This is topic Are some film-techers all talk and no walk??? 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=004418

---

Posted by Jeff Sirles (Member # 1511) on 01-10-2003, 06:19 PM:
 
I must begin with giving the background of this post. This morning I recieved a print of "Catch Me If You Can" to be put together for this evening. Now because I run alot of features second run, I have alot of experience dealing with poor film ethics, and their results. So you can imagine my relief when I saw that the film I recieved came from the theater which is home to a long time film techer whom has many posts, and seems to have (from his posts) good film ethics.
Well, my relief was short lived, as when I inspected the film I discovered ALOT of scratches and many varieties of them (Including some lovely sprocket teeth scratches). I discovered this film had chunks missing (because some of them were missing off of the very head or tail of the reels). And the dreaded poorly taped (with masking tape) Heads.
Now heres my point: I am not saying this person is directly responsible for these problems (Though they are in Managent as well a projection), nor am I going to "out" this person. It just made me realize that some of us may be convincing our selves we are doing better than we truly are.
I am new to film-tech though I have run projectors and managed for several years. And as I have read these post I have seen my short falls, and am trying to improve. I believed I was right, and now I believe I was good, but not perfect... hopefully with perfection soon to come.
So, with seeing what I have seen today, I want to perhaps suggest something: As humble as humble can be without intending to offend anyone, may I suggest that everyone truly look at their performance with an open mind. Perhaps some of us film-techers are guilty of not practicing what we preach? Perhaps some of us need to bring our standards in real life up to what we state here. Now, I am sure many many of you after taking a look at yourself will see youre doing just fine, but its worth looking just in case. Alot of our work is repetition, and we can get too comfortable and thus sloppy without realizing it,
What good is believing you are doing the best if you are indeed missing some things? I can tell you from what I have seen in myself and what I have learned from film tech that sometimes we all can learn a better way.
 

---

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 01-10-2003, 06:49 PM:
 
Perhaps someone else tore down the print?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-10-2003, 06:57 PM:
 
It is also possible that the main guy is a perfectionist, but he/she was sick that day and TES needed the print for a direct circuit and a manager (or other person who has worked the booth before, but doesn't do it on a daily basis) ran it and broke it down.

Also, I understand that there is one company that actually TRAINS their projectionists to use masking tape for breakdown, as a money and splicer saver. (Many MUTs are guilty of being poorly designed so as not to permit having a place for a splicer during breakdown.)

I do understand your point though, and many people have posted in the past things such as "I thought I had a good presentation until I started...." I think that typically the people who claim they have a flawless presentation (when really it isn't all that great) fit into one of two categories. First, this is their first job and they are doing things the way they were taught (insert company brainwashing remark here, ala "we have the best presentation"). Or second, they have been doing this for so long they can thread in their sleep and honestly believe that their presentation is as good as it can get, when in reality it can be improved.

I suppose the old saying "don't knock it until you've tried it" works well here. That is what I do. If someone posts a new idea or tip, I'll try it. If a manufacturer comes out with something new, I'll try that too. Then I take my experience and new data and make my decision as to what is really the best way to do things.


 

---

Posted by Darren Crimmins (Member # 1116) on 01-10-2003, 09:00 PM:
 
Jeff Sirles said, "...when I inspected the film I discovered ALOT of scratches and many varieties of them (Including some lovely sprocket teeth scratches)."

While I realize that it is possible that the scratches could have come from the breakdown, is it not also possible that this theater caused that scratch damage during the films run? Also the sprocket teeth damage had to have come from the movies run. So apparently even if "someone else" broke down the print, the print was probably already ruined and some of the blame must still be on the "head projectionist".
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-10-2003, 09:25 PM:
 
Other scenarios:

The film may not have come directly from the person listed on the can. Prints often pass through many hands before they get to you. Not all of them are listed on the can.

The film may have been received by this place and it may have been in poor condition. He or she may have sent the print back for replacement. Some bone head MAY have rerouted the print to you by mistake instead of sending it to the shredder as it should have been.

The theatre in question may have had a bad accident, causing the damage you mention. The person at fault may have been given retraining, disciplined or even got handed a pink slip and you wouldn't know it.

However, no matter what the reason, might I suggest that anybody who sends bad/damaged film back to the depot/distributor should put some kind of notice in the can?
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-10-2003, 09:50 PM:
 

quote:

---

However, no matter what the reason, might I suggest that anybody who sends bad/damaged film back to the depot/distributor should put some kind of notice in the can?

---

Who said the depot ever opens the can when they get it back? Heck you could probably send back a couple of rocks without them knowing until the next theatre called to complain.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-10-2003, 09:52 PM:
 
As much as we might wish that distributors "threw the book" at theatres that negligently mishandle and damage prints, it's often very difficult to prove blame due to the reasons mentioned in this thread. All the more important to always carefully inspect prints when you receive them, including evaluation of the projected image and sound. Immediately report any damage -- waiting to report damage after you've been running the print a few days may raise suspicion that you did the damage and are looking for a scapegoat.

One new tool to use is digital photography. A photograph showing shipping damage or close ups of bad splices e-mailed to your distribution contact person stands a much better chance of being acted on (and passed along to higher-ups) than a phone call or voice mail message. Damage severe enough to demand a replacement reel gets the distributor's attention, especially if they have to pay for a new reel to be printed.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-10-2003, 10:14 PM:
 
Any message in the can would not necessarily be for the depot that receives the film. It would be for anbody who opens that can and could potentially find a mess on their hands.

Something like:

Received this print on <date> and found <something> wrong with it.... etc, etc.... (It doesn't have to be a novel. A Post-It note might suffice in some situations.)

Thus, when the person opens the can and says, "W.T.F!?" there's at least some kind of explanation.
 

---

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 01-10-2003, 10:46 PM:
 
Or faxing a print report to whomever will record it on their system. This covers your arse.
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-10-2003, 11:51 PM:
 
Thank god my theatre never ran this movie! I dont have to worry about wether it was me or not!
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-11-2003, 12:02 AM:
 
I never ran it, either.

Agreed to what others have said: the print may have come from a different theatre than the one on the shipping label, or may have been damaged and/or shipped out by another employee. The print might have even been delivered (in damaged condition) to some theatre in error and might never have been touched by their staff. Or the original poster may be entirely correct and there may be some people who like to talk about "film done right" without actually doing it. There are too many possibilities to be able to say what really happened with any degree of certainty.
 

---

Posted by Tom Wienholt (Member # 1510) on 01-11-2003, 12:23 AM:
 
Most of the damage that you are talking about is probably from the actual running of the film, not from breaking it down. I think it is a bit more important to run the film properly without damaging it then to worry about masking tape being used to attach heads and tails during breakdown. The masking tape rarely even leaves damage on the film and if it does its only one or two frames, not the entire print like scratches. So i think the whole masking tape issue is over rated.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-11-2003, 01:09 AM:
 
This would have to be either a larger theatre that just cycled out a multiple print, or a theatre in a 2-week, short run market. This show just hasn't been around that long... so it sure is interesting that it could get so trashed.

The speculation here is also pretty interesting. While a lot of well meaning effort is being put into rationalizing how it could have been someone other than a frequent resident here, that really isn't the point. That this kind of damage could have passed unnoticed is pretty sad... even more so if it came from someone who otherwise promotes higher ethics in film handling.

The sprocket damage Jeff mentions could have been part of the problem that led to the "huge chunks" being taken out, which certainly could not have passed unnoticed in the breakdown process. It sounds more like a major repair effort was made to this print, and it's highly unlikely that it was done by the theatre's janitor.

As for a damaged print being passed along through several anonymous points on its way to Jeff... Nah... I don't buy it. The feature is only 2-weeks old and couldn't possibly have been passed through enough hands that it's condition couldn't be tracked. This print most likely got trashed in the first booth to run it, and then it went, inspected by the depot or not, to Jeff, who got to figure out how to make a presentable show out of it for his audience.

I wouldn't be pointing fingers here in public, and I think it shows a lot of class on Jeff's part not to do so. However, everyone here knows what they've shipped out recently, and perhaps a little soul searching is in order. This print might have been dumped on someone else, and the offending theatre could have been flamed in the "you suck" thread, with liberal usage of some of the more colorful Graemlins here before either of the moderators got a chance to decide what to do with it.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-11-2003, 11:11 AM:
 
John Pytlak said:

quote:

---

As much as we might wish that distributors "threw the book" at theatres that negligently mishandle and damage prints, it's often very difficult to prove blame due to the reasons mentioned in this thread.

---

I don't think it's difficult at all, if the distributors would just get off their asses and do something about it. Theater "A" recieves two brand new prints. 3 weeks pass, and Theater "A" pulls its second print and sends it over to Theater "B". Theater "B" opens the cans to find the damage described here, calls a nicely-provided 800 number to report the damage. The distributor takes back the damaged print and provides Theater "B" with a better one. [this is where it normally would end, but...] Theater "A" is charged the full cost of the print, plus the cost of providing Theater "B" with the new one, AND has a checker come out to inspect the other print playing at Theater "A" as well as anything else by the distributor. If any other damage is found (at this point, it would be damage that is projecting to a paying audience) then the distributor pulls ALL of their product from Theater "A" for a few months, and then puts them on a probationary period. (i.e. Theater A will get the less-desireable titles from the distributor until they learn not to damage them)

Now who wants to help me beat some sense into some studio execs?

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-11-2003, 09:31 PM:
 
All I can say is I didn't do it! (Some might see the humor in this response)
 

---

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 01-11-2003, 09:43 PM:
 
Thomas,
You almost quoted all of the studios wording in their Master License Agreements. Too bad they dont enforce it.
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 01-12-2003, 08:27 PM:
 
Jeff:

Why don't you email the person you suspect and confront him/her directly? Perhaps there is a logical explaination. Then you can report back to us and let us know if your suspicions were correct or not.
 

---

Posted by Tom Wienholt (Member # 1510) on 01-12-2003, 11:54 PM:
 
I don't understand why the person that broke down the film is being blamed! What did they do wrong? Who really cares about the fact that masking tape was used. The bigger issue here is the damage to the film. The scratches were most most likely caused from the running of the film, not breaking it down.
 

---

Posted by Jeff Sirles (Member # 1511) on 01-13-2003, 06:52 PM:
 
Quote:
"Jeff:

Why don't you email the person you suspect and confront him/her directly? Perhaps there is a logical explaination."

Im sure he/she has read this post by now, and I thought that perhaps it might make some people who had let their guard down look back upon their behavior. I didnt write the post to punish said individual or make anyone feel the need to defend themselves. The idea was to perhaps encourage some soul-searching and have this peron correct themselves, and maybe effect some others who weren't sure if I was talking about them.
I have learned that when dealing with people who are your professional equals sometimes constructive critique is talken as an insult. When this happens emotions get involved and the whole point behind the critique is lost. Basically alot of "who the #%*@ do you think you are!!!" happens.
I feel the need to reitterate that I am not shouting down from my pedistal believing I can do no wrong. I too have made mistakes, and I believe perhaps this person made a mistake, or perhaps someone made them look bad. Either way, whats done is done, I just hope this was a constructive post.
THANKS for the Comments!
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-13-2003, 09:56 PM:
 
Tom actually the use of masking tape to hold the leaders on is seriousneough
 

---

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 01-13-2003, 11:29 PM:
 
Luckily we didn't run this film. Though I never claim to be a god of film -- I almost always post in Ground Level and Film Yak. Anyone can make a mistake (even a film-techer), and no one will ever really know what happened with this print except the person that ran it. I hope this will make them realize that they need to take a good look at their work or at the other projectionists at their theater. If someone made a mistake and messed up the film (it happens) they should always order replacements, courtesy to the people in sub-run houses...but we all know that don't we??? None of you first run houses ever remember us little guys and gals!
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-15-2003, 02:42 AM:
 
When I was in the business I wouldn't take much notice of receiving a knackered print on crossover from a given venue... once. Anyone can have a bad hair day and besides, a previous cinema could well be the culprit. However, if they started coming on a regular basis then I started drawing conclusions. There was one place that regularly sent us prints covered in projector oil. After three or four such crossovers, I called the manager there and suggested politely that she might have a leaky projector. She said that she'd pass on my message to the chief projectionist, but the oily prints kept coming. We never got them from anywhere else. Then there was the place that would send prints out with no heads and tails on the individual reels: all of them were joined up in one roll and rammed into one of the cans. Again, many times from the same place. In the arthouse circuit, where a small number of venues are constantly circulating a relatively small number of prints, you get a sense of who the Mickey Mouse operators are pretty quickly. I sometimes had one-off bad prints from places which were otherwise OK, and tended not to worry about those.

As for rejecting prints outright because of defects, I didn't do it very often and frequently the response from the programmers was 'it's all they've got, so you'll have to show it anyway.'
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 01-15-2003, 02:54 AM:
 

quote:

---

from Leo:
As for rejecting prints outright because of defects, I didn't do it very often and frequently the response from the programmers was 'it's all they've got, so you'll have to show it anyway.'

---