Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

IT's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World Restoration


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
565 replies to this topic

#1 of 566 OFFLINE   Art_AD

Art_AD

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 151 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2001

Posted January 03 2003 - 09:46 AM

It's been a while since we heard anything, has there been any change in the status of the restoration of "Mad World"? What about the Alamo, any news on that films restoation? Do we need to champion MGM for the cause?

#2 of 566 OFFLINE   Peter Kline

Peter Kline

    Screenwriter



  • 2,409 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 1999

Posted January 03 2003 - 10:20 AM

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

#3 of 566 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 40,277 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted January 03 2003 - 11:15 AM

I don't think it is being worked on, and I
welcome Robert Harris to correct me if I am wrong.

Last I heard MGM wasn't going to put up the
money for the restoration.

 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#4 of 566 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,474 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted January 03 2003 - 01:12 PM

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?

#5 of 566 OFFLINE   Rain

Rain

    Producer



  • 5,020 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted January 03 2003 - 01:15 PM

Quote:
Last I heard MGM wasn't going to put up the
money for the restoration.
Bad MGM, bad, bad, bad. Posted Image
"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon

#6 of 566 OFFLINE   oscar_merkx

oscar_merkx

    Lead Actor



  • 7,632 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2002

Posted January 03 2003 - 10:23 PM

I completely agree with that. Absolutely wrong imo

Posted Image
Toastmasters International

Communication is Everything

#7 of 566 OFFLINE   Peter Kline

Peter Kline

    Screenwriter



  • 2,409 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 1999

Posted January 04 2003 - 12:58 AM

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

#8 of 566 OFFLINE   Jeffrey Gray

Jeffrey Gray

    Second Unit



  • 488 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 11 2001

Posted January 04 2003 - 04:56 AM

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?

#9 of 566 OFFLINE   Rain

Rain

    Producer



  • 5,020 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted January 04 2003 - 06:26 AM

Quote:
I now remember RH saying the money wasn't there.
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.

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon

#10 of 566 OFFLINE   Jeffrey Gray

Jeffrey Gray

    Second Unit



  • 488 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 11 2001

Posted January 04 2003 - 08:35 AM

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...

#11 of 566 OFFLINE   Joel Vardy

Joel Vardy

    Supporting Actor



  • 573 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 20 1998

Posted January 04 2003 - 04:29 PM

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


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

#12 of 566 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,474 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted January 04 2003 - 05:20 PM

Quote:
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:

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!

#13 of 566 OFFLINE   Mark Cappelletty

Mark Cappelletty

    Screenwriter



  • 2,125 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 1999

Posted January 04 2003 - 07:38 PM

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?

#14 of 566 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist



  • 7,553 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted January 04 2003 - 08:39 PM

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.

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#15 of 566 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 40,277 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted January 04 2003 - 08:52 PM

Quote:
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?

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.

 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#16 of 566 OFFLINE   Joel Vardy

Joel Vardy

    Supporting Actor



  • 573 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 20 1998

Posted January 05 2003 - 02:12 AM

Quote:
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.


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

#17 of 566 OFFLINE   Jeffrey Gray

Jeffrey Gray

    Second Unit



  • 488 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 11 2001

Posted January 05 2003 - 04:37 AM

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...

#18 of 566 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 40,277 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted January 05 2003 - 08:53 AM

You know, I understand the argument about
what will the restoration of this release
do for the stockholders?
.

God knows the almighty dollar has not only
dictated and ruined the artistic value of
proper film presentation, but what films
should or should not be restored.

Let me tell you a story. I was out at Parmount
studios over a year ago with the California
membership. We met with the studio's film
preservationists. Nicest bunch of guys you ever
would want to meet (most restorationists I have
met are caring individuals). They were showing
us their latest restoration efforts -- I believe
it was an old Roy Rogers film. We were told
outright that Paramount knew they weren't going
to recoup their money on this release. Yet, the
studio greenlighted the restoration because they
felt they had a responsibility to save the film.

I applaud Paramount for taking a bold position
like that.

Don't these studios realize that they are curators
of a priceless collection of artistic work about to
be destroyed forever from neglect? Don't you think
they have a responsibility to save and preserve this
art?

MGM has had a good year. Their Bond film is making
them money. While I realize theatrical and video
are budgeted differently, don't you think the studio
should take some of its profits and put it into film
restoration? I can't believe that any studio would
neglect its history and not fight to save these prints.

Furthermore, is anyone in Hollywood raising
money to save their films? Do you know how much
money is in Hollywood? You mean to tell me that
with all the money these studios make every year
so little of it is going to save the very celluloid
that put them on the map?

MGM should be doing everything they can to restore
IAMMMMW back to its original splendor. This
is undoubtably one of the most important titles in
their library.

 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#19 of 566 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,474 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted January 05 2003 - 10:04 AM

Quote:
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?

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.

#20 of 566 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist



  • 7,553 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted January 05 2003 - 11:22 AM

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.

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence



Back to DVD


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Forum Nav Content I Follow