Universal Fire

Re: Universal Fire

These films are unlikely to be publicly screened ever again unless an archive has prints, even though Millie was the studio's biggest hit prior to Jaws, unless they offer to buy back collector's prints, which I doubt.

Re: Universal Fire

Last summer, the Ohio Theatre screened a beautiful 35mm print of COBRA WOMAN starring Maria Montez. I hope it was out of the vault for a screening as I'd love to see this released on DVD someday.

I had planned on seeing the double feature of DUCK SOUP and IT'S A GIFT later this summer at the Ohio. There's been no announcements yet about this booking yet. I really was looking forward to seeing IT'S A GIFT on the big screen.

Re: Universal Fire

It was actually stated in the memo that the likelihood of public exhibition is very slim and they may never be screened again.

And to the person who asked whether this only affects the rep circuits, the answer is: NO!

This very much affects the home video market as well since thousands of RESTORED prints were reduced to ash! All the Walter Lantz/Universal films that had slowly been making their way to DVD the past two years will likely be brought to a halt. Many potential and future DVD releases will be affected as well. It's absolutely devastating.

Re: Universal Fire

How do you know that? You may be right but it certainly seems like you're just guessing as to what was destroyed or wasn't destroyed or where certain things were or weren't located?

Re: Universal Fire

The print of Hold Back The Dawn shown just last week at the Walter Reade Theater was apparently destroyed, it was going to be shown at another repertory house having the same Charles Boyer film festival that just finished at Lincoln Center. A post on the TCM site mentions several other film showings cancelled. An LA Times article was linked as well.

My fear is they just did not know what was in there, and now we never will.

Re: Universal Fire

Because I've read reports from exhibitors and details of many canceled bookings. Universal themselves have admitted that thousands of restored prints were lost. Jerry Beck confirmed that the Universal/Lantz material has been reduced to ash which basically puts the kibosh on any forthcoming box sets of Woody Woodpecker films (as had been planned). I don't understand how any studio could take such lenient preservation measures. None of this stuff should be stored on lot and why the vaults would not be housed in fire proof concrete block buildings is beyond me... these are our records and history of the past 2oth century!

Re: Universal Fire

This is all news to me and absolutely tragic. It's also kind of inevitable. I think all the warning signs about careless storage - by all the studios, not just Universal - have been around for years.

Now for the controversial bit - Aren't historical documents like movies too important to be in the hands of private (profit driven) organisations?

Re: Universal Fire

Hostorical documents... or nostalgic stories owned for profit...

Last I knew, movies were made for one reason only, commerce. The great thing about them, as forums like this attest too, is that they trancende their origins to effect lives and become a part of culture. Still, they are "properties" manufactured to earn profit for the investors who own them.

I'd love it if every single film from the dawn of the medium were duplicated with fine grain safty negatives (or whatever) and stored in strategic locations all around the world so that they well be preserved. I think the cost of such an endeavour would sadly infringe on any more movies being made though. It's sadly a case of where it's about the numbers. Not to speak for others, but some professionals like our own Mr. Robert Harris have said as much, as far as restoring films go. I'd think that the protecting aspect has it's equal pitfalls.

So a loss like this is a sad loss, but one of those things right?

Re: Universal Fire

And since a movie studio LIVES on its film library, it would be in their best interest to keep it safe. The government, or any other firm shouldnt have to pony up the cost for something that is really nothing more than entertainment. Of course we know they (the government) adds stuff every year to its archive of important film. Many studios DO store things off site. I know old mine shafts, in Kansas and so on, are used to store important documents, film negatives, and so on. But if a studio doesnt care to keep its stuff safe, why should i. I have other things to keep me up at night. Things i can do something about.

Re: Universal Fire

Just to reiterate, NO elements were lost in the fire. So the fire has absolutely NO impact on the upcoming video releases. Transfers are done off of low-contrast elements made specifically for that purpose, not standard projection prints.

I should also point out that while many, many prints were lost in the fire, the high-circulation prints were never stored at Universal. Things like BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and JAWS are stored at Deluxe Laboratories for faster courier service. So if you're looking forward to seeing one of those big titles Universal produced, you'll probably still see it.

The life of a repertory print is endangered the minute it goes out. I know of some really ass-backwards theaters that play this stuff and leave their mark behind on it (some are supposedly "reputable"). This is all taken into consideration when prints are made for projection. It's almost a given that after a few dozen runs, the print is junk. There are precautions to keep this from happening, but there are always sloppy projectionists.

What will Universal do with the insurance money? Who knows. Initially I was cynical, but then I stopped to think about who was running the film department and have some confidence that there will be a working library with lots of good, new titles. The down side is that I do expect that Universal will be more selective in what they print up based on the previous number of rentals of a number of prints.

Re: Universal Fire

Last Sunday while watching one of the national cable news channels they broke in with the news of the Universal fire. Watching a truck backed up to a burning building and seeing film cans being thrown out a window into the truck was distressing but not as much as reading these postings. I picked up the phone this afternoon and called a close friend that works in the top ranks of Universal Distribution. I wanted the truth. First they did cancel most of the upcoming rep films because they do not know what they have and what they lost. A lot prints were not even at the Universal location, but they want to do a complete inventory. They did not lose any negatives nor did they lose any one of a kind film or short. None of the material they use to produce DVD’s was in the warehouse. The “vault” was used as a shipping point for prints coming in and going out for non first-run films or basically a film that has been released on DVD and is not handled through the national distribution channels. This was a warehouse that stored prints that were active. If any of you were in the film business a decade or more ago, you will remember Film Inspection. They were warehouses where the distribution companies sent prints to be shipped to theatres. In the old old days, Film Inspection kept prints for several years to play as double features at drive-ins and sub-run houses (even in the late 80’s you could book a Three Stooges Short from there). That is what this “vault” was. This was not a film vault that stored negatives, masters or one-of-a-kind prints. Those are stored at more secure locations and as he said, out of the state of California due to earthquakes.

Yes a lot of 35mm prints were lost and yes some will not be reprinted not due to cost, but none interest from revivals. As requests are made from revival programs, a new print will be produced if it makes sense. If a print is deemed needed two or three times a year then it is worth the cost and effort to replace it for they can get several years work out of the print if the theatres running it are careful. I am sure any Hitchcock prints that were burned will be replaced and it is not likely those prints were at this location anyway. It is the more obscure prints that were lost are the ones to worry about. But we should have worried about them even before the fire, for if those wore out, they would not have been replaced anyway. As MGM, Warners and Fox would not replace their worn out revival prints not used regularly.

The best news out of this is that while Universal is not the best company in releasing classic films on DVD, the fire will not be the reason they don’t. They won’t because of their own decision. If there is not another Woody Woodpecker and Friends, then it is because volume II did not sell as they anticipated. But I still want to see a good copy of “Scrub Me Mama, With a Boogie Beat.”

Re: Universal Fire

Wrong, RESTORED prints struck from original film elements were lost in the vault fire. Stuff that would be too costly to justify going back to the camera negs to clean up and put out in acceptable condition for public consumption, whether exhibition or home video! Some prints are enormously valuable in their own right.. EK prints from negatives that are irreplaceable. And who knows the shape or condition of many of the orig. source elements. There might be issues with negatives fading or shriveled. It's not a simple straightforward matter. Jerry Beck has affirmed that future collections of Universal's Lantz cartoon film library are now on indefinite hold, if they'll ever see the light of day again due to the recent loss. Everything is weighed against cost and if the studio can't justify it in sales and revenues, especially for smaller niche releases like obscure classics, pre-codes, golden age animation, etc... they simply won't bother to go back and release this stuff. At least it was all accessible before. Even the cost to scan elements and make digital transfers is an undertaking. Stuff that was previously considered low sellers that the studio could throw out for little money and gradually make a small profit in sales would now be considered too great a risk to touch.

Re: Universal Fire

Mario,

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to as "prints" here. Are you talking about projection prints? Internegatives? Video masters? Again, any elements, restored or original are NOT stored on-site. And we're talking about elements being used for transfer purposes, not standard projection prints you seem to be referring to.

I would hardly say the films are irreplaceable. Maybe dye-transfer prints, but I can think of only a handful of those that the studio actually had. You are aware that Universal has elements to pretty much their entire cartoon library, right?

Frankly, I think it's too early for Mr. Beck or ANYONE to comment on what absolutely is going to happen. There's a long line of inventory and insurance to be taken into consideration.

Re: Universal Fire

What do you mean? It's been four days, that's more than enough time to do a complete inventory. Oh wait.

Unfortunately, some people will always read negative news (or a guess) and treat it as the truth. Jerry Beck may be correct but as has been said, it's way to early to make a defintive call about it.

Re: Universal Fire

Does Universal store any of their original negatives and restored prints in the salt mines, like so many others do?

Re: Universal Fire

What it sounds like you're saying is that a lost print of a restoration equals a loss of the restoration work, and you think it's unlikely they will re-do the work? Even if there were restored films in this vault, the PRINTS that were there still had to be struck from restored internegatives that, by all accounts, were stored elsewhere. Any proper restoration includes the creation of a new, restored negative that should prevent exactly what you are afraid of.

Re: Universal Fire

These are archival prints. They don't have to go back and re-do restorations again. These are prints entirely on standby for screening, not for digital transfers or preservation.

Re: Universal Fire

Profit good. Commies bad.

Re: Universal Fire

Gunther Toody?? Oooh, oooh! (sorry, couldn't resist- Joe E. Ross, we salute you!)

But seriously, whatever prints that were destroyed were most likely reissue prints for theaters, as stated before. What I don't understand is how could Universal be so dumb as to store their rental films in such a busy area, with the studio tours and such. I do know that Warner Bros. keeps its original elements (patricularly the classic Turner material) in an underground salt mine in Kansas- the same place where all of the surviving The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson tapes are. I just don't understand how Universal could be so careless in this day and age of film preservation!!!

Re: Universal Fire

ummm....



Pretty much explains it no? It's a store house for release prints, not an restoration warehouse. A building on a studio lot is as good a place as any.

Re: Universal Fire

It's still careless- if they wanted to store such valuable items on the lot, they should've been stored in facilities away from the theme park/back lot and closer to the production offices, for safety's sake!

Re: Universal Fire

If Universal says they will replace what was lost, then thats all we need to know. Its their job to worry about how they will do it. Thats why they make the big money.

I agree though Jonathan, that article was all over the place.

Re: Universal Fire

Ditto that the article was all over the board. Interesting that no mention was made of any potential music losses. Hopefully that means that some of the reports that original recordings of Crosby, Garland et al were lost were mistaken.

I tend agree with Charles - this location seemed to be a terrible place to store these prints, particularly those that may not be replicatable at the same quality as before.

Re: Universal Fire

I understand the confusion following the fire. But Universal must have a computerized list of the vault inventory somewhere, you hope, even an Excel spreadheet. They should soon know what was saved from the vault and be able to compare that info to the total pre-fire vault inventory.

I know I'm simplifying this but you get the point of what I'm saying. Now if they didn't have a computerized list then they have big problems and a lot of explaining to do to their insurance company among others.

Re: Universal Fire

the thing with that artcle though, is you have the eastman house guy and others talking about how valuable some prints are and such. Thats all fine, but theres nothing saynig any were actually lost. From what I can tell, it's a store house for shi[[ing and recieving prints to rep theaters. I would doubt they are sending out one of a kind prints made from lost negatives out on the the rental circuit, so why would they be there?

Re: Universal Fire

The studiois place to be shipping the prints from, because they're in the business of shipping out prints!

These prints are expendable from day one, and the studios know this. Whether it happens because some projectionist mis-threads or because of an inferno on the lot doesn't matter. The only thing that is irreplaceable are prints from the original run that Universal had, which were apparently far and few between.

And I agree, the bigger problem that is being overlooked here is the elimination of the original master tapes to many Decca, Coral, MCA, etc., recordings that were on the lot.

Re: Universal Fire

The large amount of talk surrounding the Universal fire and vault destruction prompted a blog post from me:

minerwerks Blog - Movie reviews - Spout

The post includes hotlinks to several articles around the 'net.

Re: Universal Fire

Everywhere on a studio lot is a busy area. Any separation between facades, offices, warehouses, soundstages and tour areas are nebulous. It's all interwoven.

I don't know about Universal's, but at the Warner Ranch (formerly Screen Gems/Columbia), for instance, many backlot facades are built right on the side of working buildings containing offices. People sit at desks 8 hours a day a few feet behind facades seen in hundreds of movies and TV shows. When there isn't shooting taking place on fake "city" or "residential" streets, employees park there. It's just how movie lots are.

When you're looking for a place to put a building, you can't tell the builders "put it in a place that won't catch fire". (Kind of like the old joke about a sports photographer instructed, in order to save film, to shoot "only the touchdowns". )

Re: Universal Fire

The Black Shield of Falworth has, apparently, been a victim of the fire. In R2, Eureka are set to release Universal's first 'scope film, but early reviews show the transfer to be cropped to around 1.85:1.

I am indebted to Eureka's Kevin Lambert for going to extra mile to find out from Universal themselves just why we have what we have with TBSoF, and the news is not good:

I'm not sure if you are aware but Universal had a fire earlier this year and lost a huge amount of masters, it turns out that there was never a down conversion done from the HD 16X9 print before the fire, so nothing would exist to create one from at the original aspect ratio at the present time.

I've asked them to have a look at it and see if there is another copy anywhere else in the world but it looks doubtful.

Re: Universal Fire

How sad : ( I love this movie and have been wanting to see it in Widescreen for over 20 years now. Looks it will never happen now.