"A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution (2 Viewers)

the print doesn't excist. Where is the proof that it does?

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Stan Heck

the print doesn't excist. Where is the proof that it does?

There is no proof. Just as there is no proof of a print of London After Midnight, the complete print of The Magnificent Ambersons, or any of the Charlie Chan lost films. But it is a good story and one that Hollywood Legends are made of for we certainly made it a legend on this forum.

 

[Joe Caps]

Gee, A Hollis AND Stan Heck have both decided the print does not exist.
Gee, guys. Gosh !! You must be right. Therefore, I am happy that you are satisfied with what exists. because that is all you will get. Meanwhile I and others (including Warners) know the prints DO exist and who has them.
End of discussion.
Mr, Heck, who just joined HTF recently and has posted on NOTHING but Star is Born will now need a new topic of discussion.

 

[Eric Peterson]

This argument is like listening to two people arguing over the existence of God. Neither side is going to convince the other until there is some physical proof.

If this print truly does exist, and the owner is not a collector, and he does not trust WB, what exactly is his goal? I have to admit that something sounds extremely fishy. It's not like there is a lack of other options. He could easily make a deal with a film archive (which is what happens to most long-lost films). This sounds more like a ransom case, where one side is asking an for something incredible, and the other side refuses to budge. I have a hard time believing that WB would not be doing everything within their power to get this film back in their hands (Within some parameters that is) if it truly does exist. Obviously, if this guy is holding out for millions and millions of dollars, then that's probably not going to happen.....either that or he watches way too much "X-Files".

 

[RolandL]

Originally Posted by Joe Caps

Gee, A Hollis AND Stan Heck have both decided the print does not exist.
Gee, guys. Gosh !! You must be right. Therefore, I am happy that you are satisfied with what exists. because that is all you will get. Meanwhile I and others (including Warners) know the prints DO exist and who has them.
End of discussion.
Mr, Heck, who just joined HTF recently and has posted on NOTHING but Star is Born will now need a new topic of discussion.

Maybe whenever we do have a discussion with Warner Brothers they can tell us why the owner of the complete print will not loan it to them. Or maybe they will have no comment.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Joe Caps

Gee, A Hollis AND Stan Heck have both decided the print does not exist.
Gee, guys. Gosh !! You must be right. Therefore, I am happy that you are satisfied with what exists. because that is all you will get. Meanwhile I and others (including Warners) know the prints DO exist and who has them.
End of discussion.
Mr, Heck, who just joined HTF recently and has posted on NOTHING but Star is Born will now need a new topic of discussion.

I would be very happy if the print did exist, but there is not any more shred of proof that the film exists and than it does not exist. People saying they know it exists is the same as I saying it does not exist. No one has proof on either side, just speculation. To end the discussion someone will have to offer more proof than saying "I know that it exists."

This is really a ridiculous point to argue and I am not trying to be augmentative nor appear to attack anyone personally. The point had been that the Blu-ray of A STAR IS BORN will be the restored 1983 version and I am happy to have that in Blu-ray. I enjoyed it on DVD, but have enjoyed it more without the stills filling in for the missing film, I wish there was a complete print that could be used, but until Warner's announces they have it and will use it, then it is still lost as for as I know. And if someone does have it and refuses to allow it to be used then that is a shame for then again the print is lost to everyone but that person and does not exist for anyone except that one person.


It is also too late for Warner's to get the elusive print to use for the Blu-ray this time around, so the point is nil.

 

There is no print or missing footage anywhere. I am not knew to HTF just knew on posting on it...

 

[Robin9]

Originally Posted by Eric Peterson
If this print truly does exist, and the owner is not a collector, and he does not trust WB, what exactly is his goal?

Why assume he has a goal?
I don't know if this print really does exist - although Joe Caps sounds far more credible than Mr. Heck - but, re-reading Mr. Caps' post 92, it occurs to me that the gentleman in question might now be quite old and perhaps not especially interested in doing anything with the material.

 

[Joe Caps]

Mr. Heck. no offense but looking up your profile, there is a welcome from HTFs Parker Clack on Feb 10, 2010 welcoming you to the forum. that sounds new to me (uh, last month?)

The NON collector, is younger than me ( I am 58). He does NOT need the money. He went to great lengths to get these prints, but Warners screwed him over on other projects, so he was not inclined to trust them with Star is Born.
Again, the prints certainly DO exist, in spite of Mr. Heck who does NOT know the people involved or the events that led to this.

 

[Greg_M]

Joe is right about the studios, once it is in their possession they will claim they own it (they were the creators) and they do screw people over. I sure there are a lot of things out there that are not released due to this reason.

Remember Irving Berlin refused to allow "Annie Get Your Gun" to be released for 30 years and we still to this day do not have a Video of "Porgy and Bess" or "Where's Charley?" these were rights issues where the authors weren't happy with the studios and withheld the films to prove their point. Remember when all the lost footage from "1776" was found in the early 90's and how it was again found about 10 years ago to in better condition? Warner was known to have thrown this stuff out, but not everything gets thrown out

 

[RolandL]

58 is young. I'm 58.

Too bad we cannot see the complete print. Maybe some day we will.

This reminds me of another movie that the owner of the film print did not want to release, The High and The Mighty. It had not been seen for twenty years, between 1985 and 2005. After Michael Wayne passed away, it was released.

 

Sorry guys there is no print.

 

[Pete York]

Joe Caps is a long-standing, knowledgeable member of this forum, Stan. What am I supposed to think? That he has either been badly duped or he's lying? I'm not about to do either one. To someone on the outside, it just appears to be an unfortunate situation that hopefully, one day, will be resolved.

 

[Joe Caps]

I have received a few private emails, so let me answer all here. No, there is no possibility of private showings of this. ONE was done back in 92, that I was privileged to attend.
There are also no private video copies either, Don't ask.

As for the previously mentioned High and the Mighty. Mike Wayne did want it to be released, but it was found to be stored in a vault that had water leakage. It was damaged and it took many years to restore the film.
Mike Wayne was a great guy, But he was always afaraid that as soon as he released a film, better technology would arrive that would make his restorations obsolete.

 

[RolandL]

Originally Posted by Joe Caps


I have received a few private emails, so let me answer all here. No, there is no possibility of private showings of this. ONE was done back in 92, that I was privileged to attend.
There are also no private video copies either, Don't ask.

As for the previously mentioned High and the Mighty. Mike Wayne did want it to be released, but it was found to be stored in a vault that had water leakage. It was damaged and it took many years to restore the film.
Mike Wayne was a great guy, But he was always afaraid that as soon as he released a film, better technology would arrive that would make his restorations obsolete.

Do you think its a better film with the extra footage?

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Joe Caps


I have received a few private emails, so let me answer all here. No, there is no possibility of private showings of this. ONE was done back in 92, that I was privileged to attend.
There are also no private video copies either, Don't ask.

As for the previously mentioned High and the Mighty. Mike Wayne did want it to be released, but it was found to be stored in a vault that had water leakage. It was damaged and it took many years to restore the film.
Mike Wayne was a great guy, But he was always afaraid that as soon as he released a film, better technology would arrive that would make his restorations obsolete.

Despite our not seeing eye to eye on A STAR IS BORN, you are right on about Michael Wayne. He worked on the print many times over the years and unfortunately passed away before his work was made public. I am glad that his wife carried on and made sure it was available to the public again, along with the other titles. And he was a good and generous guy who worked to preserve his father's history.

 

[Robin9]

Originally Posted by Joe Caps
No, there is no possibility of private showings of this. ONE was done back in 92, that I was privileged to attend.

Now we're getting somewhere! What was the condition of the print? Have the colors faded? Could modern restoration tools bring this print to a level suitable for a Blu-ray transfer? (And yes, I did note that you saw it eighteen years ago!)

 

[JohnMor]

Anyone who sits on a print like that without returning it to the studio who made it, or at least providing it to the restoration team is a jerk. But the world is full of self-centered people who don't care about the art, but just about possessing something no one else has.

 

[Jack Theakston]

If the studio who made it really cared, they wouldn't have thrown it away in the first place. And if footage a collector owns was a result of dumpster diving, the original owners have no legal leg to stand on.

I can understand the reticence of someone who has been burned by hotshot executives or federal agents threatening to take their collection away. I would just hope that policy at some studios has changed enough that it would coerce some collectors to be more public.

 

[BethHarrison]

Originally Posted by Jack Theakston

If the studio who made it really cared, they wouldn't have thrown it away in the first place. And if footage a collector owns was a result of dumpster diving, the original owners have no legal leg to stand on.

Of course they do! They own the copyright to the entire film. If this print was put up on eBay, Warner could immediately have it pulled on the grounds that they own the copyright to it and they never sold it (because films were only rented).

It may be one thing that someone owns an uncut print, but it is a different matter entirely to assert that Warner somehow lost the copyright on the original material.