Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Anybody else have out of frame "attached" previews on The Rocker

This is topic Anybody else have out of frame "attached" previews on The Rocker 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=009481

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-20-2008, 01:08 AM:

Babylon A.D. was attached at the depot and it was completely out of frame. They got it wrong on both sides of the splice and the net result was also out of frame.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-20-2008, 01:25 AM:

I think mine was one perf out of frame on the trailer side.

What is the point of attached trailers? Just include 'em in the can! I hate dealing with trailers in general, but attached ones are really annoying.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-20-2008, 02:21 AM:

Interesting. Mine was printed with the feature, not attached...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-20-2008, 02:44 AM:

Technically that's still an attached trailer and even more annoying.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 08-20-2008, 06:15 AM:

I believe that the first run exhibitor contract requires the film to be screened "in its entirety". That would mean everything that is included between the leaders.

I have heard of theaters being charged for deleting the credits at the end to reduce running time. The "attached trailer" is part of the show as described by the film company and should be exhibited in full under the contract.

KEN

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-20-2008, 06:44 AM:

Oh sure....if you want to be a goody-two shoes.

SNIP [Razz]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-20-2008, 08:13 AM:

Kenneth, what if a theater cuts green bands off of trailers? I feel they should get called out for violating this contract.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-20-2008, 10:13 AM:

Ken,

Every time this sort of thing comes up, there is a lot of confusion. I don't think you will be able to find any contractual language that definitively supports the interpretation that "everything between the leaders" must be exhibited. Any such claim is speculation, and I think it is not born out in a practical sense.

Looking at, e.g., Paramount's MLA, they require that "Exhibitor shall exhibit the Title, without alteration or intermission." This paragraph immediately follows a paragraph granting license to exhibit "any and all trailers." It suggests to me, though not definitively, that trailers are not part of the Title. (Of course, most trailers wouldn't be. Since most trailers are not attached.)

In the front matter, some definitions include "a feature-length film print (`Print,' which reference shall be deemed to include trailer prints) of the individual motion picture (`Title')."

It is notable to me that the requirement is to exhibit the Title, not the Print. If the requirement were to include attached trailers, I would expect it would say "the Print."

As a practical matter, my understanding is that studios have determined that attached trailers are much more likely to be programmed by theatres, and that is why they attach them.

Of course, some chains may have particular contractual arrangements involving trailer programming. But presumably those folks know all about them [Smile]

Also, license of exhibition is subject to not only the MLA, but also the terms of the Booking Confirmation. I don't see first-run Booking Confirmations so I don't know if they have language in them about attached trailers, but I would be mildly surprised.

--jhawk

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-20-2008, 10:37 AM:

I've seen notes in the cans that specifically allow theaters to cut the trailers to insert their Feature Presentation snipe in between the trailer and the feature. I believe I've even seen this stipulation on Disney features that have cartoons attached to the heads of features, although I don't remember us ever doing that with a cartoon.

I think jhawk is right on why the studios put them there. And I think Joe is right that they're annoying. Particularly on Fox prints where the tail of the trailer typically runs smack up against the Fox logo leaving practically no room to cut it at all, and usually means the DTS unit starts playing the Fox fanfare for a few seconds when the theater snipe hits the screen. If studios could find a happy medium between Fox's method and Warner Brothers' method of two miles of black between the trailer and the feature, that would be awesome.

I've had trailers spliced onto prints by someone who I guess was either at the depot or the lab, and I've had them occasionally out of frame. That's not surprising since those guys don't even know how to assemble reels correctly half of the time. And I've had PRINTED on trailers go out of frame. I actually had two Harry Potter GOF prints do that on me.

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 08-20-2008, 12:01 PM:

I have had them out of frame more often than in frame. We leave the print preview on the leader, and add 2 more after it, along with our normal company stuff. On the Rocker the leader was attached to the preview, and since we snip it after the first preview to add in our stuff, I just clipped out their splice, because it was most likely wrong. It's sad, because they work with a lot more film than we do, and they can't get it right. I guess it's like breakdown. It's the next guys problem.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-20-2008, 12:51 PM:

quote: Joe Elliott
It's sad, because they work with a lot more film than we do, and they can't get it right.

Don't you realize that the reason this happens to them and less often to you is exactly the fact that they "work with a lot more film"?

Higher volume of film -> Higher volume of mistakes

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-20-2008, 12:56 PM:

There is no requirement in a contract that says that you are required to screen our print before showing it to the public. This decision is left to individual theatres.

When it comes to attached trailers that are spliced in, it is always better to check them for being in frame and cut out and re-make a new splice.

What I like to do with trailers is go in release date order, starting with the most recent release being the first trailer to play. So, in the case of The Rocker, the attached trailer (which in our case was printed on not spliced in) is moved first in the order since it opens in a week and a half. If the attached is more than three months away in it's release, then I normally leave it attached. We usually do not keep films around longer than three months.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-20-2008, 01:26 PM:

A lot of theaters say if the attached opens in 3 weeks or less it doesn't get played because some booths don't have the labor capability to be changing trailers each week. The studios already screw the theaters over with the "day prior" print deliveries, forcing most theaters to "double up" on projection staff on buildup days wasting payroll unnecessarily...hence if the attached opens "too soon", it gets dumped into the trash can.

I tend to find in those situations the best case senario is most often what Darryl listed above in that yeah it gets played, but not in the "prime" spot that the studio wants. Oh fucking well!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-20-2008, 01:28 PM:

I've never had an attached trailer OR a printed-on trailer be out of frame. Maybe I've just been lucky.

This has all been rehashed before as mentioned. You are required to play the feature film and nothing else, except in some of those situations where there is a short feature included. Disney and Pixar (beginning last year) started allowing you to cut off the attached trailer, but you still have to play the short+feature as one unit.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-20-2008, 01:39 PM:

I'd say that about 3/4 of the spliced-on trailers that I see are out of frame (just as if the cuts had been made at random). I always re-make these splices, as they are always poorly made, with nasty, gooey tape and often a gap which will hinge and cause a pop in the soundtrack. Worse, the lab/depot people often cut into the fade-in of the studio logo and/or cut off the fadeout at the end of the trailer.

Agreed with Darryl--trailers should play in either release-date order (which makes logical sense) or reverse-release-date order (so that the films that are opening soonest get promoted even to those who arrive late). If the theatre does not play films on their national opening dates, then substitute "booking date" for "release date." I also feel strongly that only trailers for confirmed bookings for that particular theatre should be shown. There is no need to promote the competition or confuse customers.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 08-20-2008, 04:00 PM:

Playing trailers in release-date order also allows easier removal of trailers on the week the advertised film opens.
Trailer change-outs are a normal part of our routine, and that work sheet is drawn out on Monday when our bookings are confirmed.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-20-2008, 06:29 PM:

I also do them in release date order. But if I get something that I'm not sure is a good fit for the movie, I'll program that first so that it can be easily removed. I also try to make sure that new trailers for upcoming blockbusters play closest to the feature regardless of release date - for example when the trailer for the next Harry Potter came with The Mummy, that was the first trailer before the attached.

Regardless of studio requests, I will not program trailers that I don't feel are appropriate for the movie, or that I do not expect to play. I remove the attached trailer on about 5% of our prints because it's something I don't anticipate we will play - or at least something we won't get on the break. But usually when I remove the attached trailer, I make a point to add something from the same studio.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-20-2008, 06:36 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
I also try to make sure that new trailers for upcoming blockbusters play closest to the feature regardless of release date

Same here. The biggest upcoming blockbuster trailer goes next to the feature. Ideally, I want the audience buzzing with anticipation when the feature starts. (And if they sit in silence, I know that blockbuster may possibly not be one!)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-20-2008, 07:40 PM:

I don't mind that they include the trailer or even request/demand that it be played. I just want them to include it as a stand alone trailer and not printed on Reel 1. I'm going to cut it anyway and place it as the first trailer just out of spite. My theater rarely gets movies that are advertised on the attached trailers.

On another note, why are 99% of trailers tail up? This can also be annoying in many cases (usually during trailer changes), though I guess I should be thankful that they at least picked a direction.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-20-2008, 08:02 PM:

I like tail-up trailers. I wind them onto a house reel and then run it onto the platter. I like to check and see if the stupid release dates are in the trailer and edit them out if necessary/possible.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-20-2008, 09:35 PM:

Well, Joe, if they stop having attached trailers and just enclose them all, how will the studios convince you to play a particular one? If you get a paper note that says PLEASE PROGRAM THE ATTACHED TRAILER FOR MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA along with High School Musical 3, are you going to do it? Or are you going to pick from the enclosed trailers and show The Hobbit, A-Team, and Watchmen and Terminator?

--jhawk

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-20-2008, 10:04 PM:

If it is so essential that a specific trailer is played then they should work with whoever does the programming and strike up a deal to require a certain trailer to be shown at a certain spot.

Posted by Craig Dunn (Member # 4232) on 08-20-2008, 10:27 PM:

We had one that was 2 perfs off.

Craig Dunn

Posted by Ky Boyd (Member # 23) on 08-20-2008, 11:29 PM:

Release date order for programming trailer is nice, but for scope films I prefer to put all the pillar bar trailers first and then the "full scope" ones so that once the image goes the full screen width it doesn't then shrink again.

Which brings up one of my rants...if the trailer has pillar bars why is it so damn difficult for the lab/studio/whoever to put an appropriate pillar bar'd rating tag on? It just looks dorky when the ratings tag is full width and then the rest of the trailer isn't.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-21-2008, 12:02 AM:

Jiggidy j-phat,

Attaching a trailer doesn't convince me to run it. They could simply enclose it and include a note saying: "We will come and rape your eye socket if you don't play this trailer". I think that would suffice. Or the note could say "Play this trailer or your entire chain will never, ever, ever, ever get another movie from this studio again. We'll be checking. We have spies. We know you can't be trusted."

Also, why are there so many different variations of the green band tag? I'm not talking about just pillar-box and/or letterboxed, etc. I'm talking about the actual color, sharpness, font and all that. When a studio makes a trailer, do they look at a gallery of available green bands and say "Hmmm... this one looks pretty mucky, unsaturated and has blurry text. LET'S USE THIS ONE!!!!!" Or perhaps "This one is slightly out of frame. PERFECT!!!!" Or my favorite: "This one looks like the theater can't properly focus a xenon bulb to save their lives. THIS WILL ENHANCE OUR TRAILER!!"

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-21-2008, 12:57 AM:

quote:
Or my favorite: "This one looks like the theater can't properly focus a xenon bulb to save their lives. THIS WILL ENHANCE OUR TRAILER!!"

Having soft focus or pale green backgrounds is one thing, but whenever I come across one of these green bands with dark corners like Joe mentioned above, in the trash it goes!!! ...along with all other copies of it on the shelf.

(Of course I also do the same thing on letterboxed trailers that are printed out of frame.)

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 08-21-2008, 01:23 AM:

Do any of you recall seeing printed inserts that say something like, "your theatre's contract with us requires you to play the attached trailers"? I haven't seen it in a while, but I always thought that was amusing... mainly because, as an owner, I've never seen any such written requirement, and the attached trailers in those cases were pretty lame.

Posted by Patrick Dunn (Member # 3333) on 08-21-2008, 06:45 PM:

We got MaMa Mia second run, and for what ever reason the theater that had the print last removed the attached trailer all except for the green band. And for what ever reason I had to be the one to remove it about 2 days after we got the film on my first shift running it. I felt so dumb starting a movie saying there was a trailer and then the movie starts.

My favorite green bands/trailers are the ones that advertise flat movies in the scope formats because they for some reason make it look like the scope lens isn't adjusted properly so one side or both will be slanted. At first i figured it was because the projector isn't centered with the screen since it used to be a change over booth, but the trailers are like that everywhere I see them.