This is topic Save Film Petition in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=011646

---

Posted by Jonathan Wood (Member # 4614) on 04-23-2014, 03:40 AM:
 
Hi all, not sure if you have seen this or already signed up but its a great idea I think .

Jon

http://www.savefilm.org
 

---

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 04-23-2014, 02:45 PM:
 
Signed.

Do I think it stands a snowballs chance in hell? Of course not. Still, I want my name on the record. I think that cynicism should be put aside, at least for a moment, and everybody who feels this way should sign.

Two cents in and registered.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-23-2014, 04:47 PM:
 
Signed. Not optimistic it will do any good. But it didn't hurt to visit the site and sign the petition anyway.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 04-23-2014, 06:12 PM:
 
I signed. It did me good!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-23-2014, 07:40 PM:
 
How many CEO's are there at savefilm.org? And how much are they paid? What percentage of the donations are actually used to try to save film? I have to know all this before I can donate.

Mitt Rmoney
 

---

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 05-16-2014, 06:05 PM:
 
Governor Rmoney, I am more concerned in investing in digital. I am proposing the Affordable Cinema Care Act, which gives every theater in America a Barco DP2K-8S projector.

Everyone needs a fair share.

Barrack Obamba
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-16-2014, 06:49 PM:
 
Or if you like your digital projector, you can keep your digital projector, period. Unless it doesn't qualify for the new program, in which case it will be taken out of your booth and you have to buy a new one.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-17-2014, 08:18 AM:
 
I would like to see a rule that says you shouldn't use icons or images of film reels, film with sprocket holes or traditional film cameras unless film was used to produce the movie or picture.

I'd give a pass to some kind of hybrid process like when the original shooting is done on film and final distribution is done digitally.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-17-2014, 10:21 AM:
 
I don't mind film reel icons and such but what I would like to see a ban on is the practice of adding phony splices, dust, scratches and such to any footage to make it appear "old."

And the practice of running said "old" footage at 125% of the correct speed is stupid too.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-17-2014, 10:59 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

And the practice of running said "old" footage at 125% of the correct speed is stupid too.

---

It's authentic, though. In the teens and '20s it was common for theaters to run films at higher speeds than instructed by the studios, especially longer ones, to squeeze extra shows into the day. I once came across an issue of the British trade mag Kine Weekly from the mid-20s, with the banner headline "The speeding menace!" on the front page. The arrival of sound ended that problem more or less overnight, because whereas adding a few frames per second to a silent movie would pass without comment from most patrons, you would not have got away with making John Barrymore sound like Mickey Mouse. But running silent movies too fast was a problem that started long before the fixed frame rates of NTSC and PAL.
 

---

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 05-19-2014, 08:51 AM:
 
Signed.

Though I'm sure we'll never see a 180 in the mainstream industry, I think there is or will be a niche where this art can continue to live and thrive. I hope
 

---

Posted by Gary Benn (Member # 7858) on 06-02-2014, 01:16 PM:
 
Signed
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 06-04-2014, 04:06 PM:
 
Signed.

Thanks for the heads-up Jonathon. :^)

I agree with others above. May not stand a chance but at least we know we have our names on it in suppport.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 06-11-2014, 05:53 AM:
 
There should've been a petition to save film from the incompetent buffoons many theaters employed to run it!
 

---

Posted by Shawn Arndt (Member # 7159) on 06-21-2014, 10:06 PM:
 
Done and done. Thanks for posting about it.


 

---

Posted by Dovilis Paliukas (Member # 8170) on 06-28-2014, 10:58 AM:
 
Signed. And advised our students in photography department to do so!
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-28-2014, 11:53 AM:
 
Shouldn't you be encouraging your students to make up their own minds on issues such as this one rather than telling them what to think?

There are valid arguments against supporting this petition, as well as for signing it. For example, I note that the steering group consists almost exclusively of senior people in prominent, well resourced taxpayer-funded archives and museums, and suspect that very few of them have ever had to deal with complaints from angry customers after you've just shown them a badly scratched or faded film print in a rep theater that is struggling to survive on a daily basis, because no DCP exists of that title. Often this is because the archive that has the preservation elements refuses to make one (i.e. it would prefer to spend $5k on making one new film print which will be ruined by a single incompetent projectionist rather than on a decent DCP, which can't be), citing their mission to film purism. And ironically, it's the film purists (among the regular customers at my theater, at any rate) who complain even louder if you show them a bad print, even if it's the only one available, than if you play the movie digitally.

A few weeks ago I played a 35mm print of Harvey that was scratched to buggery, worn out and looked and sounded basically dreadful. The stock mark on that print was 1997, and so less than two decades after the studio invested in a new print for the rep circuit, it's worn out and useless. Afterwards one of our regular customers came up to the booth and complained that he was very disappointed - he'd come to this show specifically because it said in the program that we'd be playing the movie on 35mm, and he doesn't like digital. Why, he asked, do we show garbage like that? I desperately wanted to reply, "You just answered your own question, asshole!", but of course bit my lip and explained that that is what happens to a 35mm print of a "classic" after 17 years of doing the rounds of the sort of places those prints go to. If the studio has $5k to spend on continuing to make this title available, what should they do - make another print, which will soon end up the same way (and which is essentially what these campaigners want to happen), or get a DCP made which will look clean and scratch-free, can be distributed around the world with very little shipping cost, can play in multiple venues on the same night, etc. etc.?

Surely as a teacher, you should be explaining why certain people are campaigning for film (and lab operations) to continue to be made and then let them decide if they support that aim or not, not simply telling them that they should support it? Petitions were organized against the phasing out of tetraethyl lead in gasoline, too (among the arguments used were that the health risks were exaggerated, that classic cars would no longer be able to be driven and that engine maintenance costs would increase without it), but that didn't mean that everyone had to sign them.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-28-2014, 01:51 PM:
 
Do petitions such as this ever actually get anything changed?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-28-2014, 02:40 PM:
 
Nope. Online petitions are a complete waste of time.
 

---

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 06-30-2014, 01:36 AM:
 
Online petitions are a great way for companies to get email addresses.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-30-2014, 06:12 AM:
 
There really can be (should be) an entire course on how this C change from film to digital came about; what are the economic forces in play; how have they impacted the makeup of the entire distribution and exhibition infrastructure. The idea that somehow simply wishing that film can be saved as the medium by which Hollywood entertainment can be distributed without understanding the much broader implications of how the many other components, many of them competing against each other, have made film obsolete, is simplistic. Isolating just the physical film component and wanting to preserve that without the other supporting entities necessary for such a reality simply will not work.

And it is not even a matter of a small cadre of passionate individuals or organizations like museums and art theatres and libraries, etc., who might get together and say, we want to pay to strike a new print of CASABLANCA that we can circulate among our member cinemas. Simple enough at first glance (or first petition) one would think, but then comes reality --where is the high quality lab that will do the sophisticated work necessary to strike this print (will it be 35mm or 70mm?) and will this cooperative also pay to hire lab technicians who have the required skill-set to produce a class A Showprint? Does anyone really think these specialists are just sitting around waiting to be hired to do one-off jobs after having been unemployed or haven't moved on years ago, assuming you can even find the old-school tradesmen...assuming you can find a lad that is still operable, or perhaps the cooperative will purchase a lab to support that noble desire to keep film alive. So we've outfitted the lab, but, oh wait, were do we get the film stock?

Next, once we have paid to open a lab and staff it and we make our print, where and who is going to store, maintain and service this print when cooperative members want to screen it? Who is going to train and certify the projectionists (and pay them a decent living wage with health benefits and a retirement plan) who will be handling this cooperative print to insure it won't get trashed a month into its life?

And that is only one single print. Will the cooperative operate and maintain what essentially was the old print exchanges for the all the prints that such a cooperative venture would need in order to maintain a viable art cinema operation? And how soon do you think it would take for the cooperative to go bankrupt if it had to put in place this entire infrastructure that would be absolutely necessary in order to "keep film alive?"

And that is the point -- there is a reason film can no longer be supported. It's not that it isn't a magnificent capture and retrieval medium that has proven itself over time, but it is everything else around it that has changed with very little chance that it will ever go back to the way it was, any more than we will ever go back to transportation by horse and buggy, no matter how much the horse and buggy lovers lament the loss. And you can be sure there were plenty who did and they were just as passionate as those who love what they remember film was capable of. I love the great single screen cinemas of my youth -- the Golden Age of the Grand Movie Palace -- but we will never go back to the many economic and social conditions that allowed that method of exhibition to flourish -- lamentable in some respects, but the reality of why they cannot work today is many-faceted and all combine to make it a hard fact. Same is true I am afraid, with projection by film.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Wood (Member # 4614) on 07-07-2014, 02:23 PM:
 
After reading recent comments I think its worth pointing out that no one is really advocating a return to distribution of movies on film, thats done and dusted and belongs to a different era. What those backing the petition are talking about is preserving the ability to make films ON film.

Look at some of the names supporting the petition, Chris Nolan, Tacita Dean, Wes Anderson, Martin Scorsese, Speilberg not to mention IMAGO an organisation that represents all the international cinematographers' societies. All these individuals are known for their passion for photo chemical image capture. I don't believe for a minute that any of these highly respected individuals would casually lend their names to any hair brained scheme whose aim was to reinstate 35mm cinema projection as the worldwide standard of motion picture presentation.

What they want, and what they would like UNESCO to recognise is that film offers the film maker a unique and irreplaceable medium with which to create motion pictures and that this is borne out by its contribution to and place in our culture and history. Guillermo Navarro ASC , who also supports the petition, calls film the R*****a Stone of our times and I think he has something there. (Forgive the stars but the forum won't let me publish the word itself , for some strange reason, but Im sure you can work it out !)

Whilst I enjoy seeing film projected, I also see the advantages of digital presentation and accept that this is the way forward, but as a working DP myself, albeit not in the league of some of the names on the petition (!) I share their passion for film as I was lucky enough to start my career shooting on film and I know, despite the amazing advances in digital image capture in recent years, that film is capable of capturing something that I can only describe as special. It's slight abstract quality suits fiction and story telling better than digital as despite the latters attempts to emulate film, which is still the holy grail of professional digital camera makers, there is still a vague brittle quality to digital which I believe makes it harder to accept in works of fiction as it reminds too much of documentary and news.

Sadly the skill, training and pay scale of film technicians at the capture end of the business was never mirrored in those film techs responsible for showing the stuff, and all the complaints about lousy prints etc are borne out by this. Thats not to say that there weren't some dedicated and well trained projectionists out there, but it only takes a handful of less conscientious technicians to create the problems that Leo describes.


Its up to the individual to decide what they think, whether its worth supporting or not but I suspect the majority of people on this forum owes some part of their living to film. That’s no reason in itself to support the petition, especially if you have spent a great deal of time dealing with films shortcomings at the presentation end. But what this petition is essentially about is trying to ensure that a film makers or artists tool of choice remains available to them. This will obviously be no simple thing. If we accept that bulk release printing is a thing of the past then in order for this to succeed there needs to be some way on ensuring negative stock continues to be available with all the necessary infrastructure and quality control that comes with it, plus a way of developing it. No small undertaking I know. Maybe on line petitions are ‘a waste of time’ but then again not many have the names attached to it that this one has?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-07-2014, 02:45 PM:
 
Instead of signing a worthless piece of paper buy this and get off your duffs and do something about it! Heck buy two or three while you're at it... They have 18 available.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Used-60-Acetate-Film-Roll-Roller-Coating-Coater-Line-/131098319489?ssPageName=V IP:watchlink:top:en&fromMakeTrack=true
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Wood (Member # 4614) on 07-07-2014, 03:20 PM:
 
Wish I had the cash and space , I would put a bid in. Looks like someone might though as theres already an offer.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-07-2014, 04:48 PM:
 
If you read the actual petition, this is not a silly plea to continue to shoot and/or project film. It's a plea to protect the cultural resource of film. Frankly, I wouldn't mind a law that prevents the studios from destroying all their film archives so they can save dollars on storage. Haven't we learned our lessons from the archival mistakes of the past?

Nothing wrong with encouraging Governments and arts organizations to protect the archive of film. As it is, half of U.S. films made before 1950 have been completely lost. It certainly is possible that any film for which the ownership is in question and is not in the public domain will be lost as well as any other film which the current owners feel is not financially viable as a home video release or DCP.

What's not going to happen is studios and theaters returning to film. When the business gets so small that Kodak stops making film, it's over.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Kodak is still selling as many motion picture emulsions as they do. In 35mm still photography, they're down to just 10 emulsions.

For motion pictures, they're still making 6 camera films, 5 intermediate films, 3 print films, 2 sound films, 1 title film and 3 archive films.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-08-2014, 09:52 AM:
 
Doesn't the UN have more important things to do than to get involved with film manufacturing and processing?

I like film, too, but I really fail to see the point of this petition (and most online petitions, for that matter).
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Wood (Member # 4614) on 07-08-2014, 11:11 AM:
 
Just because you don't see the point of something Scott it doesn't mean it's a waste of time. The answer is simple , don't sign it.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-08-2014, 12:21 PM:
 
Martin...

That's already being done in many places in many countries. Sadly, in some cases not fast enough but it is none the less being done. And the only really safe way to do it still... is to archive on film.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-08-2014, 05:53 PM:
 
As I understand it, the best, safest way to archive to film is via black-and-white separations. In which case, from a preservation/archival view point, is there much need for color film stock?

Like Scott, and others, I also question how useful this petition is. Honestly, such things primarily indicate a denial of the reality that film -- in the general sense -- has been replaced by digital formats and media.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-08-2014, 08:01 PM:
 
And even if Kodak discontinues making film all together... which is highly unlikely seeing they do make the preservation stock then others will pick up where they left off. Heck, Fuji has already reintroduced some discontinued stocks that were demanded by professional photographers. Other European film manufacturers such as Orwo are seeing record sales of film stock as others disappear. Ferriana is also in the midst of reviving one of it's color film coating plants. Film still has a long way to go...

Mark
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-08-2014, 10:18 PM:
 
STAR WARS Episode 7 is being shot on 35mm film and partially in 70mm IMAX. Yes, film is far from becoming a dead format.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-09-2014, 02:56 PM:
 
I'm all in favor of using film as a production and preservation medium.

To be clear, when people say "film is dead" -- and, more specifically, when I agree with them -- I believe they are speaking about it as a distribution medium.

Yes, there may be a small handful of directors who can "insist" on a few film prints. But they won't live forever. And, while they're alive, their films had better remain top performers at the box office, or they'll be as good as dead... at least as far as the "on film" demands go.

Remember "Far and Away"? How many 70mm productions did Ron Howard get after that?

Now, before anyone gets offended, I'm not saying Ron Howard is a bad filmmaker. What I'm saying is that "Far and Away" didn't do big business, and Howard never released on 70mm again. And, no -- you don't get to count "Apollo 13" in IMAX because that was (a) after the fact; and (b) an IMAX experiment.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-10-2014, 11:45 AM:
 
It was mentioned during small talk in the booth a few days ago that there are going to be film prints of Paul Thomas Anderson's new movie coming out this fall, but that the studio only agreed to it because he insisted and that his movies are enough of a draw for them to regard the extra expense as being worth it.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-10-2014, 12:20 PM:
 
PTA will probably have his way, so long as box office figures support his claim, and there are sufficient first-run cinemas equipped to properly handle film.

I would imagine that -- at this point -- any cinema that gets allocated a film print of a PTA film would be doing film right.

I wonder if anyone takes the time to compare per screen figures (digital versus film) within catchment areas.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-10-2014, 02:27 PM:
 

quote: Manny Knowles

---

I would imagine that -- at this point -- any cinema that gets allocated a film print of a PTA film would be doing film right.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

I wonder if anyone takes the time to compare per screen figures (digital versus film) within catchment areas.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

I would imagine that -- at this point -- any cinema that gets allocated a film print of a PTA film would be doing film right.

---