"A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Tell it to Roddy or the many other film collectors who have had their homes raided - including a friend of mine who collected only 16mm! Owning these prints is completely illegal, and the only reason private collections exist is because either the studios don't know about them or don't care. In this case, you can bet WB would care if they knew!

One more thing. According to the legend:

"Later in the 1980s, supposedly WB got in contact with a former employee who said he had not one, but two IB Tech 35mm prints that were totally uncut..."

If WB knew about these, then Haver also knew, since he didn't die until 1993. Are you telling me that the man who devoted years of his life to restoring this film, and who even wrote a book about the attempt, wouldn't have done everything possible to get these prints, including telling everyone that they existed? Of course he would have.

The story has all the classic elements of an urban legend: not one, but two prints (making the collector crueler for not sharing one), juicy details (Tech !B prints) making the item even more desirable, and good provenance (a former employee), making the story more believable.

I trust that Haver did everything possible to restore this film, and the version we have now is the most complete we'll ever see. Too bad, but thank god he did what he did!

Mark

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

I'm just repeating what I heard, and I have no way of verifying it. This is third or fourth hand rumor at best, but anything is possible, considering what has been uncovered lately. It is also possible that WB could have kept Haver out of the loop, or the attempts to contact this mysterious collector could have been after he died. The dates at which this transpired are unclear.

I assumed that these rumored complete prints were IB Tech because the film was printed at Technicolor. I apologize for giving anyone false impressions.

WB is one of the most film collector-unfriendly studios out there. For rep houses attempting to show one of their films, they do not allow you to use collector prints when one of their own is unavailable. If that is the case, you must find a film archive print and obtain their permission. If the rumors are true, I could certainly see why one would be reluctant to work with them.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Urban legends are always third- or fourth-hand, and when you try to research them, you're never able to find the actual source.

Look, I'm not getting down on anyone here. It's just that we all would really like to see an uncut print of ASIB, as well as many other legendary lost films. That leads to rumours and legends, which unfortunately are almost always not true.

In his book, Haver writes about attempts to follow-up on numerous film collector leads (including the great story about the collector who tells Lorna Luft that "I have what you want" and then proceeds to unspool a black-and-white print of "Good News"), so I'm sure he exhausted all possible leads - no one could've been more obsessed with this film than he was!

BTW, here's the Roddy McDowall story:

"In 1974, the FBI raided the home of McDowall and seized the actor's collection of films and television series in the course of an investigation of movie piracy and copyright infringement. His collection consisted of 160 16 mm prints and over 1,000 videocassettes, at a time before the era of videotapes when there was no legal aftermarket for films (copying or selling prints obtained from studios without owning the copyright was illegal). No charges were brought against McDowall."

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

I thought that McDowell was threatened with jail time unless he named names.

I didn't know that 16mm prints were illegal, too. Didn't people used to rent 16mm prints for home viewing before the days of videotape?

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Well, he did name names, though reluctantly. Fortunately everyone knew that the FBI was twisting his arm, so he held on to his friends, though it was a painful episode in his life, as the collection of old films he had cherished was taken from him. Like Debbie Reynolds, Roddy was a film star who was also a film fan. He befriended a lot of people in the industry and knew all sorts of intimate secrets, which is why he stipulated in his will that his diaries not be released to the public until decades after his death- or so the story goes.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

There is a great deal of misinformation in this thread about film collecting. Owning a 35mm feature is not illegal. MANY prints were sold over the years, quite legally, out of studio warehouses that were cleared, dead accounts at labs, and personal prints given to staff. Few studios have a legal leg to stand on with this claim, since they can't prove the provenance of any print. This is why they've resorted to intimidation with collectors. Same applies to 16mm. What IS illegal is how many modern prints are obtained by collectors today, the various ways I don't wish to discuss here.

WB has been particularly bad with collectors, so I can understand the disincentive for collectors to be sharing with them. The truth is that their policy on this is based on an event that happened some twenty years ago and I doubt that anyone in the department has been around long enough to remember it. As of right now, there is still existing STAR IS BORN footage that has yet to be incorporated into the film because a collector is holding out (I happen to know who he is and can verify this story is true). WB knows this, but can't legally do anything, or probably don't care enough.

As for 6k, as RAH said above-- I don't think that 6k or 4k will make much difference, but using the highest quality scan can accomplish a few things, including better color rendition. STAR IS BORN has a lot of issues as we all know, but definition is one of those uncorrectable ones, brought about by the sub-par anamorphic lenses that were used to shoot it.

As for the 1937 film, it's been fully restored to its former glory by UCLA. Here's hoping WB will be releasing this edition with their new one.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Jack,

I'm torn about what to think about what you've just written. On one hand, I'm glad that the footage exists and that I am not spreading phony baloney. But on the other hand I am deeply saddened that it is unlikely that the footage will ever be restored to the film anytime soon. (assuming these are not outtakes that were never supposed to be in it, but truly the last piece of the puzzle, so to speak).

Has WB ever dealt with collectors directly before? I know they found cut musical numbers from 1962's Gypsy that were in no condition to put back into the film.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Yes, and therein lies the tomfoolery. God forbid if I actually send Warner Bros. money in order to run a dye-transfer print of HORROR OF DRACULA (totally negating me running it without paying them or their permission, which is the whole reason why they don't like collectors), but when they need something from the collector community, they're open arms.


Never say "never."

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

The word I would use is hypocrisy. There's nothing stopping Warner from offering an olive branch to this guy except their own arrogance. I don't know anything about this collector's character to comment on it.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

I'm completely confused... which collector where they mean too? Is it known that a collector has the cut sequences and is just being difficult (for whatever reason)?

I need more stories told to keep up with all this! :S

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Whether or not studios ever sold or gave legal prints of films to individuals is debatable, but that fact is that 99% of the prints out there were not obtained legally. In all the collectors and dealers I have known over the years, not once did I ever hear of someone who had any legal documentation proving they were the rightful owner of a print. It was all done on the black market, and WB could easily sue any collector who wouldn't play ball. We can disagree on whether or not they would win, but they could sure make life hell for the collector.

The only thing that would convince me that a collector has more ASIB footage is verification from someone who had personally watched the footage. Too many collectors claim to have stuff they really don't have, or we hear about it from a "trusted source."

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Many 35mm prints were sold to the armed services film exchanges in the past.

Vern

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Both 35mm and 16mm prints have been sold by certain studios for decades, inclusive of overrun prints for use as fill leader, old prints clearing out exchanges and new 16mm prints produced to order.

Anyone who owns a print owns the sprocket holes and ability to use it in a home setting. Prints cannot be used for any type of commercial purpose.

As an example, many 16mm prints of the pre-1949 Warner productions, inclusive of dye transfer prints of The Adventures of Robin Hood were sold to collectors for home (non-theatrical) use only, for life of print. Many of these prints are still out there.

While one should not have a 35mm print of Indy 4 (for example), an old print from the '50s should not cause any waves unless used inappropriately.

Generally, the studios, inclusive of WB, are extremely collector friendly.

RAH

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

As the uncut version of A Star Is Born only played for the first few weeks of the its release to first run theaters it seems unlikely that 16 mm or print overruns would have been made of the complete version for Warners to sell or give away. Unlike today, movies like A Star is Born played in one or two theaters per city when they first opened. There could not have been that many prints of the complete version made. Per Ron Haver's book the complete version prints were cut while the film was still playing in first run and the trims were sent back to the Warner Bros film exchanges. The hope is or was that some of the trims were not destroyed or that maybe a print wasn't cut in error. I think it is fair to say in the case of A Star Is Born that a complete print or the trims were not obtained legally.
Perhaps someone who was told to destroy the trims kept them instead.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

According to Haver:

Technicolor had made the first set of prints for the full-length road show version back in 1954. According to their September 1954 records, they printed 150 four-track stereo prints on Eastmancolor stock for the first run. Then no more work was done until mid-October, when an order came through to cut the master negative...The excised material - the "trims and deletions" as the order phrased it - were put in cans, numbered 430 through 440, and shipped back to the studio.

Thereafter, the print orders called for another 150 optical prints of the short version made by the dye-transfer process, for second-run usage. From this shortened master negative were made all the subsequent printing materials for 16mm and foreign 35mm use. So much for a full-length version being printed overseas.

According to the studio files at USC...orders went out from the editorial department to all film exchanges across the country, instructing them how to cut the prints and to send the excised material back to the studio. At this point, we thought it was worth a try to contact people who had worked in the film exchanges to see if possibly some zealous studio editor/inspector had cut it and kept it. The Academy placed ads in daily and weekly Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. The response, while gratifying in numbers, turned up nothing of interest.

I asked Dan Adler what would have happened to the film cans shipped back to the studio..."In those days, we'd keep it for six months and then junk it." Was it possible that some of it might not have been junked? "Possible, but not likely."
____________________

Haver contacted a number of collectors and did an exhaustive search of film vaults. What he found is what we see in the 1983 restoration. (I saw the first screening in Chicago, and was quite proud that I figured out he had found the stock footage, before I read that anywhere! =)

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

I saw "A Star is Born" in 1954 at the Earl theater located at 28th and Reed St. in South Philadelphia. The movie theater was a third run house but somehow they had an uncut copy. I was 10 years old and of course didn't know anything about movies being cut. I was just mesmerized so I return the next day and saw it again. A few years later it was reissued and I was very disappointed, a few of my favorite scenes were missing. So strange things do happen. I wish I could remember more details about the exact date I saw the movie but I know it was before the 1955 Academy awards.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

I'm surprised that despite the Technicolor credit at the brginning, that all of the prints were not printed by Technicolor.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Actually, wasn't the "collector" of the Gypsy footage actor Karl Malden who starred in the film? I think he just happened to have his own private unedited print and it was no problem for Warners to use the footage.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

I have no idea. I don't own the disc (and there are rumors that it will be remastered) and am going by the IMDb info. But it would make sense that someone involved in the production of the film would be easier to work with than a collector not employed in the industry.

It's just hard knowing that the footage is out there and that WB will probably not seek it out. If I could say "hey, here's the footage," I would but I can't, because I don't know all the facts in the story. I cannot also force anyone to come forward; that must be their decision.

On the bright side of things, the film should look better than it ever has once it comes out.


They were printed by Technicolor, they were just not printed in the IB Tech process. Why they would choose Eastmancolor prints for this film, which was to be their tentpole picture of 1954, and then print it in dye-transfer after the edits, is beyond me.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

The "Gypsy" footage is from a very red 16mm print and could never be remastered to fit in unobtrusively. I did cut it into the actual film (it's included as a bonus on the DVD) and the change is quite abrupt. (BTW, you can see why they cut it before release: three non-singers attempting to do "Together" is painful to listen to!)

I think the fact that WB is doing a 6K remaster makes it clear that they do "care" about this film, and would do whatever is needed to obtain any missing scenes. So until someone comes forward to say they have actually seen this mythical footage, I remain unconvinced.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Well, how do you know where any print comes from? I mean, you could apply the same to used cars: are all of them stolen goods too, just because there are SOME stolen cars on the market?

Truth is, as mentioned, there were a LOT of prints distributed quite legally over the years. WB, at one point, would strike you any print of any film in 16mm or 35mm that they had a neg on (granted, this was the '50s, when mostly anyone willing to shell out that much would have been staff). You don't know where these prints come from, so how can you say they're illegal, any more than that they're legal?

In order to bring any charges, you have to apply the doctrine of stolen merchandise to the situation: 1) proof that it was stolen, 2) proof that the person buying the goods knew that it was stolen goods and 3) proof that said buyer actually owned it. Two out of three are relatively impossible to prove on any level.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

[quote=Jack Theakston
Never say "never."[/QUOTE]

Do you know more than you're telling us ?

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

No, I'm just trying to soften the blow.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

The collectors I know were threatened with legal action because they had no proof that they had legally bought their films. No studio has to prove a film was stolen in order to seize it - when the FBI moved in on the collector who had the "Lose That Long Face" number, they simply took all his films, since he had no evidence he had obtained them legally.

The point I'm making is that we all know that the vast majority of these films were not obtained legally. Putting a collector in jail might be a stretch, but seizing the films is easily done. Anyone who buys stolen merchandise risks having it returned to the rightful owner. They may not face criminal charges, but they certainly can lose the item.

So if WB knew that some guy had TWO complete prints of ASIB, they could and would seize them - unless the guy had documentation that they were sold or given to him legally. Which he certainly does not.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Mark, I'm sorry, but again I must disagree with you. Anyone who was busted in the '70s had their collections confiscated because there WAS proof that they had bought unauthorized copies (ie. dupes).


Sorry, we "don't all know that." You're looking from the outside in. I know where a lot of prints that passed through my hands came from. Few of them were stolen. A large portion of them were sold through exchanges to make space.

You can't seize property just because you DON'T know it's legally purchased. You must have proof that it's illegal. WB has no leg to stand on with the gentleman with the prints, because if you know the backstory to how he got them, it's clear that they WEREN'T stolen.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

As I said in an earlier post, I am not looking "from the outside in."

I knew, and know, a number of film collectors and dealers. I'll never forget the night, at the tender of age of 17, when I was invited to the home of one of Chicago's biggest 16mm film collectors and stayed up 'til 6 am screening prints. I knew his dealer, Vito, and the late Fred Clarke of CFQ, who also collected. There were also a couple of guys who collected only 35mm. I recall screening a 35mm nitrate print of "Son of Kong." Breathtaking - the only nitrate print I have ever seen (we kept a fire extinguisher handy).

We all knew, and discussed, that none of this was legal, and Vito was shut down by the FBI in the 80s. Some of the films were being thrown out. But just because a film is unclaimed, that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. And you're wrong that the police have to prove someone knew an item was stolen in order to seize. As long as the studios can prove that they never sold or gave the prints to anyone, they can seize them, which they have done in the past. The burden of proof is not on them.

Of course, this urban legend claims that after destroying all complete prints of ASIB, the studio gave two complete prints to a former employee, in order to explain why their hands are tied. That's absurd, but even if he had documentation that they were given to him, I'm sure he has improperly obtained prints and they could threaten to take those.

The point is that if WB knew these prints existed, there are a number of legal actions they could take against the collector, and they would do so before releasing a 6K transfer of the restoration.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Except there's PLENTY of evidence that almost every studio at some point or another sold prints of their films in 35mm to general consumers. To this day, I don't know of a single collector who has gone to trial for simply owning a print. Duping prints is another thing.


I seriously doubt it. I'm not going to change your mind about the collector market and where this stuff comes from, but I can tell you with some definitiveness that WB knows about this particular collector and has chosen not to act upon it.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

As I said, there may be some legal prints out there, but my experience with the many film collectors and dealers I have known over the years is that 95% of the prints being traded and sold are not legal.

As to this story, I'll believe it when someone who has actually seen a screening writes to say that. We all want to believe that lost footage exists, but that doesn't make it so. Especially a story as unbelievable as this. TWO IB Tech prints? C'mon.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Here is a well guarded secret from the past.

Most 16mm and 35mm Prints circulated among Film Collectors in Australia during the 60s and 70s were considered to be highly illegal.
All collectors were scared of being raided and so were extremely secretive on what they had or where they were stored.

Screenings were usually only held between those in this select group.

Long after their theatrical run was over, the prints were withdrawn from circulation by the Studios and sent to the rubbish dump to be destroyed (cut up with an Axe and then burnt or buried)

Certain money would exchange hands by somebody with a tip off (that person was Australia's Biggest collector, but is now long dead) and the Studio's truck load of films would somehow, mysteriously find their way onto another truck which would then drive from house to house and the films offered for sale among the collectors.
If you were first on the round you got to pick the best titles.( if you weren't home or didn't have the cash -too bad )
Fox and Paramount titles were the most plentiful in those days. MGM and Warners, because of tight security with their dumping, were most rare and so any MGM or Warner title would fetch a premium.(especially Musicals)

Features sold for $40-$60 with trailers and Short subjects bringing about $5-$10 each.
As the films were going to be destroyed anyway, most collectors did not feel too guilty.

I must add here that the collector I spoke about had the largest collection of rare titles (both silent and sound) and that after his death his enormous collection was passed onto the Australian Film Archives.
Because of private film collection, they now own many prints that were considered lost at the time.
So collectors do have a role to play.

The majority of collectors I knew would NEVER EVER touch a film that they knew was actually stolen.

Rising Film prices along with the convenience of Laserdiscs and DVDs saw a fall off of Australian Film Collectors.

I'm sure they are still out there, but that is, now, just a memory for me.

Re: "A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution

Any news on a release date? If not, any guesses?