Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Studios / Kodak Strike Deal to Keep Film Alive

This is topic Studios / Kodak Strike Deal to Keep Film Alive 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=011690

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 07-31-2014, 08:52 PM:

http://www.avclub.com/article/jj-abrams-christopher-nolan-and-quentin-tarantino--207556?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default

quote:
Cinephiles have been anticipating the death of celluloid for years now, predictions that seemed on the verge of coming true when Fujifilm closed its motion picture division last year. But Kodak, now the last remaining major company to produce motion-picture film, has received a major bailout courtesy of some prominent film directors/activists.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Kodak has seen its film sales fall 96 percent since 2006, an alarming financial reality that almost led to the closure of its film manufacturing plant in Rochester, N.Y. Kodak’s attempt to get movie studios to invest directly in the company faltered, but a new plan to secure long-term buying commitments from movie studios is reportedly proving successful enough to keep Kodak in business for the foreseeable future. The Weinstein Company, Warner Brothers, Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, and Walt Disney Studios are all currently negotiating commitments to buy a certain, undisclosed amount of motion-picture film from Kodak every year, regardless of whether they plan on using it.

The plan has succeeded in large part due to the efforts of prominent directors like Christopher Nolan, J.J. Abrams (who’s shooting Star Wars: Episode VII on film), Judd Apatow, and Quentin Tarantino. All four rallied a group of Hollywood directors to support the plan and force the hand of studio executives like Bob Weinstein, who tells the WSJ, “I don’t think we could look some of our filmmakers in the eyes if we didn’t do it.”

Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke says that, with the new guarantees in place, his company’s film division should return to profitability in 2016. But, he adds, the real benefit of the deal will be “a deeper recognition that film is valuable.”

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-31-2014, 08:55 PM:

Is this supposed to be for shooting on film, or for exhibition? I can't see how there would be much financial incentive to create release prints.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 07-31-2014, 09:00 PM:

I have to think it's primarily for image acquisition - certainly no one will be able to turn back the clock on exhibition converting to digital projection.

But if this keeps the doors open at Kodak, and Fotokem can maintain the infrastructure for developing and printing film, at least the *option* will be available for both shooting on film, and striking release prints in at least small quantities.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-31-2014, 10:34 PM:

I would bet any amount of money that Disney would not be on board with this if not for the Star Wars movies.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-31-2014, 11:25 PM:

I think you are wrong there Mike. Disney has ALWAYS cared about their library. And film is currently their best means of archiving it. They know as well as anybody if there is no more film, then their ability to keep/maintain their archive of their own titles will become much more difficult and expensive.

Until such time that digital has a suitable archival medium, Disney will be all too happy to have film around. Remember, even born-digital movies eventually get a film-out to go into the vaults. Film has about a 1000-year storage life...digital has nothing of the sort, yet.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 08-01-2014, 12:42 AM:

Fantastic!

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-01-2014, 01:53 AM:

This is good news overall for movie fans and I guess for everyone who loves movies. From what I am reading, this is a all about capturing on film but even more importantly, having the rare small 35/70mm release here and there. I have said a couple of times on this forum and a few other forums that the studios will keep film alive for the rare occasional film release such as the Interstellar release and possibly others.

Having a wide film release is not fiscally possible but every once in a while, a release of film makes sense.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-01-2014, 02:52 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I think you are wrong there Mike. Disney has ALWAYS cared about their library.

I stand corrected....I hadn't considered the older movies and the archival angle, was thinking more about new stuff, particularly Star Wars.

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 08-01-2014, 04:10 AM:

quote: Daniel Schulz
certainly no one will be able to turn back the clock on exhibition converting to digital projection.

Probably right. But remember the cautionary tale about assuming in the field of media - namely vinyl albums. They also said there was no way in hell that vinyl albums would *ever* return. Now the NY Times is reporting that:

quote:
These days, every major label and many smaller ones are releasing vinyl, and most major new releases have a vinyl version, leading to a spate of new pressing plants.

I believe that albums were also a debate of deep quality. Sounds familiar. I'm just saying...

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-01-2014, 05:27 AM:

The vinyl album analogy doesn't work. With those, there are customers willing to pay for them. I will 100% guarantee that there isn't an exhibitor that would pay a few thousand dollars (price will go up at lower volume) on top of film rental to get film prints.

Besides, based upon what I've seen from digital so far, a movie shot on film, scanned and post produced at 4k and projected with 4k laser DLP will look as good or better than anything but the absolute best of the best print.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-01-2014, 08:23 AM:

Mike...I can just about guarantee that every new Disney movie...even born-digital will have a film version in the vault.

Lyle, as for your 100% guarantee. If almost nobody is showing on film and I, as an exhibitor, can exploit that and draw more than my fair share of the market buy offering film, then yes, I would pay above the rental cost for my print if I feel that expenditure would bring me in above the cost of the print (extra). That is simple business. Where the plan would fall apart is like what has happened with 3D...when there were but a few and it was a novelty...those that had it raked it in...but once everyone had it and the public didn't perceive it as special, the profits have sunk.

With exhibitors it will, always has, and sort of always should be...about the numbers. The difference between the way some look at it is for the short-term numbers versus the long-term numbers.

As for Vinyl records...people like to through that one up as how a technology written off has made a comeback to turn back time...well...no. Vinyl's numbers are still near nothing compared to all music sales. They are near nothing to what they were 30-years ago. What Vinyl records have shown is that people WILL seek out a perceived quality or even comfort difference. And that does apply to the film model. It does bode well for the very small film presentation model as a niche sort of thing. The problem for film, however is the size of the market versus the cost of the technology. The number of POTENTIAL vinyl record buyers is in the BILLIONS so even a very small percentage of those can create a sustainable market, albeit a small one. The potential movie theatres is less than 150,000. And by potential, I mean every screen in the world showing movies commercially. And just like with vinyl, when you look at the very small percentage of those that may actually invest and WANT to show movies on film...you have a teeny tiny market of what? In the hundreds? Of those, how many are set up to run 1st run? I know our sustaining film houses are primarily Art/REP and screening rooms. So your 1st run market is going to be so small that no part of the industry can really support it to any great extent. That is, those theatres are not going to be able to "demand" film prints. Again, it is about the numbers.

That said, I hope film does continue as long as possible. Whether from imprinting or not, it remains my preferred medium for watching movies. Oddly enough...I never liked 35mm very much...I always preferred 70mm (for obvious reasons to me) and 16mm for documentaries. For that, I have to go with the imprinting theory...I was raised on 16mm "instructional" movies.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-01-2014, 02:11 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Mike...I can just about guarantee that every new Disney movie...even born-digital will have a film version in the vault.

I'm sure you're right....my comment was based on this statement here:

quote:
commitments to buy a certain, undisclosed amount of motion-picture film from Kodak every year, regardless of whether they plan on using it.

Disney isn't usually in the habit of buying something they don't plan to use, but I wasn't thinking in terms of archival purposes. Still....you wouldn't think they'd need very MUCH film. How many archival copies of anything are made?

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-01-2014, 03:16 PM:

You know Disney would be 100% for this. They not only have their Film Vault in Burbank; but also have a large number of Nitrate Master Negatives stored in a Semi-underground Salt Mine in KANSAS. Probably still have the Original Masters from SNOW WHITE,DUMBO,ETC. There...

Posted by Jonathan Wood (Member # 4614) on 08-01-2014, 05:05 PM:

What this deal refers to is I suspect predominantly camera negative, to ensure that directors have the option to originate on film. It would be interesting to find out whether this deal includes any intermediate and print stock. There are enough heavyweight film makers out there who can insist on shooting on film and a few who still insist on at least a limited run of film prints. I imagine the future of film will be essentially as an origination medium but it will also be needed for at least the immediate future for archival purposes because as Steve points out, there simply is no reliable alternative at the moment.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 08-01-2014, 06:34 PM:

Regarding the statement about nitrate "masters" being stored in an underground vault in Kansas - not so.
I have had years of experience in working with companies that use these facilities. NO NITRATE IS STORED HERE. A nitrate fire in such a location would be a major disaster, not only for the material being stored, but the nitric acid fumes created by a fire that can't be put out.
Most studio productions created on nitrate are at the Library of Congress, George Eastman House, Museum of Modern Art, or UCLA, all of which have properly constructed vaults for that purpose.
This is not meant to contradict the statement that Disney and others do not take proper care of their original negatives, but to clarify a misunderstanding about this (and other underground) storage facilities.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-01-2014, 09:11 PM:

Actually the atmospheric conditions of an underground Salt Mine would be more ideal for storing Nitrate Based Film. One of the reasons that Companies(not film related) store things that are subject to rapid oxidation/decomposition;is there isn't any.Unless there is visible evidence of decomposition, Storing Nitrate Prints would be less Hazardous here underground than even Specialized above ground Vaults...Apparently MGM,DISNEY and a Few others thought so...

http://www.koaa.com/news/a-salt-mine-is-home-to-movie-memorabilia/

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 08-02-2014, 09:59 AM:

Steve - Not to get into a controversy, but the article which you attached does not mention nitrate film. It is true that the safety protection copies are there, so the titles mentioned are correct.
Theoretically, the cool, dry, stable atmosphere is ideal for either type material, but I repeat: the fumes from burning nitrate are deadly. 60 stories underground is not a place to store it.
I worked with the MGM library for years, and never did we send any nitrate to Kansas.
No argument, just clarification.

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 08-02-2014, 12:41 PM:

Hey everybody! A fight is starting!

I want front row seats! Wow, who's bringing popcorn? Isn't life good? [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-02-2014, 02:23 PM:

Any and all nitrate stored in the National Film Archives is stored at I believe 34 deg. f. The sizes of the vaults are very limited and each vault is explosion proof and vented to the outside.

Mark

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-02-2014, 04:50 PM:

No Fight Here; I concede that you know what your talking about;you have impressive Credentials on Film Preservation.
Are these Film Studios using the Salt mine as just another Safety
backup along with their original Studio Vaults. I know MGM Probably looks at it this way since losing a lot of Films in the Fire they had years back. These Underground Vaults are huge and with over 940 Acres as of 2009;that is well over a Square Mile(640 acres)should have plenty of ventilation if a fire started...

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 08-03-2014, 11:33 AM:

Steve: I can't make any general statement about what studios do, only for collections where I have personal knowledge.
I can say, in general, storage in "salt mines" is far, far less expensive than in studio property. It was always accessible within a couple of days.
Regardless of ventilation and square footage, I certainly wouldn't want to be near anything throwing off nitric acid fumes.
Thanks for bringing up this conversation. I think we've covered it pretty well.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-04-2014, 11:02 PM:

Richard; You worked for MGM so you might know This. Are the Original 3 Strip Technicolor Camera Negatives,Master Positives,etc. still around for "Gone with the Wind" & "Wizard of 0z" They would be right at 76 yrs old now. People should read the Book "The Making of Wizard of Oz" and they will appreciate these 2 films even more when they see how complicated and expensive it was to make a IB TECHNICOLOR Movie back in 1938. The intense Krieg Lights that were needed back then for Technicolor caused a number of Actors to have future Vision Problems...

Posted by Christopher Woollard (Member # 2455) on 08-05-2014, 10:47 AM:

I teach a Masters degree in Cinematography and of course have always been using 35mm and 16mm film in addition to the usual Alexa & RED digital cameras. Up to last year we could get Fuji stock at about £60 per 1000ft roll of 35mm negative. Now Kodak are charging us some £230 for the same amount - and charging an extra £40 per order if we order less than £400 worth. At this rate we simply will no longer be able to use more than a token amount. A great shame as my guild, the BSC, very much supports the learning experience and working discipline of using film for origination. Here in London we screen outstanding student films to the industry - many deeply regret the demise of film simply because they cannot afford to use it now. Our Moviecam camera will also outlast any digital camera several times over. Of course the top film makers are concerned with shooting on film, not at all exhibition, but Kodak needs to support the 'little folks' in the industry as was once common. If they price us out, no next generation will know how to use negative let alone appreciate its capabilities over the (excellent) digital alternative. I still have full 16/35mm projection facilities but again we cannot afford to use them.

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 08-05-2014, 01:37 PM:

And to think so many theatres tossed out their 35mm/70mm film projectors and spent all their candy counter money on expensive digital, now they may have to put back in 35mm for special events and some films. I always new film would not die off completely. The movie circuits and film companies that tried to kill film off and put in video projectors to save postage and booth projectionists must be very upset that film is not dead.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-05-2014, 03:32 PM:

Yes I was shocked at how many stories I've heard of theaters literally throwing their 35mm Equipment in the Garbage or hauling it to the Dump.Close to home here Our only Outdoor Drive-in that has been using Digital over a year now threw his
2 CENTURY H Projectors and related Booth Equipment in the Garbage
rather than try to store them somewhere or make an attempt to Sell the Equipment somewhere else. If I had been there when they were installing his Digital Projectors I could of had all this for free... [Confused]

Just my Luck!
[Roll Eyes]

I guess a lot of theater owners have conceded that film is gone and they don't want the hastle of having to Store something or try and sell what they believe is ancient history. I sure hope before I leave this Earth one day that Film hasn't completely died...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-05-2014, 06:05 PM:

Well it IS ancient history as far as the majority of the exhibition community is concerned. We went to considerable expense to keep our film system in place when we switched over, but in four years after the change, we had used the film equipment exactly zero times. And that's even with me having a big collection of "old film" that I swore I'd want to run once in a while.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 08-05-2014, 06:35 PM:

Steve - yes, the 3-strip negatives on GWTW and W of Oz still exist. These pictures, along with all of the pre-1986 MGM films are now owned by Warner Bros. They have used these elements for new film copies for protection, and new video elements now available in the BluRay market. I'm not giving anything away here, as they have made this well known in their publicity.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-05-2014, 10:17 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Well it IS ancient history as far as the majority of the exhibition community is concerned. We went to considerable expense to keep our film system in place when we switched over, but in four years after the change, we had used the film equipment exactly zero times. And that's even with me having a big collection of "old film" that I swore I'd want to run once in a while.

Yes Mike; but are you prepared to just Chuck your Equipment in the Garbage or Dump? I Don't Think So! [Wink]

BTW: Richard P. May-Thanks for the Info; Glad to see that those
Negs have been properly Taken Care Of... [thumbsup]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-05-2014, 11:54 PM:

quote:
are you prepared to just Chuck your Equipment in the Garbage or Dump? I Don't Think So!

Welll....it IS taking up a lot of space backstage and it IS completely worthless to me at this point, so...

The only reason we're even keeping it around is in case we ever hear of somebody needing something for parts. I can't imagine any of it ever being used to show movies here again, since if our digital gear ever breaks down we probably wouldn't be able to get prints anyway, plus it would be a monumentally expensive task to get the film stuff reinstalled. So it's not gonna happen.

Simplex 5-Star soundhead and projector head, Christie CC20 lamphouse/console, and Christie AW3 (the kind with permanently-mounted brains), in case anyone's wondering.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-09-2014, 10:26 PM:

quote:
Probably right. But remember the cautionary tale about assuming in the field of media - namely vinyl albums. They also said there was no way in hell that vinyl albums would *ever* return. Now the NY Times is reporting that:

In spite of the hype, it's still less than 2% of the music market (which itself is less than half of its 1999 peak and even less if you consider inflation) and for catalog material, the labels are not releasing the LPs themselves, they're licensing it to labels like Sundazed because the market is too small for them to care much about.

Having said that, I always did think that theaters should have kept a few film projectors on one screen in the multiplex "just in case" if the alternative was sending them to the dump. And I think all universities with film departments and museums should keep their film projectors.

Even though NYU has a big film school, I was at their theatre on 8th street for the first time in decades and as far as I can tell, it's been chopped up into tiny auditoriums and none of the auditoriums are equipped for film anymore. (I'm not sure they're equipped for DCPs either). When I was there in the 1970s, they projected gorgeous 16mm prints with Xenon projectors onto a very large screen that looked as good, if not better, than typical 35mm projection. I suspect they're now teaching film history using DVDs.

Except for special events, I do think the age of projecting film is over and thinking anything else is a bit of a fantasy. The best we can hope for is directors who continue to use film for origination. As I've posted before, my last two film experiences were not good: "The Master" in 70mm at the Ziegfeld had dirt end to end and seeing "Her" at a local Queens theatre that still only projects film was dim, scratched and much to my surprise, the noise from the projection booth really annoyed me.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-09-2014, 11:22 PM:

In relation to the points on page 1 about film stock for archiving, camera negative stock can be used for printing archival preservation masters, but in many workflows (e.g. if the master element being duplicated for preservation is itself a negative), it's not ideal. Many of the intermediate stocks that were very important for archival preservation have either now gone out of production, or have minimum orders and long lead times that effectively put them out of easy reach of even the major preservation centers (e.g. UCLA, GEH, British Film Institute, etc. etc.). The decline of film has already become a big problem for the archiving world, and some leading preservationists are now arguing that we have to plan for photochemical duplication to no-longer be considered a viable preservation tool. In other words, keep the master film element for preservation, but accept that you'll be scanning it regularly to whatever is the DI format of the day.