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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Renting Old Prints (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Renting Old Prints John B. Keathley Film Handler Posts: 29 From: Fort Worth TX Registered: Mar 2009 posted 03-29-2009 11:35 AM                     I would like to see the theatre I work for start showing midnight movies. How much do they cost to rent? How would I find out what is available? Any advice would be awesome.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-29-2009 12:43 PM                        Depends on what kind of movies you're talking about. Classics usually run a (pretty high) flat rate, where current product will be a percentage just like anything else. Your film booker can advise you.  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 03-30-2009 01:17 PM                     Could be as cheap as $150. and can go to several hundred. Many are flat rate though. Plus shipping of course.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 04-13-2009 11:03 PM                     What is your set-up? You're going to limit your titles if you're running platter as studio prints are R2R only. Larger titles have platter prints available. If you are running R2R you can book the films directly from repertory depending on the studio. What films were you looking to book? Standard rate is $250 vs. 35%. Hardly expensive.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-14-2009 05:17 PM                     quote: Jack Theakston Standard rate is $250 vs. 35%. Hardly expensive. Unless you're the only one who wants to see it. That platter rule is so dumb I don't know where to start.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 04-14-2009 09:59 PM                     quote: That platter rule is so dumb I don't know where to start. [thumbsdown] At the risk of being labeled a "platter-hater" I don't, for a number of obvious reasons, the most important being the R2R stipulation guaranteeing an operator is at the helm at all times. And from an exhibitor's perspective, it doesn't make sense to platter a print you're only going to run once, anyway.  |  IP: Logged Tony L. Hernandez Expert Film Handler Posts: 158 From: Windsor, CO, USA Registered: Dec 2005 posted 04-16-2009 04:10 AM                     Although the platter rule is very unfortunate as it limits the number of houses able to show classics, I don't blame them. First of all, most platter operators just chop a frame or two off the heads and tails of each reel when breaking down as opposed to taking the extra 3 seconds to peel it off, as I do. You send a print to a dozen platter houses (assuming that they only remove one frame at each end), that's 1 second of film missing from each reel. Also, platters can greatly damage a print (much more so than 2k changeover) if not properly maintained. That also leads to another problem; in many cases, platters were installed to eliminate competent operators in the first place. When they make new prints of a classic, they are hoping that the print will have many years of quality service, as opposed to new releases that will run for about 5 months and then be melted down.  |  IP: Logged Demetris Thoupis Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1240 From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-20-2009 07:01 AM                     Would Spool Towers fit instead of R2R?  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-20-2009 07:59 AM                        Yes, the "no platters" rule is a useless requirement, especially if they don't also include a "No 6000ft Long Play Reels." The concept being they think it's good for the print to never splice heads and tails on and off the print. That is questionable, but let's assume this is good for a print, then only saying no platters but not no long play reels is irrational. (I have seen a No platters/No long play reels requirement from the Eastman House and on some Universal prints, but not many others). I think it would be much more useful for a distributor to forget about No Platters, but to require "Full Run Projectionist." They should require that a projectionst stay with the print the entire time it is running in the projector. I think the fact that by its very nature, a platter allows a run where the only time the projectionist absolutely needs to be at the machine is when it's threaded and started. The distrib's fear of platters is (aside from the incorrect perception that a platter necessarily is harder on a print than reel transport), comes from the fact that if there is a major failure on a platter run, the results can be catastrophic for an entire print, whilst if something goes wrong while a 2000ft reel is running, the most damage that can be done would be to that one reel, and usually only to a very small portion of that reel. That's not an insignificent difference between the two transport systems. That said, if the distrib required a projectionist to stay with the platter from start to finish of a show, should something go wrong, a human being's intervention would limit damage to about the same as would happen in a reel-to-reel breakdown. I have suggested changing this requirement many times to many distribs wherever I see them making this restriction, but unfortunately it seems the idea that the platter is in an of itself something evil, refuses to die and easy death.  |  IP: Logged Richard P. May Expert Film Handler Posts: 243 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jan 2006 posted 04-20-2009 09:49 AM                     Also VERY important is the care of the projectionist. Platter operation is no problem when a print is built up, and more important, broken down properly. I have seen prints simply broken down by filling up a reel, cutting it, then going on to the next reel. There was no concern with original makeup of the print, leaders replaced properly, etc. Ask any distribution inspection department, and they can give you numerous horror stories that give platter operators a very bad name.  |  IP: Logged Robert Minichino Master Film Handler Posts: 350 From: Haskell, NJ, USA Registered: Dec 2005 posted 04-20-2009 10:47 AM                        I think most of the distributors saying "no platters" would mean "no 6k reels" too, if they knew about it. We have certainly have gotten surprised responses when telling distributors that we had a print with the heads and tails (badly) cut. At least one (I forget which) has gotten wise to that and has started asking exhibitors what size reels they run.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-20-2009 11:44 AM                     Most "no platter" prints have had their leaders cut. There are also plenty of locations that only have platter but lie to the studios and platter the prints anyway. In addition there are lots of changeover houses that build to 6K reels. The entire policy is stupid. If the studios cared, they would hire one specific person who TRULY knew what they were doing and would simply keep sending out prints, inspecting every single return, until a scratch appeared. At that point the last theater gets billed in full. Done.  |  IP: Logged Demetris Thoupis Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1240 From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-20-2009 02:01 PM                     There is though more chance scratching a print on a platter than a reel to reel situation. A spool tower should do the business cheaper and easier. Demetris  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 04-20-2009 02:28 PM                     quote: Demetris Thoupis There is though more chance scratching a print on a platter than a reel to reel situation. A spool tower should do the business cheaper and easier. Demetris If the person is incompetent and scratches a print while plattered, would they somehow be competent if the place was reel-to-reel instead?  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 04-20-2009 02:28 PM                     quote: Brad Miller The entire policy is stupid. If the studios cared, they would hire one specific person who TRULY knew what they were doing and would simply keep sending out prints, inspecting every single return, until a scratch appeared. At that point the last theater gets billed in full. Done. The problem is, particularly with popular titles, some prints go straight to their next playdate. If you book FRANKENSTEIN during Halloween, for example, it usually doesn't come from the studio, but from a depot or directly from the last place it was booked, so there's no time for the studio to check it. And then on top of that, once someone damages the print, good luck collecting from the folks that did the damage. If they didn't care enough that it got damaged, they probably won't care enough to pay $1,000 for a new reel.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.