|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Studios / Kodak Strike Deal to Keep Film Alive
|
Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler
Posts: 387
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 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.”
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 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.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic