What the?! 20th Century Fox No Longer Has Prints of Barton Fink or Miller's Crossing

[Irish]

.. And Martin Scorsese can't get a print of The Age of Innocence


In June, director Martin Scorsese tried to show his 1993 film The Age of Innocence at the Museum of the Moving Image in Queens. Thelma Schoonmaker, Scorsese's editor for the past 40 years and a three-time Oscar winner, called Grover Crisp, the senior VP of asset management at Sony, for a 35mm print. But Sony not only didn't have a print, it couldn't even make one.

"He told me that they can't print it anymore because Technicolor in Los Angeles no longer prints film," Schoonmaker recalled. "Which means a film we made 20 years ago can no longer be printed, unless we move it to another lab—one of the few labs still making prints."

"I was used to hearing, oh well, maybe films made in the '40s or '50s, but our film?" Schoonmaker said, referring to titles that have become unavailable. "And it's not the only one of our films that is in this situation. What really worries me are the lesser-known movies."

DVD projections? Ugh. Another example where analogue trumps digital? It seems like we were better off before the vaunted "digital revolution."

More: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/11/with-35mm-film-dead-will-classic-movies-ever-look-the-same-again/265184/

[number8]

Yeah, old tech eventually stop and new tech becomes a standard. Of course this happened. If they wanted that availability preserved, they should have take. The steps themselves.

[Derek]

Yeah, old tech eventually stop and new tech becomes a standard. Of course this happened. If they wanted that availability preserved, they should have take. The steps themselves.

Yeah, don't inform filmmakers that you're no longer keeping their original prints, just burn 'em and hand out DVD when those old fogies request anything.

[Derek]

ROFL @ Marty!

http://cynicritics.files.wordpress.co m/2010/06/inglourious-basterds-burning.jpg

#sux2bu

[Pop Trash]

Is this drunk. Thread.

[Milky Joe]

Yeah, old tech eventually stop and new tech becomes a standard. Of course this happened. If they wanted that availability preserved, they should have take. The steps themselves.

what

[Grouchy]

Yeah, old tech eventually stop and new tech becomes a standard. Of course this happened. If they wanted that availability preserved, they should have take. The steps themselves.
Jesus, man, shut the fuck up. This post literally angered me.

It's clear "new tech" hasn't become the standard or else digital projection would look as good as film and every theater would actually use it.

Besides the obvious fact that if a big-ass studio can't invest money in preserving their own archive they should at least phone the filmmakers and warn them about it.

[MadMan]

Is this a joke thread? I can't tell who's being serious. Anymore. Seriously.

[Mysterious Dude]

It seems strange to me that Technicolor no longer prints film. Doesn't Hollywood still make a large number of movies on film?

[Ezee E]

It seems strange to me that Technicolor no longer prints film. Doesn't Hollywood still make a large number of movies on film?
Kodak. Right?

[Grouchy]

Huh, I read the whole article now and it's seriously scary.

[Irish]

Huh, I read the whole article now and it's seriously scary.

:lol: Yeah, I got the distinct impression (especially from 8) that the people posting in the thread didn't actually read the article.

Either that or you all don't actually care about film.

The stuff about the Laurel and Hardy rights owner refusing funding & preservation help was beyond screwy, and points to a multitude of problems around lost culture, preservation, and copyright.

[Skitch]

Hurm, if I made a film, you could bet your sweet ass I would have a couple of copies of it properly stored in my possession. What, you spent years developing your art on a singular project and then just dump all the negatives and prep and storyboards off at the studio for someone else to manage? This would be a non-issue for me. I would say, "Oh you don't have it? Let me run home and get one of my copies."

[Ezee E]

Hurm, if I made a film, you could bet your sweet ass I would have a couple of copies of it properly stored in my possession. What, you spent years developing your art on a singular project and then just dump all the negatives and prep and storyboards off at the studio for someone else to manage? This would be a non-issue for me. I would say, "Oh you don't have it? Let me run home and get one of my copies."
Not sure if a director could legally keep it in some cases though. I'd have to do more research on that.

[MadMan]

Either that or you all don't actually care about film.That's probably me. Look its sad that its being lost, etc. but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Good luck keeping new technology at bay in this world. Of course vinyl is still a thing, so go figure.

[Irish]

Hurm, if I made a film, you could bet your sweet ass I would have a couple of copies of it properly stored in my possession. What, you spent years developing your art on a singular project and then just dump all the negatives and prep and storyboards off at the studio for someone else to manage? This would be a non-issue for me. I would say, "Oh you don't have it? Let me run home and get one of my copies."

Except 35mm film prints are incredibly expensive ($50,000 for a single B&W feature, says the article. Color might be slightly cheaper).

Then you have to store it and maintain it. These aren't the kind of things you can prop up on a bookshelf in your living room.

And they're for archival use only. Every time a film gets run through a projector, it gets damaged. So you can't ever really use the print.

Sure, guys like Lucas or Spielberg can afford to do this if they really wanted to. But take a look at somebody like Wes Anderson. He's not a big player, yet you're suggesting he spend upwards of $400,000 of his own money on backups?

Not really a practical solution to preserve film culture. This is all aside from the fact that there are less and less facilities that do this kind of lab and processing work, and the less there are, the more expensive it will become.

[Skitch]

Not sure if a director could legally keep it in some cases though. I'd have to do more research on that.

I suppose I hadn't considered that. Would seem like anyone could procure a copy if they knew some people, let alone the head honcho being able to secure one.

[Grouchy]

Besides, Marty hasn't only made "a" film. He has made close to 50.

EDIT: I doubt there's any kind of legal problem with keeping a film copy unless you're screening it for money. There are a lot of film collectors after all.

[Grouchy]

That's probably me. Look its sad that its being lost, etc. but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Good luck keeping new technology at bay in this world. Of course vinyl is still a thing, so go figure.
You clearly haven't read the article.

[Skitch]

Except 35mm film prints are incredibly expensive ($50,000 for a single B&W feature, says the article. Color might be slightly cheaper).

Then you have to store it and maintain it. These aren't the kind of things you can prop up on a bookshelf in your living room.

And they're for archival use only. Every time a film gets run through a projector, it gets damaged. So you can't ever really use the print.

Sure, guys like Lucas or Spielberg can afford to do this if they really wanted to. But take a look at somebody like Wes Anderson. He's not a big player, yet you're suggesting he spend upwards of $400,000 of his own money on backups?

Not really a practical solution to preserve film culture. This is all aside from the fact that there are less and less facilities that do this kind of lab and processing work, and the less there are, the more expensive it will become.

If its so hard to store a print, and you can't watch it without damaging it anyway...what are we complaining about here? That the studio isn't spending millions on prints?

[Grouchy]

That's a little exaggerated. It's not so hard to produce the conditions for a good storage room and the damage in reproducing it is far from inmediate... The local film archive in Buenos Aires screens old prints all the time.

I'm appalled at the display of apathy around here and once again I insist that you all read the whole article - it explains the many dangers that abandoning this reliable technology can cause, from the loss of old films to the changes in color temperature and cinematography.

[number8]

I read the article the first time.

[number8]

It seems strange to me that Technicolor no longer prints film. Doesn't Hollywood still make a large number of movies on film?

Are you talking about shooting on film? Because the article is talking about film processing labs. Hollywood still shoots on film, but 99% of the time they're scanned digitally for post, and then distributed digitally as well, since most theaters in America are now equipped with digital projectors. It's estimated that by next year the multiplexes will cease using film projectors completely.

Of course film labs are shutting down. The demand is nearly nonexistent. Even the shooting-on-celluloid champions like Nolan use digital intermediate.

[Skitch]

That's a little exaggerated. It's not so hard to produce the conditions for a good storage room and the damage in reproducing it is far from inmediate...

That's what I assumed.

[D_Davis]

Take a look into how many Hong Kong films are pretty much completely gone except for their terrible DVD transfers. Film preservation is practically non-existent in HK (up until very recently), basically because so many people view so many of their films as being nothing but throwaway entertainment. It's sad to know that the poor DVD version I have of something like the '90s version of The Sword Stained With Royal Blood is the best that the film will ever look or sound.

[Irish]

That's a little exaggerated. It's not so hard to produce the conditions for a good storage room and the damage in reproducing it is far from inmediate... The local film archive in Buenos Aires screens old prints all the time.

Storage still costs money, and the prints are still damaged over time.

Otherwise, Marty and his foundations could raise money to build a permanent archive in LA and loan out prints to whomever wanted them.

The sad thing is, even if you do that, then you run into assinine copyright issues.


I'm appalled at the display of apathy around here and once again I insist that you all read the whole article - it explains the many dangers that abandoning this reliable technology can cause, from the loss of old films to the changes in color temperature and cinematography.

I'm not so in love with the technology, and digital has its own problems (mostly, it dates fast & you've still got to store & maintain it).

I'm mostly afraid that smaller films are never going to get transferred and will simply disappear.

[Irish]

If its so hard to store a print, and you can't watch it without damaging it anyway...what are we complaining about here? That the studio isn't spending millions on prints?

It's not that it's hard, but that it costs real money and nobody wants to assume that burden for the duration. (Why would they, when there's not an immediate financial upside?).

Big, well known films -- Casablanca, Wizard of Oz, Vertigo, the Godfather, etc -- are always going to make the leap to new technology and new distribution formats.

But who is going to pay to print, transfer, store, and maintain the more obscure stuff? Or the stuff that's doesn't have any kind of immediate commercial viability?

Those kind of movies could cease to exist in the next decade or two. Or worse, they could be trapped in a copyright limbo where the rights holder is MIA and the movie can't legally be distributed.

Either way, a chunk of film culture will be unavailable to the public.

[elixir]

This is all Ray Carney's fault.

[number8]

I just saw a 35mm screening of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Print was beat up to hell and back. If only it was digital!

[Derek]

I just saw a 35mm screening of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Print was beat up to hell and back. If only it was digital!

Theaters are so outdated. Get that puppy on your phone and watch it on the subway!

[Watashi]

I just saw a 35mm screening of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Print was beat up to hell and back. If only it was digital!
Jealous.

[MadMan]

You clearly haven't read the article.I did. My opinions still stands.