"A Star Is Born" Garland in 6k resolution - Page 5

Oh I am really excited the film is being re-released, I have been a huge fan of this film and I attended the 1983 premiere of the restored version at Radio City Music Hall. It was the most enthusiastic audience for a movie I have ever been a part of; literally almost every scene change received applause.

Without a doubt, the big selling point for me is that Warners included the alternate takes of so many scenes; they should be fascinating to watch and to hear.

I would think the alternate takes of the musical numbers would use the same prerecording of the songs used in the final film. Aren't prerecordings done before the actual start of filming?
Perhaps " A Star Is Born " is different because "Born In A Trunk" was added after they began shooting the film.

The alternate takes will almost certainly use the same pre-recording as the finished film; however the audio vault does contain what appear to be rehearsal takes of other numbers in the film, which should prove equally interesting.......to me anyway.

No it doesn't excist. WB would of worked something out with him or her.  If Mr Collector does have the footage they can contact me. 
stan39520@yaho.com somehow I don't think they will.  Mr Joe if thre is such person you should help but somehow its hard for me to belive that this footage is out there.  Maybe it is but if someone has it MAYBE they don't know what they have...  

WHen the call was out to cut the prints "ALL THE PRINTS OF THE 3hr VERSION WAS CUT".  IF someone has the missing footage then tha's all they have the missing footage. Theatre owners also had no choice but to play the SHORT VERSION after Warner Brothers decided to cut the film. 

Stan, yo insist, for some reason to bury your head in the sand,  The stuff DOES exist.  The person who has it (not, per se a collector) KNOWS what he has.  
You again, insist this person contact you.  You a not a restoration person or work for the Academy or warners.   As I asked before, why the hell should they contact you?

Because I can be trusted.  I do know people that work for the studio. How can you be trusted?  I think your not telling the truth.   

Let me step in here and remind you that we don't allow personal attacks here so please refrain from doing so in the future.  Thank you.




Robert Crawford
HTF Moderator

sorry

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_Heck

Are you any relation to this guy?

I bought that DVD of MEET JOE BLACK for the extra DEATH TAKES A HOLIDAY.

Although I know the 1954 A STAR IS BORN is a classic and I will most likely get it on BluRay, I personally prefer the 1937 version, and if that was included, I would preorder this edition right away. 

Yes he is my Great - Great Uncle or Grandfather 

If Mr Collector has the Footage he can send the footage to the Los Angles times or the E-Channel.  He can make a deal with a reporter.  He can send the footage to them

Mr. Heck.  As I said before,  he is NOT a collector. And again, why the hell would he sned this material to you or ANY  of the other choices you have offered.  You make no sense.

well these choices are safe---- 

Yes, I agree! The Alternate Takes is what interested me about this release too! I would love to see them!!!!!

as an asset he'd be stupid to let warner's have it, once it is released on DVD it has zero value any more as a film print. 

On the other hand, having the only existing version of it makes it very collectible as the only existing copy.

The smart thing to do would be to sell it on the black market to a private european or asian art collector for several million.

I'm not sure the statement that the gentleman owns the print is correct.  The only way he can legally own the print is to have purchased it from Warner Brothers.  They paid for the print to be produced so it should be their property.  They keep records of the prints they produce, though as in this case, it escaped.  If the gentleman received the print from a projectionist, one of the film depots that were scattered across the country or as a several collectors do, find it in a trash dump then the print is still Warner's property just as a desk at their offices would be.  They never received compensation for their purchase of the print nor gave permission for the person to take it.

More than likely this print was to sent to the dumpster to be destroyed, but was rescued by a collector (if so thank goodness).  The film depot would have sent the paperwork to Warner's saying that they destroyed the print, when in fact they did not.  This is just like the DVD company that was to destroy the over stocked DVDs from Warner's and ended up selling them to Big Lots. 

I also do not believe that the so called complete print exists.  If it did, Warner's would know who has it, secrets are not keep very long on news like this and they would have worked something out with him.  This story has been living as long as THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS complete print found in Argentina has.

There also has been some great stories of film companies, expressly Warner's, working with collectors to find complete prints and the deals have been amicable for both sides.  Lately they have been working to find the best elements of the Bowery Boys and I understand several collectors helped with that project.  Again, if this print does exist, the collector does not need to fear Warner's, but only what time will do the print if it is not handled and protected.

I'm just happy we have what we have.

Ditto.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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...   

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.

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.

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