Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Renting Old Prints

This is topic Renting Old Prints 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=002201

Posted by John B. Keathley (Member # 5205) on 03-29-2009, 11:35 AM:

I would like to see the theatre I work for start showing midnight movies. How much do they cost to rent? How would I find out what is available? Any advice would be awesome.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-29-2009, 12:43 PM:

Depends on what kind of movies you're talking about. Classics usually run a (pretty high) flat rate, where current product will be a percentage just like anything else. Your film booker can advise you.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 03-30-2009, 01:17 PM:

Could be as cheap as $150. and can go to several hundred. Many are flat rate though. Plus shipping of course.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-13-2009, 11:03 PM:

What is your set-up? You're going to limit your titles if you're running platter as studio prints are R2R only. Larger titles have platter prints available.

If you are running R2R you can book the films directly from repertory depending on the studio. What films were you looking to book?

Standard rate is $250 vs. 35%. Hardly expensive.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-14-2009, 05:17 PM:

quote: Jack Theakston

Standard rate is $250 vs. 35%. Hardly expensive.

Unless you're the only one who wants to see it.

That platter rule is so dumb I don't know where to start. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-14-2009, 09:59 PM:

quote:
That platter rule is so dumb I don't know where to start. [thumbsdown]

At the risk of being labeled a "platter-hater" I don't, for a number of obvious reasons, the most important being the R2R stipulation guaranteeing an operator is at the helm at all times.

And from an exhibitor's perspective, it doesn't make sense to platter a print you're only going to run once, anyway.

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 04-16-2009, 04:10 AM:

Although the platter rule is very unfortunate as it limits the number of houses able to show classics, I don't blame them. First of all, most platter operators just chop a frame or two off the heads and tails of each reel when breaking down as opposed to taking the extra 3 seconds to peel it off, as I do. You send a print to a dozen platter houses (assuming that they only remove one frame at each end), that's 1 second of film missing from each reel.
Also, platters can greatly damage a print (much more so than 2k changeover) if not properly maintained. That also leads to another problem; in many cases, platters were installed to eliminate competent operators in the first place.

When they make new prints of a classic, they are hoping that the print will have many years of quality service, as opposed to new releases that will run for about 5 months and then be melted down.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 04-20-2009, 07:01 AM:

Would Spool Towers fit instead of R2R?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-20-2009, 07:59 AM:

Yes, the "no platters" rule is a useless requirement, especially if they don't also include a "No 6000ft Long Play Reels." The concept being they think it's good for the print to never splice heads and tails on and off the print. That is questionable, but let's assume this is good for a print, then only saying no platters but not no long play reels is irrational. (I have seen a No platters/No long play reels requirement from the Eastman House and on some Universal prints, but not many others).

I think it would be much more useful for a distributor to forget about No Platters, but to require "Full Run Projectionist." They should require that a projectionst stay with the print the entire time it is running in the projector. I think the fact that by its very nature, a platter allows a run where the only time the projectionist absolutely needs to be at the machine is when it's threaded and started. The distrib's fear of platters is (aside from the incorrect perception that a platter necessarily is harder on a print than reel transport), comes from the fact that if there is a major failure on a platter run, the results can be catastrophic for an entire print, whilst if something goes wrong while a 2000ft reel is running, the most damage that can be done would be to that one reel, and usually only to a very small portion of that reel. That's not an insignificent difference between the two transport systems.

That said, if the distrib required a projectionist to stay with the platter from start to finish of a show, should something go wrong, a human being's intervention would limit damage to about the same as would happen in a reel-to-reel breakdown.

I have suggested changing this requirement many times to many distribs wherever I see them making this restriction, but unfortunately it seems the idea that the platter is in an of itself something evil, refuses to die and easy death.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 04-20-2009, 09:49 AM:

Also VERY important is the care of the projectionist. Platter operation is no problem when a print is built up, and more important, broken down properly.
I have seen prints simply broken down by filling up a reel, cutting it, then going on to the next reel. There was no concern with original makeup of the print, leaders replaced properly, etc.
Ask any distribution inspection department, and they can give you numerous horror stories that give platter operators a very bad name.

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 04-20-2009, 10:47 AM:

I think most of the distributors saying "no platters" would mean "no 6k reels" too, if they knew about it. We have certainly have gotten surprised responses when telling distributors that we had a print with the heads and tails (badly) cut. At least one (I forget which) has gotten wise to that and has started asking exhibitors what size reels they run.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-20-2009, 11:44 AM:

Most "no platter" prints have had their leaders cut. There are also plenty of locations that only have platter but lie to the studios and platter the prints anyway. In addition there are lots of changeover houses that build to 6K reels.

The entire policy is stupid. If the studios cared, they would hire one specific person who TRULY knew what they were doing and would simply keep sending out prints, inspecting every single return, until a scratch appeared. At that point the last theater gets billed in full. Done.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 04-20-2009, 02:01 PM:

There is though more chance scratching a print on a platter than a reel to reel situation. A spool tower should do the business cheaper and easier.
Demetris

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-20-2009, 02:28 PM:

quote: Demetris Thoupis
There is though more chance scratching a print on a platter than a reel to reel situation. A spool tower should do the business cheaper and easier.
Demetris

If the person is incompetent and scratches a print while plattered, would they somehow be competent if the place was reel-to-reel instead?

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-20-2009, 02:28 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
The entire policy is stupid. If the studios cared, they would hire one specific person who TRULY knew what they were doing and would simply keep sending out prints, inspecting every single return, until a scratch appeared. At that point the last theater gets billed in full. Done.

The problem is, particularly with popular titles, some prints go straight to their next playdate. If you book FRANKENSTEIN during Halloween, for example, it usually doesn't come from the studio, but from a depot or directly from the last place it was booked, so there's no time for the studio to check it.

And then on top of that, once someone damages the print, good luck collecting from the folks that did the damage. If they didn't care enough that it got damaged, they probably won't care enough to pay $1,000 for a new reel.

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 04-20-2009, 06:46 PM:

I agree with Brad about on his statement that those prints should be inspected upon each return.
I'm sure that when they say no platters, they mean 6k as well.

I've run a lot of new prints of classic Fox pictures from Criterion as well as several older, archival prints of Universal pictures this past year and they have all been uncut with notes in the can stating that they can be used on 2k changeover only.
George Eastman House will scream bloody murder if anyone cuts their prints..they do inspect.

I prefer an uncut print...makes build up a lot easier.

As for platters being harder on prints: I would not exactly say that they give a print more wear just by their nature however there are many more parts and rollers that must be completely cleaned after every showing (in addition, of course, to the projector)in order to prevent scratches. Also god help you if a roller gets bumped out of alignment or a simple threading error occurs. With changeover (2k or 6k), all that needs to be cleaned are the projectors.
My whole point is, most of the platter clowns don't learn from their mistakes and the ones that do are usually gone within a couple months anyway.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-20-2009, 07:30 PM:

It ALL depends on the operator.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-20-2009, 08:36 PM:

UCLA also has a "no platters" policy. They actually send out a questionaire to theatres that want to book their prints and want to know what type of equipment (specifically) is being used. The Eastman House questionaire is even more thorough.

I agree that the "no platters" policy is silly and misguided. Brad's approach of billing for damage is better. I'd also like to see a requirement for a full-time operator to be near the equipment throughout the show and also some sort of requirement that the theatre has had a service call by a competent technician within the last 3/6/12 months (pick your interval) and that any issues identified have been corrected. Another useful question would be "how often does your theatre/operator handle archival prints?"--this would weed out the multiplexes that might occasionally want to show these films, but do not have the facilities or knowledge to do so without causing damage.

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 04-21-2009, 02:27 AM:

I'd personally like to see ALL prints inspected after every use and theaters billed for damage...I don't care what kind of picture/print it is or what theater is running it. I do, however, realize that this is at very least impractical if not down right silly idea in this particular day and age.

I would say that UCLA is perhaps the most strict with their prints. I remember running "Killer of Sheep" from them about 2 years ago and I seem to remember there being a note saying is WAS okay to platter that particular print. Why this was I do not know. I have not run a ton of their prints (maybe half a dozen or so) but all the rest I have run have included stern instructions in each can stating that the print could be run on 2k changeover only along with several other regulations which I cannot remember off the top of my head.

It seems this thread is going slightly off topic from the OP's question. Perhaps it is time to create a thread RE prints that may not be plattered?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-22-2009, 08:48 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
It ALL depends on the operator.

And of course the first line of defence there is that there IS an operator.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 04-22-2009, 09:49 AM:

I've never seen anything that said 'No platters'; what It normally says is 'No cutting of leaders', or 'No running on long-run systems'

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-24-2009, 05:19 AM:

Again, this has nothing to do with "what does more damage." A R2R policy guarantees that an operator is by the machines at all times, which isn't guaranteed with a platter or 6K-foot set up.

Furthermore, I have to reiterate, do you think the theater that was careless enough to damage a print in the first place would care enough to pay the tab to re-strike something?

Studios/archives being anal retentive about how prints are run and by whom is running them might be slightly irritating to some, but it guarantees that the studio isn't just making a print that's guaranteed to get beat up from the get-go.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-24-2009, 09:15 AM:

quote: Jack Theakston
A R2R policy guarantees that an operator is by the machines at all times, which isn't guaranteed with a platter or 6K-foot set up.

Ummm, bullshit. I've seen plenty of changeover theaters where the projectionist walked away once the reel was going to do other things in the building, or even to go down the street to buy some food. And this is in totally manual theaters without even so much as a failsafe.

quote: Jack Theakston

Furthermore, I have to reiterate, do you think the theater that was careless enough to damage a print in the first place would care enough to pay the tab to re-strike something?

Bullshit again. Legal contracts have nothing to do with carelessness.

quote: Jack Theakston
but it guarantees that the studio isn't just making a print that's guaranteed to get beat up from the get-go.

Wait, what is that? Oh yeah, more bullshit. I've seen my fair share of prints that were ran one time on a changeover setup with horrible scratches and sprocket damage.

Running reel to reel guarantees NOTHING.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-24-2009, 10:15 AM:

Guarante? No but platters all but encourage one to not pay attention.

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 04-24-2009, 10:51 AM:

Most of the trouble we see with otherwise good prints is at the head and tail splices. Either far too many frames are missing from the end (lost ID frames) so that the CO cue is only a few frames away from the tail, or there are multiple cuts and multiple layers of splicing tape from lazy or sloppy projectionists. 2k changeover doesn't guarantee anything but it at least eliminates the need for any cutting and splicing.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 04-24-2009, 12:03 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
I've seen my fair share of prints that were ran one time on a changeover setup with horrible scratches and sprocket damage.

I had a print of Jurassic Park that had a green emulsion scratch on the extreme right of the frame in the exact same place on reels 1,3,5 and 7. I wonder how that happened?

Once digital projection gets enough penetration that the operators have more flexibility they will be able to distribute classics much easier. Everyone could show "Frankenstein" on Halloween and it will look great. I still think WB is missing the boat if they don't release "House of Wax" in Digital 3D for a week or two this Halloween season. It's been a long time since it had a release.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 04-24-2009, 12:11 PM:

Played a UCLA owned print this past weekend, it had been cut and platterized many times before, with crosswise scratches from a deck, splices, many very poorly made, multiple cues, 5 or 6 cut and taped single frames at every reel end. It was part of a festival and had originally been requested to play at a MPX. We got it because they couldn't play it in 1.37.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-24-2009, 12:44 PM:

Oddly enough...UCLA normally has a zero-tolerence of any splicling of their prints...including not wanting the theatre to rework any splices.

Steve

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 04-24-2009, 03:07 PM:

Bill - What was the title?

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 04-24-2009, 09:55 PM:

Title was The Exiles. According to the shipping labels it had been to 3 theatres before it went to the festival people we played it for. Some of the splices were taped both sides but not perf punched. One was out of frame.

[ 04-25-2009, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Bill Enos ]

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-26-2009, 03:29 AM:

With all due respect, Brad, the difference in quality between so-called "platter ready" prints of catalog titles and studio archival prints speaks for itself.

[ 04-26-2009, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: Jack Theakston ]

Posted by Tony Ratcliff (Member # 1196) on 04-29-2009, 10:08 PM:

I think part of the expansion of the "platter rule" may have to do with the increased availability of older films on DVD.

I show classics several times a year. And now this year one of our regular films we show almost every year is "no longer available" for platter theatres, since there is only one 35mm print available for play. There has only been that one print for many years, and I have played that print many times without incident.

But maybe with the growing popularity of classic films, perhaps some less-than-caring theaters out there are damaging prints.

Posted by Paul Burt (Member # 3743) on 05-20-2009, 11:30 AM:

I ran a vault print of a old Hong Kong action flick at a festival a couple of years ago. It came in on 10 thousand foot reels and had to be built up for a platter. There were no less that eight carefully preserved spliced frames at the head and tail of every single reel, from multiple platter screenings. Many of them were spliced on one side only, but obviously the operators didn't know the secret of peeling off the tape.
I contacted the distributor to suggest that they could save feet of film if they sent out the prints on 2K reels instead, but they weren't interested.
I can see the point of prohibiting platter screenings. A lot of platter operators don't give a damn.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-20-2009, 11:47 AM:

quote: Jack Theakston
With all due respect, Brad, the difference in quality between so-called "platter ready" prints of catalog titles and studio archival prints speaks for itself.

Of course it does. When a print from the platter depot gets played at 20 different theaters for every one time a print from the changeover depot gets played, that certainly does give the ILLUSION that changeovers are somehow better.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 05-20-2009, 01:19 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Of course it does. When a print from the platter depot gets played at 20 different theaters for every one time a print from the changeover depot gets played, that certainly does give the ILLUSION that changeovers are somehow better.

But Brad, by your own word, "there isn't a difference." After 20 runs, those print should be "just as good," no?

Seriously, though, I don't know how you could make a statement like that without actually knowing the numbers. I could say just the opposite, but unless you know the number of bookings per print, that's just ridiculous.

Most repertory cinemas (as few as there are left) are going to only be running prints once, and therefore don't need to platter films. Out of the few dozen places I can think of that are serious about running older titles, maybe two or three have platters.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 05-20-2009, 01:27 PM:

Key words, should be. Meaning platter transport should be just as gentile, buut often those locations that use platters also use that as an excuse to hire min wage booth monkeys, and thus improper care of the film, improper care of the equipment handling the film, etc.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 05-20-2009, 01:31 PM:

The discrepancy is caused by the caliber of the film handlers, not the method.

By and large, projectionists who run changeover houses tend to be more experienced than the average megaplex film jockey. A platter show does not add any additional wear to the print unless handled by incompetent inexperienced operators or on poorly maintained equipment.

As evidence, I ran Napoleon Dynamite for 7 months off a platter. At the end of the run, it did not have a scratch or a spec on it. If a print is properly cared for during build, show, and breakdown, the print will not sustain any damage. Unfortunately, theaters like this are few and far between. I'd estimate that more than half undoubtedly damage the print on build or tear, therefore in practice almost every archival platter print is damaged and almost every archival changeover print is not.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-20-2009, 01:54 PM:

Just to add to the mix, at least with Universal, you can't build them onto hour reels either. You are explicitly told not to cut the heads and tails off.

I admit a perfect platter showing is as good as a perfect reel showing, but one bad threading on a platter can trash a whole print, whereas one bad threading will only take out a single reel on non-platter prints.

The distribs are just protecting themselves from the lowest common denominator.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-20-2009, 02:46 PM:

quote: Jack Theakston
But Brad, by your own word, "there isn't a difference." After 20 runs, those print should be "just as good," no?

Except the phrase "by your own word" doesn't mean "insert a phrase he factually did not say." He said quite clearly that it all depends on the operator.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 05-20-2009, 03:03 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
The distribs are just protecting themselves from the lowest common denominator.

Exactly. What it boils down to is that studios demand that you run R2R so that you're not stuck with zit-faced popcorn boy running the film. If you know how to run R2R, chances are you know what you're doing since it is so uncommon now. There are shitty R2R operators, of course, but there are a larger number of shitty platter operators simply because the number of platters out there IS higher.

Clearly studios have come to this decision based on past experiences and not out of thin air. You used to be able to platter films, now you can't. Why do you think that is?

The only shitty R2R prints I've ever seen have been... SURPRISE... built up, with the heads and tails cut multiple times. I have never, repeat, NEVER, seen an uncut print with significant damage done to it, other than perhaps light lines.

That being said, I wouldn't have ANY problem with someone plattering one of my prints if I knew that they knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, studios that book don't have time to fly around the country and make sure you're doing it right. So by limiting the type of projection, they can ensure that their product will a) last longer and b) anyone who really cares enough will install a second projector to begin with.