Eastman Kodak: Next Insolvency?

[HHPhoto]

Was there any truth in the rumour that Nolan, Tarantino, Abrams et al were offered Kodak's film division around the time they guaranteed to shoot a number of movies on film each year ?

I've never seen evidence for that.

On a side note, there was reports on the internets that Nolan was going to open a new Kodak motion picture development facility in Mumbai. Anyone know what that was about ?
Trying to drum up interest in using film in Bollywood ?

Not Nolan, Eastman Kodak.
As the lab infrastructure for movie film had suffered a lot in recent years, Eastman Kodak had to do something against it:
Therefore they re-established or built up a lab for movie film in New York, one in London, and one in Mumbai.

In general the movie industry in India, especially Mumbai / Bombay ("Bollywood") is much bigger than in Hollywood.
Therefore a lab there makes sense.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Ted Striker]

That's what makes me uncomfortable to comment on anything, I provide sources each time but they all seem to be unreliable. According to HHPhoto, Skiff and vdonovan, all I have read so far is inaccurate. However, none of them has access to the Settlement and to the Supply Contract between Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris, which I consider important, especially the latter. They basically suggest the existence of Kodak photographic films is conditioned to the existence of the Building 38, which is owned and run by Eastman Kodak.

I have never been to a photo factory, but, despite of everything other posters said, I'm still inclined to believe, in the event the Building 38 must be shut down, some essential facilities such as expensive machineries etc. can be and will be transfered to another location, as well as all the manufacturing employees, who otherwise would have become a burden for Eastman Kodak in the procedure of bankruptcy.

If Kodak Alaris really worths the money they claim ($3 billions?), I think they will build a smaller factory. Let's see. I really think it will happen in some years.

Currently I only shoot films, mostly black and white, including of course lots of TRIX, and I'll say it again, no, I don't care about the fate of Eastman Kodak. I sleep well at night. If I wake up and see no more films (which I highly doubt), I'll put my film cameras in the closet and buy a digital camera. Simple as that. To be completely honest, if your photographic accomplishment is conditioned to the existence of TRIX or TMAX (whose existence to the Building 38 according to some) or even to the existence of films, you are possibly a pretty sh*tty photographer.

It is ludicrous to think that anything in Building 38 can be moved. The machinery is fully integrated into the building and is located right next to immediately needed resources. The entire building is essentially an enormous machine. It's not going anywhere.

The idea also that Kodak Alaris cares this much about film is also severely misplaced. Film is just a small portion of their business and from their web page as their linkedin activity, you can see that promotion of film is not one of their top priorities.

 

[Ted Striker]

I've never seen evidence for that.

Before Kodak Alaris was formed, Eastman Kodak tried to sell their film division to Hollywood. They proposed that a consortium of studios buy the film division. Eastman Kodak declared that film was no longer a core product (it still isn't) and wanted it gone. The studios declined to take over Kodak's film division and instead formed a contract for (I think) 5 years to shoot a certain number of movies on film; enough to keep the lights on at Building 38. That contract must be close to expiring now and it remains to be seen if another one will take its place.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Before Kodak Alaris was formed, Eastman Kodak tried to sell their film division to Hollywood. They proposed that a consortium of studios buy the film division. Eastman Kodak declared that film was no longer a core product (it still isn't) and wanted it gone. The studios declined to take over Kodak's film division and instead formed a contract for (I think) 5 years to shoot a certain number of movies on film; enough to keep the lights on at Building 38. That contract must be close to expiring now and it remains to be seen if another one will take its place.

There is a resurgence in using film for movie production, from the camera to the theater. This is the whole reason that 35mm film for still photography existed at all. If you take the movie Dunkirk, add up all the stock used in shooting (it was filmed entirely in 65mm) then add up all the internegatives then add up all the prints, you have more sensitized acetate than every member of this forum has shot in all their lifetimes, combined. That's one feature production. There is still hope for big yellow but if the movie industry doesn't want it then it's simply over. There is no rationale to have such equipment and staff that only works on an economy of mass scale unless that need is being met.

Phil Forrest

 

[zuiko85]

There is a resurgence in using film for movie production, from the camera to the theater. This is the whole reason that 35mm film for still photography existed at all. If you take the movie Dunkirk, add up all the stock used in shooting (it was filmed entirely in 65mm and 70mm) then add up all the internegatives then add up all the prints, you have more sensitized acetate than every member of this forum has shot in all their lifetimes, combined. That's one feature production. There is still hope for big yellow but if the movie industry doesn't want it then it's simply over. There is no rationale to have such equipment and staff that only works on an economy of mass scale unless that need is being met.

Phil Forrest

But how do they show prints? I've read most movie theaters had gone over to digital and do not have film projectors anymore. Really not sure though, I haven't been in a movie theater for over 10 years. The last movie I viewed in a theater was "Stranger than Fiction", released in 2006, I don't know how it was shot but I assume it was mostly still film 12 years ago.

 

[Ted Striker]

But how do they show prints? I've read most movie theaters had gone over to digital and do not have film projectors anymore. Really not sure though, I haven't been in a movie theater for over 10 years. The last movie I viewed in a theater was "Stranger than Fiction", released in 2006, I don't know how it was shot but I assume it was mostly still film 12 years ago.

You are correct. 99% of all movies are distributed and projected digitally. The Hateful Eight was one of the rare films (in only a few cities) that actually was projected from film.

 

[Ted Striker]

There is a resurgence in using film for movie production, from the camera to the theater. This is the whole reason that 35mm film for still photography existed at all. If you take the movie Dunkirk, add up all the stock used in shooting (it was filmed entirely in 65mm and 70mm) then add up all the internegatives then add up all the prints, you have more sensitized acetate than every member of this forum has shot in all their lifetimes, combined. That's one feature production. There is still hope for big yellow but if the movie industry doesn't want it then it's simply over. There is no rationale to have such equipment and staff that only works on an economy of mass scale unless that need is being met.

Phil Forrest

I'd like to see numbers about this "resurgence". I have not seen a movie shot on film in years. I know some still are, but they are very few and far between. Mostly the old school directors still use film and they are sadly, near the end of their careers.

 

[Prest_400]

There is some limited use of film print based projection but it is limited. For both Hateful Eight and Dunkirk I saw the 70mm film screening, the former being particularly fantastic.
35mm is limited as far I see.

Motion Picture film for Camera is rather extended, but less noticeable lately.

B38 isn't going anywhere, as far I know the Coater is "bolted" into the purposely built heavy foundation of the building. Not impossible, but I guess not feasible.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I'd like to see numbers about this "resurgence". I have not seen a movie shot on film in years. I know some still are, but they are very few and far between. Mostly the old school directors still use film and they are sadly, near the end of their careers.

Although I could be mistaken, my understanding is that for movies shot on film, the film is immediately digitized, edited, and then projected. I suspect film projection is the exception, even for movies originally shot on film. I doubt my local multiplex even has film projectors.

 

[brbo]

I'd like to see numbers about this "resurgence". I have not seen a movie shot on film in years. I know some still are, but they are very few and far between. Mostly the old school directors still use film and they are sadly, near the end of their careers.

This is just some of the recent production...

 

[bluesun267]

It goes to the commitment of Kodak to (at least) motion picture film that they have recently opened a new cine lab on Long Island. I also just noticed the new season of Walking Dead (shot on Super 16) credits "Kodak Film Lab Atlanta" (I'm assuming Kodak bought out the formerly independent lab Cinefilm which was credited in seasons 1-7).

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Super 16 is a fun format and some serious DPs are using it for serious work. Black Swan was shot on 16mm as well as The Hurt Locker. Black Swan won 3 Oscars, Hurt Locker won 6. And that is using the 16mm "amateur" format.

I'm willing to say that most serious productions are shot on film. Digital capture is still not the norm though it is gaining ground. I wrote about this topic a few years ago on this forum regarding film and the movie industry, and about 55% of movie theaters had moved to digital projection. That number is definitely higher now which takes away all that distribution print stock which was really the bulk of where Kodak's acetate went.

Phil Forrest

 

[Skiff]

It is ludicrous to think that anything in Building 38 can be moved. The machinery is fully integrated into the building and is located right next to immediately needed resources. The entire building is essentially an enormous machine. It's not going anywhere.

That is correct.
It is described in detail in Robert Shanebrooks outstanding book "Making Kodak Film":
http://www.makingkodakfilm.com/
He was a Kodak employee for many many years.
I can highly recommend this book.

The idea also that Kodak Alaris cares this much about film is also severely misplaced. Film is just a small portion of their business and from their web page as their linkedin activity, you can see that promotion of film is not one of their top priorities.

You may be right.....(I hope you are not)
At least fact is (from their balance sheet) that film is only a minor part (niche) of their whole business.

 

[brbo]

Before Kodak Alaris was formed, Eastman Kodak tried to sell their film division to Hollywood. They proposed that a consortium of studios buy the film division.

If you are right about this, it means that film production at B38 indeed CAN be run by someone else except Kodak?!

And since you all agree how insignificant part of Kodak the film production actually is... let's just do a Kickstarter, raise the money and buy the damn thing! 😉

 

[Skiff]

If you are right about this, it means that film production at B38 indeed CAN be run by someone else except Kodak?!

No.
It could be owned by someone else.
But to run it, you need at least the original Kodak staff.
So if Eastman Kodak wants to sell it in the future, the buyer must get the staff. Without it, its worthless.

And since you all agree how insignificant part of Kodak the film production actually is... let's just do a Kickstarter, raise the money and buy the damn thing! 😉

It is a niche for Eastman Kodak (in relative terms), but in absolute terms its a 200 million $ p.a. operation.

 

[brbo]

No.
It could be owned by someone else.
But to run it, you need at least the original Kodak staff.
So if Eastman Kodak wants to sell it in the future, the buyer must get the staff. Without it, its worthless.

But basically, you are saying that it is possible to run film production at B38 even if it isn't owned by Eastman Kodak.

Well, that is what I said.

(but feel free to respond with your yet another "no", "completely disagree", "wrong"...)

 

[Skiff]

But basically, you are saying that it is possible to run film production at B38 even if it isn't owned by Eastman Kodak.

With all respect, but your problem is really that you are not able to read attentively.
No one here has said that if the whole film operation with complete Building 38 and the original Kodak staff is sold to a different company, that then film producing is not possible anymore under a new ownership.

What was said is
- you cannot sell and move the machinery alone and start production elsewhere, because B38 is a machine in itself, unremovable, and you need all the local experts to run it
- Kodak Alaris has no own film production and no own plant for that.

And in reply to "SaveKodak" I've written above:
"Yes.
That is what all we film lovers probably are hoping for. Especially that film production and film distribution will be again united, under one roof.
The separation of Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris is very artificial, and make things much more costly and complicated than needed."
The hope that maybe Kodak Alaris might buy the film business from Eastman Kodak, and continue running B38.
But as also said above, film is only a niche business for Kodak Alaris.

 

[Out to Lunch]

A bizarre thread...as if photo enthusiasts understand the workings of modern capitalism. Photography and profit have little in common.

 

[Ted Striker]

If you are right about this, it means that film production at B38 indeed CAN be run by someone else except Kodak?!

And since you all agree how insignificant part of Kodak the film production actually is... let's just do a Kickstarter, raise the money and buy the damn thing! 😉

How many kickstarters have successfully raised hundreds of millions of dollars?

 

[nickla]

A very small percentage of films are shot on film today. When they are, as someone said, it is immediately digitized and therefore all the extra film that goes into editing and prints etc is no longer needed.

I doubt Hollywood will keep Kodak afloat much longer, if it even is right now.

I run a film finance company and we look at this stuff everyday. It’s a very small amount of pictures using film and when they do it doesn’t require a huge volume. Nothing like back in the day. That’s for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk