Talk:Lost film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Star Wars "tampered with"?

Since George Lucas was the one in charge of making the changes to the original Star Wars films for the digital VHS and DVD releases and they are his intellectual property, is it really proper to describe such changes as "tampering" regardless of how they are received in the fan community? --65.113.254.220 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps tampering is too strong a word but the idea behind it is correct. Nobody denies that George Lucas has the right to do what he is doing but there is a very strong argument that he is taking a cultural relic from the 1970s, altering it and attempting to remove the original from circulation (although I see he's decided to release the originals on DVD finally this year).--80.193.22.182 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three and a Half?

How can it be 3 and a half films surviving? I was under the impression that movies had to be all or none to be counted.

Films are usually split into reels. It's often the case that some of these reels survive while others don't and often it's down to pure chance. So, if half the reels for a film are missing, should that in your view be counted as a whole film or no film? Clearly, it's neither. If half the film is lost, we can't watch the full film but what we have is still a valuable document. So, I guess we can count that film as half surviving (or half lost, depending on your viewpoint :-) --80.193.22.182 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of important lost films

Shouldn't it be chronological? Jonathan F 23:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Both could be useful. I vote to either keep it as it is or have both. --80.193.22.182 18:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

I have removed this paragraph:

Copyright status may often be a factor in bringing lost films forward for preservation. The incentives for an owner of a lost film to bring it forward for preservation are reduced if that film is still protected by copyright. The film owner could not readily benefit from any commercial distribution of the film, as he would have to obtain permission from the copyright holder. Under U.S. copyright law all films and other publications originally published before 1923 are now in the public domain. Prior to 1998 works published with corporate authorship, such as films, became public domain 75 years after publication. However, in 1998 the U.S. Congress passed the Copyright Term Extension Act which increased the length of this copyright to 90 years. This was pejoratively referred to as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act by detractors arguing that the extension was only benefiting large companies that controlled commercially viable publications from the 1920s. This came at the expense of effectively prohibiting the distribution of the thousands and thousands of contemporary publications that have long been out-of-print, including numerous silent films. Consequently, a Lon Chaney film released prior to 1923, such as Shadows (1922) is now in the public domain, whereas a film released in 1923 such as The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923 film) will not enter the public domain until 2013, assuming U.S. copyright law is not changed prior to that date. Under the current system, London After Midnight will enter the public domain in 2018.

This is argument is not well thought out legally. Assuming that a film collector had a rare copy of a film that was out of copyright and in the public domain, he still would not have an economic incentive to restore the film and make it available on the market: because the film is in the public domain, any other distributor could then copy his release and sell it too. (Adding original titles or intertitles wouldn't help, either. Public domain distributors can easily replace those with their own.) Copyright protection actually helps a film collector with a unique copy of a film. He can usually negotiate a profit-sharing deal with the copyright owner for the use of his material in an authorized release of the film, a release that would be protected financially from copyright infringement by others.

Also, the 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame is a bad example: Universal did not renew its copyright in 1951, and it has been in the public domain since then. — Walloon 15:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that the classic "collector with the last print" scenario rarely, if ever, happens. Few film collectors don't want to share their films (you're just storing them if you're not sharing them) and even fewer collect nitrate films, for obvious reasons. I've never met a film collector who DOESN'T brag about their "finds"! — The Photoplayer 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MST3k

I've deleted the first few KTMA episodes of MST3k off the list because they are in existence, just not in collector hands. If we applied the standard of "someone, but not all has it," this list could be VERY long. -The Photoplayer 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Sellers

I heard that Peter Sellers directed a film but never released it, and it remains in a vault somewhere. — 71.219.94.229 01:03, 25 November 2006) (UTC)

[edit] A couple of things

I have added Andy Milligan to the 'later lost films section'. Also, I noticed this bit of the 'almost lost films' section...

"Many, many important silent-era films, and films which involve important actors, directors, and creative talent, exist in single prints in museums, archives, and private collections — single prints which have not been copied, digitized, or preserved in any way. The possibility of losing these films forever is very real, unless they are preserved."

This is unreferenced, does anyone have any backup for this, and any examples of such films? 218.101.106.252 12:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Duncan

That bit sounds like an attempt at guilt-tripping people into coming forward, rather than serious journalism. — MartinUK, 10:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2001: Space Odyssey

Stanley Kubrick destroyed every scrap of the movie except for the final cut...possibly necessary to add this to the "incomplete" section. — Thefinman 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No, because the complete version as commercially released in 1968 still survives. If he had destroyed the original negative, then that would be different. Many film directors routinely destroy unused material, sometimes for greedy reasons and sometimes for legal reasons. That doesn't make their films incomplete. Incomplete films are those that are, well, incomplete in every available form. 68.146.8.46 05:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Living Doll

There should be a reference in the TV broadcasts section to My Living Doll. As I understand it, only a few episodes survive of this series, the rest apparently being trashed for legal reasons. The Wikipedia article has an unsourced claim that the complete run has been located, however, but in lieu of a source being added to that info, can anyone track down an online source on the status of the series. My info comes from a book I read about 10 years ago, so I can't add it without a source. 68.146.8.46 05:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaplin film

The article states that all Charlie Chaplin's film still exist except one that he destroyed himself, but frustratingly it doesn't say what the name of the film is or why it was destroyed. Can anyone shed any light on this?

The film that passage is refering to is A Woman of the Sea. It is listed in "selected lost films" section of the article.--Kevin586 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Since this subject has received quite a bit of attention around here, I should note an incident I remember from around 1986. It was being reported in the local L.A. media for several days that a container of several Chaplain film reels had been accidently thrown away during the cleaning of a warehouse or some such place. Employees subsequently spent several days scouring the city dump to no avail, although I don't recall what the content of the films entaled. Roz666 22:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List

Whomever was editing this page apparently did not read it all the way through and made a completely repetitious and un-encyclopedic entry because of it. Here is the list that they made of found films. I've whittled out what was already listed. Please write descriptions (and please source if you can), as well as alphabetize the following list before putting it in its proper place in the article:

  • Der Hound Von Baskervilles (The Hound of the Baskervilles) directed by Rudolf Meinert
  • Der Sieg des Glaubens (The Victory of Faith) directed by Leni Riefenstahl
  • A Fool and His Money: directed by Alice Guy-Blache
  • Maid or Man: directed by Thomas H. Ince
  • His Wedding Night: starring Fatty Arbuckle
  • Incubus: starring William Shatner
  • Montmarto's Divine Sea Warriors
  • Love and Duty: starring Ruan Lingyu
  • The Prisoner of Zenda: directed by Edwin S. Porter
  • The Exquisite Sinner: directed by Josef Von Sternberg
  • La Tosca
  • Oh Baby!
  • Youth
  • Purity
  • A Manly Man: directed by Thomas H. Ince
  • Defense d'afficher: directed by George Melies
  • Why Be Good?
  • Back Stage starring Fatty Arrbuckle
  • A Gun Fightin' Gentleman: starring John Ford
  • The Constant Nymph
  • The Wonder of Women
  • Senorita
  • In the Days of St. Patrick
  • If I Were King
  • Pied Piper Malone
  • The Boob

Thank you! -The Photoplayer 18:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Lost 1970 Festival Film

More than nine hours of videotape of John Lennon and Yoko Ono shot in February 1970 by Tony Cox, Ms. Ono's former husband, came to light in 1970.

Extensive film footage of Phun City (Worthing - England) a three day music festival held in July 1970 featuring the MC5, Mungo Jerry, The Pink Fairies, the Edgar Broughton Band, Kevin Ayers and others has completely disappeared. Shot by British Lion - three camera shoot - the filming is believed to have been organised and financed by Roland O'Rahilly - founding partner of Radio Caroline. (B/W images of the cameras surrounding the stage exist on the UK Rock Festivals site.) [[1]] 58.9.37.116 (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salt mine?

Event Horizon (1997) - The original version of the film which was shown to test audiences featured 30 min. of extra footage including graphic violent and orgiastic scenes and several other scenes that were later removed in post-production by order of Paramount Pictures. Most of this footage has been lost except for a few remaining scenes without sound that were found in an abandoned salt mine. They appear on the 2006 special edition of the film.

salt mine? give me a break! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.226.137 (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about abandoned, but the Hutchinson Salt Mine in Kansas has long been the location for many long-term storage of important film elements because of its naturally occurring archival storage conditions.

Frankly, I think this list of "original versions" is ridiculous. Thousands of films had longer cuts in their preview versions, and just because footage is cut from a film doesn't mean that it's lost in the sense of the term that this article is talking about. -The Photoplayer 08:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)