Posted by unglued on 07/15/06 17:57

Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <1152974429.655882.87590@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> unglued <dragonseed@spray.se> wrote:
>
> > Steve wrote:
> > > On 14 Jul 2006 11:37:20 -0700, "unglued" <dragonseed@spray.se> wrote:
> > >
> > > >New digital technology makes it easier and cheaper enhance old prints.
> > >
> > > But the point is the owners of the film have in many cases the camera
> > > negatives, or the best production elements of their films. You can't
> > > make an worn out circulating print look like "New." It took two
> > > million dollars to restore "Sunset Boulevard" because no decent
> > > elements had survived due to several changes in the library ownership.
> > > Having a studio own the rights to a film means that film remains
> > > protected. A studio that collapses and loses control of its prints
> > > means their films ALL end up being inferior dupe prints. You can't
> > > make a dupe 16mm print look worthwhile.
> >
> > That certainly is ONE point, but like I said a large proportion of the
> > worlds cineast population can't afford to pay for multi-million dollar
> > resaurations of old films and they don't expect a film from the ´30s
> > to look new they just want to see it because they love films, and, have
> > no reason to be loyal to film studios trying to milk them.
> > And often as not they don't even have that choice because a major
> > studion doesn't want to or is too ineffective to release a lot films
> > there is a demand for.
> > In principal, what you're saying is "If you can't eat at a 5 star
> > restaurant there's no point in eating at all."
> >
> I thought he was saying that if nobody own a particular film, nobody
> will have an interest in keeping a set of original prints or restoring
> damaged ones. That's how films get lost.

I don't understand that, producing a superior product that can command
relatively
high profits is always a going proposition on condition that the
enhanced version is not ripped off but then we're talking about pirate
copies.

>
> If you're worried about a studio not releasing certain films at all,
> maybe a system where anyone can release an out of print film but has to
> pay set royalties. Thus those who want to can see a bad copy, and the
> studio can discover that there's a market for a better version.

Whatever, just as long as they keep the films coming and don't just let
them disintegrate in an archive or rip off their customers off by
charging ridiculous prices for films where practically every singel
person involved in the making of the film is long dead.

>
> --
> Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
> 'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
> -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

[Back to original message]