IT's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World Restoration

They're working on it (IAMMMMW). It takes time (and $$). Robert Harris can respond if he's around.

Is there anything we can do to help get MGM to put the money forward to get Mad World and The Alamo restored by Robert Harris?

Bad MGM, bad, bad, bad.

I completely agree with that. Absolutely wrong imo

Ron's is right. I now remember RH saying the money wasn't there.

Well, as Patrick said, isn't there anything we can do to try to get MGM to do it? They obviously have the money, if they can keep cranking out big-budget stuff like Windtalkers and Die Another Day...heck, why don't they just pay for the restoration with money that could have gone into another expensive flop?

The money is certainly "there" although MGM may not be willing to part with it.

Undoubtedly they feel that restoring the film would not be profitable.

Perhaps not. And I do recognize that they are running a business, but some consideration should be given to the preservation of art as well.

Certainly restoring a couple of films isn't going to bankrupt the studio (or probably even make much of a dent in profits).

It's truly a shame.

You know, I think a good idea would be to send letters to MGM (not an online petition, but actually letters), and alert IAMMMMW fans (including people like major film critics, celebrities, or even surviving cast members) to our cause...maybe if enough fans speak (especially if some of them are people like Leonard Maltin or Roger Ebert, or cast members such as Jonathan Winters and Carl Reiner) MGM will listen...this could be done for The Alamo also...

Unless someone here is willing to donate the restoration costs I don't quite understand the tendency to second guess the studios' business calculations. Does anyone here really think they would recoup their investment (no less make a profit) from such an undertaking? As much as we would like the studios to donate such funds, I would rather that they stick to restoring yet unreleased classics like:

African Queen (??? does anyone care about this one?)
Around the World in 80 Days (already underway)
Metropolis (that one is already underway -- I know)
Ran (done but not released as a single)
King Kong (already underway)
Grapes of Wrath (underway ?)
The Sting (???)
Chariots of Fire (???)
Double Indemnity (??? badly in need of a rerelease)
The Last Emperor (also badly in need of rerelease)
The Jazz Singer (1927 version)
Mutiny on the Bounty (1935 version)
...


Though a disappointment to us on it's initial release IAMMMMW's transfer was serviceable and can be enjoyed for what it is. I know that other material is available both in terms of an extended cut and extras but in the scheme of things it probably doesn't rate as high a priority as some of the classics that were either more blatently rushed out prematurely or have never seen the light of day in R1. Just my $0.014 (2 cents after taxes).

Joel

You miss the point. Some of these films aren't in the danger of being lost like these two are. And the pending restorations are needed to save the films period, not just to get them on DVD.

Almost all of the films on your list are in no real danger of being lost. Around the World in Eighty Days was given a "limited restoration" which at least is preserving it for now.

You're thinking that if the restorations don't happen, that'll just mean no "ultimate DVD." It's worse than that. It's more like the films not existing in any usable form. A 16x9 high-def master of The Alamo's general release version isn't any substitute for the 65mm original camera negative!

There was a "restored 35mm print" (their words, not mine) of Mad Mad World at the American Cinematheque with the surviving cast and crew in attendance in early December; I wasn't able to go b/c of a work screening of "The Two Towers." I'm curious if any news of a restored DVD came out of there (or if this filmed reunion might make an eventual DVD supplement). Did anyone on this forum go?

Patrick McCart could not have explained the situation better. He is correct on each and every point.

And no, there was no "restored 35mm print" screened via the American Cinematheque.

Much of MGM's library has been lost to other studios.

If you really examine what they have left and what
would be considered amongst the best titles to invest
a restoration, It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World is
a no-brainer.

When you consider the amount of golden age comics
who appear in this film, the choice is obvious.

I knew my post would 'stir up' the pot a bit. I fail to see how this argument factors into MGM's business calculations. Exactly how would the restoration provide a financial return to their stockholders if another DVD release is not the objective? It might be a worthwhile project from the standpoint of preserving a piece of our culture and heritage. If so, then a donation by members who feel strongly about this film would be appropriate. Am I to understand that MGM no longer has anything left in their library similarly in need of preservation? What about the 'horrible' recent release of Exodus? I understand that considerable work would need to be done to improve it (if it isn't already too late). There must be others as well. I don't want to start a debate about which project is more worthwhile but we all have our favorites.

In these days of financial uncertainty the studios are gambling with their decisions. I'm afraid non are in such solid shape that they can afford to 'do the right thing' solely for the sake of posterity. They never were but I think they would occassionally make the risky moves in order to show that they were also 'good citizens' while hoping that payoff would come both directly from preservation projects rereleased to the public and indirectly by the positive PR. Those days may be behind us. Today's investment decisions seem to be much more closely scrutinized.

BTW, I'm not yet convinced that every title on my list is safely tucked away, ready to be 'harvested', without some restoration.

Joel

Well, we have to figure out something, because Robert said that the film will be unrestorable by the end of the year...we need to find a way to get MGM to know that the fans want the film saved, and that's why I believe we should notify cast members, stars who are fans of the film, people like Roger Ebert; you know, people whose stature in the industry can basically CONVINCE MGM to put up the money, that the film will be lost if MGM doesn't put up money to have it restored. I'm as worried about this as anyone else, and I think Ronald should get involved with actually spreading the word. As I suggested, writing letters to MGM would be a good idea...as well as spreading the word to as many IAMMMMW fans as possible to write letters as well. And as I said before, Ronald, you need to get involved...

And if possible, we need to get this done for The Alamo as well...

1. Video just isn't important in the big picture.
2. Donations don't mean anything to a studio. The Vitaphone Project is a restoration project which is funded mainly through donations. On the other hand, Mad World and Alamo are both privately owned films.
3. Preservation isn't the key word. The films are likely preserved very fine. But preserving a faded and beat up negative doesn't mean much. Restoring that negative and returning it to its original version...then preserving THAT means something.

These two films were picked mainly because of the urgency. I think it was mentioned before that Exodus is likely beyond repair, with a totally faded negative. The fact that MGM didn't even transfer a 35mm element for the DVD raises more questions about the condition of even the 35mm elements.

As for films you asked about...

King Kong, The Jazz Singer, and Mutiny on the Bounty are likely just fine. In fact, The Jazz Singer will be coming to DVD soon with fresh Vitaphone disc-sourced sound.

Carlton owns The African Queen and I think it has been restored already. Most 3-strip Technicolor films have been preserved well thanks to the negatives only being used to make the separations.

Metropolis has been restored digitally to film.

Ran, The Sting, and Chariots of Fire likely don't need restoration...they're relatively new films. The lousy DVDs out are no way to tell of the condition, though.

Fox is restoring The Grapes of Wrath. Likely a great one.

Around the World in Eighty Days, like I said already, has had a limited restoration done. The 65mm negative has been cleaned up somewhat, lacquer removed from one reel, and a wetgate printed 65mm interpositive has been made. The only question is that of color quality and decomposition. We'll have to see how this one turns out.

Double Indemnity is a film which likely is in poor condition. It's been said that the Paramount films with Universal (1928-1948) were not preserved very well.



Again, I'm talking in terms of FILM, not video. It's possible to have a film look fantastic on video while the prime elements for it are in pitiful condition...and just the opposite by having a pitiful looking video while the film elements themselves are in perfect condition...

North By Northwest looks wonderful on DVD. You wouldn't guess that the yellow layer on the negative is just about gone. On the other hand, the DVDs for Charade from any public domain label look hideous while the film elements look wonderful. This is evident in Criterion's DVD, BTW.

While the income derived from home video (for the most part DVD) makes up a major part of those monies received when a film is reconstructed and restored, it not necessarily the ONLY area of large income.

Actual restored films can be licensed to network, cable and pay tv, both domestic and foreign. If handled properly and with a bit of thought, a profit can be derived from theatrical exhibition.

While Mad World could easily be the basis of a limited theatcial run, The Alamo would have a more film buff appeal outside of continuous runs in San Antonio -- potentially at the IMAX theatre next door to the Alamo shrine.

The problem here is that the owner would have to put up funds 18 - 24 months in advance of deriving any income. The upside is that that income would continue in perpetuity.

Off the top of my head the cost to save both Mad World and Alamo in large format, not inclusive of shooting a couple of scenes to sync with extant audio for Mad World, would be under 2.5 million. Mad World is the more expensive project, as LONG shots, some well over 1,000 frames would have to be digitized in full rez and recombined with short trims derived from faded 70mm print. It would be an extremely complex reconstruction/restoration.

As has been mentioned in the past, neither of these films constitute a long term problem, as they should both have fully gone to vinegar in the near future, making this a rather moot point.

The question for any corporate holder of rights in this situation is actually quite simple. Assuming that funds might be made available, would current management want to be viewed as one might view someone from the Louvre when the Mona Lisa falls off the wall and is irreparably damaged.

Patrick, thanks for the update on the relative condition of my partial list. From what you say, it sounds like Exodus is already 'lost', Double Indemnity is in need of help but noone knows if it's imminent (or is this one lost as well?)

Ron, I'm not citing MGM as a unique studio with only $$$'s as their motivation. It seems to me that this is more the norm than the exception, notwithstanding the Paramount story you cite. I wonder what your take is on the Internet community's 'clout' in such matters. Can we 'shame' them publicly if we are not satisfied? Or are we more likely to get attention when we vote with our own buying habits in light of the smaller share of the market that we now represent? I'm not implying that I know the answer. Corporate responsibility was a subject with some visibility in the 70's and 80's -- after some public debate on the subject. I just don't hear that much about it any more. If this means that the pendulum has swung again, I don't know. You've heard representatives from other studios express the status of their organization's appetite for low/no return projects (I won't get specific here so as to not embarrass the parties concerned). I wish I saw the world differently but I'm a bit cynical about this subject (I'm sure you can tell). If a famous Director such as Scorcese or Spielberg raises the temperature on the studios they tend to respond (including doing semi-commercial projects), otherwise they take the road of least resistance (translates to high ROI projects).

Joel

Yes, but once again...can't we try to rally people together to campaign to MGM? If we could convince Warner Bros. to do the widescreen Willy Wonka disc, we can convince MGM to pay for a $2.5 million (cheap) restoration...but I have not heard anything from any members agreeing with the idea I have...

Sorry, I must have posted after Robert's post. His quote above is very revealing. $2.5MM would be a sizable investment, if, for argument's sake it returns only enough to yield a $1.5MM loss. Though we see this as insignificant relative to what we see as the benefits, I wonder if the studios have the same views. If an average project runs $20MM-$50MM a significant loss would need to be recouped elsewhere and still provide an attractive return to shareholders. There is no doubt that there are people employed by each studio that would favor restoration over risky returns. What their relative clout is compared to the higher decision makers is the question. Any studio with a series of 'hits' to reinvest in new projects can take the 'long view'. Others, that are staring at disappointing recent projects, may be more inclined to put their retained earnings elsewhere.

I don't want to imply here that I condone any type of behavior either way. I just think it helps to understand the nature of the business that we are trying to influence. Ron, I know you have special insights due to your contacts so I don't mean to lecture anyone just raise some broader issues.

Joel

While I disagree vehemently with the sentiments of Joel, I am certain they accurately reflect the mindset of the studio executives.

This is a very depressing situation, and it looks like I will never get to replace my ld with a proper dvd.

To a major Hollywood studio like MGM, that figure is chump change.

Besides which, even if the money were not recouped in the short term, it almost certainly would be over the long term.

Considering the other option is to lose the films forever, this sort of penny pinching is ludicrous.

Actually, it's not even that expensive. I think in the HTF article by Ron about the pending restoration...the cost is around one million.

I don't believe I have voiced 'my point of view' only what I perceive is the Studio's viewpoint. I have made a career of trying to 'do the right thing' at the expense of the health of my own career. In fact I have helped others far more than I have helped myself (evidenced by several colleagues who now hold power positions relative to my situation due to lobying and counseling efforts).

I am grateful to this forum, as well as others that I have both participated in and learned from, for helping me enter the wonderful world of HT. It wasn't hard after starting as an audiophile a couple of decades ago but the information and encouragement/inspiration have been great. I only raise these issues as a balance to wishful thinking that I see here in the face of more sobering realities. These realities are not immune from influence but we need to be realistic about how much influence we collectively have as well as how to wield what we actually have. No doubt, if properly handled, we can change many 'hearts and minds' and affect change.

(referring to $2.5MM investment).

Having worked for some of the largest as well as some of the smallest companies in the US I don't believe any company considers this sum as 'chump change'. Once again, I am not advocating or presenting a value associated with this investment. Taking the 'long view' this amount seems indeed more than justified. Only problem, very few, if any companies are taking any 'long views' of late. If I had more of a say in this world I would gladly see a pendulum swing back to respecting the value of our heritage represented in film. Peace.

Joel

And now I must agree with Mr. Vardy in terms of the "long" view.

Studios execs with a financial background are paid to look at projects with a strict concept via a financial model.

If a project doesn't make sense within a certain model, it doesn't necessarily mean that would not LIKE to move a project forward. but cannot as it does not meet financial guidelines of viability.

At a certain point the best advice that I can give is to stop banging one's head against the wall and simply allow films to die a natural death.

Robert, I wonder what would happen if - say - Entertainment Tonight got ahold of this story? Just thinking out loud here.

Get Leonard Maltin involved. Would writing to someone like Roger Ebert help? Variety? Heck, just make it an all-around AP story.

"Hello, yeah...I got a story for you. Would you be interested in knowing that a major Hollywood studio is letting the prints of the original form of a major film in its genre just sit in its vault and disintegrate by years-end? A film with an all-star cast featuring over a dozen of the zaniest comics of their era? An item that could be preserved - along with a classic historical film in the same boat - for just under $2.5 MM? Yeah, I'll hold."

David

Why don't you get the boat rolling then ?