Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: '2 days in Paris' UK prints.

This is topic '2 days in Paris' UK prints. 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=008966

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-27-2007, 01:02 PM:

Just a quick warning to anybody who runs this in the UK. The film is 1.85, but the BBFC certificate is printed in scope!

I've just had a mad panic. I'd set it up for 1.85, as the make-up sheet and labels on the leaders said, and when the certificate hit the screen it was scope. Thought I must have got it wrong, so furiously changed the lens and plate, to find that it's still wrong. Check can labels, they say 1.85 as well. At this point stop the show and put the film on the bench to check. By the time I'd wound through to the start of action to be sure, rewound the print, changed the lens , plate and masking back, laced up again and re-started the show it had been off screen for about five minutes. If I'd left it as it was it would have been ok after a few seconds, but I thought I must have got it wrong.

I wish whoever ran this yesterday had left me a note about it.

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 10-27-2007, 07:57 PM:

I've seen this quite often. I've always picked up on it when making up the print, sometimes though someone else has made up the print and not noticed it, makes for a confusing few seconds.

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 10-28-2007, 11:59 PM:

Fortunately we don't have to show rating tags before the actual feature (though we have to for the trailers) but I have come across occasions where the local distributor has attached their logo tag thingy and it's the opposite ratio to that of the feature. I had the same thing recently with a scope tag spliced on to a flat feature. In these cases I promptly remove the tags. If the distributors want their tags screened they should at least attach one that is the correct ratio for the feature.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-29-2007, 12:24 AM:

..being here in the States, a lot of circuits, with their booking notices distributed to their respective theatres, display which lens is to be used for that certain feature.

Unfortunately, once in a while, the listings will display the wrong lens type. But, with my years in this field, that I've learned to physically check the prints for lens usage instead of relying on what is posted on a sheet of paper.

I've seen attached (spliced) trailers in a wrong format to what the feature is to be in (course, this was many moons ago when the attached trailer concept was still new..) to where I go into the 2nd reel to confirm which lens to be used and save the embarrassment.

Yet, the big unfortunate thing nowdays is trying to teach this practice to this 'generation' since they are in the mode of getting the job done and getting out of the theatre in a quick.

-Monte

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-29-2007, 12:33 AM:

I once had a Japanese import a few years ago (can't recall the name) and it contained a whole reel in anamorphic squeeze. Talk about panic. This director evidently used this distortion to indicate fantasy or some such. And it changed to this scope-type image at a reel changed as well, making it impossible to guess that it was being done intentionally.

After 5 minutes into the reel, I was sure that somehow there were two versions of this title -- a scope version and probably a TV version, and I had gotten a print with mixed reels.

I checked the next reel and it was just a normal 1.66 hard matted flat image, which only confirmed my suspicions that I had gotten two versions of this title. Then just as I was about to shut down the show and make the necessary correction to show that reel in scope, bingo....the image on the screen was back to normal, which luckily convinced me that this was indeed the way it was supposed to look. Then throughout the rest of the film there were shorter "fantasy" sections with the image switching back and forth from compressed to normal and then, believe it or not, to stretched as if filmed thru a projection anamorphic. It became clear what was going on, but not before causing total bewilderment and panic in this projectionist and an almost causing a show-stopping, mistaken "correction."

And as Stephen said, it sure would have been nice if some brother projectionist would have stuck a warning note in the can explaining that this damn thing had scope-like squeeze in some parts and stretched images in others and not to start switching lenses and plates in the middle of the film!

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-29-2007, 02:52 AM:

quote: Andy Muirhead
I've seen this quite often. I've always picked up on it when making up the print, sometimes though someone else has made up the print and not noticed it, makes for a confusing few seconds.

I've never seen a certificate printed wrongly. I've once or twice seen a logo which comes after it in the wrong ratio, but having seen the certificate right does at least give you reason to think that it's the logo that's printed wrong. If he first thing that hits the screen, the certificate, is wrong, then my first thought is that I've made a major cock-up. Of course, these days, the certificate isn't always the first thing to hit the screen; you quite often get those stupid FACT anti-piracy things fist.

This film was first run on Friday; I ran the second screening of it, on Saturday. Whoever made up the print had written the correct ratio, 1.85, on the make-up sheet, but whether hey had got this by looking at the print, or just by reading what it said on the can labels, I don't know. They couldn't have got as far as making the splice at the end of the first reel without seeing what ratio it was. The first thing you would normally check when making up a print is what certificate it is; though rare, there have been cases where the advance publicity has been wrong. I don't see how you could do this without seeing that the certificate is in scope. Somebody, possibly not the same person who made up the print, must have run it on Friday, it would be impossible as you open the curtains not to see that the certificate is wrong. I really can't understand why they didn't leave a note about it. I've left two, one on the board, and another on the make-up sheet.

Having had the film hit the screen in the wrong ratio, and then changed ratio and still had it wrong, whatever I did it would have looked terrible. There was a logo which wasn't obvious which format it was in. With hindsight, If I'd just let it run it would have been ok after the certificate, but I couldn't be sure of that, so, under the circumstances, the best thing seemed to be to stop the show, put the print on the bench, check to see exactly what was going on, and then rewind and re-start. Of course, in this case the audience were then treated to seeing the film start in the wrong ratio again a few minutes later. I did call down to front of house once I knew what had happened, and ask for somebody to explain to the audience hat the certificate had been wrongly printed, but the film itself would be shown correctly.

I thought this might be my last shift before retiring, but I'm being brought back to do a few hours at the end of November; I don't know about after that, maybe the odd day to cover sickness, etc.

Posted by Tim Asten (Member # 4051) on 10-30-2007, 04:31 AM:

We have seen one or two films like that here, but we had this particular film a few weeks ago and if it had a scope censor we were not aware of it probably because, due to auto start, there is not always someone there at the beginning to notice. However we do get quite a few scope bollywood trailers with flat censors - but we are used to it. Tim.

Posted by George May (Member # 1060) on 10-30-2007, 05:21 AM:

Did anyone have a moment of doubt at the beginning of the short "B feature" that preceded Ratatouille? Funny small picture, I thought, what's going on? Heart rate climbing fast. But then a colleague reminded me that this was a Pixar production and they'd done the same on "The Incredibles".

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-30-2007, 09:44 AM:

That's why with Ratatouille the cans had a note from the film studio saying that the short was to play with a flat lens.

And the short was a different one than if you watched the movie in 3D DLP.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-30-2007, 01:39 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
saying that the short was to play with a flat lens.

..being the feature is in Scope? Or, was Disney on a different planet when they wrote that?

Actually, all of the Scope releases from Pixar had a "flat" short that was compressed for the anamorphic lens on the front of those features..

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 10-30-2007, 01:41 PM:

When I saw Ratatouille, the screen and lens changed over to scope after the final trailer. Both the short B-feature (Lifted), and the actual movie played in scope.
Has it been reformatted for UK release so both the short feature and movie are in scope? Or is there a different short in the US?

One time, for some reason the masking changed to scope position at the very start of the advert reel but the lens was still on flat. The adverts and trailers were flat, so the effect was that the top and bottom were cropped off. When the projectionist noticed, he changed the lens to scope but that didn't help (squashed picture), so turned the lens back to flat and reset the masking.

Posted by George May (Member # 1060) on 10-30-2007, 03:01 PM:

Chris said ...

quote: Chris Slycord
That's why with Ratatouille the cans had a note from the film studio saying that the short was to play with a flat lens.

There was no note on my cans (I'm not sure we have these in the UK, do we? - I'm an umpteenth run outfit, so wouldn't expect to see any notes anyway!)

I was playing it pre-release at a special screening. It was all in 'Scope.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 10-30-2007, 06:11 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
That's why with Ratatouille the cans had a note from the film studio saying that the short was to play with a flat lens.

We had this on 2 screens and neither had a note. The short was compressed to play with in scope on both of ours. We apparently even had a secret Disney screen checker opening weekend since we were awarded a "Perfect Presentation". We were given Rat ball caps for our projection staff.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-30-2007, 07:57 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
.being the feature is in Scope? Or, was Disney on a different planet when they wrote that?

Yes, that movie is in Scope.

And I somehow combined my memory of Ratatouille with that of Meet the Robinsons with the 3D blurb.

quote: Jeremy Weigel
We had this on 2 screens and neither had a note. The short was compressed to play with in scope on both of ours. We apparently even had a secret Disney screen checker opening weekend since we were awarded a "Perfect Presentation". We were given Rat ball caps for our projection staff.

You're right; what I'm remembering wasn't a note we received. It was these "perfect projection" trading cards that gave blurbs about the stuff. And yeah it was a compressed image; my memory failed me.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-30-2007, 08:32 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
with that of Meet the Robinsons with the 3D blurb.

(...wonder if you got that Mickey, Donald, and Goofy cartoon mixed up in with the "Ratatouille" discussion, which that cartoon was on the front of "Robinsons" where it was shrunk down to fit in the 1.85/1 frame to look on the screen as if was being presented in the 1.37/1 academy ratio when that cartoon was first released in the late 30's...)

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-30-2007, 09:56 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
(...wonder if you got that Mickey, Donald, and Goofy cartoon mixed up in with the "Ratatouille" discussion, which that cartoon was on the front of "Robinsons" where it was shrunk down to fit in the 1.85/1 frame to look on the screen as if was being presented in the 1.37/1 academy ratio when that cartoon was first released in the late 30's...)

That's what I said. I combined 2 different memories into 1 since I was really tired this morning.

So to recap: I remember getting these stupid Ratatouille trading cards that had projection info on them and one of them mentioned the short because it was in a different aspect ratio than the rest of the movie.

And then I, out of stupidity or lack of sleep from studying late (or both), started remembering the same kind of thing with Meet the Robinsons.