Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New Company Policy on Movie Pre-Screening

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » New Company Policy on Movie Pre-Screening (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: New Company Policy on Movie Pre-Screening

Chad M Calpito
Master Film Handler

Posts: 435
From: San Diego, CA
Registered: Apr 2006

posted 02-26-2008 05:03 PM

Greetings to all. Well, I got told of a new company policy that Reading Cinemas doesn't want nor believes in screening all movies after they have been built. So, in essence, build the movies, but, do not pre-screen them. Now, I do have confidence in my movie builds and have had no problems with my splices, etc. I just don't feel to comfortable with this new Policy, but, gotta live with it though.

Has anyone else ever heard of or have to deal with a policy similar to this?

| IP: Logged

Mark Strube
Master Film Handler

Posts: 322
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 02-26-2008 05:18 PM

I believe that's Marcus's policy as well. It wouldn't surprise me if this is more the norm, actually.

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 02-26-2008 05:41 PM

Well, things have certainly come full circle!

Time was, if you had to run a movie on the screen to "inspect" it, you weren't doing your job properly to begin with. I remember when this practice started coming into vogue, it was considered very poor form. After all, when you "inspected" a print, you INSPECTED it. Every inch of film first ran through your fingers on the bench, and you stopped on every splice (or damaged section), checked it for frame and integrity, and repaired it if necessary. If there were questions regarding reel order, you could look to clues such as latent edge numbers, or the picture on adjacent reels to be sure.

You didn't have to run it on the screen to know it was right.

It's funny how the sentiment has been reversed.

| IP: Logged

David Zylstra
Master Film Handler

Posts: 432
From: Novi, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 02-26-2008 05:41 PM

I've heard many companies do this - in some cases it ends up being knee jerk reactions to issues with too many employees (or non-employees) showing up for the screenings and turning them into a party. When I was with one company we ended up restricting screenings to tech only and under GM approval, with a larger chain our region's policy was tech only under the regional manager's approval. With a lot of money riding on Friday's business I think it is good insurance to be 100% sure the new releases have no issues - quality film make-up cannot fix print issues.

Edit -> I just read Tim's post - yes, it is too bad not many companies would allow proper inspection of a print during make up . . . .

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-26-2008 05:46 PM

I'm with Tim on this.

On the other hand, pre-screenings do have the benefit that, if other employees are allowed to attend, they make it possible for the floor staff to become familiar with the film which, one hopes, will improve customer service. When customers ask "what is movie X about?" the answer should be something better than "I don't know."

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 02-26-2008 05:51 PM

quote: David Zylstra
quality film make-up cannot fix print issues

I can understand the QC aspect, and I don't disagree with the intention. However, showing it at 2 in the morning won't get a replacement reel any sooner than running it at 11 in the morning. Granted, the 11A show will be for an audience, so that's an argument in favor of tech screening. Although, I don't know that print issues happen enough to justify showing everything - burning the electricity and running up the time clock - for every engagement. [Smile]

quote: David Zylstra
it is too bad not many companies would allow proper inspection of a print during make up . . . .

David... it takes longer to show a movie than it does to hand-inspect it. [Wink]

quote: Scott Norwood
When customers ask "what is movie X about?" the answer should be something better than "I don't know."

Ahhh, this was also handled in the "old" days. [Wink]

Boxoffice used to print synopsis and promo guides for most titles, every week, in the back of the magazine. They were already pre-punched for filing in a loose-leaf binder. [beer]

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-26-2008 06:43 PM

Aren't screenings also for the purpose of making sure automation cues, sound format etc. are correct so that everything about the first public show is, uh, showmanlike? Not just that the reels are in order and splices are good and there's no film damage.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-26-2008 07:08 PM

Not to mention the discovery of bad lab work, minute scratches, etc.

I think in the "old days" hand inspection was more important because there was much more tendency for film to have breaks, splits, etc. than there is now -- mostly because prints were around much longer than they are now.

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 02-26-2008 08:04 PM

quote: David Stambaugh
Aren't screenings also for the purpose of making sure automation cues, sound format etc. are correct

Hey, I ran booths with automation and I still never had to screen movies ahead of time - and I ran 14 different films a week! It was by-gosh RIGHT. No question. We never had as much as an out-of-frame in 7 years! Frozen framers - never used them.

I hand-inspected everything and applied my cues. The only issue would be as the cue rollers aged and started missing cues. Soon as that happened, I'd just replace them between shows and it'd be right back to normal for another year and a half. Nothing un-showman-like about it.

It's not that difficult.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 02-26-2008 08:12 PM

David and Mike have the idea correct, occasionally goofups DO happen, like forgetting to put a cue onto the film, or a misframe could happen with seasoned projectionists from time to time on very dark reel changes. Also these days it is often found that the digital sound doesn't work on reel 3, or halfway through reel 2 the picture washes out to yellow and back and forth for about 3 minutes...many lab issues like this just are not catchable on the bench. Also by waiting for the first public show, is there a knowledgeable person in there screening it??? Or is the theater just assuming that the audience will come out and say something?

I think David has the majority reason why many companies no longer allow the practice of pre-screening a print. It's a liability issue because sometimes the staff isn't particularly mature on how the screenings are handled.

| IP: Logged

Chad M Calpito
Master Film Handler

Posts: 435
From: San Diego, CA
Registered: Apr 2006

posted 02-27-2008 03:43 AM

I think everyone has good points there. And, I do agree with you Brad.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-27-2008 04:15 AM

quote: David Stambaugh
Aren't screenings also for the purpose of making sure automation cues, sound format etc. are correct so that everything about the first public show is, uh, showmanlike? Not just that the reels are in order and splices are good and there's no film damage.

We don't pre-screen our prints...never have. The print is required to be built correctly...full stop. Cues, reels in correct order and the right way around, sound format, screen ratio...all correct.

Of course, this comes back to bite us in the bum if there's a dud reel, but unlike you guys in the States, it can take 7 to 10 days to get a replacement reel anyway, so a day earlier will make not a lot of difference.

Apart from that, it hits the screen for the first time at the first session.

| IP: Logged

Stu Jamieson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 524
From: Buccan, Qld, Australia
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 02-27-2008 05:46 AM

Naturally I concur with John^ being from the same part of the world and all. And I agree with Tim. I think it's important that trainees do their share of Thursday mornings (opening day) because if nothing else, dealing with their own screw-ups on first run prints motivates them to get their builds done right first time. If you do your job properly, you don't need pre-screeners and like Tim, I run every inch of film through my fingers when I make it up. However:
a) it's always important to keep an eye on the first time a print is run to make sure all is in order, and;
b) I personally wish we did have pre-screeners, that way I'd see more free movies! [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 02-27-2008 06:45 AM

Sloppy lab work being what it is, I don't think there's any reason in the world to not screen a print after you've built it, unless you're trying to save lamp hours or you don't want your staff turning the show into a party. Which, by the way... who cares? I say turn the screenings into parties. Staff only. No friends. Make it a perk. You're already not paying them much more than minimum wage. Make that something they look forward to. Give them another reason to like working for you. Why not? It's an easy way to get your staff to really like you.

How many people got burned by reel 9 of Fellowship of the Ring on the opening midnight show? I know the theater where I saw the movie did. In something like four sold out houses. No amount of inspection on the bench would have found that problem. And by the way, I'm not saying that we shouldn't rely on bench inspection because that is certainly part of it. Our print of the last Resident Evil movie had about thirty feet of BLACK film in the middle of reel 4. Nice. I guess someone opened the door while they were printing the film or something. We spotted it on the bench and called in for a replacement. The Simpsons had about fifty or sixty feet of yellow film around a lab splice. I see that a lot - especially on Fox films for some reason. We had a new reel before the first show.

Something else we spotted on the bench once was a strange problem. I'm not even sure how to describe it. But it was around a lab splice. It looked like the negative came off the sprockets in the printer or something, because the frames started drifting along the sprocket holes. I noticed it when I was about to cut out the frame with the lab splice, and I saw that about fifteen frames away the frame line was dead center on a sprocket hole. That continued for a good fifty or eighty feet before finally settling down. Remember your old TVs horizontal hold knob? It would have looked something like that being out of whack. (Or was it the vertical hold, I forget.) It was a miracle we even noticed that. I have only seen that particular problem one other time, and we didn't see it on the bench... and we didn't screen that movie either. What ended up happening was the picture "rolled" on the screen a couple of times, and then stopped in a position that put the picture out of frame. But since no one saw the rolling, the consensus was that we had a bad splice somewhere. We pulled our hair out trying to find that bad splice (which didn't exist) until one of us finally sat in the theater to watch the movie. When I saw the "picture rolling" phenomenon I almost fell on the floor.

So I say both bench inspections and pre-screenings have their place. One of the things that irks me is when we receive prints for big highly anticipated movies at the last minute for "security reasons" only to find a letter from the director inside reminding us of how important it is to screen the movie before showing it to the public. If it's so important, then get the damn print to the theater a day earlier! [Mad]

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 02-27-2008 08:26 AM

We would allow staff to watch a screening just so they wouldn't be sneaking in to watch when they are supposed to be working. I think the reason nowadays is simply to reduce the payroll.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.