Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 35mm Wizard of Oz ruined in flood.

This is topic 35mm Wizard of Oz ruined in flood. in forum The Afterlife 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=12;t=001097

Posted by J Patrick Mikl (Member # 8751) on 08-16-2015, 03:19 PM:

I lost a great 35mm print of Wizard of Oz because of water damage that flooded my basement. I am so bummed, mostly because the print was a gift from someone important, given years ago.

I do not own a projector, but I do like to collect all kinds of movie memorabilia. I have a variety of items including 16mm and 35mm films and trailers.

Anyhow, I would like to replace it. I do not see any listings on this forum for prints, and would like to know if there is any advice on how to go about connecting with someone that might be able to help me replace it. I did look at eBay's historical details and found that two had been listed in the last year, however it has been a long time. I would expect that it is harder and harder to come by 35mm as time marches on.

Jeff

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-16-2015, 06:26 PM:

Not meaning to make light of your loss, but there is something ironic about suffering flood damage during the worst drought SoCal has experienced in a generation!

That having been said, when I went to water the plants in the back yard on Friday evening, I turned on the faucet and the three-inch long rip suddenly opened up in the hosepipe. It was quite old, and a few days 115-degree Inland Empire sunshine in the last heatwave must have been enough to finish it off. I wouldn't be surprised if others have experienced the same thing, and soaker hoses (for example) letting go have caused quite a few water damage incidents.

As for your print, are you sure it's a gonner? If the reels were fully immersed then it probably is, but we're just talking about a few splashes, then it could be rescuable. More info here.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 08-16-2015, 11:28 PM:

Very interesting document, Leo.

Speaking of 'film under water', I remember reading that when they were
making "JAWS" one of their Panaflex cameras went overboard during the
filming of the dramatic action scene of the shark attacking Quint's boat.
It would have been impossibly expensive to re-shoot so they shipped the
entire camera, still submerged in a tank of sea water to the film lab to
recover the lost footage.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-17-2015, 08:03 AM:

My recollection is that the camera was pushed off the pier during a tracking scene because a certain inexperienced director failed to yell cut.
Could all be urban legends and I'm too lazy to check [Wink]

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 08-17-2015, 10:09 AM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
Could all be urban legends and I'm too lazy to check

Well, I just got home from working (another!) film festival and couldn't
sleep last night, sooooo----
I dug through a box of old books and found my aging, first edition,
yellowing copy of "The Making Of Jaws", published in 1975. On page 167,
describing the filming of the scene where the shark is pulling the boat
backwards (done with cables & winches) almost capsizing it:

[slightly edited quote]
"Again and again the scene was re-done, then on one of the takes the Orca
[tilted]too far, thereby dunking one of those precious Panaflex cameras and
an entire day's take of film" ...... "
...." The camera and the film were packed in salt water and immediately
flown to [the film lab in) New York by private jet"

From elsewhere in the book: "The Panaflex camera alone cost $2,400 a week
to rent, and then there were all of the filters, sunshades, lenses, controls for
zooms, tripods, viewers and motors" ... "During one of the numerous times a
boat was thought to be sinking, cameraman Michael Chapman is reputed to
have snatched a life jacket off of a human and put it on a camera".

(Ok, so the above paragraph may be an exaggeration or urban legend,
but "it's in the book". )

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-17-2015, 10:24 AM:

I defer to your research [Wink]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-17-2015, 12:01 PM:

quote: Jim Cassedy
From elsewhere in the book: "The Panaflex camera alone cost $2,400 a week to rent...

$10,645.56 in today's money (source), and that's not even RPI!

That's a stark illustration of how much the technology cost in our business has gone down in real terms over time. How much does it cost to rent an Arri Alexa or a Red per week today? Nothing like that much, would be my guess.