|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Who decides where to make reel breaks?
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-15-2002 11:43 PM
Just ran a sneak of the new Ethan Hawke (directorial debut) film CHELSEA WALLS (lions Gate Film). Aside from the fact that it was the darkest, muddiest looking pictures I have ever run, with some scenes so dark I had to constantly check the arc to make sure I was still in trim.....light look bright and beautiful in the spy box window, only no light came out the lens. I actually missed a change-over cue it was so damn dark. So you can imagine what a foul mood THAT put me in. But here's the thing -- this picture was cut on 8 reels, when clearly it should have been on 7 as reel 6 was only about 400ft and reel 7 was maybe 1100. Both reels fit just fine on a single house reel (which holds even less than a plastic shipping reel). I don't like splicing a mint print, but this was ridiculous. It goes back in the can on 7 reels, not 8, with the heads and tales wound on the extra plastic reel -- the bent one.And I won't say much about the content except two words -- pretentious and boring....I lied, make it three -- gobble -- it's THAT much of a turkey. So, anyone have any idea why they would break these reels like that? I understand in musicals they used to try to make reel breaks where there was no musical number (although this was not always an attainable goal). But at these two reel break locations, you could have racked down to 3 and you wouldn't have missed anything. Better still, you could have skipped reels and no one would have noticed. We started off with about 250 and when the house light came up, there were about 50 left in the theatre -- Uma Thurman's fans, no doubt. Mr.Hawke needs to take a course in cinema 101 before attempting his first film....and while he is at it, drag his his cinematographer and lighting designer might as well, making them take their first course in their respective fields. Frank PS...that goes double for the film cutter.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan M. Crist
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 531
From: Hershey, PA, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 04-17-2002 08:39 PM
Who decides where to put the reel breaks?The last operator to handle a print before I get it. More and more as second run operator I see the prior operator just filling a reel and cutting it off anywhere. Despite the larger number of wide releases the quality of most prints I get continues to steadily decline. What else can you expect with multiplex mania and its accompanying fiscal irresponsibility where most chains employ floor staff for the booth? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Where you stand on issue depends upon where you sit!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-17-2002 09:59 PM
As a former editorial apprentice I can tell you that it would be inconvenient to be shuttling back-and-forth between 2000' reels.1000' reels made rapid access to specific shots/scenes possible. We referred to them as 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B so that we could keep it clear as to which was the head of a reel and which was the tail, and we used a template so that we always knew just where the cue dots would go. Dark shots and fade outs were a major no-no. We even kept a footage count so that the cans would be balanced! The film editor was Mr. Andrew Mondshein. Maybe we should create an award (!?) ------------------
And, hey! Let's be careful out there. ~Manny.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-18-2002 02:15 AM
Brad:You asked why reels aren't conformed to 2,000 foot lengths as a routine part of the post-production process. When I posed exactly the same question in the 'annoyingly short reels' thread several months ago, here was Bill Carter's reply: quote:
Usually, the physical number of reels is "carved in stone" once the negative cutter begins conforming the camera negative. Changes may still be made within a reel, but footages per reel generally don't get rebalanced. Once the cutter has made certain shots "head" and "tail" shots for the various reels, that can be difficult to change. Major handling of camera negative like that is avoided as much as possible, because of the potential for wear and damage.
I only wish editors had always taken that line! I've recently been preparing a 3-reel 35mm documentary made in 1947 for preservation duping, and found the camera negative to be full of bad (and in some cases, not straight) joins, edge damage, V-cut perforations, rusting Lawley clips (steel clips which were an early device used to signal changes in printer light, which were supposed to be removed after printing has been completed) and even fingerprints on both surfaces.
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic