Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Exit stage right...Moulin Rouge.

This is topic Exit stage right...Moulin Rouge. 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=002558

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-10-2001, 03:14 AM:

Okay, the definative test for the efficiency of FilmGuard has ended here. After 11 weeks and 254 passes, we have finally finished with the print.

It leaves in 'as new if not better' condition. Not a single speck of dirt, dust or markings of any kind and with an SRD error rating hitting 0. in some parts of the film on a basement reader.

NO kidding, Michael Barry witnessed this phenomenon.

Unfortunately, this print will now go back to despatch and most likely will have an axe put through it within the next few weeks/months. They will probably keep however the local gigaplex's print with shedding dust and a non-playable SRD track.

It was a sad thing to see this one go...

-------------

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage' - Indiana Jones.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-10-2001, 04:52 AM:

...and yet people don't believe me when I say that the SRD and SDDS tracks will NOT degrade in the slightest bit when using FilmGuard. Many people say "that's not possible", but you can't get much better than 0! (My SDDS Q.C. test on a 4 month run of Phantom Menace actually showed a slight improvement on the track, probably from shipping can dust affecting the first show.)

I'll bet that Moulin Rouge print looked magnificent. It's clearly the best photographed film I've seen this year. Unfortunately I'll bet that you are correct that the film depot will junk that print. The odds just aren't there and the depot workers don't care enough to pick and choose when it comes time for destruction.

I remember picking up some films at the depot and it was "junk X day". (I have replaced the name of the movie with X to protect the stupid and uncaring.) In the skids of prints "to be junked" were about a dozen BRAND NEW prints of X still in the lab boxes. I couldn't figure out for the life of me why they were about to junk all of those new prints that had never even been taken out of the box! It finally occured to me and I said to myself "aha, they must've had a couple of dozen new prints and were only told to keep a certain number, that these must've been extras on top of those." When I inquired to verify if my assumption was correct, the depot worker said "oh no, we've still got a few dozen prints out in theaters. We'll save those when they come back." Of course my response was "WHY THOSE??? You have BRAND NEW PRINTS OF THIS MOVIE RIGHT HERE!" The response? "Well, those prints could have a defect in them. The prints that are running in sub run theaters right now did not get any complaints from the theaters, so they must be perfect." Ugh! So sad.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-10-2001, 06:19 AM:

The SRD thing is absolutely correct. When we opened it, the best I could get was 1. to 2 .

The depots here (I think) only keep early print numbers and ours was about #270 or something...

Truly sad.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage' - Indiana Jones.

Posted by Michael Hunt (Member # 772) on 08-10-2001, 11:53 AM:

If they had any sense they'd ship it over to the U.K......

But then the Print is in good condition, cant have Arthouse cinema's like mine getting decent prints.....

------------------
Uncle to JEDI Hunt,
honest!

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 08-14-2001, 10:28 PM:

Well, these depots will probably get a wake-up call from me ( a filmmaker) when they send back my release prints of my first film (I'm gonna make the DVD version from those things) and I say "Hey, how come you didn't send back all the new prints that hadn't even been taken out of the boxes yet? These prints are unwatchable. They're all scratchy and dirty. I'm going to have to get a new print made or pay extra to have the negative transfered and reversed, that's $500-3600. I'm an independant with a small budget, I don't have this kind of money just haging on the clothesline out back."
Maybe. Wishful thinkig, probably.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 08-15-2001, 12:01 AM:

Indeed, I was there! It looked better after all those runs than many films I've turned up to at (insert major megaplex here) on opening weekend! It didn't just look good for the age - it just looked incredible in an absolute sense. And yes, the Dolby Digital error rate was on 0 when I looked.

What makes it even more astonishing was that this particular print run was renown for Dolby Digital dropouts and bad print shedding (from reports at other circuits). John's theatre, however, was immune to any of this!

And yes, THIS is the print that should be archived...

Posted by Paul Cunningham (Member # 501) on 08-30-2001, 09:53 AM:

Hi John

We are now on to our second print of Moulin, first one SRD dropped out during the credits, second one has same problem, I wish I could ring them up and say send us print #270.

Paul

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-31-2001, 07:20 AM:

Give it a go...you would have to foot the bill for the freight though I would imagine.

Moulin Rouge prints (Aussie anyway) all dropped out in SRD to SR for a fraction of a second just as Satine starts to sing 'Come What May' at the end. There is a negative spice in the track there. I don't know why.

I know that's not what you meant Paul, but just thought I'd add it.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage' - Indiana Jones.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 01-01-2014, 07:02 PM:

It has been 4506 days since the last post.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-01-2014, 07:02 PM:

Just found out...ALL Moulin Rouge prints here no longer exist. [Frown]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-01-2014, 08:09 PM:

Well, OK, but if it was all prints of STAR WARS, then you'd have a real disaster... oh wait...