reel #1 and the other two were stuck to it like a unit. The film was sticky through the titles. Thank God I don't have to use it.

But once again, I get to build up a print early Friday morning.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-10-2001, 08:19 PM:

There's been a lot of (probably justified) spitting at Kino in this thread, but I would like to say something in defence of small-scale art and rep distributors such as Kino, Milestone and Kit Parker in the US and Artifical Eye, the BFI and Gala in the UK.

For a major Hollywood distributor like Warners or UIP, losing a print thanks to the moron who poured a cappuccino all over it is no big deal. The number of prints struck of a mainstream title will vary from a couple of hundred to several thousand. After the opening weekend, a significant proportion of these will probably never be used again. A print written off by a coffee accident is one less they have to pay to send to the recycling people.

For an art or rep distributor, this could well be a catastrophe. These figures will probably not be relevant to the US system, but they do illustrate how much work is done by such a small number of prints over here:

'The Low Down' - UK release with 2 prints
'Bread and Roses' - 20 prints (and that was probably only because of Ken Loach's involvement)
'Sous le sable' - 5 prints
'The Wind Will Carry Us' - 2 prints
'Mildred Pierce' (rerelease) - 2 prints

The several hundred pounds per copy (a lot more if it is laser-subtitled) represents a major investment for the people who distribute these titles. They do not have seven-figure 'P & P' (prints and publicity) budgets, and often struggle to break even. I can well believe that when a projectionist calls in and reports that one of these prints has been trashed, that there is no replacement readily available.

What makes this situation worse is that the kind of places showing these films (e.g. university film societies, community arts centres with miniscule budgets) are precisely the places that are likely to have very little money to spend on equipment maintenance and projectionist training, and so are going to be most at risk of inflicting greater wear and tear and/or damage on the prints they handle. But the distributors are not in a position to say 'OK, we've had enough, you're barred from renting any more of our prints' because they depend on these places for their income.

So really the art and rep circuit is a catch-22 situation in which greater print damage is the result. The fact that these prints tend to do shorter runs in a larger number of venues (hence more making up and packing off) exacerbates the problem.

None of this in any way justifies spilling coffee all over a film. But if I received a film like that, I would probably have a go at cleaning it before making the distributor suffer from a cancelled booking. But if it were a print of 'Star Wars' then I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep over rejecting the print.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 05-10-2001, 09:50 PM:

Ian, I'm sorry you had the problem. Leo, thank you for saying what had to be said. Art and independent product has always been subject to the jerk with a coffee cup and the brain-dead drone that can't thread.

For those filmmakers, electronic cinema will be a no-brainer because of problems like this. Art and independent of 35mm will be a fondly remembered glory. Who do we have to thank but careless and poorly trained film monkeys? A pox on those who don't care for prints. May their finest life work be spilled on by God's golden stream. (Sorry, this is an issue that I can't believe should even be an issue. I can think of few things so disrespectful of the creative mind.)

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2001, 10:03 PM:

Jerry:

The same "jerk" and "brain-dead drone" will screw up Digital Cinema too. One will probably spill coffee into the server, and the other permanently kill a few thousand pixels by hot-spotting the lamp.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-10-2001, 10:37 PM:

I used to get prints like that all the time, although I have never had one that had coffee spilled on it. I have had cans that are literally falling apart. I have had prints that looked like they had been taken out to the parking lot and dragged through a dirt pile. (Really!) When I ran them through the film cleaner (with FG) I could actually scrape clumps of dirt off the pads. It took me 3, maybe 4 passes to get it playable.

The thing you have to remember is that these companies often don't actually stock the prints. They are continuously circuited. Nobody at the "home office" actually sees this print. Kit Parker was the WORST offender.

I happened to like New Yorker Film the best. I spoke to the guy in their shipping department a couple three times. One one or two occasions Max just told me to ship it off to Film Treat when we were done with it.

Our strategy in cases of crummy films was to complain, complain, complain. (My boss was good at that! ) He has actually succeding in getting discounts or even a total refund in one case.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 05-10-2001, 10:38 PM:

Absolutely, John. However the individual work will still be showable without added expense to the creator, and the cost of the cleanup will be borne by the exhibitor who hired the jerk. Seems fair to me.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 05-10-2001, 11:00 PM:

Every print I ever got from Kit Parker, 16 or 35, had some sort of problem with it.

I had a problem once from Films, Inc. on a 16mm print of Willy Wonka. The print literally had hundreds of splices in it and was falling apart in my hands. I called Films, Inc. and we had a brand new print drop shipped straight from the film lab the next day! A week later I get a letter from the company president of Films, Inc appoligizing for the bad print. He stated that the bad print was destroyed and our film rental was FREE. That was the only problem I ever had with them. Their prints were usually excellent.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-11-2001, 02:05 AM:

Ian, see I told you there was another print! There is almost always another print! This is the standard line of crap that these small distributors (and even the big boys, TES) pulls ALL THE FRIGGIN' TIME! They just do not want to be hassled and unless you really make an ass of yourself, these people will not help you. That is indeed the secret: bitch, bitch, bitch and then if you still haven't received an acceptable print keep bitching until they pay to strike a new print out of their own pocket. If that doesn't work, start in on the studios. Sooner or later you WILL get a good print and if the depots have any brains whatsoever, they will realize to stop screwing around with you that you are serious about a quality presentation and send you good prints from the start. Now what is really crappy about this particular situation is the fact that the first half of your presentation will be flawless, but the second half will be "good" at best. If they trusted you with half of their DVD master print, then why can they not trust you with the entire print? What is the logic here? Oh wait, never mind...there isn't any!

The Kit Parker depot is like a torture chamber for films. Good film goes in...junked print comes out. During college I got lots of films from Kit Parker and ALL of them were complete shit. In the last several years I have had the displeasure of having to run prints from that depot because they were the only ones with a certain title and just as before, every single print was shit! If you dare to call and complain you will just be told that you caused the damage and then be threatened with either playing it or paying for it. Now just to make sure that my point is being made, I am not saying that a print from Kit Parker is not up to my personal guidelines for a good print. I mean that no one in their right mind would ever play any of the shit prints they sent me. Someone please bomb that building. Talk about "film done wrong"!!!

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 05-11-2001, 07:09 AM:

Seems to me from what I have been reading over the past several months, the print quality has been declining, at a fairly rapid rate. I would think that this problem, needs to be brought to the attention of not only the distributor but also of the creative team that made the film. I am sure they don not want the product exhibited in a poor manner. In New York you never know who is going to walk into check a film on the screen.

Kodak's screen check is great for making sure the equipment in a theatre and the presentation on the screen is complying with the SMPTE guidlines. However, you can have the best equipment in mint condition and you receive a bad print....well guess who they are going to blame for a poor presentation.

When you receive a bad print let everyone know that it is not acceptable. "Film Done Right" means it's your reputation in the line. Just had to insert my $.02.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 05-11-2001, 11:57 AM:

Actually, in my experience, prints are arriving in better shape than ever. I used to work in a rep house where you played what you get. But now, rep houses are dead and the quality of the prints we receive is good. But now I complain more vigorously when the prints aren't in good shape. I feel it is my responsibility. I have felt that way since I was the projectionist at Denvers newest, best theatre (which it isn't any more) and I feel that way even more now that I own the theatre.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-11-2001, 01:12 PM:

In the days of triacetate prints and changeovers, the prints would literally WEAR OUT. Many fewer prints were made, and they worked their way from the "first run" in the big cities to the smaller cities, then to "second run", subrun, and finally institutions like colleges and prisons. Most prints would stay in circulation for over a year, and the "inspection cards" at the National Film Service exchanges would list at least ten to twenty theatres before a print was finally retired. (In those days, distributors still paid for print inspection, and the exchange wound through each print on a regular schedule). Triacetate film was prone to perforation damage (often from excessive feed and holdback tension with large reels), and older prints were full of poor splices made with both tape and cement. It was a given that well-used prints would be full of dirt and scratches, especially near the reel changes, and "cleaning"

a print in the theatre meant running through a rag wet with some solvent film cleaner. Triacetate and earlier polyester film often developed enough static charge to attract dirt particles from a distance.

Today, polyester prints are very durable, and many would argue TOO STRONG and unforgiving. Kodak VISION Color Print film has a conductive antistatic backing that virtually eliminates the static charging that attracted dirt and gave nasty shocks to the projectionist when winding the film. Platters have reduced the tension on the film, and minimized the handling required. But more importantly, a major film release often numbers thousands of prints, so the chances of a small town theatre getting a brand new print are much greater. Most prints are retired within a few months after visiting only a handful of theatres, as the "window" before video release shrinks to a few months. Many theatres have film-cleaners, and a few use them for every showing.

So, if the film and equipment are so much better, why do prints get damaged? The discussions on Film-Tech provide some answers. Hint, just look for the LONG threads with lots of icons. In most cases, the problems can be traced to being Cheap, Careless, or Clueless, or some combination of the three.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-12-2001, 05:27 PM:

Agreed to all that has been posted here. I'll add that, if you don't run the film, it might be worthwhile to put a "please direct complaints to [insert film distributor here, with phone number and address]" sign under the "we had to cancel this show due to a crappy print" sign. That way, the distributor will hopefully hear from angry customers and your customers will know that the fault was the distributors' and not yours.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of cases where there are only one or two prints of a given title. Even popular repertory films might have only one or two prints. "The Graduate" was reprinted in 1997 and now only three of the original four prints survive (if anyone got print #3, I left a note in the shipping containers after I ran it a couple of years ago...R6 was a splicy mess). This situation is sad and, as others have said, it only takes one theatre to screw up a print for everyone else...