"The Alamo"s Status? (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Horses. Don't forget the horses.
Tell the Heads of all these studios that it is imperative for them to explain to Gary Barber that "The Alamo" has horses in it.
The Heads of these studios must stress upon the fact that you - Robert A. Harris - can singlehandedly restore more horses in one film, than had those 3 men in "Seabiscuit".

But seriously, I wonder if the studios actively participating in film preservation would ever show their extended support by calling for a meeting with Gary Barber.

That would be recognizing him as running a "studio."

 

[MatthewA]

Why isn't Roddy McDowall in the cast?

A comprehensive book on the politics, logistics and ethics of film restoration and reconstruction would be amiss if it didn't have a chapter on Films Roddy McDowall Was Cut From.

And if MGM is still pleading poverty as a reason for not restoring the film, they can stop. They're still not top of the heap like they once were, but their days of being passed around like a grenade without a pin are over. Their last financial statement showed they made a net income of $252 million. A theoretical restoration couldn't possibly cost more than a couple of million.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The problem, in my view, is that MGM is no longer a functional studio. They're a glorified holding company. The library's main source of value to them is as intellectual property - that's why we're seeing upcoming or recent remakes like The Magnificent Seven and Robocop that no one really asked for.

MGM's current mission is to utilize whatever intellectual property they have as part of coproduction deals with other financiers, and then seek to distribute those films through partnership deals with other studios.

From a bottom line perspective, and only from a bottom line perspective, there's no incentive to restore The Alamo to its original 70mm glory. 70mm, as an exhibition format, is all but dead. Theatrical re-releases are all but extinct. Repertory cinema has transitioned almost entirely to digital, and many of those theaters will now show a Blu-ray if the studio doesn't have a DCP. Home media sales are not what they once were. Barber must know all of this, and has come to the conclusion that it's not worth the time or money to do it right because there isn't a large enough audience remaining to justify it, and almost no place to exhibit it even if they did the work. From a very cynical, very narrow point of view, I kinda understand where he's coming from for not wanting to pay for it himself. But, and this is the point where we HTFers are pretty much are in agreement, is that its inexcusable he won't let other people finance the restoration. Some movies are worth much more than whatever the box office potential may be.

 

[OliverK]

It may be helpful to remember that the starting point was that MGM would not have to pay for the restoration of The Alamo but that outside funding would pay for the whole restoration with a small contribution of a nominal sum by MGM so that they could claim that they also took part in the restoration.

 

[Robert Harris]

The problem, in my view, is that MGM is no longer a functional studio. They're a glorified holding company. The library's main source of value to them is as intellectual property - that's why we're seeing upcoming or recent remakes like The Magnificent Seven and Robocop that no one really asked for.

MGM's current mission is to utilize whatever intellectual property they have as part of coproduction deals with other financiers, and then seek to distribute those films through partnership deals with other studios.

From a bottom line perspective, and only from a bottom line perspective, there's no incentive to restore The Alamo to its original 70mm glory. 70mm, as an exhibition format, is all but dead. Theatrical re-releases are all but extinct. Repertory cinema has transitioned almost entirely to digital, and many of those theaters will now show a Blu-ray if the studio doesn't have a DCP. Home media sales are not what they once were. Barber must know all of this, and has come to the conclusion that it's not worth the time or money to do it right because there isn't a large enough audience remaining to justify it, and almost no place to exhibit it even if they did the work. From a very cynical, very narrow point of view, I kinda understand where he's coming from for not wanting to pay for it himself. But, and this is the point where we HTFers are pretty much are in agreement, is that its inexcusable he won't let other people finance the restoration. Some movies are worth much more than whatever the box office potential may be.

There is no way to restore Alamo to a recorded 65mm negative, datasat neg, and answer print.

Any final result would be 4k digital, which easily reproduces 70mm projection.

RAH

 

[Josh Steinberg]

There is no way to restore Alamo to a recorded 65mm negative, datasat neg, and answer print.

Any final result would be 4k digital, which easily reproduces 70mm projection.

RAH

Understood - I was trying to say just that, more or less. There are obviously far more places that can show 4K DCP in 2016 compared to 70mm, but would it be a substantial showing? I think about people talking about the recent My Fair Lady screenings, where obviously the movie was restored by some of the very best in the business, and where the studio wanted to do a major re-issue. And yet, most of the comments on HTF about those screenings complained about either being relegated to the smallest screens in the multiplex or lazy presentation on behalf of that specific theater. I'm not sure what my exact point is other than to say that from an extremely narrow perspective, one that I do not share or endorse, I can understand why a bean counter would conclude it's not worth wasting their breath over. The shame is that one of the most important studios in our collective movie history has been turned over to the bean counters.

 

[Robert Harris]

Understood - I was trying to say just that, more or less. There are obviously far more places that can show 4K DCP in 2016 compared to 70mm, but would it be a substantial showing? I think about people talking about the recent My Fair Lady screenings, where obviously the movie was restored by some of the very best in the business, and where the studio wanted to do a major re-issue. And yet, most of the comments on HTF about those screenings complained about either being relegated to the smallest screens in the multiplex or lazy presentation on behalf of that specific theater. I'm not sure what my exact point is other than to say that from an extremely narrow perspective, one that I do not share or endorse, I can understand why a bean counter would conclude it's not worth wasting their breath over. The shame is that one of the most important studios in our collective movie history has been turned over to the bean counters.

It's all in the way that's it would be handled. I've already looked into it, and performances would be stellar.

All we need is a nod from the copyright holder.

 

[PMF]

It may be helpful to remember that the starting point was that MGM would not have to pay for the restoration of The Alamo but that outside funding would pay for the whole restoration with a small contribution of a nominal sum by MGM so that they could claim that they also took part in the restoration.

Let's see if I've got this right.
Are you saying that the only sticking point here is about the "small contribution"?
Fine then; waive the nominal fees and let's get a move on.
Put it in the contract that this will be a one-time waiver of fees; and that any future restoration to their library will be bound to the "small contribution" clause.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Let's see if I've got this right.
Are you saying that the only sticking point here is about the "small contribution"?
Fine then; waive the nominal fees and let's get a move on.
Put it in the contract that this will be a one-time waiver of fees; and that any future restoration to their library will be bound to the "small contribution" clause.

No, I don't believe that is correct. The issue was the outside funding and the embarrassment to MGM that outside money would be used to fund the restoration of a film they own.

 

[Robert Harris]

No, I don't believe that is correct. The issue was the outside funding and the embarrassment to MGM that outside money would be used to fund the restoration of a film they own.

That seems to be it.

No other studio seems in the least bit concerned about outside funding.

Universal, which is a slightly larger entity than MGM, has most recently worked with The Film Foundation toward the support of saving One-Eyed Jacks, which just opened brilliantly in Cannes.

To every other entity, it's about saving the films. To MGM, it seems to be about saving face, and the perception by others of the value of their library, if it appeared that their elements are highly problematic.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Let's see if I've got this right.
Are you saying that the only sticking point here is about the "small contribution"?
Fine then; waive the nominal fees and let's get a move on.
Put it in the contract that this will be a one-time waiver of fees; and that any future restoration to their library will be bound to the "small contribution" clause.

You have to remember this all happened 7-8 years ago, when Mr. Harris was heading the attempt. MGM shut it down, because of the reasons that have been mentioned above. It is a dead issue to MGM at this point.

 

[PMF]

"Madness!"
- The Bridge on the River Kwai

After having this MGM debacle all boiled down for me from the last three Posts by Mr. Apruzzese, Mr. Harris and Dr. Griffin, the above quote was the only word that came to mind.

 

[OliverK]

That seems to be it.
Universal, which is a slightly larger entity than MGM, has most recently worked with The Film Foundation toward the support of saving One-Eyed Jacks, which just opened brilliantly in Cannes.

This is the example I was thinking of, too. MGM should take notice that nobody blames Universal for restoring One-Eyed Jacks by working together with the film foundation, feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.

Time to grow up for MGM and to accept a helping hand when it is offered.

 

[PMF]

"Madness!"
- The Bridge on the River Kwai

After having this MGM debacle all boiled down for me from the last three Posts by Mr. Apruzzese, Mr. Harris and Dr. Griffin, the above quote was the only word that came to mind.

Not wanting to be misinterpreted; my above Post was a Thank You to these three aforementioned HTF members; but the "Madness!" quote refers to any and all at MGM who care only about saving face, rather than saving film.

 

[Stephen PI]

From UK Photoplay June, 1960:

 

[davidmatychuk]

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/mgm-credit-restructuring-james-bond-1201805892/

Hey, great! Now all somebody has to do is convince Gary Barber that the British guy in "The Alamo" is really James Bond.

 

[Tony Bensley]

Big thanks to Stephen PI for posting the UK Photoplay Article on THE ALAMO (1960)!

Now, if somebody would just make the Duke's "It will last forever" proclamation so!

CHEERS!

 

[jim_falconer]

Big thanks to Stephen PI for posting the UK Photoplay Article on THE ALAMO (1960)!

Now, if somebody would just make the Duke's "It will last forever" proclamation so!

CHEERS!

Actually, that quote about "lasting forever" was from John Ford, I believe.

 

[Tony Bensley]

Big thanks to Stephen PI for posting the UK Photoplay Article on THE ALAMO (1960)!

Now, if somebody would just make the Duke's "It will last forever" proclamation so!

CHEERS!

Actually, that quote about "lasting forever" was from John Ford, I believe.

That's correct, Jim! I misread that second paragraph!

Now, if somebody would just make John Ford's "It will last forever" proclamation, so!

CHEERS!

 

[Tom St Jones]

That's correct, Jim! I misread that second paragraph!

Now, if somebody would just make John Ford's "It will last forever" proclamation, so!

CHEERS!

Well, if JOHN FORD, no less, thought the film was the "greatest picture I've ever seen", then I reckon that counts for something.
God knows the film was a labor of love for Mr. Wayne and his "personal magnum opus", so to speak. Not that this alone makes it worth saving, but it does sort of make it an essential piece of The Duke's legacy.... IOW, worth preserving.