Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Star Wars Re-release

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Star Wars Re-release (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Star Wars Re-release

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-03-1999 12:19 PM

I'm just wondering if anyone can report on the quality of the Star Wars Episode One re-release. Are the prints in good condition? Are these screenings being tucked away in the smaller auditoriums? Just curious.

| IP: Logged

Jim Ziegler
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 753
From: West Hollywood, CA
Registered: Jul 99

posted 12-03-1999 02:36 PM

The print we got is scratched. We put it in a mid-size (200 seat) house.

| IP: Logged

Mark Tiedemann
Film Handler

Posts: 6
From: Iowa City, IA USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 12-03-1999 05:17 PM

One the print we received, there was about 3 minutes of footage missing in reel 4. Also, there was quit a bit of sprocket damage in all of the reels, and the tail for the last reel was missing.

We put it in our smallest house.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

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

posted 12-03-1999 05:24 PM

3 minutes of footage missing? THAT can't be such a bad thing...

| IP: Logged

Tyler Skinner
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 115
From: Pa
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-03-1999 06:40 PM

The Print I recieved wasn't in too bad of condition, no scratches, just some dirt on the reel changes which isn't surprising and easily fixed. I put it in a medium sized house (250)
My Question: Is Lucas re-releasing this for charity? or, for Christmas merchandising/ Oscar nominations? hmmm... tough one there...

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

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

posted 12-03-1999 06:46 PM

Oscar nominations?

Maybe for Yoda as Best Jedi Master in a token cameo role.

| IP: Logged

Chris Erwin
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 195
From: Olive Hill,KY
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 12-03-1999 06:59 PM

In order to be different and artistic, I would be supprised if the next pre-quel comes to a theater near you in glorous View-Master!

But, alas, if a theater can be a good neighbor and help a few people with a charity show, I'm all for it regaurdless of other motives.

--Chris

| IP: Logged

Kelsey Black
Film Handler

Posts: 58
From: Pima, Arizona, USA
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 12-03-1999 07:02 PM

Well, if any of us are lucky, we'll get one-another's filmguarded prints... I know that the one I got and filmguarded was in GREAT condition when I got through with it.
good luck everyone.

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

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

posted 12-04-1999 12:04 AM

Our print seems to have some focus problem; I just can't get it as sharp as I think it should be. It has a slight lengthwise 'curl' to it; it doesn't seem heat embossed.. don't know what's going on. Other than that, it's pretty good; no scratches or 'extra' splices.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-04-1999 12:14 PM

The print we got at TT17 is pretty good!

It was wound emulsion IN / head OUT and all the splices were one sided with TWO I.D. frames. Although I don't agree with the emulsion IN, I can see that whoever did it knew what he was doing.

All the splices were made with a "Hollywood" splicer, too. Not too many people use those and out of that subset of people, not too many know how to use them RIGHT. (I know I've tried. It takes practice, baby!) That's my second clue that whoever had that print knew what he was doing. (Okay, maybe 'she')

There were no scratches and very little dirt. I F.G.ed the print and it looks prety 'cherry'! It looks a but 'soft' in the focus but in might be my proj. I'm working on that.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

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

posted 12-06-1999 12:47 AM

Yes, but why do you need TWO reference frames?

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-06-1999 12:54 AM

I saw the movie at the new Jordan Commons theatre in Utah. I can't give the projectionist's viewpoint on it but, from the customer's point of view... The print was a little dusty in places but, otherwise, in great shape. The only green scratch was for a few seconds in the closing credits. Overall, a great presentation in DTS. I happen to like this movie anyway... and this was a great way to see it again.

| IP: Logged

Raj Sheth
Film Handler

Posts: 13
From: Indiana
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 12-06-1999 02:39 AM

I noticed that our print doesn't kick into Digital for most of the film. We are running it in a Dolby Digital house with a penthouse reader. The error rate is almost a constant 7 or 7.5. Anyone else having this problem?

------------------
"I sometimes realize
that I can only be as
good as you'll let me."
- Eddie Vedder

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-07-1999 06:44 PM

Try FIlm-Guarding the print and that may hide enough of the perf area scuffing that is corrupting the frame grabber and the error rate may drop lowenough to work

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-08-1999 02:18 PM

I don't cut off two ID frames, but when you see certain things like that you get a clue that whoever did it had some idea of what he was doing. I don't particularly agree with a few of the things I see, now and then but how the heck am I going to tell some guy who's been runing projectors for 25 years that he shouldn't cut off two frames.

I just meant that you can tell what condition the film is going to be in from just a few clues like that. (eg: If you open up a can to find a tangle of film, you can pretty much bet the film will be in crappy condition.)

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

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.