This is topic Newbies Training Newbies 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=005452

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-13-2003, 06:56 PM:
 
In the past year or so since I began participating in the Film-Tech forums, there have been a number of discussion threads inquiring about booth training programs.

I work from a formalized training program and so I agree with the idea, at least in principle. However, I get strange vibes from reading some of these threads. After thinking about it for a while I can now say it is that has been bugging me all this time. It's the whole notion of "Newbies Training Newbies."

It isn't that I am totally angered or upset about it but I *do* have an uneasy feeling because, on the one hand I applaud the idea of a buddy-system and on-the-job training. On the other hand, that's not exactly what is being proposed here most of the time. Instead, what I am seeing looks like one "relative newbie" lecturing to a group of "total newbies." To me, it seems akin to the proverbial "blind leading the blind."

What concerns me most is that there is a great potential for misinformation and/or bad habits to be passed down. In the context of a buddy-system this would be bad enough but when you put newbies in a formalized "training program" the "teacher" takes on a sense of added authority and wisdom whether merited or not and, thus, I have a hunch that bad habits and/or misinformation may tend to go unquestioned in such a scenario.

I recently spent a day examining Human Resources files on the current crop of employees working in my booths. Some of them were not trained by me and I was looking for any evidence of training prior to my return to the company.

It turned out that several of them (some no longer with the company) had received formalized training. There were homework assignments and tests. It resembled the training program that I had developed and -- I have to admit -- I was flattered for a second.

And then I was horrified -- bad ideas were being introduced into the program and in some cases, wrong answers had been marked as correct. Reasons for doing certain things were being fabricated.

Clearly, whoever was doing the training obviously felt a need to have an answer for everything. He was apparently unwilling or afraid to say "I don't know." This is a commonly observed phenomenon wherein students are encouraged to have questions whereas teachers are supposed to have all the answers.

The problem is compounded when a student is prematurely upgraded to the status of teacher because, naturally, he has not had ample opportunity to arm himself with all of the necessary information. Added to which, he is likely ill-equipped to handle such responsibility.

In my case, I was reluctant to take the job and I was fortunate to have been trained by an *excellent* operator who had years of experience and was being promoted to a managerial position. As fate would have it, I got lucky -- My trainer new his stuff.

To this day, I am careful to admit when I'm stumped and I readily acknowledge my limitations. As a rule, I don't touch the high-voltage components; I arrange to have a fully-qualified electrician flown in from the U.S.A. whenever I need that kind of service.

Certainly, I have learned a lot over the years and there are some routine procedures that I have been specifically trained to handle but I don't allow myself to tinker into the other areas. I go to great lengths to impart a similar respect for the equipment to my pupils.

Premature advancement can lead to serious injury to

(a) the teacher who is encouraged to get in over his head,
(b) the students who receive substandard training from such an individual, and
(c) the equipment itself.

Not to mention the potential for reduced business due to poor presentations arising out of poor training and misuse or neglect of the equipment -- including, but not limited to, overtweaking of sound systems.

If you own or operate a theatre, I urge you to consider these concerns. At the same time, I realize that *somebody* has to carry out the training. All I am saying is to set realistic goals and put safety first. Good intentions alone are not enough.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-13-2003, 07:27 PM:
 
Agreed. However the problem here is that there ARE exceptions. I have trained a few and they turned out to be fantastic operators. I would be pleased to have them train others, but do note that this is very much the rare exception. Other trainees, well...let's not go there.

Personally, I don't feel anyone of any stature or number of years in the business should be able to train others unless he/she has mastery of projection skills. In other words, far too often I see things like an old timer who has been doing the job for 50 years training newbies and doing a godawful job of it, not because he didn't care, but because he was poorly trained in the first place and never asked the question "why do it this way?" He just did it without question and turned out to be lacking in projection and troubleshooting skills as a result. Without knowing WHY things are done a certain way, the projectionist in training will always be lacking in proper knowledge and skill once turned loose.

For this reason, I have always felt anyone who will be doing projection training should be forced to run a print for several hundred runs, including many build ups and break downs of that film. If there is a speck of dirt or mark on it after 500 runs, they fail...next?

To you newbies: always ask why. If your trainer cannot answer that question, he/she shouldn't be training you. (My favorite is always the overly simple "why is the soundtrack facing this way headed toward the projector, but facing this way returning?" I have never found a trainer who can properly answer that question. Sad, isn't it?)
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 10-13-2003, 08:09 PM:
 
All points very well taken. I think one has to keep in mind the alternatives though. The people who post here with question about training programs are trying to move their theatres boothes beyond the "Show them how to thread a movie" training program. The big chains (and many smaller chains/independants) are not interested in comprehensive booth training-some are not even interested in anything beyond showing employees how to thread and splice. Following the philosophy that 'something is better than nothing' I think the 'newbies' around here should be encouraged to develop at least basic training programs.

If the vets on this board are really concerned about this issue then perhaps a joint effort should be initiated to put together a very basic training program that could be downloaded by theatres wishing to take their presentations to the next level. Most of the elements of such a program already exist in the tips section, the only job would be to compile and reformat the information into a complete packet.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-13-2003, 09:00 PM:
 
Somewhere between what Brad has in mind and what's currently going on in multiplexes across the U.S.A. (and around the world) lies a workable solution.

Dustin wrote:

quote:

---

I think the 'newbies' around here should be encouraged to develop at least basic training programs.

---

Well, I'm not so sure I would encourage them to develop a training program but I'm all for having them seek out and follow a good one.

Just for the record -- I don't consider myself to be among the "vets." I really hope my post doesn't read that way. I'm just a genuinely concerned citizen.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-13-2003, 09:27 PM:
 
Dustin there are several avenues out there that allow for various levels of training but they have a cost associated with them
If someone wants to learn or an employer wants them to learn then there are courses out there
Kodak offers them as does
Entertainment Equipment Corp who I am associated with
http://www.eecnow.com/ctc_cinefest2003.asp
As such there is a bit of responsibility must fall back on the candiate in question
Every thing I learned had a cost involved and I don't usually part with it all for free
Handing down of knowledge isn't exactly a right but a priveledge and often many take it for granted (no personal slights at anyone in particular living or dead intended
)
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 10-14-2003, 12:00 AM:
 
Brad said earlier:

quote:

---

far too often I see things like an old timer who has been doing the job for 50 years training newbies and doing a godawful job of it, not because he didn't care, but because he was poorly trained in the first place and never asked the question "why do it this way?"

---

I have seen this in many areas, not just the booth. Some of these "Old timers" are practicing what is known as The Peter Principle.

The Peter Principle is basically this:

The Peter Principle is a theory originated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter which states that employees within a hierarchical organization advance to their highest level of competence, are then promoted to a level where they are incompetent, and then stay in that position.

According to Dr. Peter:

Work is accomplished by those employees who have not reached their level of incompetence. Thus we can see why organizations still function even as the Peter Principle causes some employees to accept one too many promotions. Peter's Corollary: In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-14-2003, 12:26 AM:
 
Peter's Corollary spells certain doom for *every* company over time!
 

---

Posted by James Falloon (Member # 1933) on 10-14-2003, 04:23 AM:
 
My two cents

I cannot stress enough how important proper training is, and I will admit that I have given insufficient training in the past and bore the consequences:

9:00pm at home, the phone rings, Boss: "James can you come down here we have a problem" get down to theatre, Newbie: "The sound bars are on the screen and there's no sound, and I don't know what to do", So I flipped the reel over, and threaded it up from the start like normal. Needless to say, the audience was not impressed and we both looked very stupid. I took the responsibility for that one. That's an example of what happens when our training falls short of the standard. BTW he is one of my best projectionists now.

I hope that serves as a warning to others about throwing them in solo before they are ready. and I hope that answers your question Brad

I learned from "the master" he claimed he knew everything, and he actually did. It was basically six months of training before I was showing movies, and I certianly know that I'm still learning. Yet I've trained someone in a month (he had previous experience and knew all the tricks) so I think it differs for everyone.

I don't think a 'one size fits all' training program is suitable for every situation, but it sure is a damn good start. I should probably start writing one myself.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-14-2003, 08:33 AM:
 
Following up on James' post, I've always found it an exceptionally good training element to SHOW the trainee what happens when they do things wrong (not with a captive audience of course) - like thread the movie backwards so they can see it backwards on the screen. Or run it in analog with the sound drum roller open so they can hear what a warble sounds like. Or run the wrong lense - or the RIGHT lense and the wrong aperture plate, or whatever.

Another problem is when "veterans" come in off the street bringing bad habits with them, and end up corrupting an otherwise good (although still a little green) crew. I have that problem right now, actually. But the good news is that the crew has picked up on it, and we're all working to fix it. It can be a problem, though.
 

---

Posted by Adam Budweg (Member # 1901) on 10-14-2003, 09:38 AM:
 
I know that everywhere i have worked that has been the case. i will admit im not the most qualified person to train someone, but that doesnt stop management from giving me an hour or 2 with the new manager to get him up to speed (previous boot experience or not). and I also have no control over who gets trainied. i remember a past experience where i was to train this kid to thread, nothing more, and he left the booth just as clueless as when he walked in.

when my current place of employment first opened I was the only person with Training, none of it formal. one of my ex-coworkers had never worked at a theater before. I learned alot from teh man that installed the units and gave me a brushup, but he left me with 2 clueless people to train. Hell i dont even have an instruction manual to use as a reference.

It eventually worked out for the worst. as I expected the booth hours were cut and the managers attempt to pick up the slack, and with only one manager with booth experience theres alot of leftover slack.

So reallly i dont think that its the projectionists that dont care. Its the companies that will hire anyone, and want them working teh next day.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 10-14-2003, 10:00 AM:
 
I have the same problem at the machine shop, Manny.
The guys that are there tend to want to assert a "pecking order" of dominance. I've seen this time after time. And as you say some of the answers and directions given are sometimes just to give the impression that they are "a pro" and superior to the new guy/gal. I am there watching (in the back ground) and allow that all to happen. I think it's sort of a natural operation. I never interrupt or correct the student/teacher in front of the new guy. Eventually the student/teacher goes home and I take over and show the new guy the way I want it done and why. Usually the two techniques (mine and the student/teacher's) are not too far apart.
The new guy gets a couple slants at doing the job, is not so intimidated by the student/teacher and the job, and knows who signs the paycheck. The student/teacher feels dominant and is secure and happy because I "trust him to teach". Through all this I learn "where everyone is" and what mistakes and misconceptions are being made, which I can diplomatically correct latter. If I correct the student/teacher (later in private) he's happy that I didn't do it in front of the new guy and accepts the lesson better.
It works for me
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-14-2003, 12:18 PM:
 
In all honesty -- I'm still thinking about Brad's "overly simple" question.

I've got one of those "I always just assumed..." answers but nothing I'd be willing to post. I guess I failed to ask "why." Shame on me.

After all, I could be wrong -- and there'd go my training license!!! It's bad enough that I'm still threading "down" instead of "up."

BTW, don't think I haven't noticed the deafening silence from the rest o' you's.

Brad -- if you don't let me near your machines, I won't hold it against you.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-14-2003, 02:15 PM:
 
I don`t understand Brad`s question either. We always thread the film with the soundtrack facing the column, and on the way to and back from the projector, facing towards the booth.

Greg - I see you have a sensitive side too!
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-14-2003, 02:18 PM:
 

quote:

---

It was basically six months of training before I was showing movies,

---

quote:

---

It's about keeping the emulsion side of the film towards as many rollers as possible--the theory being that orienting the film this way cuts down on shedding with polyester prints

---

quote:

---

It is better to have the base side of the film on the roller if you want to avoid the emulsion being scratched off.

---

quote:

---

Why not just make sure all the rollers are turning freely so neither side gets damaged?

---

That goes without saying.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-14-2003, 04:00 PM:
 
"Newbies training Newbies" = "the Blind leading the Blind".

But if you are training others, it is often useful to engage the slightly more experienced students in SUPERVISED training of those with no experience. It reinforces what they have already learned, and will show the instructor areas they have not yet mastered.

I agree with Brad that handling and showing a print hundreds of times without adding dirt or scratches should be the goal of anyone trying to have "Film Done Right". Mistakes happen, but don't have to.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-14-2003, 04:06 PM:
 

quote:

---

It is better to have the base side of the film on the roller if you want to avoid the emulsion being scratched off.

---

We have a winner for someone who never asked "why". Mike, go to a theater with the emulsion side of the film threaded on a roller. Grab that roller with your hand to prevent it from spinning. Is the film getting scratched? No. That's the whole point of the rollers being beveled inwards. So even if a roller was to seize during a show, your film would still not get scratched. (Only the SDDS tracks are in any amount of danger, but I've walked into plenty of theaters running SDDS with seized rollers that tracked fine.)

Rule #1, minimize the film twisting. Never should the film twist more than 90 degrees, unless it is over a great distance (5+ feet is fine). At over 5 feet, it is ok if you need to twist greater than 90 degrees.

Rule #2, whenever there is the option without breaking rule #1 that permits you to run the film emulsion side on the rollers...do it. Much personal testing has consistently proven that it is the base side of the film that carries the dirt. Running on the emulsion keeps your rollers, and your film cleaner for a longer period of time. This means non-operator side platters should have the soundtrack toward the lamphouse when flying to and from the projector. Operator side platters should have the soundtrack facing towards the screen to and from the projector. This whole thing I keep running into "soundtrack towards the screen going towards the projector/soundtrack away from the screen going toward the platter" is just stupid. Clearly no one bothered to ask "why". All other platter roller orientation is dependent upon the make of your platter.
 

---

Posted by Frank Bruno (Member # 1871) on 10-14-2003, 07:02 PM:
 
It doesn't help to ask why when there's no one to ask. I'd also bet there's a good ammoutn of "just because" given out as an answer to that, ive had to deflate a good ammount of that at my own theater.

Im not gonna get off on a rant about my own rather strange training odyssey here, but it soemtimes sems like most of this board come from some fantasy land of projectioantorial enightenment. Nobody wants to ask a question & get their head bitten off for asking. Instead of complaining about poorly trained newbie operators (I think multi-tasked manager-operators are an equally bad thing by the way) how about some constructive & altruistic attempt to reverse this trend? How about a "kindergarten" board or something. Might not get much traffic, but wouldnt it at least be worth the shot? In my first year or two if there had been a good, basic resource of which I could ask questions without fear of the "What are you stupid?" response, I'd have probably taken advantage of it.

That downloadable training course mentioned by I beleive Mr Knowles is defintiely now the worst idea either, although it'd have to be really general. I have AMC materials that are kinda useless beyond policy issues, as they're really specific to much newer & more different projectors than those I have at my theater.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-14-2003, 08:07 PM:
 
I misunderstood the question in the first place.

I thought Brad was suggesting that the soundtrack really *should* face one way going over to and another way coming back from the projector. I kept scratching my head trying to figure out what that was all about.

Note to Brad -- Try to be a little more clear next time, would ya ?

I would really like to see a fully-developed Film-Tech booth training program but here are the problems I foresee:

1. Lots of different equipment prevents specific directions for use. A downloadable training program would have to be limited to general principles.
2. Bickering will ensue when all the F-Techers get together and start challenging the various published techniques.
3. Having materials available doesn't necessarily make the trainer qualified to train people.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-14-2003, 09:37 PM:
 
Also it is important to remember many corporations have policys that may differ from best practices that employes must follow to keep there jobs
 

---

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 10-15-2003, 04:14 PM:
 
Even though I posted this in with the jokes, it really fits this thread much better.

A boy ,a man and a mule

An old man, a boy and a mule were going to town.

The boy rode on the mule and the old man walked.

As they went along they passed some people who remarked it was a shame the old man was walking and the boy was riding.

The old man and the boy thought that maybe the critics were right, so they changed places.

Later, they passed some more people that remarked, "What a shame he makes that little boy walk."

They then decided they both would walk. Soon they passed some more people who thought they were stupid to walk when they had a decent mule to ride.

So, they both rode the mule.

Now they passed some more people that shamed them by saying how awful to see such a load on a poor mule.

The boy and the man said they were probably right, so they decided to carry the mule.

As they crossed a bridge, they lost their grip on the animal and he fell into the river and drowned.

The moral of the story?

If you try to please everyone, you might as well kiss your ass good-bye.

[ 10-15-2003, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Bob Maar ]
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 10-15-2003, 06:53 PM:
 
Bob, that fits a quote made by the late Harry Truman. He said, "No matter what you do, some son-of-a-bitch won't like it."
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-15-2003, 06:55 PM:
 
Yeah, and both are very true!

I like Bob's story better!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 10-15-2003, 07:36 PM:
 
Interesting thread!

Initially I learn the job in two months, where I wasn't the only projectionists so I had the chance to learn all with all the time needed. The first day I was left alone a belt failed but I was able to continue with the show in a couple of minutes (because the projectionist showed me how to change it!)!

I had two different experiences in the Multiplex world: in one of them the training was as many of you told: "show him how to thread a machine". That's all.
Then the "projectionist" call for help just for a frame issue...

At the beginning of this year I had the chance to train my first team (in another multiplex!), they had absolutely no experience and I had three week to teach the basics.
My way is to teach the procedures but also to teach WHY. In the very beginning is more difficult (show how a print is made, how a projector work...) but in a couple of months you realize that all you efforts spent in the first period are coming out and are helping you and your team A LOT doing the daily job.

In my opinion teaching why some procedures has to be done in a certain way helps the projectionist to increase his responsibility. A well trained projectionist can analyze better the projection than a "thread the projector this way" method and, I believe, he realize that he's able to understand things that others cannot, increasing the professionality in his job.

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-15-2003, 09:15 PM:
 
Frank said" but it soemtimes sems like most of this board come from some fantasy land of projectioantorial enightenment. Nobody wants to ask a question & get their head bitten off for asking. Instead of complaining about poorly trained newbie operators (I think multi-tasked manager-operators are an equally bad thing by the way) how about some constructive & altruistic attempt to reverse this trend? "
Okay you made a point, so, time to bite your head off!
The only times I have seen heads bitten off is when people don't take the time to do a search of the site before asking the same question.
2 none of us are in fanatasy land. In fact those who often awsner those "stupid questions" (no intent to degrade anyone) probably are the ones that have to come out in the middle of the night to fix the mistake or "stupid" problem
As for solvng the problem half the problem is the people don't want to treat a craft as anything put a parttime beer money job or employerers who want to keep it that way and at the same time bitch over the service call bills

End of rant time, to drink some more wine and wait for the next emergancy call
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-15-2003, 09:44 PM:
 

quote:

---

I had two different experiences in the Multiplex world: in one of them the training was as many of you told: "show him how to thread a machine". That's all.
Then the "projectionist" call for help just for a frame issue...

---

quote:

---

Nobody wants to ask a question & get their head bitten off for asking.

---

quote:

---

Im not gonna get off on a rant about my own rather strange training odyssey here, but it soemtimes sems like most of this board come from some fantasy land of projectioantorial enightenment.

---

quote:

---

Instead of complaining about poorly trained newbie operators ... how about some constructive & altruistic attempt to reverse this trend?

---

If you look you'll see (and you may have already) that there are some other threads on booth training ideas. Unfortunately, for most of us, that's as far as we can take it since most of us are not in a position to control the way our companies structure the operations of their theatres, including their projection booths.
 

---

Posted by James Falloon (Member # 1933) on 10-16-2003, 05:01 AM:
 
Ok, I know this doesn't apply to everyone (And I hope Nobody on Film-Tech) but I have seen this in other professions.

One reason why inadequate training is given is Job Security. Are you going to train up someone to do your job, who is usually younger, fitter, and cheaper than you, thus making you dispensable/ replaceable by the company, because someone else can do your job? Not $!@*& likely!

By 'Keeping then in the dark' the trainee will never rise up the hierarchy, thus the Trainers job is not threatened.

I sincerely hope this is not true of anyone on Film-Tech, I know this is a contentious post, for someone who hasn't been here long. I do not want to offend anybody, if I have, I apologize.

BTW the only heads bitten off in my projection room was when somebody forgot to check that they were joined on both sides.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 10-16-2003, 05:57 AM:
 
perhaps the best single thing you can do for a trainee is to turn them on to film-tech. aside from all the specific tips and the deep pool of knowledge, there is constant reinforcement of the general idea that we should all be striving to better our presentations and our techniques of achieving them. "film done right" and all. certainly, i've been inspired to change much of what i was taught to do with respect to threading and build-up/tear-down. there are many things i've received no training on at all that i would not attempt without some hands-on instruction first, but for those making do on inadequate training, f-t can be both a resource and an inspiration.

unfortunately, as far as i know i haven't had much luck getting others to come here. i'm too shy and too lacking in authority to keep preaching the word around work. i get the impression that most theaters have at most one (usually 0) operator who participates here. what would be great would be to have some nice film-tech bumper stickers i could plaster around the booth. techs and relief projectionists should always have some on hand to stick up in booths they're called to. it might just get more people to lurk and eventually re-educate themselves. wouldn't the "you suck" thread be a lot more useful if it caused the offending theaters to reevaluate their practices?

how about it? $5 for a dozen film-tech bumper stickers. i see a profit to be made here.

carl
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-16-2003, 06:12 AM:
 

quote:

---

how about it? $5 for a dozen film-tech bumper stickers. i see a profit to be made here.

---