|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Anybody out there showed "My Fair Lady" recently?
|
Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 05-19-2008 10:55 AM
I'm wondering about the print quality you encountered for your show. Was it OK?
We just showed a print numbered "21", but we are led to believe that this is the only circulating 35mm print available. It is absolutely terrible, all reels scratched, to varying degrees of severity, and several reels "burned", from excessive lamp heat somewhere, which results in a "mottled" appearance to the image.
All told, it's an absolute disgrace that this print is circulating now, it should have been dumped long ago. The print stock is date coded from 1994, so the print itself is some 14 years old. The damage is, in my opinion, accrued damage, from all these years of use, not necessarily just at single venue.
I'm wondering if anyone else has shown this particular print, and if so, did you complain to Hollywood Classics (the distributor) about it? I know it's had a couple of showdates this year, because of marks on the can labels.
We actually plan to formally complain about it, but before I do, I'd like to know if anyone else has complained in the past. If so, it's even more outrageous for Hollywood Classics to continue to milk this crappy print for more income from unsuspecting theatres. *AND* we had to pay $350 (vs. 10%)*IN ADVANCE* to book it! And now, they are asking for an additional $7 from us, for the boxoffice percentage. I've recommended to my offices that we refuse to pay it...
So, have you run this one recently?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Moore
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 188
From: Dover, DE / USA
Registered: Jun 2006
|
posted 05-19-2008 11:18 AM
We projected it about 5 years ago and come to think of it we used print 20 I think, same shape, very bad quality looked like ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif) . We got it for about the same price you got yours for come to think of it! I can't remember from who we got the print from. We had the same with Camelot, very poor quality, and hard to deal with doing reel changes.
We projected Wizard of Oz about two years ago and it was just crap too, looked like someone was used some sand paper to clean the tails and heads right at the cue marks.
We have stopped doing classics; unless we can get them directly form the source. Sometimes that is hard. You usually can't cut the film, and you must do reel changes! About three years ago we did a Hitchcock fest most of the prints were direct from universal, and were pristine. Universal did not want the prints cut for no reason what so ever! The leaders were about 50 feet long! Same for Creature from the Black lagoon 3D!
Since we have only one projector now, we have really limited our classics because of our policy on print quality. We try to do a classic holiday film at east once a year if we can get a descent print that we can put on the platter.
What I would do is contact Hollywood Classics, and give them a detailed list of what is going on, and tell them you lost money. Maybe they will understand (wishful thinking I fear), good luck.
Mike
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 05-19-2008 01:59 PM
Actually, Jack, at the rate things are going, some of these prints are now going to have to serve for far more than 10 years. As the cost of replacement goes up (as it inevitably will), distributors will (I predict) become more and more reluctant to buy new ones. Meanwhile, the quality of the prints will continue to deteriorate.
Eventually, it reaches a point where a video show, from a DVD (or, more likely now, from an even better source, like a Blu-Ray DVD) is preferable to a scratched, splicy, and/or seriously faded print. Sorry to say that, I know it's a bit heretical to film purists. (And I counted myself among those purist, at least until recently. But I've had an astoundingly bad year so far, with numerous prints that shouldn't be in circulation, including even "Gone With the Wind". What's a body to do?)
IMHO, audiences come "to see the show", not so much [in most cases] "because it is a film print". Audiences are, what you could call, "format agnostic" -- most don't care how we do it, as long as we do it WELL for them.
Contemporaneously, what they see on their home TVs continues to get bigger, brighter, and sharper. HD, anyone? So the audience tolerance threshold for ratty looking prints gets lower every year.
Why should they come out -- you know: driving, parking, eating out, and paying admission -- to see a show that looks and/or sounds terrible? What's the point of going to the trouble of paying to see a show marred by various technical glitches?
Your typical "average" viewer leaves the theatre after such a show with a vague feeling of dissatisfaction. S/he is not a professional in the field, so s/he can't put their finger on the specific problem, but we, the presenters, have let them down in their expectations of a technically decent presentation.
In the case of "My Fair Lady", it was given a major "facelift" (well, they'd want to use the word "restoration") by the famed team of Robert A. Harris and Jim Katz, back in 1994. That was the occasion of the movie's 30th anniversary. Both 70mm and 35mm prints were produced. I don't know what happened to the 70mm print that Kit Parker had, but I'll hazard a guess that it was pulled from circulation when it became somehow unshowable.
Meanwhile, the 35mm prints -- much easier to circulate -- ended up with Hollywood Classics Co. HC is a very small distributor, one might almost call it a "mom and pop" operation, who picked up these rights, along with a bunch of other, more obscure, titles they circulate.
The print we showed, #21, we were led to believe was the only one available.
We (I) do know that this print played at least once earlier this year, at the Museum of Modern Art, in NYC. I'm actively now trying to contact them, to ask about how their show went, and whether they filed a complaint with HC. They would seem to be a venue which would know a good print from a bad one.
However, the only contact name I have is a guy in their Film Department, who (according to his voice mail) is on holiday until sometime in June. So, unless someone here can help me with a short cut to their projection personnel, I have to wait until he gets back to me.
As for the continued circulation of this print, one has to consider ... what is the motivation for someone like Hollywood Classics to maintain their prints, leave alone get new ones?
Indeed, there's virtually NO motivation, because there seems to be a constant flow of naive venues that book the movie (and pay that $350 in advance). So, why should they also have to *CARE*? It must be fine!
They've milked that (cash) cow for 14 years already, and people seem to continue paying for it ... "Why should we do anything more? As long as the sprockets haven't fallen off the edges, it must be OK!" Even with just 5 bookings per year (which is miniscule for such a famous movie), that's $1750 per year on zero additional investment, except for the storage fees.
It's really a classic, beautiful film, and it's almost a crime that they can continue to get away with this situation. The ICC shipping cases also bear logos from CBS, which is, ultimately, the rights holder. But they probably cannot tell Hollywood Classics how to run their business. If I was CBS, I'd be mortified.
Dick May: The status of this print, as it appears now, was not the result of a single, sloppy handler, it's the result of years of continuing, cumulative neglect. I believe you had some doings with this title during your years at WB, so maybe your involvement now will help. But I have photos of the film cases, on which someone had put a label, "OK", along with the date 3/26/08. If this print is OK, I'm the man in the moon and I'll sell you some green cheese.
And finally, I'll end this rant by adding one more thing: this just illustrates to all of us how important it is to handle these older prints carefully! There's a good chance, as the digital revolution progresses, that there will never be another, so it's incumbent on us, as the hands-on people, to treat them lovingly!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Moore
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 188
From: Dover, DE / USA
Registered: Jun 2006
|
posted 05-19-2008 02:01 PM
quote: jack Theakston
“You say this like it's a BAD thing. You're talking about cutting into a print that will have to last the studio the next 10+ years…” “…And those 50 foot leaders are there ideally…”
If you read my post again, you will notice I said "when we had two projectors”
To explain: running reel changed was common place at our theatre until projector 2 went down, and I mean way down, (like no more intermittent down!). We received a refurbished intermittent and the projector was never the same from that point on. We discussed it and owed it to the patrons from that point on to make sure we were doing the best we could with what we had! Therefore the platter had to be utilized for all films from that point on. Soon the intermittent went in projector 1 as well. We waited on a loaner intermittent from Mark Gulbrandsen and it never arrived. Finally we were not going to sink money into two super simplex projectors that had multiple problems, we elected to get a grant, and get a Century form Hadden theatre supply, upgrade our wattage capacity from 1000 watts to 2000, get a new sound processor, and invest in rehashing the platter.
Various reasons went into the discsions made, believe me for the budget we have and the money we lose on film I would say we did the best thing. (We usually lose on an annual basis about$6000.00 - $8000.00 on film)
Now that I have brought you up speed:
We have no more capabilities to run reel changes. This is a shame because many films we get in will only be projected two to three times; I would much prefer to do cues. I have no problems running cues and was running them for years before the projector failures. However I am not the only one who runs this equipment; however I was the only one who knew how to run changeovers at this locatoin. Another thing to point out is because of our decision to change to a one projector building we are unable to show many of the classic films because we would have to cut the film.
We have a very transient group of people coming and going in our staff that it is not worth the effort to teach changeovers to them. Therefore we elected to only teach the platter system. I have been at the theater since the end of 2000, I’m not on the move like others in our building, I will be around the Schwartz Center as long as Ii can walk and talk and still breath!
Additionally, I figures out long ago why most of these universal films had 50 foot leaders. I add about 50 to 60 feet of leader to the beginning of every film and the first “Austin Powers” trailer to the end of every movie I platter, however I need to find a new trailer to add to the end of our prints because it has seen better days.
Michael Moore
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michael Moore
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 188
From: Dover, DE / USA
Registered: Jun 2006
|
posted 05-19-2008 08:16 PM
quote: Jack Theakston
I certainly understand your situation within your economics. If you're losing money on film shows, then clearly you don't have the budget to install new, better equipment (although depending where you are, I'm sure you could get a pretty good deal on used equipment if you look hard enough, honestly).
We bought the best projector (IMO) we could afford, we also bought a new processor, and new rectifier, and bulb and basically rebuilt the platters.
I prefer to stay away from the people in my area with used equipment, been there done that (metrotech)...
quote: Jack Theakston
platters are simply no good for prints that have to last. Being constantly broken down and built up from screen to screen is just begging for the print to get scuffed and chewed up. I've seen some pretty shoddy projection work at certain repertory cinemas in my area. I shudder to think what could happen to some one-of-a-kind prints if platters were introduced.
are you implying here? we do not do shoddy work at our theatre. bluntly, we make the carmike up the road look like romper room on the screen.
Also We are very gentle on the film going on the platters, and I don't fully agree with your statement. I agree that platters when not used correctly can damage film, however I can also say the tension not being adjusted on take up and pay out reel arms can
we leave it up to theatre with change overs to project one-of-a-kind prints, by the way they are the movies that cost us the most and losing us the most money
Micheal Moore
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 05-19-2008 09:30 PM
Yes, Dan. "That is the way to watch this film". We tried every route known to man to get access to the existing 70mm print, but were denied. (And yes, I'm at that selfsame Egyptian, in Hollywood. I was there when we ran it before. Yes, it was great, in spite of the fact that we had to post an additional, like, "million dollar" insurance policy to do it then!). We couldn't get it this time, for a number of reasons, foremost among them that HC doesn't have one to circulate.
Again, I have to wonder, whatever happened to the 70mm print that Kit Parker had?
Anyway, all the reels we got, from this "#21" print, are of the same vintage and source.
Still waiting for someone from MOMA to check in here...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Harris
Film Handler
Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-19-2008 11:19 PM
Just so that everything is clear. Here are the facts as I understand and / or know them.
The revival ethic is virtually dead. Unfortunate but true.
There are some terrific projection people out there, and I'm pleased to call quite a few my friends, but there are also quite a few folks who don't know what to do with a print.
We really became aware of the problem in 1998 when "Vertigo" was released in 70mm, and of the dozen or so prints produced, half of them were destroyed within days of delivery by people who had no idea how to handle them.
Two prints were junked by the same Westwood house in less than a week, at $13,000 per print.
I had a chat with someone from HC a few years ago, the last time problems with MFL arose, and suggested that they either make a new print or sub-license to us, as we were willing to make the investment. Nothing ever came of it.
My personal print of MFL has gone to the Academy, was permitted out once, at which time it picked up slight damage and was run on a platter --- and then a second time, which I regret doing, as others contacted me after that insisting that as I had done it for one entity I had somehow created an open season on the print. And they NEEDED it!
Paul Rayton is one of a very small group of people that I would feel fully comfortable having run a print. I trust him implicitly.
However...
You then have a distributor taking in the receipts. And they have neither the need nor the desire to ever create a print. All of their expenses are covered by someone else. And the next time someone needs a 70mm print...
And here's the other problem. Making a print is not quite just making a print.
As the 65mm dupe negative hasn't been printed recently, and would have to go to a different lab, one would be dealing with re-answer printing. The cost?
Probably in the neighborhood of $40 - 50,000 for the first print, plus the cost of DTS optical negs.
What this means is that someone would have to control the distribution rights and have a plan to do something with them, that did not entail one night shows at different theaters.
Can special shows still be run with new prints and the right people running them?
Absolutely.
But not with small distributors in the middle that are unwilling to make the investment or control the prints.
Prints need to be created, inspected, checked and double checked going from one theater to another. One needs correct light and color on the screen, and projectors that function. And all of this needs to be known in advance.
On that scale, with the creation of a handful of prints that are properly tracked, and theaters that will take on financial responsibility of damage, it can work.
BTW, MFL was not a re-printing. It was a restoration that took ten months to complete. The OCN of MFL was not in printable shape. It had been run over 120 times, had no main title sequence, was filled with dupes, and was missing sections.
With apologies for being the naysayer.
RAH
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic