Posted by Steve on 07/15/06 21:17

On 15 Jul 2006 10:57:58 -0700, "unglued" <dragonseed@spray.se> wrote:

>
>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.

That is EXACTLY what I was saying, yes.
>
>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.

The studios are in fact currently releasing their old films, nearly
always cleaned up and good-looking. The few titles that started out
as being PD also blow away previous PD releases of the film. I
appreciate the efforts of Alpha in geting out a lot of Public domain
titles, but if it's owned by a studio I prefer the studio to do the
releasing. also Criterion and Image do put out films no longer
controlled by the stuido and they beat any mass release. That Japan
can start to push out "Product" without any regard to copyright or
quality control is not good news at all.
>
>>
>> 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.

The reason that Warner and Columbia etc. are not putting out more
classic film is that their production facilities are maxed out. They
DO listen to demands for a particular title. (Except maybe Song of
the South.. <g>)

... Steve ..
>
>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]