Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Beware: Kid Stays In The Picture

This is topic Beware: Kid Stays In The Picture 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=003773

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 07-25-2002, 10:53 PM:

I'll post specifics as soon as I compile my info...

That being said...Whoever was in charge of editing The Kid Stays In The Picture which opens in L.A. and N.Y.C. tomorrow should go back to editing school. Why? How's these examples -

This is a 93 minute documentary. It's not about music...why is it on 7 reels?

This movie is a compilation of footage...please do not use original footage with changeover cues at the end or your reel. How do I know they're original footage cues? Most of the other reels don't have cues. You think that wouldn't matter in a platter house? Read on...

If you're going to have a scene that looks like it is "tailing out", again, please do not put that at the end of the reel. 99% of the time that footage will cut off. In addition, do not put the and c/o cues at the very end...there should be 16 or so frames after them.

...continued...If you have a scene that ends with a fake tail-out at the end of reel 3 please do not continue the fake tailout on reel 4!

Do not put a reel change in the middle of your credits. Especially those with a lot of black between credits...again, you're just going to lose footage to those newbies that just see a lot of useless black film.

DAMN IT! There I said it. My eyes hurt so bad now. I have spent the past two hours rolling heads and tails of reels back and forth staring at the soundtrack trying to figure out where I should cut. It doesn't help that the soundtrack on one reel is two sprockets off from the soundtrack on the next reel. Oh perhaps I should request a second print? Nah already got one and it's the same.

I pity the foo who cares about print build-up as much as I do and comes across this monstrosity. Actually I am awaiting a call back from the director to confirm the tail-out scene cut - thank god his mom has been calling here all week annoying us to save seats for her and 100 guests tomorrow otherwise I wouldn't have a number to call!

Thanks for the putting up with my rant.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-26-2002, 01:35 AM:

Oh man that print sounds like a BITCH no matter of you're running platters or changeovers. Talk about ANNOYING! I think we are getting that movie. If you can, could you please post the specific reels that we should be careful on and what to look for on said reels? I imagine that's what you meant when you said you'd post the specifics when you get them. Thanks.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-26-2002, 09:28 AM:

Wasn't there also a C/O in the middle of a shot that continues unbroken on the next reel?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-26-2002, 09:35 AM:

The ACVL Handbook and other sources have information about editing and conforming:
http://www.acvl.org/3a.htm

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-26-2002, 10:03 AM:

I've been running "The Kid.." for the last 5 months here in New
York. Our first 2 months were HD, then we got the answer print.
Technicolor print #3 had the cues in the right places. But I
got a print from TES #7 and the cues on three of the reels were
bad from the lab. The change-over at the end of reel 3 to 4 is
right. But the lab should have told Brett that it was not a good
idea to do the change-over that way. Brett and Nanette the directors
were here during the early screenings of the picture. Till USA
Films took over the picture.

Good Luck with "The Kid...."

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 07-26-2002, 12:14 PM:

Oy what a mess but I did find out the the distributer was supposed to supply a tech info sheet with the print that they didn't get into the cans this round but when the film opens wider there should be a tech sheet in the can.

Here's a little mess I got myself into as well...

The director's mother has been in contact with us all week in regards to reserving seating tonight. I phoned her and left a message with her assistant saying I'd like the director to give me a call if he had a chance as I had a question about a reel change. Well that blew all out of proportion and now I'm pregnant...No but the folks at the distributer think there's something wrong with the print and why would I call the director to ask about print damage, why didn't I go through the proper channels, I should be reprimanded, blah blah blah...

I'm probabaly just being naive thinking that he could have just called to clarify the reel change question. At film festivals I spoke with directors all the time with questions regarding aspect ratios and such and I didn't think this was anything different. I should have just been a hack popcorn jockey and cut the offending footage out of the print.

Yes I'm a little p.o.'d and I can understand that people would be upset if I stalked and tracked down the director to ask him about print damage....HELLO! Use common sense people! I feel I did nothing wrong, especially since we're running this film in Westwood with all kinds of guests in attendance.

I must thank Susan Robertson - from USA films who helped quell the masses and thanked me for being diligent. Once the air was cleared up that is.

Now I'll probably catch shit for saying "the editor needs to go back to editing school".

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 07-26-2002, 03:51 PM:

USA Films is no more. Universal bought it, merged it with production/sales company Good Machine and renamed the whole thing Focus Features.

That said, what an embarrassment! The Kid Stays in the Picture is the second release for Focus (Never Again was the first). You would think the top brass in Universal City would have told the Focus staff to have The Kid Stays in the Picture re-edited to fit on 5 reels.

Then again, Universal's French-based owner Vivendi has seen an Enron-style meltdown of late.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-27-2002, 04:43 PM:

Mathew, I commiserate with you. Stuff at film festivals comes in much the same condition -- some reels with improperly spaced cues, the very next reels with no cues at all, or maybe just ONE cue, reels that end in black but cues way past it (does he want the screen black for all that time?) etc. It becomes a guessing game unless you have the filmmaker there to tell you exactly what he inteneded. The distributor typically hasn't a clue about details such as you are talking about.

The only reason feathers got ruffled is because they like to think only THEY have a rapport with the director. They want you to ask THEM questions that they can't answer or even undertand, so that they can then ask the director and in turn then relay some garbled version of his answer back to you, which you won't be able to understand. It's like living in an insane asylum. Ignore the flap. Whenever there is a technical print question, having the projectionist talk directly to the filmmaker is the most efficent way to dispense with miscommunication, potential mishaps and instead to put on a flawless show. Talking with the director is not at all uncommon on first run, independent premiere screenings. Usually it's a nervous director up in the booth on his own, giving last minute directions. It can be a bit annoying, but I'd rather he be there BEFORE the show telling me, "oh by the way, toward the end of reel 3, it looks like the film gets caught in the gate and then there is a simulated frame burn....don't slam down the dowser....it is on the film, not in your projector." Better before the show than come running in after I've stopped the machine, saying, "No, no -- let it run. It's part of the film." True story, by the way.

But tell me, what you mean by a reel having a "fake tail out."

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 07-27-2002, 06:57 PM:

Frank, When I say "fake tail-out" I'm referring to the look of a reel ending with the dowser open. Like at the end of Monty Python & The Holy Grail.

In the end I did ruffle the feathers of the distributer from coast to coast, I'm told the director was upset and I never did receive a return call. The distributer did have some tech info for the end of reel 3 but nothing on reel 4 (the one with the continuation of a 'fake tail' followed by a fade from black), just telling me to "match the soundtrack" which I did...but how many new kids know or care to do this? However, nobody on my end of things had any concerns with my actions. In fact I was told to "give 'em hell".

You're absolutely right, Frank. It's been in my experience too from the 1000+ films I've run at film festivals, that it really comes down to the director who knows what's going on with his/her print...usually.

Like I said, I'll post the specifics on print info. page once I get a chance.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-25-2002, 09:59 PM:

Just ran this tonight on 2000' reels. This print is evil. Evil. EVIL.

Actually, I enjoyed the film, but the editor must have _hated_ projectionists. This could have _easily_ fit onto five reels with room to spare. There's no excuse for reels that run for fewer than about fifteen minutes.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-25-2002, 10:03 PM:

How about being made to look stupid, particularly if your audience is aware that you run changeovers? Not knowing the film or having a chance to preview it on consultation with the client who didn't know either I think I ended up cueing it to miss most of the fake tailout.

Edit: I remember I had something recently where at the end of the credits there was a snippet of SMPTE leader going backwards. It was intentional and made sense when you saw the film. I don't recall the title--too much lately.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-25-2002, 10:07 PM:

My print had lab cues, but they were just black dots, without the usual clear outline. I had to scribe new cues over the existing ones on R6, as they were nearly invisible over the black background during the credits. To add to the frustration level, whoever had previously plattered this print (print #50...you know who you are) had cut at the wrong place in several instances (and had also added nice diagonal platter scratches).

If I were going to be running this for any length of time, I'd combine R1/R2 and R6/R7 onto single reels to avoid at least some of the frustration.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 09-26-2002, 12:17 AM:

In the irrelevent but potentially factually interesting quips department:

Scott comments, "I'd combine R1/R2 and R6/R7 onto single reels."

Perhaps a ...suboptimal...choice of words. In days of Yore, a "single reel" referred to a 1,000-foot reel, and a "double reel" to a regular 2,000-foot reel.

Not that I believe it's authoritative or anything, but google's first for the above, underGlossary of Film Terms (Joel Schlemowitz's compilation).

--jhawk

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-26-2002, 01:58 AM:

That sort of thing is becoming more and more common. Anyone remember the 9 reeler "Moulin Rouge"? That would have easily fit on 6 reels. "Road to Perdition" was on 8, but actually fits on FIVE! And that's even with no recutting of the reel changes either.

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 09-26-2002, 04:22 AM:

Glad to hear Matt and I are not the only ones that had problems with this film.
I agree with you all.
There's something rotten In Denmark!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-26-2002, 05:45 AM:

jhawk: Good point. s/single/individual

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 09-26-2002, 05:53 AM:

Why on earth don’t you lot do away with those crappy plastic spools that are a continous problem, and just have each reel on a core in a plastic container! The distributors could then easily consider having reels made into 6,000’ lengths, even 4k reels would be better than it is now.

Pasted from another thread.

Last paragraph of Leo's post 05-07-2001.
>If 6,000 foot spools ever do become the norm for distributing release prints, I would much prefer to see them supplied on 4-inch cores packed in tightly-fitting containers (like the ones used for 2,000 foot reels in Europe at the moment, only bigger).<
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

With the spool problems including wide in structure, Leo's preference might well work. Most cinemas constantly move prints off & onto platters, handling 6,000' on a core should be easy enough. A size of a 2,000' container measures 15". A 6,000' container would only have to measure 23", almost the size of a 5,000' spool.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 09-26-2002, 08:47 AM:

Peter says: Theres something rotten in Denmark

Yeah - but we are lucky: There will be only one print of The Kid, so most of us will not go through, what You're experiencing over there.
5 months run in New York, someone wrote - Is that applecity loaded with movie-people ? -I don't believe anybody else would care for this film at all..

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-26-2002, 11:11 AM:

When I originally screened Moulin Rouge unmarried (Baz had to check viewing conditions first! hehehe) I asked if the reels would be rebalanced and was told no, it's that way to keep the changes clear of the music.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-26-2002, 12:37 PM:

Steve wrote: "Baz had to check viewing conditions first! "

His attention to the technical details, as well as the art, certainly showed in the final product.

I assume your screening room was right on aim. Wish more theatres took responsibility for "Film Done Right" too.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 09-26-2002, 02:04 PM:

The big problem is that films are cut with acetate stock in mind. I'm sure that Moulin Rouge would not have fit on fewer reels with the edit points needed if it were on acetate. Same goes for Kid's last two reels which easily fit on a 2K but not if it were acetate. (However, that print needed a serious balancing.(Thanks for the term, Steve!))

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-26-2002, 02:33 PM:

All color release prints are now on polyester base film stock. AFAIK, none of the major film manufacturers still make any triacetate color print film.

Kodak's 35mm triacetate color print film base had a nominal thickness of 0.0056 inches (142 micrometres). Current Kodak ESTAR polyester base (VISION Color Print Film) is nominally 0.0047 inches (119 micrometres) thick. The color print emulsion coated on the base is about 0.0006 inches (15 micrometres) thick.

Roll size is a direct proportion to film thickness. So prints on Kodak VISION Color Print Film with ESTAR base will be (0.0047 + 0.0006) / (0.0056 + 0.0006) = 0.85 the roll diameter of triacetate prints. In other words, you can now fit about 15% more film on a reel.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-26-2002, 03:23 PM:

Camera negative is still on acetate-base stock (with exceptions for high-speed and scientific applications), though, so it would make sense for the rolls to be cut with no more than 2000' of film on any given reel, regardless of how much film might happen to physically fit on a given type of reel (I once measured this and found that a standard Goldberg house reel will hold about 2100' of ESTAR-base film).

I would much rather have a bunch of short reels than even one that is too long to fit properly onto a shipping reel or house reel.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-26-2002, 07:43 PM:

John:
Fox took a lot of care with Moulin Rouge, perhaps at the behest of Mr. Luhrman. When I screened it in February for DGA members, for possible award consideration, Fox sprang for a full tech checkup.