This is topic First hardlocks and now 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=003118
Posted by Henning Anderson (Member # 725) on 02-20-2002, 05:57 PM:
Last week we recieved our print of Monsters Inc. with a hardlock of Return to Neverland and the short Birds thing. But after removing the neverland trailer I noticed a small snipe advertising EuroDisneyland in Paris. Some new attraction opening in March 2002. Has anyone seen this kind of crap before? I can't believe Buena Vista will try to sneak cheap ads on to their films without telling us. How low is that. Needless to say I took it out and I will put a message in the film box to the next projectionist. I wish we could charge BVI for the time I spend with their print. They know my company will not accept hardlocks.
Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 02-20-2002, 06:21 PM:
We also had the same ad hard-locked, but were requested to remove it by the company contracted to supply us with ads, as it was in breach of contract to show ads not supplied by them.
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-20-2002, 07:45 PM:
Is this why Universal movies don't come with those Universal Studios trailers before the movie anymore? I have one on my "cheesy trailers" reel; customers didn't seem to like them though- I'd hear them get booed when they came on, that was back when there weren't even slides or MovieTunes before the show (funny how no one complained when those started!)
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-20-2002, 10:45 PM:
Funny how Disney changes its stripes, isn't it?
First they said, NO ads on Disney/BV movies. But, NOW they are adding in their own ads!Sounds like exhibitors should basically say to BV, "All bets are off! Since you put ads on prints that you previously said couldn't have any, WE are putting ads on too!"
MAYBE if this fight goes on long enough, people will be fed up and we won't have to put ads on ANY movies anymore!
A guy can dream, can't he? 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-21-2002, 12:32 AM:
With the quality of BV product-Monsters Inc aside being Pixar and automaticaly a hit and Snow Dogs being a abomination to film-I don't think they're going to be in a posistion to dictate terms heavy handly like they have been for much longer. I mean, look at their upcoming product for this year-YUCK!
Posted by Henning Anderson (Member # 725) on 02-21-2002, 07:32 AM:
Well well, I just got the regular trailers for Return to Neverland and the ad on there to. Another couple of minutes the the ol' splicer.
I only discovered it because the trailer came tail out. I would love to call BVI and shout at them, but I doubt my boss will allow me to.
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 02-21-2002, 11:15 AM:
Henning: EuroDisney is a Disneyland-style theme park that's been open for several years now. Disney is now trying to expand its target audience beyond France.Randy S: "Rolling stock" ads are permitted in front of Touchstone titles (The Count of Monte Cristo, The Royal Tenenbaums). "Rolling stock" ads are not allowed in front of Walt Disney Pictures titles (Return to Neverland, The Princess Diaries, Monsters Inc.). This was mentioned in another thread a year or so ago.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-21-2002, 05:08 PM:
Yes, Disney/BV titles = No ads & Touchstone/Hollywood = OK ads.It all sounds like a crock of crap to me... especially, now that they are putting their own ads on. If they want no ads, then they should say NO ads. Really, the way I see it, they are weakening their own position.
Franlky, I wish more studios would have a NO-ad policy... Or at least have a policy where the projector should stop and the house lights should come up for a certain period of time before the feature can roll.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-23-2002, 05:26 PM:
Guys, I read that memo from Disney corporate headquarters and if you read it carefully, the first two paragraphs was about how Disney didn't what the experience of their films to be marred by ads, blah blah, blah. They made it sound very altruistic and as I read, I said, good for them; ads should be banned from all film showings. Then I read further....the letter went on to say that the exhibitor was profiting from Disney's ability to draw in an audience by selling ads for those ticket numbers. They finished up by saying, if the exhibitor was willing to SPLIT THE AD REVENUE with Disney, that would be a different story! So, yah, they don't want ads to play before their titles, that is unless they get a CUT! So much for altruism. So they huffed and they puffed but finally found a way to do the very thing they said ruined the film experience for the audience; and now place their own ads....not if my splicer blade has anything to say about it.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-23-2002, 06:50 PM:
Would someone care to define "hardlock" for me? Thanks!
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-23-2002, 07:40 PM:
hardlock=attached trailer/short-Aaron
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-23-2002, 07:51 PM:
Is that all? I had visions of trailers or ads printed on in such a way as to make removal difficult or impossible like if one element flowed right into the next so there was no place to cut without compromising the presentation.
Posted by Tom Fermanian (Member # 1094) on 02-23-2002, 08:17 PM:
All this from a company that made a deal with Lucas to forcing us to Show the new Star Wars trailer with Monster Inc., Not even the same distributor, Hey if the conglomarates such as Disney would take over Home Hardware, would we have to show their 'attached' adds???------------------
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-23-2002, 10:18 PM:
As far as I'm concerned, anything that happens before that first preview trailer hits the screen (especially if the house lights are up) is the theatre's business and nobody else's.If I owned a theatre and I wanted to have dancing girls going up and down the aisles, that's MY business and nobody else's.
Once that first preview hits the screen and the lights go down, that time belongs to the people who want to promote new, upcomming movies. Once the feature hits the screen and the lights to out, that time belongs to the distributor of the movie. Once the movie ends and the lights come back up, that's MY time again.
Disney/BV wouldn't get much ad revenue at all if they tried to push the issue. If I have 14 screens and only 2 of them have Disney/BV films, then they only have 1/7 of the screens. If they split that 50/50, then they only get 1/14.
It would cost them more in legal fees to fight it than they might make on such a deal. (opinion)
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-24-2002, 11:18 AM:
Randy, I agree with you -- Disney isn't going to press the issue, probably because it wouldn't be worth the court costs, plus, the studios already lost big-time with that same arguement when they tried to get a cut of concession sales -- "no one is coming into your theatre to buy popcorn -- they are only there because they want to see our movie." And I really like the idea of the dancing girls in the isles. I am old enough to remember that the theatres in Times Square all had concession girls who walked up and down the isles selling popcorn, candy and ice cream bars. Those were the days, my friends.
And just for the record, I have no problem with studios promoting their up coming product via trailers. I think trailers are a totally acceptable form of advertising because they are movie-related and audiences have been seeing them since before the world was created so there is no aesthetic objection to them (although I don't think they played ANYTHING before roadshow engagements, which says something about aesthetics). But all other ads, no matter how they dress them up to look "movie-like" rather than "tv ad-like," have no place on my screen. If the producer is so hot on selling ads, then work for it --go out and negotiate placements and work them unobtrusively into the body of the film. Don't take the easy way out and expect me to compromise my presentation and alienate my audience.
And no, even after the lights go out, my theatre never "belongs" to the producer, the studio or the distributor (eventhough their cut of the ticket sales may indicate otherwise). I don't get to tell them how to make their movies -- they don't get to tell me how to run my theatre.
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-24-2002, 01:35 PM:
Warner started a ban on ads before their films shortly after Di$ney, but they recently lifed that ban 
I remember a press statement saying "People don't just dislike onscreen advertising, they hate it!" Which of course makes sense, though shortly after reading that I heard it was really because they wanted a cut of the ad revenue. Oh well...
Funny how a company that seems to pride itself on quality ruined the ABC network after buying it by putting the logo onscreen during the shows!
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-24-2002, 01:43 PM:
This is straying off-topic, but have you ever seen or been inside a Disney Store like they have in malls? ACK! The commercialism is so blatant it makes me sick. If I were a parent I would be ashamed to expose my kid to that influence. They really need to turn it down a notch.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-24-2002, 02:35 PM:
No, I didn't say the THEATRE belongs to the studio, or anybody else. I said, the TIME goes to the afformentioned entity.