This is topic Swank 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=003292
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 04-13-2002, 12:06 AM:
We received a catalog from Swank a couple days ago. Lots of stuff that would be good for our midnights. The last films of theirs we ran were in much worse than terrible condition. Does anybody have recent experience with Swank?
Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 04-13-2002, 11:23 AM:
I've always had good luck with prints from Swank, but haven't rented anything in quite a while.
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-13-2002, 02:25 PM:
Swank is always a mixed bag, Bill.
Are you referring to their 35mm prints, or their 16mm prints?I cannot comment on the latter, but for the former, in most cases they are just a interface to the studio buyer/bookers. A notable exception seems to be WB, where Swank sometimes gets their own prints.
But as you'd expect, it's much less a function of Swank and much more a function of who has (ab)used the print before you.
It also depends on the age of a print. If you rent something that hit first-run 3 months ago, it's a big difference than if you rent something that came out 3 years ago...
--jhawk
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 04-13-2002, 02:43 PM:
Bill,
If you are referring to 35mm, Swank owns few if any 35mm prints. They come from the various studios, vaults, etc that own the rights and the prints. Like Jhawk said, those are a mixed bag, but I can most often guarantee that you will not get the best print they have. The studios often seem to reserve their worn prints for the non-theatrical market, and judging by the prints themselves they are often handled by people that care nothing for the prints or "film done right." I must also warn you that in my last position, I had a lot of problems with 35mm bookings through Swank. They are almost always simply a "middle man" in the 35mm rental process, and that often leads to late, mis-delivered or lost prints and a lot of miscommunication.
If you are looking at 16mm, the prints are a mixed bag as well, but fairly often, they are better than average. Prints may be pretty scratched up, but the color is usually quite good. I haven't seen many pink or fading prints come from them. Swank owns many 16mm prints and I have found that booking 16mm with them is quite easy and reliable.
The unfortunate thing about 16mm rentals in general, especially in non-theatrical venues like colleges and Universities, is that video plunged a knife into that market, and DVD and the availabliity of good video projection is turning that knife. That means we will see fewer and fewer new 16mm prints struck of old films and the rental houses will go the way of the eight track. Kit Parker's demise was the first part of that process.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-13-2002, 07:54 PM:
I thought "Swank" was a dirty magazine.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-13-2002, 08:05 PM:
And I thought that (newsgroup) alt.mag.penthouse was a place to point out the dubber-like Davis Loop qualities of my Motiograph 4-track boxen.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-15-2002, 04:25 AM:
I can only presume that the word 'Swank' without the first letter does not have the same meaning in the US as it does in England. If it did, no reputable company would use the name!
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-15-2002, 03:07 PM:
Swank is owned by Tim Swank and Ray Swank; but yes, Leo, "wank" means the same thing.But hey, they don't have a monopoly on such a...surprising...name.
There's Hilary Swank, too, etc.
Trying to get back on topic, Bill, did you mean their 35mm or
their 16mm, or what?
Joe said, "I can most often guarantee that you will not get the best print they have." This is probably true, but my experience has been:
- On recent films, the studios and the TES/ETS probably don't know what's a "good print" and what isn't. It's not like there are people doing inspections, especially before a title gets junked. I imagine there are archival prints that have never been shown, or Show/Select prints that have been specially saved, though I suspect those don't circulate to most of the theatrical market anyhow.
- ETS is pretty much a black box for me, but with respect to Technicolor, they don't seem to have multiple pools of a given print. So I think that the non-theatricals through Swank are in the same boat as the theatricals (though of course, non-theatricals and sub runs are much more likely to get a used print). Note that this is only for the case where the studio prints are actually handled through Technicolor, and not for those rare cases where the studio goes through ETS, but "gives" Swank some prints, and then Swank subcontracts to Technicolor to distribute those prints. Such prints are identified on their film can label as "Swank/TITLE" rather than "TITLE", and usually have single-digit print numbers.
--jhawk
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-17-2002, 05:16 AM:
Well I guess if it's their name all they can do is brazen it out. Reminds me of when I was a child; we had neighbours whose surname was Nartsey. What made it even worse is that the mother was politically active and at one stage was considering standing in a council election. You can imagine the headlines...