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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Warner Bros and collectors/private prints repertory (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Warner Bros and collectors/private prints repertory Jamieson McGonigle Film Handler Posts: 5 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jun 2013 posted 07-16-2013 12:32 PM                     Hello, I've heard a mix of different stories when it comes to Warner Bros openness to repertory theaters screening collector prints. Does anyone have experience with this? I've heard there's been cases where WB sics their lawyers on you and confiscates the collector print, and I've also heard of some houses booking through WB repertory to screen a collector print with no issue whatsoever. Is it safe to reach out to WB repertory for the rights to screen a collector print in a rep house? I've been told WB rep generally pushes rep houses to screen blu-ray but I want to insist on 35mm and if I have the access to a collector print it would save the hassle of the loan process. Forgive my green-ness on this issue. I am not in the business of booking personally so I was hoping some folks could illuminate the process for me as I'd really like to make a particular film happen if I can put it in place. Also if you could provide information on somebody that might be good to contact for New York/East coast booking that would be great. I've been given Jim Richardson's name in the New York office but have heard they push blu-ray there as well. Thanks in advance for any help.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 07-16-2013 12:48 PM                        I would book the blu-ray and play the film print. Money flows, everyone is happy. Louis  |  IP: Logged Jamieson McGonigle Film Handler Posts: 5 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jun 2013 posted 07-16-2013 12:49 PM                     Didn't even think of that. That works?  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-16-2013 05:34 PM                        Why not? They don't care HOW you screen a title, only THAT you screen it.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-16-2013 05:47 PM                     They only care whether or not you send them money. Raise your hand if you've ever booked a movie but were told that there were no prints or DVDs available so you would have to go rent the movie at the video store or buy it from Amazon if you wanted to play it. I, personally, have had to do that at least three or four times.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-16-2013 08:52 PM                        Only 3? Pretty much everything you get from Warners rep is you supply your own media. And it all comes with a warning not to show any of the extras from the DVD/BR because those are not licensed for public exhibition. To the original poster, yes, you have to go through Warners to get permission, which they will charge you for, and then you can show it in whatever format you want. So if you have access to a print, play it.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-17-2013 12:55 AM                        Call me crazy, but I would personally be very reluctant to ever indicate to a distributor that a video copy would be acceptable to me. My fear would be that, once I had done this, the distributor would have no reason to ever provide me with another print. To date, I have insisted on 35mm when booking films, and have told distributors that I am uninterested in turning a beautifully restored theatre into a giant television set. This statement would lose its effectiveness if I were to start booking DVDs, even if I actually showed privately owned prints for those screenings. Warners, Universal, Janus, and others have provided me with some beautiful prints within the last year, and I do not want to do anything that would cause any distributor to think that providing a substandard print or lesser format would meet with my satisfaction.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-17-2013 08:46 AM                        Yes, some distribs are better than others about prints, but WB is the most difficult. It's kinda of hard to argue with them when they say they no longer have a print of something. Last year we booked a film, not from WB, and were told there were no prints and to get the DVD. Turned out it was never released on DVD. Sometimes you just can't win.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 07-18-2013 08:28 PM                     That's when they get BACK to you (which is now like 50% of the time here.) Universal is practically the only easy studio to deal with anymore. They get back to me in literally minutes.  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 05-02-2018 08:23 PM                 It has been 1748 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-02-2018 08:23 PM                        we have a collector, who would prefer to remain anonymous, lending a print showing later this month. the distributor insists on a name, "[in] case any talent, producers, director, etc… happens to go to <studio name> and say they were at a screening for <film title> and it looked terrible on screen." no name, no license. anyone encountered this before? does this seem reasonable? if they care that much, why don't they acquire or strike a print to their liking?? is this collector going to lose sleep wondering when someone comes knocking at the door?  |  IP: Logged Martin Brooks Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 900 From: Forest Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 05-02-2018 09:35 PM                        I don't know the answer to your question, but considering the poor quality of so many 35mm prints, especially repertory prints for so many years as well as the studios ignoring the theaters that shows 2K movies with the 3D filter on, resulting in a horribly dim image, it's incredulous that the reason they're giving is that the print might look bad. They've never cared much before, at least not in recent decades.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-03-2018 07:32 AM                     What some have done is, if the studio has a 35mm print that is trashed to book that and run the good print. And, similarly, book the title via DVD/Blu-ray and run the 35mm print. The Studio get's their money and the audience gets the performance while the lender stays "protected."  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-03-2018 08:00 AM                        That will work with some distributors, but not all. Some do not allow DVD/BluRay screenings, and therefore won't book them. Others charge a great deal more for a 35mm print, and would probably consider themselves entitled to that payment even if they didn't provide the print. And some are perfectly sensible and just charge you for exhibition rights and aren't concerned about the source of the media. It's a silly business. Also, periodically they go on hunts from collectors to retrieve "their" prints. I don't blame the collector for wanting to be anonymous.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 05-03-2018 08:54 AM                        I have projected Warners titles from collector prints in the past, in legitimate, licensed screenings (the venues were of a high enough profile that the screenings couldn't have been unlicensed), but was not involved in booking them, and so cannot speak to the arrangements that were made. The personal relationship between the programmer and the Warners contact may have played a role. In my experience, Warners' archival 35mm prints were consistently the poorest quality of any of those from the major studios (with Paramount's being the best). Many of them were taping prints from the 1970s and '80s, including prints on low contrast telecine stock, and so they looked muddy and lifeless in projection. Even some of their recent ones aren't that good. I remember once playing a Warners' print of The Big Sleep, and then UCLA's about a month later. The difference was night and day (or maybe noir!). You couldn't see the lapel on Bogie's suit or the wrinkles on his forehead in the Warners' print: you could on UCLA's. I had the occasional gem (e.g. a 1950s or '60s IB print), but if it was photographically good, the chances were that it was scratched to the point of being almost unwatchable. I'd have preferred a decent DCP to about 90% of the Warners archival prints I projected.  |  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.