criterionforum.org

You would think somewhere in Universal's decision making chain the cost a proper vault versus the cost of losing archives of valuable material would've been calculated.

Idiots.

Antoine Doinel wrote:You would think somewhere in Universal's decision making chain the cost a proper vault versus the cost of losing archives of valuable material would've been calculated.

Maybe they just did that. Calculate the costs of maintaing a huge vault full of films that most likely can't be turned into profit anymore, and compare it with the insurance money.

Der Müde Tod wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:You would think somewhere in Universal's decision making chain the cost a proper vault versus the cost of losing archives of valuable material would've been calculated.

Maybe they just did that. Calculate the costs of maintaing a huge vault full of films that most likely can't be turned into profit anymore, and compare it with the insurance money.

Archival material is any label's lifeblood. Maintaining it keeps you in business.

Maybe Paramount/Dreamworks buys back Universal's Paramount catalog.

Sony, of course, keeps our archival prints in fireproof vaults off-lot.

Here's the NYT on the situation.

Au revoir Sturges Fest.

Thanks NBC!

And you know if Lorne Michaels' office was in the direct path of the inferno not even a wall index-card or post-it would have taken a singe.

Deleted. No longer necc..

Can someone please summarize information into an answer to my following question:

Have any films been completely lost?

LightBulbFilm wrote:Can someone please summarize information into an answer to my following question:

Have any films been completely lost?

Not as far as I'm aware, though loads have been rendered completely inaccessible without hefty printing costs.

However, someone on the HTF posted an unverified report that the video vault contained 2" masters on some TV shows that were shot on videotape. If that's true, those could have been the only copies. I bet that's something Universal won't be in a hurry to cough up answers about.

I'll be honest, my first thoughts were about what TV shows Universal might have lost.

In a sense, it does seem like some of these prints may be truly irreplaceable. From a Variety report:

But some prints are enormously valuable in their own right. So-called EK prints, struck from the original negatives when the negatives were new and thus irreplaceable, would be among the most valuable prints on Earth, according to one expert on film and printing who asked not to be named.

George Eastman House curator of Motion Pictures Patrick Loughney told Daily Variety, "Older films are not easily replaced. There might be issues with the negative fading, or it could have shriveled. Making new prints is not a straightforward matter."

Even if a negative is immaculate, a new print might not match the old, said David Schwartz, chief curator at the Museum of the Moving Image in New York.

"If it was a film printed in Technicolor, that process isn't used anymore. You're not going to get a print of the same quality," Schwartz said.

Daruty confirmed that there is no way to make a new Technicolor IB print today. "We work very hard when we are doing prints to try to get as close to the look of the original as possible. But there's no way to match a Technicolor print that's 30 or 40 years old."

Even black-and-white classics might not be fully reproducible. "Today's black-and-white film has less silver in the film stock," said Schwartz. "The quality of a vintage black-and-white print might be higher than a new black-and-white print."

I've had very good experiences with their film booking operations, at least. Many major studios won't deal directly with non-theatrical venues under any circumstances, and at times it can be impossible to obtain decent 35mm prints even of major films. The folks at Universal Classics have been very professional, and frankly I'm grateful that they let us rent some of the films that they did.

I got the impression that they had a well-maintained library, and that they were interested to make it accessible. I hope they can re-establish this service, because it's of great value.

The folks at Universal Classics have been very professional, and frankly I'm grateful that they let us rent some of the films that they did.

I agree completely with this. Of all the major studios, Universal Classics has always been the easiest to work with and their prices are surprisingly reasonable, even for rare titles. I too hope they can get back on their feet quickly, although, as the article above points out, it's unlikely that circulating prints of many of their Technicolor films will ever be as good as they used to be.

So ... the one studio that was really good at 35mm rentals is the one whose entire inventory burns to a crisp? Terrrrrrrific!

Perkins Cobb wrote:So ... the one studio that was really good at 35mm rentals is the one whose entire inventory burns to a crisp? Terrrrrrrific!

"Entire inventory" may be something of an overstatement. A source at Universal said that they are currently tracking down alternate prints stored in other locations. Don't forget, this wasn't the only facility where they stored rental prints, either.

And apparently striking new prints is definitely on the table, especially to honor future film bookings. I have to give them credit for taking the 35mm repertory exhibition business seriously.

I bet Universal could convince Kodak to make B&W stock with more silver if enough money is involved... hell, at this point it seems Kodak is going to struggle to use its silver stores (the largest store of silver on earth) in the next several years. All that silver isn't worth much when your business no longer requires it, and they'd flood the market causing a nosedive in the price if they were to sell it.

It is good that this is getting attention. If Universal doesn't learn from this, they might not have anything left to merge with Warner.

Universal fire a hot topic among film archivists

Let's hope that they were smart and put alot of their 35mm prints in storage in a salt mine in Kansas where so many other classic prints are stored. My one biggest fear is that much of their remaining silent catalogue is lost. If that is the case, then this is a big blow to the future of silent film studies in America, especially since nearly 90% of all silent films are already lost.

We already know that the bulk of Universals (once incredibly rich) silent catalog is gone specifically because the company didn't give a shit. Back in the 30's I believe, the execs thought no one would be interested in watching silent films anymore and they pulped the fucking things to nitz the silver out from the nitrate. This is why things like Hunchback and the original release of Phantom are cruddola 16's. I'm starting to believe Dan Burke who suggested that all that remains to The Last Warning and other unreleased gems (if they exist) is Show At Home 16 stuff. Wanna see the Cat Creeps? Pulped.

The stuff they do have they don't give a shit about. At least a company like Kino knocked on their fucking window to get material like the early Wylers, and Mamoulians, not to mention The Man Who Laughs.

When it comes to silents, UNiversal suck now, sucked in the past, and will always suck. If it were'nt from Dracula & Frankenstein, they'd hardly look back prior to the 40's. They haven't even produced "gesture" silents. At least WB have dabbled in it: throwing the silent Ben Hur on the Wyler.. the Chaney box 1, the Garbo silents. TCM stuff (not to mention periphal contributions to Flicker Alley which is tied to TCM). Fox has suddenly exploded into the world of silents viz Ford and now Murnau & Borzage (notwithstanding they released Sunrise a few yrs ago which was an exemplary release.. you just had to con the studio to get it without that klunky box set).

But what do most americans tend to think of when they think of silent films? Lon Chaney for one: Phantom & Hunchback-- Universal. But they won't go near this shit. Film heritage to them means another Monsters retrospective, patting themselves on the back for sending Jack Pierce into his retirement broke and an embittered man.

The decision to house these prints at this site rests with someone other than the archivists, correct? It seems an unfortunate one with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and really SHOULD have been foreseen as a problem by somebody who knew the situation. I hope the new repository will be somewhere else!

I believe a good portion of the negatives for many film companies (and 2 track audio masters) are stored here

Josh

Mysterioso! You have been scarce round here...