Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Someone was naughty!!!

This is topic Someone was naughty!!! in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000383

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-05-2001, 07:08 PM:

I just saw MONSTERS,INC. and saw the following trailers in this order:
Harry Potter, Star Wars Breathing, Return to Neverland, FOR THE BIRDS short, theater policy trailer. Then, the picture started.

That doesn't look like directly and immediately preceding to me.

Anyone else find any "rule breakers" out there?

Oh, in case you Disney folks want to find this, its on one of the screens in Central Ohio...you'll have to find which one!

------------------
"As a moral to young men who come down to the city, don't go round breaking people's tambourines."

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-05-2001, 11:17 PM:

Sound/THX logos and policy trailers go IMMEDIATELY before the feature, regardless of what some letter in the can says. BV hasn't said a damned thing in the years I have done it this way, even with checkers.

-Aaron

Posted by Mike Jones (Member # 522) on 11-06-2001, 12:44 AM:

All we have is a 5-10 second trailer saying "Please turn off your cell phones and pagers". No soundtrack, no fancy moving images. Just that.

Now would you go through all the extra work of removing attached trailers and putting it before the feature or just put it before the trailers like we do?

Besides, it's the perfect film to focus and frame on.

Posted by Manuel Francisco Valencia (Member # 710) on 11-06-2001, 12:59 AM:

I would have to say that 3 out 7 movies that we get there is some note inside the can that says play this trailer at this specific point. To me I think that is unprofessional. If a company wants certain trailers to be played in certain spots then the corporate office should be contacted by the company and then the corporate office should notify the theatres. Besides, Cinemark writes my check so the Cinemark policy trailer goes before the feature!

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-06-2001, 09:26 AM:

I can understand removing the attached trailers and inserting policy and sound trailers, but the short shouldn't have been removed, that belongs right before the feature IMHO.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-06-2001, 11:13 AM:

In this (and most other Pixar films') case, the short would have been considered part of the feature. The logos would have gone before the short, but after the other stuff.

-Aaron

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-07-2001, 12:20 PM:

Both of our prints had Neverland first followed by Star Wars. If you're going to remove the attatched trailers to insert your policy, as I did, fine. (In fact that is our company policy.) But why reverse the order of the attatched trailers?

Posted by Christopher K. Williams (Member # 418) on 11-08-2001, 02:47 AM:

I have always ignored those "Do not cut these trailers off of the feature under penalty of death" notes you find in the can, since our company policy (Regal) is to put the sound and policy trailers AFTER the previews.

Anyway, we usually receive a memo from Regal (as we did with Monsters, Inc.) stating that we have an agreement with the studio to do it that way.

As far as shorts go, we are supposed to put them AFTER the policy trailer. This makes sense to me.

I did put a short on *before* the policy once, when I was a paranoid new projectionist, because I was afraid people would think that the animated short (before a non-animated film) after our "Feature Presentation" trailer would confuse people into thinking they were in the wrong auditorium. My reasoning was that the short wasn't the "Feature Presentation", but, well, just a short.
But that was when we were an ACT III theater, and the district office told me to do whatever I wanted when I asked them about it (God... that'll never happen again!!!).

As far as what order to put them in, I agree with Ken for the most part... why reverse the order? I usually try to put the best trailer on right before the policy, so IMHO, that would be Star Wars. Seeing Neverland after that would be anticlimactic.

I seldom see more than one attached trailer anymore, but if there were, and if they were from the same studio, I *would* break them up. It has always been our theater's policy (I'm not sure if it is our company's) to have A) No more than two trailers from the same studio on one trailer set unless it is a special sneak preview or our trailer programming sheet dictates it, and B) Trailers from the same studio get broken up with a different studio's trailer in between.

I don't know if anybody practices that anymore... it's a minor presentation issue we learned from one of the more experienced projectionists when we first opened. Plus most of our trailer sets are dictated to us by corporate these days, except for the occasional art film we receive.

Okay... I'm rambling. Sorry.

Chris

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-08-2001, 02:11 PM:

Yes, we all know Regal likes their trailer presentation to look absolutely perfect

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-08-2001, 06:40 PM:

quote:
Besides, it's the perfect film to focus and frame on.

You mean, your picture doesn't hit the screen in focus and in frame every time???

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-09-2001, 12:31 PM:

Christopher,

Regal does not have a policy regarding how many trailers from the same studio can be on one trailer package. Just follow the email you get every week from Ken Foreman, and you'll be alright

As far as breaking up the trailers, I did not do that in the case of monsters. First of all, why have an unnecessary splice? And I think we are supposed to reatatch the trailers, so I doesn't relaly matter. But if I did break them up, I would still show them in the order they came in. And in this case, Star Wars definitely should be LAST. Anything else is ridiculous!

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-12-2001, 05:55 PM:

Wonder if any Loews Theatres in Manhattan removed the Star Wars Episode 2 trailer from Monsters Inc.? Loews does not play 20th Century Fox product in Manhattan.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 11-12-2001, 10:19 PM:

We run four trailers if at all possible, no more than that. Too much crap on the screen is a customer turn-off.

The order we run the trailers is up to the person who makes them up for splicing on the the head of the feature. In our theaters, the actual trailers being run is the management responsibility.

However, when I see a trailer that does not fit the normal, (such as a sleeze one that has no business being on a PG or G movie,) management allows me to pull it immediately and put a cross-plug or something else in its place.

If there is a trailer on the head of the movie we know we are not going to run, we will not run that preview. Anyone who thinks we are going to advertize a movie for a different chain two miles away from us is definately out of their skull.

In short, we will run no trailers of any kind that we know we are not going to get in our theater.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 11-14-2001, 02:23 AM:

On a related note, a friend who was in LA last weekend told me the AMC Burbank 14 showed "Monsters" without the "For the Birds" short.