Hey Writers Guild of America screening room in Los Angeles, YOU SUCK!

Tonight I got the pleasure of receiving a film that played in your screening room. Just so there is no confusion, it was Miramax's "Frida" and the print came couried from YOU! Let's take a look.

Here we have reel 1 of "Frida" as it arrived. Note the awesome wind this print has! Clearly the Writer's Guild has a cheap platter that does not provide proper backtension and an incompetent operator. Don't see a problem? Let's take a closer look...

See the problem now? Yes indeedy, whoever broke this print down had the utmost concern for proper film handling and knew there was no way such a sloppy wind could possibly get damaged in transport to the next theater.

Selma Hayek doesn't seem too happy to have her face slit in half by this gaping green emulsion scratch. And to think, all this time I had no idea the Writer's Guild of America had colorization services!

Lookie, lookie! The scratches get worse as the reel plays. Here you can see that fabulous green scratch from the picture above, but that scratch now has friends...and they are all gathering on this fine print of Frida to have a party.

So you're saying to yourself "wow, they really trashed that print. I wonder if they got any complaints?" My guess is no. This damage appears to be breakdown damage. After all, they were never going to play this print again, so why in the hell would they possibly give a shit about the next guy, right? RIGHT! Here we see a perfect quality masking tape splice.

And here we are at the end of that reel. Just look at the care that went into this fine example of a breakdown. Not only were TWO identification frames chopped for no good reason whatsoever, but they have also managed to destroy another THREE! Yes, masking tape is definitely THE way to go for a quality breakdown.

But it doesn't stop there. Take a look at this shot. This was about 3-4 feet from the end of a reel. What could've caused that? Why letting the leader slap around on the floor or on the rewind bench without protective leaders, of course. But again it's no big deal. This theater will never have to run this print again, right?

This is a shot about a foot from the beginning of reel 4. Clearly this theater built the print onto large reels AND CHOPPED THE LEADERS OFF WHEN THEY DID causing these magnificent hub scratches for the last foot of the reel. Notice how this frame captures the end of the scratch marks where the unprotected film was wrapped around the hub of the reel and got damaged. Now what am I complaining about? This is easily fixed! All that has to be done is to chop off a foot or so of the offending frames and VOILA, no more scratches!

Yes indeedy, this theater cares a LOT about the prints they run. Just look at the GENEROUS amount of tape they used to "secure" the leaders to the reels. I might note that only 2 of the 6 reels were actually still taped down upon opening the cans. But again, that's just leader, so who cares?

(By the way, I am convinced that eating KFC while handling film is a policy in this booth. Never have I seen such greasy fingerprints all over the leaders!)

And finally I will close with an interesting picure of how the tail leader was chopped off for no apparent reason. Jack Valenti himself would be proud to see his rating band so meticulously preserved.

And did I mention that EVERY one of their "splices" had the soundtrack crossed? To the projectionist of the Writers Guild of America screening room...YOU SUCK!

**********

I will report the quality of the replacement print if it is not in acceptable condition. Unfortunately I will not have the luxury of "outing" a specific theater for any damage, as it is coming from the TES depot, so any damage will be directed at their "integrity inspectors". I requested a new print that had not been played before, but I got the bad feeling that Technicolor only has used prints available of this title. I'm sure it will be "integrity inspected" though, so obviously I have no worries.

To Miramax, please always make it a point to send your junk prints to this theater. Save the rest of our presentations, please!

Our copy of XXX was a good example. Reel 4 had 3 splices within the first 4 minutes. Halfway thru the reel there was about 3 feet that looked like it had been steped on. The whole reel was scratched up and had blurred spots. The entire print had scratches thru out.

The main thing we try to do is to ship them out in as good of shape as we got them or better. If they come in with masking tape holding the leaders and tails on, they go out with single side tape splices in frame. We also put the TES paper bands on even if they are totally worthless.
 

Glenda is absolutely right that many second-run and repertory prints come in this sort of shape. Sad. I do, however, think that Glenda and Rick would be very happy to receive any of the prints that I've shipped out of platter houses. I do use single-sided splices to re-attach the leaders, but all that should be necessary is to add another piece of splicing tape to the head and tail and confirm the position of the cue marks. I (and pretty much everyone else with any degree of common sense) also use either the reel bands or a nice, long strip of tape labelled with "R1 - HEAD" or something similar (and _not_ both) to hold the film on the reel during shipping. Lately, I've adopted Brad's suggestion of adding 20' of clear leader to the tail of the last reel when making up prints for platter use. The problem isn't with platters but with operators who are either lazy, stupid, or poorly trained. I don't claim to be perfect, but "film done right" really isn't much more difficult than "film done very wrong."

On the topic of reel bands: what do people do if the string catch is damaged? I've been using tape as a replacement for the string to hold the band together, but that doesn't feel right somehow. Almost invariably this will happen on at least one reel of every print with brand-new TES reel bands. This doesn't happen with the high-quality reel bands made of thick cardboard with real string.

So... for all UK readers, if you're even thinking about going to see a film at the Odeon, Wimbledon, I have one word of advice - don't. I have had a string of shite presentation experiences over the last few years there when I've been visiting friends and relatives in that bit of south London where I grew up. The most recent one I described in the 'cinemas on the verge of closure' topic in Film Yak. The place is a run-down old fleapit which should not be accepting people's money any more. Admittedly, not quite as bad as the Princess in Watseka, but not far off it.
 

Scott, you are a trusting soul. I am not. I have see what can come out of the so-called prestigious houses, and you can find the same kind of damage from any theatre that has made the conscious decision to ignore what goes on in the booth, because skilled craftsmen cost more than inexperienced, unskilled minimum wage labor. If you've put such a worker in the booth, that means you don't give a flying whoha about quality in your OWN theatre, is it any surprise that you couldn't give a rat's ass about what happens to the next theatre down the line?

I have been in the booth of one of the most prestigious art theatres in New York -- The Anthology Film Archives. Oh, if I only had secreted away a camera to show the world what a pigsty this place is and what filth their so-called "archive" condition the prints are subjected to. The fact that they collect huge amounts of money by purporting that they are a bastion of film care and preservation can only be fraud based on what I have seen in their booth, because those donations and grants are not going to running a booth with even the minimum of good operating practices, let alone the kind of highest quality you would expect from an operation that claim the lofty ideals of the Anthology.

Operations like these need to be outed.

Frank

PS I have absolutely no affiliation with the Anthology -- never worked for them (and never will). I am not a disgruntled employee. I know of the conditions because a projectionist who is a friend of mine worked there and I was invited up to the booth on a few occasions only to be appalled and disillusioned about what I always thought was a first class art house operation (which shows excellent marking and image-making on their part....too bad they don't spend as much energy on film care). My union projectionist friend, one of the most conscientious projectionist I know, after a year of trying to get management to clean up the mess, quit in total disgust. They hired a non-union man to replace him.

I say out ANY theatre that does this kind of thing to prints.

PPS Brad, maybe we should have a YOU SUCK Forum just for outing the bad guys.
 

We are currently running Sweet Home Alabama. Every reel had its tail chopped off out of frame, and it has little green scratches along one edge throughout one reel (replacement is on the way but not here yet).

Last week we had The Tuxedo. The DTS disks were scratched and would not play properly.

I could go on but you get the idea. If every 2nd-run theatre was to send pictures of the film damage received, this site would probably crash from overloading within one week.

Clearly there are a lot of meatheads out there masquerading as film handlers.

As for the reel bands: If the string is missing, I tape them together at the end, but I do not tape the bands to the film itself. I always use a nice long 4" strip of tape to hold the film, if there is no band.

All prints that we ship out go with single-sided splices, in frame. (and they've been thoroughly Film-Guarded!)

No food of any kind, fried chicken or otherwise, is allowed in our booth. That includes popcorn.

I'm not claiming perfection here, but dammit, it's a goal worth shooting for!
 

quote:

---

We are currently running Sweet Home Alabama. Every reel had its tail chopped off out of frame, and it has little green scratches along one edge throughout one reel (replacement is on the way but not here yet).

---

Sweet Home Alabama was an exception for us. Definetly came from a theater that cares.

Another note on the XXX print. The DTS disks and reels 1 & 2 came in a 4 reel can. Both sides of reel one (TES translucent) were broken completely off. Luckily the film was wound tight on the core so it didn't come loose and string out in the can.
 

I must now point my finger in shame to you Scott. I HATE theaters who "cut" the splices with a splicer or scissors. If the breakdown theater is too lazy to take the time to peel the tape off or is too rushed to meet a pickup to do so, the proper way IS to tear the splices. Now let me explain why. By tearing the splices instead of re-cutting them, the original splicer cuts are not damaged and the next theater only has to peel the last guy's tape off. Using scissors or re-cutting the splice will almost always end up damaging the integrity of the cuts. Once a sliver off of the cuts are accidentally "trimmed" by another chop of the splicer blade or scissors, then commonly 2 more frames must be cut off to make a good overlap or butt splice (depending on how you make splices).

In general, yes I know this is how things are in the used and second run world, and if everyone starts posting these sort of examples, then maybe the depots and studios will wake up and start enforcing some minimum standards. Just make sure you put enough information for the post to be useful to the studios and the depots to catch these guys. If the posts cause the server to explode, then fine. I'll build 2 more servers and keep it running.

I see more damage on breakdowns sometimes than from incompetent monkey threaders themselves. So sad. The biggest offender I see with used prints is masking or Artist tape "splices". I see this all the time and I have two theories on this.

Theory #1 The projectionist at the theater uses cheap splicing tape that does not peel well and "thinks" he is helping the next guy, when in reality what commonly happens is that edge damage (like shown above) occurs.

Theory #2 The projectionist has a Strong platter (or platter with similar thought put into the design of it's makeup table). These tables have no place to put a splicer. They are basically BEGGING their operators to just masking tape the leaders back onto the film. Shame!

In regards to the paper bands, if the string is gone or has been cut (I see this all the time on brand new prints from TES), then to hell with it. They go in the trash. The string is part of the bands and if the string is not there then the band is defective. As was mentioned above, a minimum 4 inch piece of tape should be required when there is no band.

By the way, that's Frida print #8 and from all signs this was the first theater where the leaders had been cut. (Quite possible it was ran reel to reel a few times. That would explain the nasty leaders a bit more.)

Is this completely unworkable in the real world? I suppose so. One scenario is you trash the print but don't log it. The next location discovers the damage but no corresponding log entry. Now it's their word against the previous handler. OK, I guess I answered my own question. Never mind.

I make it a point to speak to all of my distributors on the phone, in person, and tell them that I take extra good care of prints and that I don't appreciate the way others send film to me. I even ask their permission to use FilmGuard on their prints if they are not just your average run-of-the-mill movie. (Not ONE person has denied me yet!)

Even though I know there's zero chance of it ever happening, I always extend our distributors the invitation to visit our booth any time we are "open for business". Just the sheer mention of it seems to get the idea across to them that we mean business.

(PS: The same invitation applies to Film-Techers too! )

Given enough time for it to "soak in", FG will erase just about all of the marks you showed in your picture... All except for the ones that go into the emulsion.

If you'll remember, Brad, I e-mailed you once to ask your advice on a print that was caked with dirt so badly that I thought it had been taken out and dragged through the parking lot. Three or four trips through the cleaner and a healthy dose of FG cleared that print right up!

EVERY print that leaves this theatre is in BETTER condition than it was when we got it. BAR NONE!

We are getting to the point, now, that we can talk the distributors into sending us a few of their one-of-a-kind prints that they won't let out to other places. (Again, I alway ask before FilmGuarding these prints... never been denied!)

Almost every single print that we get has something wrong with it! I truly, honestly, think I should get PAID for cleaning up these crappy, fucked-up prints! It's only a small consolation that we can get some prints they won't let others have.

The only "good" thing I can say about getting crapped-up prints is that when you get a good one, it's a breeze! My Work Study student this year wants to become a projectionist in his local theatre when he goes home for the summer. I tell him, "If you stick with me for the rest of the year, by the time you learn how to deal with all the fucked-up prints we get, you'll be able to walk into that theatre (Regal) and put all the other guys to shame right from the get-go!"

I used to think that something along Dave's suggestion would never work, and I suppose I still think that may be the case. But it also seems possible to draw a distinction between "accidental" damage and "pure neglect."

While it's certainly not Film Done Right, when a scratch is added to a print because someone has misthreaded, or there's a burr somewhere that no one knew about, etc., etc., it is extremely unfortunate, but it is still understandable. You can imagine how it happened. Maybe the projectionist wasn't as careful as they should have been, but they haven't totally lost it.

Then there's a whole 'nother category. Leaders double-cut and miss-cut, cues Done Wrong, and the kinds of serious damage that Brad shows above. There's no excuse for that. It's not like someone has made an honest mistake.

With the existing system, of course, the thing to do is to report these problems to the exchange and the studio buyer/booker, and hope that they followup with the previous theatre and make progress. This only works if everybody does it, though. It would be nice to have some sort of form or log or other incentive/inducment to remind projectionists to complain about these problems, since I think many of them get swept under the rug or ignored.

Scott and Brad, there seems to be some confusion about the 1" square of tape. I don't think Scott was suggesting that splices on the print should be broken with scissors, but rather that the paper tape should be cut with a pair of scissors coming off of the roll. But I don't know why Scott would suggest that, there's nothing wrong with tearing tape off of a roll (not splicing tape, of course!). I mean, sure, most people use a piece of technology called a tape dispenser, but there's nothing wrong with doing otherwise.

I see a huge number of prints where the strings on the bands are nonexistant, or are 3" long. The vast majority of our banded reels are that way. Yes, I tape them back on. I do think the paper bands provide a reasonable level of protection, and certainly taping them on does no harm.

Brad, in re your theory #1, it seems to me that there's not much wrong with using paper tape for a leader splice if you make the splice on a splicer. While I don't advocate it and don't do it, I'd certainly much rather get a print taped that way than one that's masking taped, or perhaps even one that's spliced with splicing tape our-of-frame or opaque splicing tape or something else that I have to spend a lot of effort peeling off.

Of course, I fully agree that splicing with paper tape not-on-a-splicer is bad news. (The one case where I do splices with paper tape is when I'm pulling the head/tail leaders off of something, like a short, and leaving the leaders on the original reel/core/whatever; in that case, I use paper tape as it's just a tad bit more convenient, and they are never going to run through a projector that way, much less leave our premises).

--jhawk

Our new print of Tuxedo arrived, and my daughter was building it up on reel for subsequent transfer to platter (Strong).

Having grown up during the carbon arc / changeover days, it never occurred to me that you shouldn't expect that when a reel is finished (re)winding, the end should release from the supply reel, therefore, I never suggested my daughter should expect otherwise. Apparently, someone or something had other ideas.

This is the end of Tuxedo, reel 4.

The end of the film has been taped to the core, winds about 4 inches, then LOOPS into and out of the slot. Yes, it's one of those typically warped TES reels, but that's a well-known issue here.

This picture shows another view of how the film threads around the core, then into and out of the slot.

Here was our shocker...

There is a plastic plug running THROUGH the loop as it threads into the core. It appears to be made of the same kind of material the reel is, and not that of the core. Because of this plug, the film could not release once the winder got to it. It locked the end in place as effectively as if you had held it there with vice grips.

Naturally, the system had to deal with momentum somehow, so the film slid off of its wind and wrapped a turn or two in around the side of the reel, destroying about 2 or 3 feet before she got it turned off.

TES replaced the reel... but it took a few days (and submitting a raft of pictures) to convince the film company we hadn't just goofed.

So, my obvious question is whether the natural process of things can provide an explanation that doesn't involve human error, ignorance or malicious intent???

In other words... who sucks here??

quote:

---

"Brad, in re your theory #1, it seems to me that there's not much wrong with using paper tape for a leader splice if you make the splice on a splicer. "

---

I have done this when working booths that had super nasty splicing tape and have no problem with it. HOWEVER, there must be a clear distinction between the kind of white tape that has the same adhesive that is found on Post-It Notes (not strong enough) to the other extreme that is actual masking tape (leaves horrible residue). If the Artist's tape is not left on the print for "too long", then it will pull effortlessly off and leave no residue. For theaters that are super cheap and won't spend the money on quality splicing tape, I would RATHER see them use Artist's tape on a splicer. And yes it will run through a projector just fine if need be (even a single sided splice). In fact, at theaters with completely blind projectionists who absolutely insist on using solid opaque splicing tape, I generally recommend they make the splice with a piece of clear splicing tape on the base, and use the Artist's tape for the emulsion side. It's cheaper and doesn't leave a glob of sticky goop for the next theater. There has never been a problem either.

Jack, I have seen that MANY times since TES started using those translucent reels. It drives me crazy! It happened to me once rewinding a reel while threading a nearby platter in a rushed situation (I heard the film on the other reel cinch scratching away as it was tightening up on itself) and now I am extra careful anytime I get close to the end of a reel that may have been secured by an idiot.

And what's with the group of "projectionists" who think they can wrap a piece of film or masking tape around the hub of a reel that will miraculously allow them to remove the leaders without damaging the last foot or so of the reel? Are you people that damned lazy that going back to the cans to replace the R3-tail and R4-head leaders is just too much work? You guys suck too! Go back to shoveling popcorn. That practice FORCES people to tape down the end of the reel and still provides NO protection when the end of the reel is reached. I've been in a bind before where I had to run a show cold reel to reel and the last person had taped down the tail to the hub. (This was reel 1, I inspected the others during that first reel.) As the tail leader was short, I ended up sprocketing the last couple of feet of that reel in the projector because of that nonsense. Leaders should never be removed until it is actually time to join the reels together at the platter.

Story time:
Funny story here. Several years ago I broke a print down to 2 large reels for transport to a nearby 6 plex (which no longer exists). I left all of the leaders in the cans so as not to confuse them, but wrapped a protective stretch from some extra unused trailers with their leader around it. I told the projectionist who picked up the print what I did to protect the ends of the reels and I also had placed a stretch of Artist's tape on these ends with "THIS IS JUNK FILM FOR PROTECTION, REMOVE BEFORE PLATTERING". Of course that weekend one of my employees went to that theater to see the show and came back saying that "halfway through the movie it just stopped and the Coca Cola polar bear commercial started running upside down with weird sound and some random markings (this was the leader) for about 10-15 seconds, then the movie picked right back up." Idiots! Guess it's a good thing I cut that junk protection film in frame.

Accidents happen, and this isn't about the blame game (not necessarily) but just to get some accountability and maybe force goof-offs to be a little more careful.

UPDATE: The replacement print of Frida is brand new, never abused (or at least handled by a professional). Everyone is happy and it will leave the theater in perfect condition at the end of the engagement. Two points for TES on this one.

Maybe someone should call the WGA and ask. (I tried.)

Writers Guild Theater
135 Doheny Drive
Beverly Hills, CA

Contact:
Caren Mandoyan
Writers Guild of America, west
7000 West Third Street
Los Angeles, CA 90048-4329
323.782.4525
theater@wga.org

As John said, I use white or colored artist tape to old the leaders down on prints which arrive without reel bands and I use scissors to cut it off the roll. It just feels unprofessional and tacky to tear it off the roll, but I'm just picky about this sort of thing.

Steve, like I said, if the theater had rejected the print, it should've been taken straight back to TES for inspection. That is the way it has always worked in the past. If by some chance they did reject the print and did not handle this one, I will apologize here to them and turn the blame toward TES for not taking it back and checking it before sending it out to another theater. Either way it is unacceptable.
 

However with reels sent to us where the splice has been cut, the majority of the time I will remove the offending frame. Depending on the quality of the tape residue. I have found that more damage can be done removing this crap than by just cutting my losses.

That being said, on all Fox prints I will remove the frame as their prints will be tacky no matter what I try to do.
 

That's not to say that they couldn't have trashed it. Maybe they do have a platter and some operator is too chicken to run changeovers in front of VIP's and would rather build and unbuild with this as the result. But Occam's Razor suggests that that was the result of a theatre, not a special venue.
 

quote:

---

It wouldn't take too long for theaters to become forced into putting professionals in the booth, because it wouldn't be economically feasible not to. Everyone right down to the paying customers would benefit.

---

Either that, or they would find it easier to just switch to digital and avoid the "film problems" alltogether...

=TMP=
 

Judging from the delivery date on the can labels as well as taking into account when it arrived (it sat at the theater for a few days unopened), unless it made a same day pit stop at the Princess II, it came directly from there.
 

They invented tape dispensers recently. They are a marvel of 21st century technology. No more unprofessional tearing of artists tape! No more taking out the scissors! The tape dispenser makes a nice, clean cut for you. An added benefit is that the roll doesn't have to lay on it's side when not in use, collecting dirt and debris.

Honestly though, I don't find a perfectly straight cut done with scissors to be any more professional than one done by a tape dispenser. But I too thought you were referring to cutting the splices the first time I read it, but then I figured you were talking about the tape when I re-read your sentence and looked at the pics again. That was before Jiggidy Jhawk (yes with a capital J) suggested it. I'm smart!

At any rate, it would seem private industry screening rooms, be they the WGA or anyone else, would need to aspire to a higher level of film handling practices. I think it is pretty shocking to see such a deplorable example of film abuse on a movie in very limited release.
 

Oh well, we know the TES staff reads these forums. The rep I called this one in to is probably having a snicker at this thread.
 

Charges were incured on a theater that did not splice the leaders back on and if they were missing. If the reel was damaged enough to be unplayable like broken sprocket holes the theater was charged for that too, so much a foot per damaged reel.
 

[...make theaters that damage a print RESPONSIBLE, as in paying for the print. This way, as something like this turns up, if only one other theater had the print before, CHARGE THEM!]

Only one problem here... We actually had this occur over the summer, and it was a disaster! I cannot recall which film it was, but it was a TES print. For whatever reason, management had to use a "backup" prjectionist for two shifts over a weekend. The print came out SO BAD that we could not go a show without a large volume of complaints, so we called and "confessed". We were BILLED for the print, and sent a replacement. Only problem is, the replacement was sub run, and JUST AS BAD! So why did we bother, and why did we pay a fortune? I dunno...

 

I cannot say I have ever seen "film done right" at this theater. There's always something. The frame line on "Hoop Dreams" from an improperly built print that was not checked, and seen after the film had been playing for a week. Dim projection quality. Their sole DTS machine doesn't even work anymore. I've seen lots of different meltdowns at this place, and even still on any kind of rare visit back to the place these days (usually when a date makes me take her there to see something that is only playing there).

In all, the place is run in a cost cutting extreme where the projection and sound equipment aren't even maintained anymore. Yet this place is still operating.

But I'm not sure which is worse, this theater in my town putting doing such a bad job or the people that are ignorant enough to keep paying for it. The Central Mall 12 across town shows just about all the same movies as this dump. It's not a great theater by any means, but the mall theater is new and isn't falling apart like this place. Apparantly enough people are visiting the Cache 8 to keep it open. Or perhaps Wallace Theaters has some way of using it as a tax shelter. I dunno.

Carmike has really neglected their Decatur location over the years. For a picture, I'll have to scan the Decatur Daily newspaper from December 6, 2001 and get the "Problems at the Movie House" and "Silver Screen Tarnish" headings next to the picture of the front of the theatre.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site
 

I was runing this weeks Pearl and Dean add reel and during the first splice the film jumped out of a sproket at the top of the projector. (So the top loop was massive and the image appeared out of rack). I stopped the film. Wound on a bit, re-threaded and started again. Then next splice same problem.

I've just taken a look at the reel. I looked at the splices, they looked ok. They curved nicely ect. Then I took a close look. This is what it looked like. Seems that somehow the splices looked like they were cut without the tape on the sprocket holes being punched out.

Your sprocket teeth just aren't sharp enough!

Seriously, if the tape was not perforated, whoever made the splices likely did not even use a splicer to align and register the two films being joined. If so, it's no wonder that you lost the loops.

------------------
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: here

As I am assembling a new training program for 35mm film reviewers here at THX. These pictures are a great example of what can happen to film in real world. I plan on using them in the future, hopefully you don't have too many more of them. I was sorry to here about were it came from.

Later
 

The "projectionists" who handled the prints REALLY SUCKED! Opaque splicing tape, mishandled heads and tails with an average of 3-5 frames spliced off, massive finger prints and Liquid Paper used to mark splices were the norm! Lord knows how much time I spend with Film-Guard, film cleaning pads and lens tissue cleaning that dammed Liquid Paper off several feet of film!

There is now excuse why prints cannot be carefully broken down and handled with care!! I did this on a regular basis and am freakin proud of my professionalism!!!!

Many of the Diredtors and Producers are clueless regarding film-handling and they REALLY SUCK. You know those letters that they insert with prints. I used to collect the "good" ones. I distinctly remember a very well known Director advocating the use of either opaque splicing tape of Liquid Paper (I forgot which) to mark splices...the dumbass!
 

Hey Darryl....what as difference 18 years makes, eh?! 18 years ago the first run "Flagship Theatres" would get back-up prints from the distribs. Radio City Music Hall had prints specially struck that were not as dense as standard prints so that they could get more light to the screen without scorching the film. Times have changed.

I guess when you play off 3000 prints for the opening run and then when you come off the break all you need is 300 for sub runs, it means you've got 2700 extra prints lying around. It's not hard to see how the distrib isn't bothered that a bunch if prints come back without reel bands or with the leaders not spliced back the way we like.

It's the filmmaker himself that is the most concerned about what his picture looks like and sound like up on the screen; it's him we have to get too. Remember, the distributor never actually see the physical print. He never even TOUCHES celulloid. He orders prints from a lab, signs the orders for them to be sent to the shipping depot (TES or whoever) and then sends TES the order to have the prints sent to the individual theatres. The theatre sends them back to the depot. Right up to the time he signs the order to have x number of prints bansawed, he has been doing nothing but signing paper and giving orders. The prints are nothing but numbers to him. Also his account dept tells him what service to order for any particular inventory from the depot. He instructs TES on just what kind of "inspection service" he will buy for his inventory -- top level: all new reels and cans, full inspection, cleaning, repair; or perhaps midlevel, "stock" reels and cans (painted orange, of course) which basically are any used that are not falling apart. Then there's the cheapest service -- we all know that one by heart -- count the number of reels, make sure they all have film of some kind on them and then slap an Inspected By "Joanne" sticker on them. We know which service is most commonly chosen by the studios.

To expect them to sweat it when we call and say, this or that print number was really trashed by such and such theatre and it will look like crap when we play it here, I think is hoping for too much. They may agree to send us another print but half the time I think it is just to make us go away rather than because they even understand what chopping frames off at the leader joints means. But the FILMMAKER, now that's another story.

I always like telling the story of Robert Downey Sr., I told him that UA was refusing to book his film POUND because, as they put it, "It's out of service." He went ballistic; he yelled that he didn't make his movies so the &^%#$# suits at UA could tell theatres they were out of service. One irate call from him and UA sold it to me the next day FLAT and with gushing apologies.

Brad, send those pictures to the director and I bet it will ruffle feathers galore. Send pictures of the Princes II or the Wallace Cache 8 and I wouldn't be surprised if the filmmakers themselves refuse to let their distribs send their titles into those holes.

Frank
 

So let's make sure everything is straight so there is no confusion. There were two prints of Frida sent to this theater. The first print was received damaged and has not been ran. The second print of Frida is nice and happy, all perfect sitting on the platter awaiting Friday's engagement after a screening earlier tonight.

Tonight I understand the defective print of Frida was picked up. Ok fine. The pickup date/time was set for tomorrow afternoon, but who cares. The print is in the cans and it was released to Airbourne/Sky Courier. An hour later the same courier shows up to pick up the GOOD print! This all after being told that the theater COULD keep this print for Friday's engagement.

So here is this theater with a perfectly good print, built up and screened, everyone is satisfied with. Technicolor now wants it back. Why??? They want to add a trailer!

I say "fine, send me the trailer and it will be placed on the print by the first showing". Apparently that's not good enough. Apparently TES thinks that if the entire print is broken down (unnecessary film handling), shipped back to Ohio (unnecessary shipping expense and banging around), a TES inspector attaches the trailer (possibly out of frame and possibly even chopping off the Miramax logo's audio which has happened more times than I care to count), then the print is re-packed up and shipped back (again, more unnecessary shipping expense and banging around) all to be re-built up and re-screened (more unnecessary film handling and shipping expenses and employee payroll expenses, all being the financial responsibility of the theater) that somehow that GUARANTEES that the trailer will be played with the movie.

Hey guys, wake up. If you want a trailer played, and you want it considered to be an "attached trailer", then fine. Just tell us nicely and ship us the trailer and it WILL play with the print for the entire engagement. No questions, no excuses, it will be done. Don't pull this kind of crap.

Oh and did I mention, this theater is actually getting TWO prints of this movie? That's just great. They already have one print they are happy with the quality on. Now Technicolor wants it to go back to never-never land and will probably ship out two completely different prints that will probably have damage on them. Does no one there have a brain smart enough to figure this stuff out? Where is that Brad Carroll guy we keep hearing about? What is his specific job again? Isn't it to assist theaters in some fashion?

EDIT: I have decided to give Mr. Carroll a shot and have emailed him, directing him to this thread. Hopefully he will see the insanity at work here in regards to this second print, see it is corrected, and also see to it that whatever theater damaged that first print of Frida pays for it. I'll let ya know.

Oh, hehe, yeah the name "Cache 8" sounds like a computer term, but it is named after Cache Road, which runs west to the little town of Cache that has been around well before PCs hit the scene. I guess they named it after the old-fashioned definition of Cache.
 

To the person who makes these decisions at Technicolor:

In this instance, I can only hope that the "retard" in this situation is a computer arbitrarily assigning print pickups and deliveries, and not a real person. If it is indeed dictated by a real person, then Joe's picture is wholly appropriate.

Earlier this month I got a print of "Equilibruim" TES #00006 that screened at the Trolley Corner 3 Theatre in Salt Lake City. This print
came direct from the theatre without making a TES stop. The print had
those great masking tape splices. FILM DONE WRONG

Do these prints ever go to private screening rooms in VIP's homes? Maybe the butler did it.
------------------
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: here

Meanwhile, the Account Manager Deb Hess has commanded the print be broken down, shipped, etc, etc, etc (all that nonsense above) so it may be returned to the theater in 48 hours with a trailer. Does this surprise anyone? I mean is ANYONE surprised here??? Common sense and logic does not exist at Technicolor.
 

EDIT: Actually Joe, I just posted a game. Don't forget to roll the dice at your chance for a free Film-Tech T shirt. Check the Yak forum.

Oddly, I've never had the problem of TES wanting prints returned between a screening and opening a week later.
 

Positive waves, man !

p.
 

First off, there is no platter there..

Second, they do not cut the heads or tails off of prints they show...

Third, just because it originated from the Writers Guild, it does not mean he projected the film.

Fourth, and most important, I know the projectionist and how much he cares about his presentation. I have informed him of these comments and I hope he does respond accordingly.

Brad, when you rejected that Frida print, did you enclose a note in the cans saying, "We here at XXX YYY Theatre rejected this print and returned it to TES in the condition we found it. We suggest you do the same."?

If you didn't, and TES shipped it off to another theatre, the anecdotal blame-chain just gets worse. Further, if the WGA had done so, they wouldn't have been under suspicion...

--jhawk
 

Thanks a lot for the nasty emulsion scratch in reels 2 through 6. It's always comforting to see prints come in with leaders "attached" with masking tape. And thanks for not removing the lab splice in R2.

I mean, I don't want to be too cocky to think this, but you can't get too much better than our prints when we ship them out after first-runs. I'm proud to know that we take care of our prints in the best way we know how. So what, if we all decide to do the "film-log" thing, would everyone be onboard??
 

So no lawyer in their right mind would approve unilateral assertion of minor print damage, much as we would like to see it. And this pretty much guarantees that no chain is going to start doing it.

Now, if it were standard industry practice, or if distributors agreed not to hold exhibitors liable for condition of wide release prints and merely to use the quality information in order to guide junking priorities, that would be a whole different ballgame.

But given our litigious society, I think it's asking too much.

Of course, that's simply my pessimistic opinion. I'd certainly be on the benefitting side of such a policy. I just don't think it is realistic.

--jhawk
 

Received a 6 reel film from TES. It was "Integrity Inspected" of course. Reels 1, 2 and 3's leaders were all jumbled up on the wrong reels. Reels 4, 5 and 6's leaders were all on the proper reels.

Here's the kicker, there was TWO identification frames on each leader with clear (brightly lit) images on them that came nothing close to resembling each other...and they still sent it out!

Even more humorous is that the print was clearly built with opaque tape, yet it was broken down with single sided striped tape. Ahhhhhhm, what's the point in that?

(This is Landmark, right? I often work on Thursdays at the Waltham cinema where, for the most part, presentation quality is very good.)
 

if i'm right about this it's just a further indication that it's really not that easy to figure out where to point the finger when a print gets mistreated.

i should note that my girlfriend works booth at the embarcadero, and i also work for landmark. i'll ask her if she knows anything more. she doesn't do buildup/breakdown though.

carl