Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: This fake movie name crap has got to stop!

This is topic This fake movie name crap has got to stop! 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=006688

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-04-2004, 03:43 PM:

Over on the Incredibles feature info thread Cory Isemann points out that "Sand Dog" is actually a fake name...FOR A TRAILER...to Star Wars 3.

When will this end? There wasn't even a note in the can or any form of warning about this, and because of the star wars website, people are losing their heads calling in wanting to know if we will have it attached to our prints. The answer has been NO because we didn't receive them. Well great, turns out we DID receive them.

Way to go morons! Do you want your trailer shown or not? IT'S JUST A TRAILER! This just provides more proof that Jack Valenti is a babbling idiot, as is anyone who listens to his rantings on piracy and believes anything he says. You will NOT lose 579 gabillion dollars if someone finds out the secret name on the label of your precious trailer!!! [fu]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-04-2004, 04:08 PM:

Mr. Valenti has retired:

http://www.mpaa.org/about/dan/index.htm

quote:
Dan Glickman became President and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) on September 1, 2004. The MPAA serves as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries.

http://www.mpaa.org/MPAAPress/index.htm

quote:
For Immediate Release
July 1, 2004
JACK VALENTI ANNOUNCES RESIGNATION
AFTER 38 YEARS AS HEAD OF MPAA/MPA
Washington, D.C. - Jack Valenti today announced he will step down as President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) and
the Motion Picture Association (MPA).

I don't think that MPAA makes the decision to use fake title labeling, but this seems to be an example of where it backfired and was counter-productive. As has often been said here, a someone who is really determined to steal a print or trailer will know the fake name anyway, if the real title isn't already somewhere else on the paperwork or shipping label. And it can cause confusion for the projectionist if the "secret" word is not passed along to them.

Posted by Chase Hanson (Member # 2779) on 11-04-2004, 04:16 PM:

totally agree

Psuedo names for feature films is barely tolerable as is.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-04-2004, 04:20 PM:

Yeah, wake up Brad and get with it! Jacko is OUT!

However, I think he voted/appointed himself "Chairman" of the MPAA just so he could still pull the strings.

Also, Dan Glickman is very serious about going after internet movie pirates. There was a press conf here today saying MPAA/Studios/whoever will prosecute the low-life jerks that steal movies P2P on the inet. They are following in the successful footsteps of the music industry to cut down on the thefts.

>>> Phil

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 11-04-2004, 04:58 PM:

I guess this would explain all the calls we've been getting about SW3 being on this print. I'll continue to tell people no. There is NO SW3 trailer, however, there is a SAND DOG trailer on it.

Fake names are like Joe, they SUCK.... [Smile]

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 11-04-2004, 05:01 PM:

I think it's really odd when the fake trailer names get printed onto the DTS trailer disks. But this isn't exactly new, didn't the Episode I trailers also have fake names?

Posted by Lindsay Morris (Member # 1430) on 11-04-2004, 05:27 PM:

You guys in the US are not alone it goes on here in Australia as well and drives you nuts when you pickup a print in a hurry and then have a minor stroke when you see the title is not what you thought you were getting.
Open up the cardboard boxes and check each and every reel and then things settle down a bit. No worries you got what you ordered. [uhoh]

Terminator III over here had 3 names, "New Dawn" was one, can't remember the other and when you look at the carboard box it is plastered in all sorts of names.
Piracy is one thing but "lunacy" is another. Surely there is enough security about when prints are being shipped that any hope of one or some being "nicked" is not a possibility.

A couple of pirate DVD's I have seen were obviously taken with a handheld video in a cinema. Crap sound and heads in the way so it is not people getting hold of prints and trailers in transit.

Go back to naming it as it is... had enuff [Mad]

Lindsay

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-04-2004, 05:50 PM:

Good God!

I just finished putting four Incredibles prints together, and since space was limited on the cores (time issue) "Sand Dogs" didn't make the cut!!

I called our owners and asked what they want to do. I don't relish removing a trailer and adding this one just because some dumb bastards at Fox didn't have the courtesy to alert us about this! [fu]

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-04-2004, 06:25 PM:

I did the same thing John. I built it and didnt run the Sandcrap trailer either. Oh well. If they dont want to put the extra effort in letting us know, then I'm not gonna put the extra effort of going back and adding it in and having my boss adjust showtimes for the extra few minutes.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-04-2004, 06:46 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
Mr. Valenti has retired

Sadly I wish it was that simple. However he is the cause of a continuing problem that will never go away. Crap like this will forever be his fault, even when he is dead and buried.

I am glad to see I am not the only one who is at the point of saying [fu]

to running any trailer in the future that arrives with a fake name. Just like John and Jeremy said, they could have at least let us know! A note in the sealed cans would have been plenty sufficient and secure.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-04-2004, 06:57 PM:

I'd rather the Star Wars geeks don't show up. They will watch the trailer and then either leave (disturbing the audience) or become bored and babble through The Incredibles (disturbing the audience). Let'em watch the goofy thing on the net.

I cannot wait for the whole self-important Star Wars thing to be frigin' over. Oh wait, it'll never be over....there's episodes 7-8-9 still. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-04-2004, 06:58 PM:

Re Jacko:

quote: Brad Miller
...he is the cause of a continuing problem that will never go away.

I don't get why you have such a hardon for him, Brad? Everytime I've spoke to him, he ALWAYS speaks very highly of you.

>>> Phil

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-04-2004, 07:22 PM:

FOX did actually try to let some people know. Too little too late, and not going to reach most projectionists. Still.

quote:

From: Foxexhibitor Team<info@foxexhibitor.com>
Subject: Star Wars: Episode III Revenge Of The Sith news!
Date: 4 Nov 2004 15:23:12 -0800

This weekend marks the official start of earning trailer points towards our Win A Trip To ShoWest promotion. If a trailer checker sees Hide And Seek up with Alfie at your theatre, you're on your to winning!

Fox is extremely excited to launch The new Star Wars: Episode III Revenge Of The Sith trailer which shipped loose in the can with The Incredibles. The trailers are labeled as SAND DOG. One sheets and banners are also available. Please call 1-800-FOX-0010 to order your materials.

Visit www.FoxExhibitor.com today!

--jhawk

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-04-2004, 07:31 PM:

quote:
Fox is extremely excited to launch The new Star Wars trailer

That looks like a typo. It should have read Fox is extremely out to lunch on the new Star Wars trailer. They should know better than to expect ANYTHING to reach the actual projectionists assembling the print that isn't INSIDE the can. They can send 100 faxes, make 20 phone calls and send a pigeon with a note attached and the guys who need to know still won't get the notice at most theaters.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-04-2004, 07:51 PM:

You mean you don't automatically build everything they send you. Tsk..tsk...tsk. LOL. [evil]

(I don't run trailers as part of my screenings at all.)

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-04-2004, 08:47 PM:

Nope! Any trailer for a movie that is being released within three weeks of then automatically gets thrown onto the "tail leader" shelf. From what is left, three additional trailers are selected from the "loose" pile in the cans. If there aren't three trailers left, then some are picked from the shelf.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-04-2004, 09:33 PM:

Adam is correct, some trailers for Episode I and II also had fake names. Actually, Sand Dog sounds really familiar, it may be the same name as before.

Glad to see people learning from the past.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-04-2004, 09:50 PM:

Daryl, the difference is that the fake names were known. Notes were in the film cans AND in the Airborne packs for those shipped seperately. This shipment had nothing.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-04-2004, 09:53 PM:

For the half dozen or so trailers I've received with fake names I don't recall receiving a single note in the cans. Retarded names that aren't on current release schedules seem to be enough to clue my staff in. All of our trailers come separately.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-04-2004, 09:58 PM:

Sorry Daryl. I forgot about the big Canadian supremacy thing up there. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-04-2004, 10:01 PM:

That must be it, I guess.

If it's not, I just don't feel it's such a big issue to deal with.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-05-2004, 12:16 AM:

For what it's worth...the SWepIII trailer is even code-named on the DTS trailer disks. There, it's referred to as "Sand Dog (Nostalgia)." [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 11-05-2004, 01:12 AM:

quote: Daryl C. W. O'Shea
For the half dozen or so trailers I've received with fake names I don't recall receiving a single note in the cans. Retarded names that aren't on current release schedules seem to be enough to clue my staff in. All of our trailers come separately.

I'm with you on this one. We had never heard of 'Sand Dog', looked it up and found nothing. Examined the trailer, saw Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, and Hayden Christensen.

Posted by Greg Routenburg (Member # 1742) on 11-05-2004, 01:51 AM:

How are they determining who runs this trailer. I got two prints of Incredibles and no starwars trailers. I think there's going to be quite a few disapointed fans in the audience tomorrow.

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 11-05-2004, 02:43 AM:

As I opened my print of Incredibles tonight, I too noticed the enclosed "Sand Dog" trailer. But, since I'd never heard of a movie titled "Sand Dog"... it did NOT make it on the trailer pack in front of the Incredibles, I just threw in the pile on the shelf with all of the other trailers.

I wished someone would have let me know. [Mad]

Posted by David Yauch (Member # 2754) on 11-05-2004, 03:14 AM:

We got five prints and 2 star wars trailers. They both made it, but 60% of our shows don't have the trailer. This is just wonderful, considering I'll be downstairs working directly with all of the incredibles traffic this weekend, including pissed off star wars loonies...

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-05-2004, 03:44 AM:

I walked in teh booth today and found my guys running the trailer, so I did not have any problems with the name. I guess my booth guys were smart enough to see beyond the fake name. I mean, didn't everyone know that it was coming out on the incredibles? You find a fox trailer in the can, it is not that hard to figure out.

I agree though, it is stupid, even if someone got a hold of the trailer it is not going to hurt anyone.

Posted by Ian Joseph Parfrey (Member # 2682) on 11-05-2004, 04:36 AM:

If the film company decides to stick a fake name on a trailer and neglects to tell the projectionist, either by fax-phone-email-whatever, then the thing goes straight back to the exchange...or chop it up and use it for junk leader.
Common courtesy costs nothing. It's a REAL dumb idea. [fu]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-05-2004, 09:11 AM:

You have to admit that out of any trailer this is the one that would most likely get "lost" and into someone's personal collection or onto eBay. The fake title was an attempt to thwart that and get them seen on screen. Obviously it has backfired to some degree.

Off topic but regarding the big Canadian supremacy thing up there you might find a recent Savage Love column of interest. Third item down.
(Summary: Dan Savage touts the superiority of Canadian morals)

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-05-2004, 09:20 AM:

But Steve, isn't it common knowledge in the studios that only a fraction of trailers put in cans actually go on screen? Surely they don't think projectionists pick at random!

--jhawk

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 11-05-2004, 09:47 AM:

I freaked out yesterday as well because we were getting them on all our prints for Incredibles, but I didn't know it would be "Sand Dog", so I informed management we didn't get any. Thankfully someone heard a rumor about the fake name and told me about it, so I was able to abort the "red-alert" Whew!

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 11-05-2004, 01:15 PM:

I also received Fox's email about Sand Dog.....at 10pm last night. Guess what, Sand Dog is not playing on my Incredibles run.

As far as that goes, the damn episode III film probably won't play here either. I'm tired of getting screwed by Lucas on these turkeys. Those suckers are only good for about 3 days of biz.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-05-2004, 02:03 PM:

The Episode I trailers had the correct names printed on the outside label, but had code names on the leaders (Box Lunch for the first trailer, She Stood Alone for the 2nd.)
Since Fox sent out death threats to anyone who didn't return the first trailers, I sent them all back labeled "Box Lunch".

Posted by Dave Callaghan (Member # 1544) on 11-05-2004, 02:10 PM:

Maybe we should credit Lucas with creating the fake title in the first place.

Looking back, Lucas changed the title Revenge of the Jedi to Return of the Jedi.

Life would have been easier for everyone if Fox had labelled it Revenge of the Sith in the first place. Lucas could then change it to the final title and Revenge of the Sith would be the fake title.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-05-2004, 03:06 PM:

Gee, it took me about 30 seconds to open the Sand Dog FOX trailer, notice the ILM Test Pattern on the tail, and know what was going on. Surely everyone here knows that code names are used for high profile stuff, and even for low profile stuff sometimes.

I dunno if code names help or not, and I don't really care one way or the other, but if you're looking for a FOX trailer in the can, and you see a FOX trailer in the can for a different movie - which you've never heard of... how the hell can you not realize what's going on by now?? Especially when it's freakin STAR WARS for cryin out loud!

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-05-2004, 06:07 PM:

JHawk: No, especially not when there are tons of them. But what I do not know is what the fine print says. Is there a contractual difference created just because a trailer is attached? Those have to play while the others are optional?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-05-2004, 06:11 PM:

Well, I'm sure you know that I don't generally have access to master licensing agreements, but we do have one for Universal (which has a nontheatrical rider appended to it), and I have no recollection any requirement to play enclosed or attached trailers. But probably somebody like Jack O. is the best to answer?

--jhawk

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 11-05-2004, 11:32 PM:

I've been looking around Incredibles threads but haven't found any mention about "Projectionist Information Trading Cards" in the film can. Gee, these are neato.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-06-2004, 01:15 AM:

The thing with master contracts and attached trailers has always been murky for me, mostly because I've never seen a master contract. If I had to guess-and its only a guess-I'd imagine the master contract says something about how the theatre is obligated to play the entire print/feature unedited. If the contract says 'print' well, technically you are obligated to play the attached trailer without removing it. If it says 'feature' then there is certainly some wiggle room.

How does the poem go agin? 'Tis not ours to question why but to do and die.'

Posted by David Yauch (Member # 2754) on 11-06-2004, 01:52 AM:

Not sure about you guys, but we get reps from film companies here all the time to check trailers for their companies movies.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 11-06-2004, 05:44 AM:

We used to remove attached trailers if we knew we were not getting the film being advertised. We had a company call us wanting to know why we didn't play an attached trailer (they had someone check), and we explained that we weren't getting the picture in question. They informed us that we really should play it for at least one week, whether we are getting the film or not. We now do that, and promptly remove it after one week, unless we are informed that it has to play throughout the run by the distrib or our bookers.

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 11-06-2004, 08:26 AM:

The only way I caugt it was because our bookers send us a list of the trailers they want on each print with a short note as to where to find it. Something like this :

The Incredibles - Disney - SCOPE - SRD/DTS/SDDS/SR - PG

Cars, bv - attached
Spongebob Squarepants, par - enc [meaning enclosed in the can]
SW : Episode III, fox - enc
etc...
etc...

When I saw that a Star Wars III trailer was enclosed but couldn't find anything with that title, I started breaking labels and checking the tails for a title screen. "Sand Dog", what the f...?!? On another note, it seems that the amount of "enclosed" trailers has gotten rather rediculous lately. If I attached every one of them my prints would have ten or more previews in some cases, bleh...

- Mike

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-06-2004, 10:27 AM:

quote: Brad Allen
As far as that goes, the damn episode III film probably won't play here either. I'm tired of getting screwed by Lucas on these turkeys. Those suckers are only good for about 3 days of biz.

I won't go so far as to say we won't run it... yet, but we did pass on the last one.
Past experience with Lucas... even with the re-releases, makes us playing "Sith" far from certain. It's a real shame, because we have a great relationship with Fox, and this place kicks... but Lucas seems to have their hands tied.

We normally wouldn't be open full-time by the May release date... but a picture like that would probably trigger 7-day operations for our Summer. In the past, Lucas has required drive-ins to play his pictures as single-features with a minimum of 2 shows a night. That means clearing out a field, while keeping the 2nd show crowd on the other side of the boxoffice in the (hopefully large enough) overflow area.

Our client base has been uniformly unimpressed with the idea that they have to leave the place after one show, while the people in our other screens are enjoying their 2nd feature. Concession sales suffer, due to the lack of intermission business on a major show, and the 10pm crowd has already eaten.

Then... there's the percentages, which never seem to justify themselves to the audience(again, the single feature rule messes us up a lot).

Up to this point, it's just been a whole lot of trouble. Maybe this one will be different???????

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-06-2004, 02:29 PM:

Well, hats off to all you clever individuals who figured out that Sand Dogs was really Episode 3. [thumbsup]

And shame on all you dumb bastards like me who didn't. [thumbsdown]

I fired off an email to Fox to complain about the situation and got a reply to the effect that many people had figured it out. What the hell is this, an exercise in mind reading??

Ladies and Gentlemen, I don't have the time to sit and inspect trailers or do detective work. I am busy building prints. Because I start early in the day and get my work done efficiently, I get [sex]

ed when I come home and read what happened on Film-Tech. Oh yes, Fox sent an email at 6:27PM EST notifying me at home. That did me a lot of good, because by that time everything was made up.

They faxed the information to our managing director at his home at 4PM. Hello, he was at the theater! That did a lot of good, too. Our principal owner got the information in the evening at his home as well. Great marketing job, Fox. [fu]

So, what did all this accomplish? More work for me. The three of us got together and decided that with all the media hype in our area over this brilliant marketing campaign, we really had to run the damned thing so as not to piss off patrons. I ended up going in Friday early to get the trailers on the prints before the first shows. Needless to say, they went on the front of the cores. Last come, first served, I always say. [Big Grin]

At the rate this business is going, the distribs will be dictating what trailers you run, and what times you will show your features. What about NATO you say? That's another story for another thread.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-06-2004, 02:49 PM:

Well said John!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-06-2004, 03:32 PM:

quote: John T. Hendrickson, Jr
Ladies and Gentlemen, I don't have the time to sit and inspect trailers or do detective work. I am busy building prints.

I couldn't agree more, John. I build prints for two theaters, plus take the extra time to deal with updating the Reel ID database and still have to keep the shows running. Sometimes there are special event rentals to deal with during the shift as well, and last week's print building day was one of them. I don't have time for this stupid little anti-piracy game.

I wonder if the smart people who caught the fake title were the only ones in the booth, or if someone else was up there working with them to split the load.

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 11-09-2004, 08:56 AM:

Maybe they have woke up in Oz, received 2 trailers today , both labelled Star Wars 3 ...........
maybe I should check them in case they are really trailers for Meet the Fockers!

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 11-09-2004, 09:50 AM:

yeah, I think Lucas is getting a little ecentric about his movies. I too had not time to build up our prints, run shows, and tear down...but I had to spend 20 minutes reading e-mails and checking the leaders to find out where it was (granted it only took a minute because it was the only 20th Century Fox trailer) but still. His movies make money, yes. Some of them are good, yes. Episode I and II sucked, but three looks decent, yes. But take a stick out of your ass Mr. "Anti-Hollywood"

Posted by Andrew Shingleton (Member # 2257) on 11-09-2004, 02:55 PM:

Like Phil, our trailers also arrived uncoded, however the large foyer banner was in a box called... wait for it... Sand Dogs! If I hadn't been reading film-tech the title wouldn't have rung a bell, and I'll almost guarantee that this banner would have been thrown in the cupboard and forgotten about.

The catch is though, that they've got us by the balls. It's not like there's anyone on the planet that will see the star wars trailer and say "oh wow, another star wars movie! I hadn't heard about that so now I'll go see it!". Essentially all the trailers will do is build up hype. Even if we refuse to show trailers or put up posters because they didn't have clear titles, it probably won't affect the eventual star wars box office figures in the slightest.

People may also choose to attend a cinema that is showing the trailer over one that isn't, so it can be argued that playing the trailer is ironically more in our interest than it is in the distributors! And that's really why they can call them what they like - they know that we're ultimatly the ones that lose if we don't figure it out. [Mad]

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 11-09-2004, 09:31 PM:

I had occasion to see The Incredibles on multiple screens at a Loews in NYC and they did not play the Star Wars trailer.

So I think this ridiculousness is really hurting them, especially considering how well The Incredibles is doing.

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 11-09-2004, 10:16 PM:

Either that or the projectionist there decided to make off with the trailers. They go through all this effort to "hide" the trailer's real content, but there's nothing stopping theater employees from filching the goods.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-10-2004, 08:34 AM:

quote: Martin Brooks
I had occasion to see The Incredibles on multiple screens at a Loews in NYC and they did not play the Star Wars trailer.

Actually, the reason for that is that the Loews NYC theatres all have a collective hard-on for Lucas, after they were unable to negotiate terms for Episode One in '99. After rushing to get the Kips Bay multi (which has the largest single screen in NYC) ready in time to show the film, Lucas/Fox wouldn't back away from their demands for the traditional minimum floor deal, which no Loews theatre in NYC pays to anyone (actually, I don't think there's a screen in Manhattan that pays minimums to any distributor, it's split-after-nut or nothing). For a long time after that Loews shut out everything from Fox, although that's starting to thaw a little. Still, I'm pretty sure that SW:ROTS won't be turning up on any Loews screens in town, and in view of that, I woudn't expect to see the trailer.

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 11-12-2004, 09:26 AM:

Is Star Wars loosing it's appeal? I'm getting ho-hum to it sucks remarks about the new trailer. The "it sucks" came from some older teens who I mentioned to that the trailer was coming up and they said they saw it already, it sucks.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 11-12-2004, 12:02 PM:

I think most of the die hard Star Wars fans I've chatted with are pretty much pissed at Lucas for the two recent films, since they "sucked" as well. Can we say Jar-Jar Binks? [puke]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-12-2004, 12:09 PM:

I haven't met anyone who says the trailer sucks. I've heard 'Too Short' and 'We want more!!', but not that it sucks. I've heard 'awesome', 'can't wait', 'looks great', etc whenever SW fans talk about Episode III.

But we're drifting off topic here.

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 11-12-2004, 12:13 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
But we're drifting off topic here.

Back on subject, Studio's could issue standard "secret decoder rings" to projectionist. Then when trailers come in, just consult your ring to see what the trailer really is [Big Grin]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-30-2004, 06:00 AM:

How about the name for the flat version of the SW-III teaser trlr: "Nostalgia" - Monte

Posted by Frank Jerkic (Member # 2446) on 11-30-2004, 08:50 PM:

The only time I show trl's is when they are attached to the start of the movie by the film Dist. or the film company supplies them for free as they are a very expensive item for me to ask for, plus I have to pay the return freight.
even the price of the daybills and one sheeters is xpensive

Posted by Tom Simcoe (Member # 2799) on 12-06-2004, 03:51 AM:

They just did it probably for a laugh, what's the problem with having a little bit of fun while you work.... I mean yeah it's confusing but for stuff like the fake Star Wars name, you just gotta read it, laugh and move on with creating it, it's not that big of a deal.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-06-2004, 12:44 PM:

No, "laughing" does not occur in the Lucas universe. It was done for "security" reasons, plain and simple. It's just another stupid antipiracy thing that is useless and doesn't have any meaning except to make the people in high places feel like they're doing something.

Posted by Ever Gonzalez (Member # 2794) on 12-06-2004, 10:17 PM:

I don't know... my projectionist received the trailer, attached it to some leader and let all the managers know we had the Star Wars trailer. It wasn't labeled Star Wars. At the other theatre we had the three trailer rings built for Incredibles and they contained Star Wars too. Those weren't labled Star Wars either. Out of my experience I learned to be suspicious of things that come from FOX. They are basically the only ones that do the really odd stuff. Missing a FOX trailer and it happens to be something as important as Star Warz? AND IT IS ADVERTISED? Check out the FOX trailer that came with the cans. I am probably not the only one, but I am alwayz waiting for the most unexpected pointless stuff.

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 12-06-2004, 10:24 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
No, "laughing" does not occur in the Lucas universe. It was done for "security" reasons, plain and simple. It's just another stupid antipiracy thing that is useless and doesn't have any meaning except to make the people in high places feel like they're doing something.

possibly to prove to their insurance companies they are trying....because I'm sure they still claim they "lost" money

Posted by Jason Gazaille (Member # 2846) on 12-06-2004, 11:26 PM:

I had no problem figuring out that the Star Wars trailers were labeled Sand Dogs because it said so on the FoxExhibitor website I use to check for new materials to order for our theatre anyway. Plus, when we got our banner and one sheets, they were labeled with a number. I think this is merely to prevent shipping theft and has nothing to do with anti-piracy. They wanted to make sure the theatres had the material to show, since it was advertised. I think that theatres owe it to their customers to check since, as someone pointed out, most customers wanted to see it. What I don't get, is why they didn't continue to label them in that fashion from then on, since they sent me a package two weeks later with the actual title. Maybe they don't trust the Technicolor employees for some reason. I'm not saying I agree with it at all, I'm just giving what I think may be a studio's perspective. I think theft more than piracy is the reason behind the name change. In the past, they wanted to account for every single Star Wars trailer that went out. I can deal with a title change a little better.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 02-17-2011, 02:23 PM:

It has been 2263 days since the last post.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 02-17-2011, 02:23 PM:

There were very nearly confused phone calls this morning when digital prints of CEDAR RAPIDS showed up with ups stickers declaring them to be BIG MOMMA.
I was certainly discouraged from piracy at that point. I mean, nobody is going to watch that piece...

Just a thought, fox. Maybe you don't code-name current films with the names of other current films...

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-17-2011, 05:45 PM:

So why don't they just cut out putting names on the cans all together and use numbers?

Oh? "Star Wars?" - That's marked 24389247.
"Indiana Jones?" - 29829485. "Indiana Jones 4?" - 294387029837.

That way everybody is equally confused and piracy will surely be prevented!

See, what a fart smeller... smart feller I am? [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-17-2011, 09:26 PM:

Or better yet, just deliver cans with nothing on them at all. Call it pot luck theater.

Posted by Dan Biegner (Member # 6026) on 02-21-2011, 03:09 PM:

Does anyone know why they even do that in the first place? It's certainly annoying, but I'm curious to know what their b.s. reason for doing so is.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-21-2011, 09:28 PM:

Because of course LOTS of people would want to steal LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, but if they print CHANGING SEASONS on all of the cans instead, that would foil untold legions of print thieves. Especially if they print it on the heads and tails too. No one would EVER be smart enough to figure out that the 5000 nine reel CHANGING SEASONS prints that are floating around on the days leading up to the LORD OF THE RINGS release are actually the missing LORD OF THE RINGS prints. No one would EVER figure THAT out. Thieves are too stupid, you see.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-22-2011, 02:04 AM:

Mark you forgot to mention the "New Line Cinema" printed on the box labels for Changing Seasons.

I used to go to the film depot and pick prints up every week. We would all laugh about how pathetic the attempts with fake naming were because it was THAT OBVIOUS. Its not stopping anything.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 02-22-2011, 02:11 AM:

It's kind of amusing that they code-name the cans when the only people with an interest in prints are industry "insiders" who are privy too it anyway and would likely not bother.
...And the rest of the world thinks we play DVD's.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-22-2011, 05:40 AM:

Ah yes, thanks Brad. I also forgot to mention the coincidence of all of the LORD OF THE RINGS documentation that comes included IN THE CANS of CHANGING SEASONS. This of course includes a letter from Peter Jackson congratulating you on playing LORD OF THE RINGS.

And let us not forget the trailers for "SAND DOG" which were actually the missing STAR WARS III trailers which started this whole thread. Again - this was a TRAILER. A trailer which everyone and their brother was expecting to get. And everyone in fact did get it. It just didn't say STAR WARS on it. It said SAND DOG instead. Since STAR WARS was such an event, everyone knew that the next trailer would be on a particular movie. All of the Star Wars geeks went to see that movie on opening day just to see the trailer, and a good number of them were disappointed because the trailer wasn't where it was supposed to be because the projectionists thought they didn't receive the trailer. People were PISSED! LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of people were pissed that day.

So it's safe to say that whoever the boob is who thought fake names was a good idea actually CAUSED exactly what he thought he was preventing that day... missing film. And yet they still do it.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-02-2011, 02:11 PM:

And it's getting worse as they're doing it now on FILE NAMES (!!!) of digital files...not the label on the drive, mind you. THAT says the real name, but on the actual file name that is ingested and sits in the server.

Follow the stupid story here.

Posted by Jonathan Seaman (Member # 6150) on 03-06-2011, 03:25 PM:

It is not much better here in the UK. We are getting prints all the time with 'code names.' The best thing about this is the fact that if anyone did intercept the prints, all they would need to do is open the case the cans are in and look at the label on the cans as they have the correct title of the film printed on them anyway.

What is the point? I used to like the guessing game but now it gets boring as it's so bloody easy.

Anyway enough of my rantings.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-07-2011, 12:47 PM:

quote: Jonathan Seaman
The best thing about this is the fact that if anyone did intercept the prints, all they would need to do is open the case the cans are in and look at the label on the cans as they have the correct title of the film printed on them anyway.

Saw IV was labelled "Angel Fish" on the reels themselves (and the box it came it).

Saw V had a similar fake name on the print itself, but the box said it was Saw V.

Posted by Jonathan Seaman (Member # 6150) on 03-07-2011, 01:08 PM:

Sorry I did forget to mention that this happens in the UK. At least they don't do it in the US as well. It still happens over here though. I think I have only ever seen one film with fake name on the reel label and box here.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 07-09-2011, 06:59 PM:

And what about this kind of secrecy....
Pirates are confused by the fake title, the reel projectionist being helped to keep the cinema running. All within the same small case. -Nice !

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-09-2011, 08:24 PM:

I wonder if 301 likes being checked out by 305!

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 07-10-2011, 08:37 AM:

That's the big question now...
305 sound a newbie, compared with 301---

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 07-10-2011, 11:53 AM:

My 35mm print of The Dark Knight was tagged as Oliver's Army when it was delivered. That's the only one I wasn't able to instantly figure out what it was supposed to be.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-10-2011, 05:23 PM:

Watched the behind-the-scenes material on the Harry Potter movies recently- looks like they all used fake names during production. Some titles I saw on the clapper were Happy Days, Champions and Tip Top.

The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions (which were both shot together) used the code name The Burly Man. Turns out that was the name of the movie being made in Barton Fink. If they ever make another big musical, they should call it Springtime For Hitler.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 07-10-2011, 07:40 PM:

We got one a few month ago (a major release) where the boxes were marked "Empty Box".

Wonder if that really fooled anyone. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-11-2011, 09:57 AM:

quote: Edward Havens
My 35mm print of The Dark Knight was tagged as Oliver's Army when it was delivered. That's the only one I wasn't able to instantly figure out what it was supposed to be.

Only via process of elimination were we able to figure out that Saw IV was Angel Fish (and the print itself had the fake name).