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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 'Fight Club' and the bastardization of projection terms... (Page 1)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: 'Fight Club' and the bastardization of projection terms... Aaron Sisemore Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day! Posts: 3061 From: Rockwall TX USA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 05-05-2008 01:05 PM                     Split from the other thread... quote: Fight Club's a great flick...except it refers to cue marks as cigarette burns. It's stupid and they've never been referred to as that in my lifetime as a projectionist. Well, not before Fight Club, anyway... [fu] I get the 'cigarette burns' from people outside the industry all the time - all of them have seen Fight Club too. I also occasionally get asked if I have ever spliced porno frames into Disney movies. Another pet peeve are the idiots on eBay that call frames 'cells'... -Aaron  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 05-05-2008 01:22 PM                        At one place I've worked the chief projectionist absolutely hated the term "brain" for some reason. To him the correct term was "payout unit" or some such. At the same place no one knew what I was talking about when I said "MUT." They all just called it a make-up table. Me? I'm lazy and tend to use the easiest or shortest way to say things. "Brain", "MUT", and "cue marks" are all standard terms in our niche of this industry now, and in the case of "cue marks", have been since the beginning of time. And "cue marks" is a lot easier to say than "cigarette burns." So there! Seriously, anyone who uses the term "cigarette burns" when trying to speak professionally reveals himself to be a poser. And anyone who disagrees with me about this are inbred, slack-jawed, mouth breathing, single-helix, CHUD-like tree-worshiping druids who probably beat their wives and change their underwear infrequently.  |  IP: Logged Chad M Calpito Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: San Diego, CA Registered: Apr 2006 posted 05-05-2008 01:25 PM                        Personally, I hate the term of Cigarette Burns as well. It bugs the hell out of me when people say that.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-05-2008 01:29 PM                     The first rule about ... is that we don't talk about ... . --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Tristan Lane Master Film Handler Posts: 444 From: Nampa, Idaho Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-05-2008 01:31 PM                     CHUD!!  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 05-05-2008 05:03 PM                       Woo-hoo! Let's jump in here and PARTY!  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-05-2008 09:23 PM                     RIGHT! NOW!... Oh crap...it's nowhere near as much fun here.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-05-2008 10:02 PM                     quote: Aaron Sisemore I also occasionally get asked if I have ever spliced porno frames into Disney movies. My usual answer to that question is: "If I had porno on 35mm film... and I'm not saying I DON'T have any porno on 35mm film... but if I DID have it, why would I chop it up into little bits and splice it into other movies?"  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-05-2008 10:23 PM                     "WOW! Look at those big CAMERAS and the tape that those cameras uses...!!"  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-05-2008 10:42 PM                     I splice Disney frames into my porno movies.  |  IP: Logged Dustin Mitchell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1865 From: Mondovi, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 05-05-2008 11:05 PM                     That reply is made of pure win. In any event-I'm not against slang terms for projection equipment per se-as has been pointed out there are a lot of more technically correct terms for a platter's payout device than 'brain', its just that 'cigarette burns' sounds so....stupid. I don't know how else to put it. Perhaps the best way to say it is it sounds made up-like someone trying to show off how 'hip' or 'in the know' they are but just failing miserably.  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 05-05-2008 11:41 PM                     So with all of everyone asking about cigarette burns and bits of porn spliced in, was any one else really disappointed when they finally watched Fight Club only to find that it has almost nothing to do with projection at all?  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 05-06-2008 12:33 AM                        Did it really even have anything to do with the movie? I remember watching that scene from the booth and from what I remember Brad Norton Edward Pitt was taking a part-time job in a projection booth for no reason other than to splice porn frames in. The end. I also remember that everybody in the movie smoked about 90 cartons a day for no reason whatsoever. That movie gave me lung cancer.  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 05-06-2008 01:37 AM                        Guess I'll have to go watch it somewhere...  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-06-2008 05:25 AM                        I think the reason most here seem to agree that "cigarette burns" seem so offensive is probably is because, at least for me, cigarette burn is a kind of violent thing to a piece of film. It's word like gouges or tears ...they are words that convey distruction and words you just don;t want to associate with film. It almost sounds disrespectful, at least to my ears. Cigarette burns on film are like spit on a projector. Just nasty and hence the instant distlike to the references. To get away from that, but in the same vein of odd terms -- long time ago one of my mentors, instead of using the common, correct name count-own leader, he called it the sync leader, and similarly the first motor cue he refered to as the sync cue. I guess the idea being that it was the combination of those two items that "synchronized" the two machines and the change-over. I always liked it. And it also kind of made sence if you already were calling the tape deck or other sound source "non-sync," then it's reasonable when you switched to the film....it WAS indeed "sync." No one else calls it that, to my knowledge anyway, but I worked with him for a year when I was 19yro so it pretty much stuck with me and I use it to this day. I also found out that when I happened to refered to them as sync leader and sync cues, two of my projectionist friends got it right away and knew what I was talking ahout. So I guess if it is intutive enough and it conveys what you want to say, there's not harm, unless it's interently obnoxious like cigarette burns....then you deserve do get pummeled or banned, whichever comes first.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.