"The Alamo"s Status? (1 Viewer)

[JoeDoakes]

Why does it cost "millions"(!) to restore a film. I would think the studios, which have been in the business a little while , would have a cost effective way of doing this by now. Maybe I just don't understand, and I know everything costs a lot now, but that seems a bit extreme. Enlighten me please.

One of the recent articles linked in this thread (I think at the Digital bits) made the point that MGM has no inhouse restoration department.

 

[OliverK]

Why does it cost "millions"(!) to restore a film. I would think the studios, which have been in the business a little while , would have a cost effective way of doing this by now. Maybe I just don't understand, and I know everything costs a lot now, but that seems a bit extreme. Enlighten me please.

MGM has been in the business long enough to sell out most of the titles that made the studio big and famous. Maybe they should continue to do so, I am sure it would be better for The Alamo.

 

[ljgranberry]

MGM has been in the business long enough to sell out most of the titles that made the studio big and famous. Maybe they should continue to do so, I am sure it would be better for The Alamo.

Exactly! They don't care about it, just sell it to Warner, it will be restored, and everyone will be happy!

 

[Dr Griffin]

Wasn't it mentoned somewhere in this thread, that it would cost millions to properly restore The Alamo?

 

[ahollis]

I believe the number was 1.2 million.

 

[atfree]

I believe the number was 1.2 million.

Which is less than the coffee budget for the next reboot of "Stargate" or whatever.....

 

[Richard Stammer]

This sounds like a great opportunity for an investigative reporter to do a bang-up book job to be released next year. The title could be a riff on the film, Here Comes The Brides, HERE COMES THE SUITS.

 

[Dr Griffin]

I believe the number was 1.2 million.

Thanks for that. Maybe someone here knows why the cost is so great. Is it just the hours of work needed on the digital end or the prep work on the actual elements before scanning that is the bulk of the cost? What I'm getting at is, what would be the single most costly item on the restoration list?

 

[Patrick Donahue]

Which is less than the coffee budget for the next reboot of "Stargate" or whatever.....

The ironic thing being they *are* doing a "Stargate" reboot

 

[Robert Harris]

Thanks for that. Maybe someone here knows why the cost is so great. Is it just the hours of work needed on the digital end or the prep work on the actual elements before scanning that is the bulk of the cost? What I'm getting at is, what would be the single most costly item on the restoration list?

Time at all levels.

 

[davidmatychuk]

Does somebody want to check to see if maybe MGM thinks people want them to restore the 2004 Touchstone "The Alamo"?

 

[t1g3r5fan]

I would like to pass on this little nugget of information: there is a petition created on Change.org by the Save the Alamo FB page; please sign if you get the chance. Here's the link: https://www.change.org/petitions/mgm-studios-and-gary-barber-and-ken-schapiro-and-jonathan-glickman-restore-john-wayne-s-roadshow-version-of-the-alamo#share

Our chances may be bleak, but we still have to keep trying 'til the very end.

 

[atfree]

I would like to pass on this little nugget of information: there is a petition created on Change.org by the Save the Alamo FB page; please sign if you get the chance. Here's the link: https://www.change.org/petitions/mgm-studios-and-gary-barber-and-ken-schapiro-and-jonathan-glickman-restore-john-wayne-s-roadshow-version-of-the-alamo#share

Our chances may be bleak, but we still have to keep trying 'til the very end.

Done!

 

[FoxyMulder]

I would like to pass on this little nugget of information: there is a petition created on Change.org by the Save the Alamo FB page; please sign if you get the chance. Here's the link: https://www.change.org/petitions/mgm-studios-and-gary-barber-and-ken-schapiro-and-jonathan-glickman-restore-john-wayne-s-roadshow-version-of-the-alamo#share

Our chances may be bleak, but we still have to keep trying 'til the very end.

I went over to sign it but it wants my street address, no thanks, i find i get so much junk delivered to my home, never mind the email junk spam i get, thus i will not sign something which asks for my home address, i am prepared to give my name, my email, even the name of the town i live in but not my full address, i think that might put some people off from signing this petition, it put me off and i want to see the film saved. I do not trust sites which want my full address, see their privacy policy, paragraph 3, i do not trust that my information remains totally private and not sold on and also that i will not get spam through the mail.

 

[sonomatom1]

Foxy -- give it up! Do you have any idea how many hundreds of organizations and individuals have your personal information? Yes, you might get some junk email as a consequence of signing, but you just need to click the 'Ignore' button. Organizations need protection too from spammers who will attempt to submit hundreds of bogus signatures. I don't expect much to happen because of this petition, but we can keep yammering out here on the forum (very similar to pissing in the wind) or try to take some positive actions that just might spur the suits at MGM into action.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Foxy -- give it up! Do you have any idea how many hundreds of organizations and individuals have your personal information?

Yeah...too many.

I'm not giving information to yet another one, Ron Epstein said they studio's read the forum so to MGM i say this, i support the restoration of The Alamo, do it now before it's too late to be saved, i will never again give out all my personal information online, it is not a safe world, too many hackers, too many companies who ignore their own privacy policies or employ people who ignore it.

 

[theonemacduff]

I don't know, but it strikes me as a sort of a "Rosebud" situation, that is, it's not the money (funding has been offered), it's not lack of support (much has been offered), and it isn't anything else easily identifiable as related to actually running the MGM business in a business-like way. So it's personality related, and that's why we're so in the dark: we don't know the personalities involved, or what is the ultimate source of the obduracy that's got things in such a mess. Pyschologically speaking, it's easy to explain, in that people who invest in a particular point of view are often very reluctant to give up that point of view, because to them, some of them anyway, to do so would feel like amputating something of themselves, a deeply personal loss, in other words. I'm reminded of an old saying, that there is nothing so dangerous as a stupid person with a legitimate grievance (because they will try to "solve" the grievance in just their own way), and while this isn't an exactly parallel situation, it's in the same general area. "Rosebud" then, because the source of the obduracy is unknowable, perhaps even to the person (or persons) concerned. This is also why the situation is unlikely to change, unless and until, somebody with greater authority is able to command the obdurate one to move away from the desk and let others work. Is that likely? I have to say that everything I've read about MGM's handling of this suggests that it is not. Last hope? A corporate shuffle of some kind, moving the obdurate ones off to one side. And before anyone says so, yes, I'm well aware that all the above is entirely speculative. But if the mystery is not business-related -- and it seems not to be, or rather, what started as a business-related "reason" has become simply an entrenched position -- then the only logical alternative is personality-related. A "Rosebud" by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[sonomatom1]

theonemacduff: I certainly don't take issue with your 'Dr. Phil' take on corporate MGM and its employees; in fact, it makes perfect sense. Just reading Trish Francis, Sr. VP Library Rights Management email response to an inquiry about any restoration plans absolutely proves your point.

She is hearing without listening and is truly committed to her POV, but it is almost frightening that a VP with oversight of MGM's archival properties appears to have so little interest in the library she's responsible for! Clearly, the inaccuracy of her comments demonstrates that she was simply reinterating what some underling told her, or she really does not know very much about the film, its distrbution history, or the earlier attempts to salvage it. It is absolutely incomprehensible to think that MGM is actively working to restore the film. I wouldn't want to be so rude as to call the lady a liar, but an exaggerator of truth might be appropriate.

 

[ScottGros117]

I would like to pass on this little nugget of information: there is a petition created on Change.org by the Save the Alamo FB page; please sign if you get the chance. Here's the link: https://www.change.org/petitions/mgm-studios-and-gary-barber-and-ken-schapiro-and-jonathan-glickman-restore-john-wayne-s-roadshow-version-of-the-alamo#share

Our chances may be bleak, but we still have to keep trying 'til the very end.

Done! Keep trying 'till the very end is right! We must not rest! All that will stop us will be the total destruction of the film or the total restoration of the film! Onwards!

 

[atfree]

Was poking around on IMDB and found a link to this article re: "The Alamo".....the article basically says the film should NOT be saved, and even hints that these reasons are why MGM isn't interested in any restroration, because:

1- it's "lousy"
2- it's racist (because of the Jim Bowie character's devoted slave).

http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/john-waynes-the-alamo-and-the-devoted-slave-should-the-film-be-saved

If either of these reasons is the actual "real" reason (other than cost) behind MGM's stance, then I am disgusted.....