>>CRITIC ASKS, WHO'S RUNNING THIS SHOW?

Entertainment Tonight film critic Leonard Maltin has taken a critical look at what goes on behind his head at movie theaters, indicating that he frequently has to complain to theater managers about out-of-focus projectors and improperly set sound levels. Writing in the current (August) issue of Playboy, Maltin suggests that theaters often only employ professional projectionists in the evenings. "Management figures that if anyone complains during a sparsely attended matinee, it's cheaper to pay them for their inconvenience with free passes than to hire union men to work all day," he writes. Moreover, he continues, even at night, a single projectionist may be responsible for numerous machines. "Most of the time, there is no human being at the projector." As for Kodak's vaunted Screen Check quality-control program, Maltin concludes, "The last time I saw the promotional trailer for this service at my neighborhood theater, it was projected out of focus. Honest." <<

I'd be able to take this guy a lot more seriously if he didn't give both 'Batman and Robin' and 'The Shawshank Redemption' 2.5 stars (see below).

------------------
"If you think THIS is fantastic...wait until you see the full effect with the HIMP!"
- Chief Inspector Clouseau.

Sorry, but ScreenCheck cannot be in every theatre for every show to focus the projector. Theatres participating in the Kodak ScreenCheck experience are encouraged to send their projectionists for training, but not all opt to do so:
Kodak ScreenCheck Experience Training

"Film Done Right" really does depend upon having skilled and caring people in the projection room.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

It's good to see high profile film critics mentioning things like this, because the industry needs to know that some practices - in the supposed interest of saving money - are not fair on the filmmakers or the paying public (or the projectionists, in terms of being insufficiently renumerated).

Roger Ebert is another champion in this regard. I remember reading his review of the movie 'Virus' in which he even mentioned insufficient screen illumination as part of the review. Also, he is much more impressed with the possibility of Maxvision film projection than digital projection, and isn't shy about stating his preference.

This is in the August 2001 issue of "Playboy", page 29.

"I go to movie theaters in Los Angeles on a regular basis. It's easy to
spot me: I'm the one running up the aisle to the lobby of the
multiplex, desperately looking for someone--anyone--to tell that the
film I'm trying to watch is out of focus.

"There's a ritual to be observed. I've learned that no matter how
blurry the preview trailers are, those indignities are to be ignored;
the sound and focus have been set for the feature film, and it doesn't
pay to complain until the main titles come up. Then, and only then, can
I see if I'm in for a decent presentation.

"As often as not, I'm the only one complaining. No wonder theater
owners seem to have no concern about giving the public its money's
worth.

"In olden days, it required only a couple of loudmouths to shout,
"Focus!" or "Frame the picture!" to remedy those ills. Nowadays, those
pleas fall on ears that aren't so much deaf as nonexistant. Most of the
time, there is no human being at the projector.

"The dodo bird has nothing on the professional movie projectionist. One
of the last full-time union-carded specialists in Hollywood explained to
me that he only works at his company's flagship theater on the night
shift. That way, he can repair the damage done during the day by
inexperienced theater staff who simply switch the machines on and off.
Management figures that if anyone complains during a sparsely attended
matinee, it's cheaper to pay them for their inconvenience with free
passes than to hire union men to work all day.

"What's more, the labor involved in screening a movie has been
dramatically reduced by the invention of the platter projector, which
holds an entire film in one loop, eliminating the need for reel
changeovers--formerly a projectionist's major task. The problem arises
from having to set a fixed focus and sound level, which forces an
audience to live with wild variations during the preshow. (The other
problem is that films are subjected to more wear and tear than ever
before; perhaps that's why even relatively new prints have distracting
lines, scratches, and splices.)

"Acknowledging the need for quality control, Kodak launched a program
called Screen Check several years ago, sending field representatives to
theaters to make sure the equipment was properly maintained, enough
light was being used, etc. The last time I saw the promotional trailer
for this service at my neighborhood theater, it was projected out of
focus. Honest."
--L.M.

SNIP: "What's more, the labor involved in screening a movie has been dramatically reduced by the invention of the platter projector ... films are subjected to more wear and tear than ever before; perhaps that's why even relatively new prints have distracting lines, scratches, and splices.)"

What an idiot. It's the damned kids that are not trained and improperly running the "platter projectors" that are damaging the film, not the equipment.

As to focus drift...not ONE lens manufacturer would back up your statements Joe...when the lens heats up, the focus will drift...it is a physical reality and what you see from the booth isn't the same as what is seen closer to the screen. Furthermore as screens are going from large appearing to extrememly large appearing, what it takes to give the equivalent presentation from a perception stand point, is getting tougher all the time. The specs we are working on in the SMPTE P-3 committee are dealing with just that...exrememly large appearing screens (A new category).

Steve

Steve, you are still missing my point. If YOU were to work a platter booth, there would be no problem. If I was to work a changeover booth, there would be no problem. If you throw the typical untrained usher/concessionist/kid projectionist in EITHER kind of booth, the presentation will suck.

As for the focus drift, like Joe, I still do not have the problem. Perhaps it is because both of us use modern lenses (which admit it Steve, helps tremendously), both of us use FilmGuard (which does allow the film to take on a bit more heat), and both of us run emulsion out on platters (with large center rings and not those tiny hubs on reels). Aaaaaaaaaah, modern technology!

At The Editing Room I found the following piece which says it all really...

>>A Message From Leonard Maltin

I am probably one of the most famous film critics in the world. Right after Siskel and Ebert, there's me, Leonard Maltin. But I've always had a bit of a problem. I thought, when I reviewed my first film, that my problem was pretty evident, but since that time, since I have become so famous, I am starting to doubt if everyone is aware of it. Since many of you may not be, I will share it with you now.
I am completely fucking deranged.

Yeah. It's true. I am not only crazy, but I probably have the worst taste in films that any film critic could have. I couldn't accurately rate a film to save my worthless, pathetic, tragically prolonged life. I mean, if you held a gun to my head and said "What did you think of Citizen Kane?" I would probably mutter something like "Well, the camera angles were kind of weird, and plus, I just HATE black and white. I give it one and a half stars out of eight-thousand." I would probably be killed by you at this point. Well, you might have to wait a while to overcome the complete horrific shock of my utter stupidity first.

You see, I gave Batman & Robin 2.5 stars out of 4. That's above average! Batman & Robin?! I mean, come on! Isn't it clear that I am, without a doubt, the stupidest bunch of atoms to ever be assembled into a human being? That movie CLEARLY deserved none.. MAYBE one for cinematography and commercial success... but 2.5? Not only that, but Shawshank Redemption, an EXCELLENT film, got exactly the same rating by me. I mean.. am I really to be taken seriously when I consider Batman & Robin and Shawshank Redemption equals in ANY way? How, exactly, the fuck can my half-wit opinion about anything be taken for more than what it is: a giant steaming piece of shit?

Interview with the Vampire only given 1.5 stars? That's the same fucking rating I gave Ernest Scared Stupid and THE FUCKING POSTMAN! National Lampoon's Vegas Vacation blessed with 2.5? I gave the same thing to The Usual Suspects and The Truman Show! What the fuck is wrong with me? Hell, I gave Waterworld 3 MOTHERFUCKING STARS OUT OF 4! Am I saying that fucking WATERWORLD was better than USUAL SUSPECTS and SHAWSHANK? AM I SOME KIND OF SICK FUCKING JOKE!? DAMN, WHAT IS MY FUCKING PROBLEM!?

Well, anyway, I hope you are all now aware that I am completely nuts and should be locked up forever until I die or someone kills me. Thank you for your time, and, while I'm here, let me just tell you all: Go see Waterboy and Night at the Roxbury right now! They were funny as hell, yo!
<<

You can find some pretty funny things at The Editing Room here.

That my be true, but there isn't a platters to cause scratches with changeovers. Someone was there checking the screen every 20 - 60 minutes also.

"What kind of theater has their trailers out of focus from the main
feature?"

Plenty! or the trailers are fine and the feature is out of focus.
Poorly setup turrets cause a lot of the problems.

Junk equipment, bad installations, bad management and cheap management are the biggest problem.

As I read L.M.'s article, I was agreeing with it point by point.
I'm sure we will find out how the rest of the forum feels soon.

You miss the point...exhibitors don't generally throw untrained kids into a changeover booth...the perception is that it REQUIRES skill above a platter booth where the perception is any idiot can thread and push a button. That is why platters beget shoddy shows. The mind set is that with a platter and automation, the booth is covered with anyone up there to thread and start.

It is the same stupid argument I had with an exhibitor over wrap-detectors....I was trying to convince him that he needed to control the humidity in the booth better to help avoid static problems...his response is ..."we bought wrap detectors" to stop the problem....Wrap detectors don't stop wraps, just stop the equipment after the wrap occurs. To the exhibitor's mind, the problem was FIXED with the detector...that is what the exhibitor wants, a one time cheap expensense to fix all their problems. Anything that requires up-keep is bad to them.

As to lenses...I use only the best, always have (ISCO and Schneider). As to foucs drift...it will happen as it must when the lens heats up and the elements expand. Worse in the olden days, sure, still there now. Heck modern lenses are DESIGNED to allow for heat expansion, they are no longer cemented elements.

Steve

Steve

I will probably be hated for what I am about to say, but I tell it like it is and I am not ashamed to do so. I worked one year at the Telluride Film Festival, which is 100% changeovers (you couldn't fit a platter into some of the booths since they were smaller than a hall closet in some cases). The presentation quality was very good. Not perfect, but very good considering the ancient equipment that is down there in most theaters. Sure, some lamps emitted a yellow light and stuff like that as well as a few other little things. But the presentation quality back at my 16 plex was better, on each and every screen. And I don't say that simply because I had modern equipment at that complex (but it sure helps). And sound is not factored into this as that simply wouldn't be fair. I noticed at Telluride that after a print had been run a few times, there were cinch marks and dirt at the end of each reel. The film wasn't handled in a way that could be described as "gentle". They had these violent reel rewinders that had two speeds: ON and OFF. I certainly didn't say anything to the guys in charge because I had the feeling that if I did, I would be thought of as a "troublemaker" or something like that. Most people don't like to be told that something they think is 100% perfect isn't. Even when a print was ran the first time (in this case, at the Max) there were operator errors. I noticed that every other reel was slightly out of frame. This bothered me to no end, but I was in the audience and not in the booth. You could see the black bar ever so slightly at the top of the screen (it was a 1.85 film). I kept bitching to Ian about it during the movie. Maybe I am too much of a perfectionist, but why shouldn't we all be when it comes to exhibiting movies? Platters would help the Telluride Film Festival immensely. They may not be as fun for some people, but I guarantee the presentation quality would improve if you got people who knew how to work the things.