Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Do you feel cheated when you get a used print for a new release?

This is topic Do you feel cheated when you get a used print for a new release? 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=009674

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-24-2008, 01:19 AM:

Our print of Marley & Me was used. While it appears to be in good shape, I always hate getting a used print when we open a movie on the break. It just doesn't seem right that my customers will have to see whatever dust and/or scratches might have been done by the previous theatre where it probably only played for one show.

For what it's worth, the print appears to be scratch free and relatively dust free. However, there are considerable fingerprints on the first 6" of each head and tail. Plus the person who broke down the film used very stick masking tape to attach the heads and tails. Hopefully a run or two with Film-Guard will take care of any problems.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 12-24-2008, 01:25 AM:

Yeah, 2 of our 3 Yes Man were used, but in good condition. Only problem was removing the cues, since it seems no one uses our system. But yes, I hate getting "new" used prints.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-24-2008, 01:37 AM:

IMO, it's especially more annoying when it's a movie that hasn't been released yet and you're doing a special screening.

Case in point: When I built up then watched Knocked Up in preparation of a screening that was happening the next day, I found the print to have dirt flecks pretty much on every frame of the movie with the only variation being that they changed to an ungodly number at the reel changes. Though I know for a fact we sent it back in better shape than we got it.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-24-2008, 02:54 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
Hopefully a run or two with Film-Guard will take care of any problems.

..shoot a spot of FG on some lens tissue and rub out those fingerprints after you make the splice...

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-24-2008, 08:35 AM:

If the print is clean and in good shape, I don't care if it's been shown before. For many reasons, I PREFER it.

1) All the reels will be wound the same way. (Heads/Tails)

2) ID frames at the heads/tails will already be found and cut. There should be one piece of splicing tape holding the leaders on. Right? That makes it easier for my build-up guy.

3) If there were any problems with the print or reels therein, they should have already been found and fixed or the reels replaced.

4) Ideally, the previous theater should have FilmGuarded the print.

5) This is something that I do... If I know the print is going to be circuited to another theater, I might call or e-mail them to let them know their print is coming and what condition it is in. I might also ask if they have any preferences... (Heads/Tails out, etc. etc.)

Of course, if the print is beat, all bets are off.

If you have any experience at all, you should be able to judge a print's condition as you are building it up. (At the bench, presumably.) As I build prints, by the time I get through the first or second reel, I am usually able to judge print condition well enough to know whether I will need to call for replacement. There have been a few cases where I didn't even bother taking the reels out of the can. I just opened it up, looked inside and, when I saw the print had been trashed, I called for replacement.

I teach my students to begin inspecting the moment they get the prints into the booth, even before they begin work on the first reel. If you teach your workers to to that, you should have very few problems you can't solve when it comes to print condition.

I have seen prints that have been circuited for years that are in virtually perfect condition. I have seen brand new prints that are unplayable.

The bottom line is not whether the print has been used before. It is condition that's important.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-24-2008, 09:28 AM:

I'm usually more annyoned by it when the print has previously been run on platters (and therefore already cut & spliced) as opposed to a print that was previously viewed in a change-over house.

But I'm in 100% agreement with the previous poster's statement that the bottom line is that it's the overall condition that counts.

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 12-24-2008, 10:20 AM:

[ 03-10-2009, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Tyler Potts ]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-24-2008, 10:43 AM:

This is occasionally something that is going to happen with film as distribution wants every existing release print generating revenue. This is but another problem D-Cinema will rectify.

Mark

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-25-2008, 11:09 AM:

Yah, the problem is usually the other theatres's cues. Last year, I got a "new" used print with a cue at the end of reel 3. Don't see that much these days.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
This is but another problem D-Cinema will rectify.

Oh, I don't know, Mark. I'll bet the data doesn't stick as well to a used hard drive. [Razz]

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-26-2008, 02:50 AM:

When you do screenings as much as we do 3-5 a week (Sure not as much as Mr. Gabel) I see many used prints and have gotten new/used prints for openings. Sometimes I get my own print back 4 days later and it has been to another theatre and come back to me. 99% of the time they don't come back the way they went out. If a print is used and I get it new I don't really care as long as its in good shape.

Chris - What would you have, have them make sure you get a new print every time you do a screening? Some times that just isn't possible, but of course you already know this.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-26-2008, 11:48 AM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
Chris - What would you have, have them make sure you get a new print every time you do a screening? Some times that just isn't possible, but of course you already know this.

I know it's not possible. It's more about the massive amount of dirt that was on it. Even if that location had something set up to clean a print while building, it wouldn't have made enough of a difference that quickly.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-26-2008, 05:47 PM:

I would rather the studios strike about 3 prints of a movie and send them out repeatedly to all of the screenings. I have found that *most* theaters cannot run a film one time without inflicting some form of damage to it, even if it is only minor. For that reason, I would prefer the studios let a couple of screener prints get beat to hell and then all new prints sent out to theaters on opening day.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 01-07-2009, 10:12 PM:

I've seen some pretty crappy used prints, but I've also seen some equally crappy new prints. Straight from the lab, to my booth, and nothing but a can of spaghetti, sans sauce of course. And the condition of the film would appear as if it had been drug behind a garbage trick along a dirt and gravel road during a thunderstorm. It's possible that I'd have went to a changeover house before us, but most changover houses typically employ more skilled projectionist who aren't liekly to return this kind of mess. That and there didn't appear to be any wear on the film, just abuse. So used/new vs. new/new, doesn't matter much to me. I take it all in stride. Besides, either way, you're still supposed to go over every print with a fine tooth comb anyways, and a bottle of film guard. [Big Grin]

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-08-2009, 11:51 AM:

Most of the studios do have a few prints (2-3) to services pre-release type screens. And those prints cover both coasts. As the release date gets closer more prints come to replace the older versions. Unless your theatre is in a major market like Los Angeles and New York, you are getting a general release print. General release prints are the ones with more lab splices and are mass produced (more problems). Since the depots just store most of the times these prints. They just circuit them to the next theatre and it becomes potluck on if you get a used print or new. A few of the studios here have two sets of prints for early screenings, ones for change-over houses and ones for plattered houses.

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 01-17-2009, 06:18 AM:

We constantly get 2nd hand prints from the US when we have a later release date. These come nicely packaged in shrink wrap, 'treated' and are invariably scratched to buggery. Allegedly the have been inspected.....I get a replacement as soon as possible and make my feelings known to both the distributor and our film buying department!

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 01-17-2009, 06:49 AM:

We get re boxed prints. We sometimes get the preview prints after the big cinemas. Don't want to threadjack, but one of our 2nd hand prints had big magenta splotches about 4 foot lengths every few minutes through one reel. Does anyone know what caused this, it's a lab defect/exposure right?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-17-2009, 10:27 AM:

I think maybe this thread should have been titled, Do you feel cheated when you get a damaged print for a new release?, to which the answer is of course unanimously yes. Do you feel cheated when you get a damaged print 3 months after the break? At that point, I just feel sad, not cheated. And 3 years after release? More like resigned...

I bet you guys who open new prints in first run but not on the break have the most interesting cases.

Damien: magenta splotches every 4 feet? That's a new one on me. Does the print have a cyan soundtrack? Are the splotches coming in from the soundtrack area, or are they somewhere else?

In a non-cyan (conventional silver-applicated or high-magenta) soundtrack, there's a chemical that's applied over the soundtrack area (soundtrack redeveloper) and if everything isn't lined up right, it can spill over into the image and make it look purple. But it doesn't sound like that's what you've got.

But yes, that definitely sounds like a lab defect. 4 feet seems weird though. If that's a circumference, then you have an outer diameter of 15", which seems just a little big but still perhaps plausible. Do the splotches get closer together as the reel goes on?

--jhawk

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 02-06-2009, 07:01 PM:

We opened Slumdog Millionaire today. It arrived at 1:50 pm today with the first show at 2:20. I thought 30 minutes was perfect. Unfortunately the theatre we got it from is RETARDED. Non of the heads and tails had matching frames and they decided to cover reel 6 with the labels of 5 and 5 with 6. Also had about 10 secs of film where the bottom (opposite soundstrip) sprocket holes were folded over and we had to bend them back into the open position. Luckily we only lost 1 show. Could not believe this crap.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-06-2009, 08:14 PM:

Sneaking 'Ghost Town' this weekend and they're all second-hand US prints.

Whoever had ours needs a lesson on loop sizes. Intermittent scratches all over the emulsion.

Looks like a liberal lathering of Film Guard is needed as there's no hope of another print. I doubt I'll be able to get rid of them entirely, but almost.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 02-06-2009, 09:23 PM:

AFAIK, film-guard can only help with base-side scratches.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-06-2009, 10:42 PM:

Not true. As long as they're still black (which they are) you can get rid of most of them. Even the really bad ones will be substantially lessened.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-06-2009, 11:24 PM:

Just about anything that doesn't damage the emulsion.

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 02-07-2009, 04:36 AM:

As long as people who watch a film are satisfied with what they see and hear I'm happy too. Really, there's not much I can do (I cannot order a back-up copy etc.)apart from making sure a copy I run is more or less in the same condition as it came.

The funny thing about the common cinema-goers is how much they can stand without as much as a word of complaint: there were some cases where a film was severly scratched and noone had this idea of trying to get his/her money back.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 02-07-2009, 10:43 AM:

The sad thing is they might have not even noticed.

An old coworker said he saw a movie at another cinema with his wife. He described it as looking like a some animal had clawed at the screen with black scratches going every which way, he'd be embarrassed to show the print, and wanted to head into their booth to ask "WTF did you do to make THAT happen?!"

When they left, he said to his wife "Did you see how scratched that movie was?" And she was like "What do you mean? I didn't notice anything."

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-07-2009, 02:21 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
And she was like

She was?

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 02-07-2009, 02:40 PM:

quote: Janusz Antkiewicz
The funny thing about the common cinema-goers is how much they can stand without as much as a word of complaint: there were some cases where a film was severly scratched and noone had this idea of trying to get his/her money back.

Years ago when working an 8-plex we had a print of "Jagged Edge" where reel 4 had NO soundtrack at all, it just had the purple area without any of the SVA lines at all..

That print ran 5 shows a day for over a week before someone finally complained, and that's when I found out what was wrong. (I didn't build any of the prints the day that one arrived and it was the only problem we had.)

Policy change after that event was that ALL booth monitors were to be left on the entire show and that the operators were to walk thru each booth every half-hour.

Another, but deliberate test I rigged was to turn all my "No Smoking" snipes upside-down on all four screens of my theatre...it took over two weeks for someone to notice..and it wasn't staff or my relief operator. It was one of the regular customers.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 02-07-2009, 02:57 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall was the last to post
She was?

Are you making fun of my grammar or something? Because I'm recounting what the guy's wife had told him.

Posted by Laurie Higgins (Member # 4843) on 02-07-2009, 05:13 PM:

I do feel a little cheated I must admit. But if it doesn't come with ques and tape still on, I do appreciate the fact that the heads and tails are already cut etc. My only exception would be when some ijit winds them up backwards or inside out and sends them to me.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-08-2009, 08:28 AM:

quote: Chris Slycord
Are you making fun of my grammar or something?

No, I don't think your grammar was bad.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 02-08-2009, 11:07 AM:

Then I really have no idea what you were hinting at.

All I was saying is that a projectionist saw a movie that was scratched to oblivion and his wife didn't even notice when he asked her about it.

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 02-08-2009, 03:36 PM:

Wouldn't like to make an off-topic but some time ago this idea ocurred to me and keeps bugging [Wink]

me ever since.

Don't you feel that being a projectionist is some sort of a curse?? What I mean is that since I started caring about this job I realized that watching movies in MY cinema doesn't bring me joy anymore. I'm always on a lookout for scratches; counting rolls; checking if subtitles are OK; I even make it sure that when the roll changes the splicing is so fine that the change is barely visible. And I always find something to be dissatisfied with. Feels like I'm always at work. [Big Grin]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-08-2009, 05:13 PM:

...no good deed goes unpunished. [Wink]

Posted by Janusz Antkiewicz (Member # 5118) on 02-10-2009, 08:49 AM:

the phrase above is so true... [Frown]

BTW I've always thought that Americans are optimists with this look-at-the-bright-side-of-life attitude [Wink]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-10-2009, 10:32 AM:

That is true - except for Joe Redifer. [Big Grin]

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 03-10-2009, 10:16 PM:

I hate second-hand prints primarily because they never remove their damn splicing tape, and finding the cues is often a gigantic pain.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 03-15-2009, 11:59 AM:

Since I inspect everything that plays in my multiplex, used prints are usually not a problem. Finding cues is just part of the fun that I have every week!

You havent lived until you run a few series of free family films. Those prints are rough and well-used!

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 03-17-2009, 07:50 PM:

Yeah, been there.