Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 2001: A Space Odyssey 5/70 print #20011 damage

This is topic 2001: A Space Odyssey 5/70 print #20011 damage 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=011723

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 10-13-2014, 05:35 PM:

Just curious if anyone else had played print #20011 of 2001 from WB, there is a long section of perf damage for the first 17' of the last reel. We played the same print almost exactly a year ago and it definitely hasn't been fixed since then (it has gotten worse however). I guess the studios don't even have people to look after these very rare and expensive prints anymore. Also curious what was done about it, we hand cranked past the damage to avoid making it worse.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-13-2014, 06:14 PM:

Did you inform them about the damage last year? I doubt those studios will actually check returned prints for any damage nowadays. Archives and private collectors will most certainly take more care.

And can you actually repair perf damage on a 70mm film with mag tracks without entirely replacing the affected section? I would say if you repair it with splicing tape or maybe even perf tape, you will be certainly covering the mag tracks with it...

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 10-13-2014, 07:53 PM:

Yeah, and we just sent them another message.
Actually this print has a DTS track, recentish reprint.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-13-2014, 09:24 PM:

Not too difficult to repair that kind of damage by yourself esp where there is no mag track to worry about... !

Done my fair share of sprocket hole damage repairs and it all came out okey ..

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 10-15-2014, 04:45 PM:

When we are working on prints for our archive we do this type of repair, but it's a pretty long section, and 70mm, and honestly I don't feel like we should be held responsible for doing this. Is that unreasonable?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-15-2014, 04:52 PM:

It's completely reasonable. Given the amount you'll have paid for the shipping of that print alone (let alone the actual booking cost), you have every right to expect a print that is playable without excessive repairs being needed. Resplicing a few of the heads and tails, OK, but repairing dozens of feet of perfs? A working release print is not an archival preservation element and it's not reasonable for studios to ship it in that state (unless by prior negotiation, e.g. we know this print is damaged, and so we'll discount the booking fee if you do repairs).

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 10-15-2014, 10:11 PM:

Leo, thanks for that. You've made a really good point that I didn't even think about.

Really I'm just frustrated that no one looked at this print for a year between our bookings, I would expect that from some of the depots that are basically print graveyards in warehouses but I usually expect better from this archive

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-16-2014, 12:54 AM:

It's highly doubtful you were the last theater to play that print. It is also entirely possible the damage happened on the final run of the previous theater, whether they knew they did the damage or not.

Even going back 20 years, the depots did not have any sort of proper inspection for 70mm. They absolutely don't today.

Honestly the two reels you ran for me last week when I visited I didn't find in very good condition at all. Way too much dirt and far too many scratches. I would've rejected the print. 70mm is no good as a showoff format if it is worn. It defeats the purpose.