|
MisterBibs posted:It's the most important part of the discussion, though. Not really.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I have a feeling I've said this before (maybe this thread?), but I don't get the bemoaning the loss of really old movies/tv shows/etc. Doing it well is expensive, and you only know multiple decades later if all that expense was money well spent or not. For every lost Doctor Who episode, there's prolly a dozen of movies/tv shows that nobody has thought about in 70 years and you just threw money down a pit preserving it for no reason. History is filled with examples where we didn't preserve something because we didn't think anyone would care only to find that it's something that now has value. All those mono masters that studios trashed because who would want mono when you can have stereo? Those pre-Monty Python shows? The source code to a lot of games? Stuff from the Dumont Network. The reality is that the things we didn't preserve weren't being trashed to save money on the preservation effort, but rather to save money on new tapes or because nobody thought to our we could clear this stuff out of storage. It's a part of our history we are losing. There are a lot of people who would die to read Homer's lost works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
The library of Alexandria probably was mostly tapes of local garage bands. No big loss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:It's the most important part of the discussion, though. Old stuff isn't saved because money and resources are inherently finite, and not everything deserves the same amount of resources spent on preserving it. We only bemoan things not being saved retroactively. Irrationality in my arts and culture?!? Oh no! Martin Scorsese would sock you in the jaw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
the funniest part is still that this guy's arguing that film preservation isn't that important since sometimes the movies are bad to a thread full of people who collectively raised thousands of dollars to restore and preserve a movie that is universally agreed to be terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:History is filled with examples where we didn't preserve something because we didn't think anyone would care only to find that it's something that now has value. This is what I meant by retroactive caring. I'm not going to second guess someone deleting Game X's source code in 199X given the off chance it'll be randomly important decades down the line. Same with a random episode of a TV show. Wanting to save poo poo like Ben has done is admirable. Thinking that everything we're making on 2015 should be saved is dumb as hell. We're not going to save everything, shits gonna get lost, and the future can get what it gets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:There are a lot of people who would die to read Homer's lost works. We don't even know if Homer existed, let alone if he had any lost works. And they couldn't be read anyway since he was an illiterate storyteller.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:This is what I meant by retroactive caring. I'm not going to second guess someone deleting Game X's source code in 199X given the off chance it'll be randomly important decades down the line. Same with a random episode of a TV show. Why not save everything? There's no reason not to. Movies are an artform and art should be preserved. You haven't made a compelling argument at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:This is what I meant by retroactive caring. I'm not going to second guess someone deleting Game X's source code in 199X given the off chance it'll be randomly important decades down the line. Same with a random episode of a TV show. What is your argument? Are you basically saying "Because we can't save everything, why should we worry about the stuff we're losing?" Because that's an incredibly cynical way of looking at the universe. First off, in many cases, the stuff that people notice and care about that are missing aren't the small fry things, but rather, the big popular stuff. Dr. Who is a very successful show. There was no reason why the BBC wouldn't want to preserve it all, aside from a short-sighted thinking that nobody would have any interest in seeing them again. And don't say "Well, it was the 1960s." Back then, EMI had a rule insisting every tape by bands like the Beatles and the Hollies be preserved. And because of those efforts, we have at the very least the final master tapes for every commercially released Beatles' song except for one. There are bands from the 80s where the best we can get are rips from vinyl records. But this stuff is our culture. And we should be good stewards of our culture. Because keeping it allows people to build on it. How many works have been based off of Shakespeares' stuff, or ancient Greek epics? Even in a different sense, look at what they were able to do for Star Trek: The Next Generation. They were able to rebuild the show in better quality than could have been done at the time because they made the effort to save the film elements. And even though there's still some missing things, we now have a show that isn't stuck in the technological limits of the 80s. ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:We don't even know if Homer existed, let alone if he had any lost works. And they couldn't be read anyway since he was an illiterate storyteller. If you're going to be pedantic, you're still wrong in general. We are aware of the other works in the Epic Cycle because there are references to them elsewhere, and we have fragments of a few of them. For example, the Trojan Horse took place in one of the lost cycles. We know these works existed, that at one point they were written down, and that we have two complete works, and fragmentary evidence of other ones. And some of them were attributed to Homer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:the future can get what it gets. That actually happened, you know. Want to go back and see the time Bill Cosby came out after literally having just sexually assaulted one of the night's guests and pretended he was her? Get your SCUBA gear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
If any part of our wealth of cultural output isn't making money this particular quarter, gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
isn't the original miniseries version of the Qatermass Xperiment lost for good? if so, bite me, bibby.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:isn't the original miniseries version of the Qatermass Xperiment lost for good? if so, bite me, bibby. Yeah. One of the dozens (?) of early BBC shows that was simply taped over or thrown out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:isn't the original miniseries version of the Qatermass Xperiment lost for good? if so, bite me, bibby. Partially lost. The first two episodes were recorded (the second one was marred by an insect landing on the film camera and staying there for a few minutes, and the recording quality is utterly awful to the point if it weren't so historically important it have probably never been released), but the other four either weren't recorded, or the recordings were of even worse quality than the second episode and were thrown out. Cemetry Gator posted:If you're going to be pedantic, you're still wrong in general. We are aware of the other works in the Epic Cycle because there are references to them elsewhere, and we have fragments of a few of them. For example, the Trojan Horse took place in one of the lost cycles. We know these works existed, that at one point they were written down, and that we have two complete works, and fragmentary evidence of other ones. And some of them were attributed to Homer. Just because they were part of the Epic Cycle doesn't mean they were authored by Homer, and attributions don't mean much when we're dealing with lost transcriptions of oral poems attributed to a man whose existence isn't even certain. They may have been composed or preformed by Homer, but since we only have plot outlines it's impossible to know for sure. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:Why not save everything? There's no reason not to. A finite amount of money and resources to do so. The same reasons why we don't save everything now are the same reasons the BBC used to justify saving old Doctor Who episodes. The same reason why a bunch of people paid Ben a chunk of change to save one product, but aren't going to do the same for the next preservation attempt. The reason why Ben had to do a KS at all instead of someone else preserving it Because Reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:A finite amount of money and resources to do so. The same reasons why we don't save everything now are the same reasons the BBC used to justify saving old Doctor Who episodes. The same reason why a bunch of people paid Ben a chunk of change to save one product, but aren't going to do the same for the next preservation attempt. The reason why Ben had to do a KS at all instead of someone else preserving it Because Reasons. As noted, film preservation doesn't have to be expensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
We also need to be clear that "saving" in the sense of keeping material and "saving" in the sense of active acts of preservation are two different things. I've been following a guy that's been running a Gofundme campaign to get decent digital transfers of a famous kid's show from the 1950s while it's still feasible. Two problems with getting all the way to the end (besides the obvious funding hurdle): the archive is nearly 700 episodes deep, and many of the films have gone all brittle and warped. Obviously it costs much more to correct for that even just doing an unrestored transfer. These films fall firmly in the "not lost, just unavailable" category and have been in the same institutional hands for decades, so this case is a different situation than what Dr. Who fans dealt with, where just finding the sources has been the biggest hurdle. But it's obvious this collection needed a little more hands-on care over the years to not be a nailbiter now that somebody's been moved to action. EasyEW fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:A finite amount of money and resources to do so. The same reasons why we don't save everything now are the same reasons the BBC used to justify saving old Doctor Who episodes. The same reason why a bunch of people paid Ben a chunk of change to save one product, but aren't going to do the same for the next preservation attempt. The reason why Ben had to do a KS at all instead of someone else preserving it Because Reasons. This project was only expensive because of the age of the master, the total cost of preservation from then to today would've been much less if it was started immediately after than the total cost was today to bring it to its current quality. It's like the difference between the cost of maintenance of a classic 50s car if it had been actively maintained from creation to the present vs. the cost of restoring one that had been left to rust a year after manufacture. The latter would obviously be far more expensive. And I mean, the Library of Congress's entire point is literally preserving all creative output in the US, and it's been doing so for decades already, so it's not like preserving literally everything isn't already a thing that people are trying to do. Idran fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:A finite amount of money and resources to do so. The same reasons why we don't save everything now are the same reasons the BBC used to justify saving old Doctor Who episodes. The same reason why a bunch of people paid Ben a chunk of change to save one product, but aren't going to do the same for the next preservation attempt. The reason why Ben had to do a KS at all instead of someone else preserving it Because Reasons. Actually, I think the crowdfunding for Manos has sparked more interest in doing the same for other films. Milestone was able to crowdfund preservations of A Portrait of Jason and Samuel Beckett's Film. Neither of which are particularly well known. Vinegar Syndrome was built on crowdfunding. There's several films I can think of that would be fully successful crowdfunded restorations if the rights holders would let it happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Inevitably, things will get lost to history, but that's definitely not a reason to not bother with or worry about preservation. Even if early films were mostly dudes sneezing, the evolution of film from 1900 until the talkie era was crazy. Hell, audiences were freaked out when people were cropped in frame because it look like they had been bifurcated. Just having these films to study as far as what people filmed, and how they were filmed could give historians a better sense of how media changes over time as technology, technique, and culture change. And just because people don't care about something at one point, doesn't mean it wont be relevant later on. Citizen Kane wasn't thought of highly until a decade or two after it premiered. Even today's viral videos may seem dumb and irrelevant, but 50 years out youtube culture may be a huge issue for one reason or another and early viral videos may be important to people then, who knows. But in any case, if you don't care about film archival, that's fine, but you don't have to disparage it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
EasyEW posted:We also need to be clear that "saving" in the sense of keeping material and "saving" in the sense of active acts of preservation are two different things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
pwn posted:Which show? I wasn't going to say it unless somebody asked: Kukla Fran and Ollie. EasyEW fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Krampus Grewcock posted:Inevitably, things will get lost to history, but that's definitely not a reason to not bother with or worry about preservation. Even if early films were mostly dudes sneezing, the evolution of film from 1900 until the talkie era was crazy. Hell, audiences were freaked out when people were cropped in frame because it look like they had been bifurcated. Just having these films to study as far as what people filmed, and how they were filmed could give historians a better sense of how media changes over time as technology, technique, and culture change. And just because people don't care about something at one point, doesn't mean it wont be relevant later on. Citizen Kane wasn't thought of highly until a decade or two after it premiered. Even today's viral videos may seem dumb and irrelevant, but 50 years out youtube culture may be a huge issue for one reason or another and early viral videos may be important to people then, who knows. But in any case, if you don't care about film archival, that's fine, but you don't have to disparage it. When I was in high school, I became really interested in watching the cartoons that were produced around WWII, especially since Disney released a set of them. It really help change some of my understanding of WWII, since I was seeing the work that really presented how people viewed the war and the enemy and gain an understanding for the thinking of the time. Imagine writing about Obama's presidency, and having Youtube videos to turn to so you could get a sense of what people were thinking and what they were saying. It could be fascinating. You could really understand Birtherism and all that other jazz. Our culture is a reflection of our times. Writing about the 90s and being able to watch Seinfeld and the Simpsons will give you an understanding of how American's actually live.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 04:33
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Imagine writing about Obama's presidency, and having Youtube videos to turn to so you could get a sense of what people were thinking and what they were saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6CUSEPPKzU
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
There are actually quite a few historical characters that we only know of based on what their enemies wrote about them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:When I was in high school, I became really interested in watching the cartoons that were produced around WWII, especially since Disney released a set of them. It really help change some of my understanding of WWII, since I was seeing the work that really presented how people viewed the war and the enemy and gain an understanding for the thinking of the time. Imagine writing about Obama's presidency, and having Youtube videos to turn to so you could get a sense of what people were thinking and what they were saying. It could be fascinating. You could really understand Birtherism and all that other jazz. Our culture is a reflection of our times. Writing about the 90s and being able to watch Seinfeld and the Simpsons will give you an understanding of how American's actually live. "New York must have been an inexpensive place to live, rents seemingly kept low by racial quotas allowing only white professionals under 35. Even comedians and the unemployed mentally ill could afford spacious apartments in the old city center. For unknown reasons, family groups sat at only three sides of their tables, all facing an empty fourth setting."
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:"New York must have been an inexpensive place to live, rents seemingly kept low by racial quotas allowing only white professionals under 35. Even comedians and the unemployed mentally ill could afford spacious apartments in the old city center. For unknown reasons, family groups sat at only three sides of their tables, all facing an empty fourth setting." What, you're telling me that people in Shakespeare's time didn't constantly speak in Iambic Pentameter and for no reason what so ever break out into soliloquies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Just in case anyone is interested, goon-run label's Manos: The Hands of Fate vinyl issue is up for pre-order now. Red/Black swirl "The Master" vinyl available only through Ship to Shore. Records will ship mid-September! http://shiptoshore.storenvy.com/products/13817541-manos-the-hands-of-fate
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Pre-ordered! There's also a "Torgo Brown" version available at another site that sounds kind of gross.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
I was just checking my Amazon order history and I noticed that the price on the Blu-Ray is down to $14.99! So anyone who wouldn't spend $25 on a movie or wasn't able to contribute to the kickstarter, you now have no excuse!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Is it still shipping 13 Oct.? That's what Synapse website says.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Yep, the 13th of October is our official street date. At this moment, the Amazon Blu-ray preorder costs even less than the DVD preorder, and of course you'll be getting the unrestored "grindhouse" print on the Blu-ray as an exclusive bonus. On a related note, one of the few $1000 backers still hasn't upgraded to Blu-ray last I checked. I offered to get him a player myself, but he's happy with his SD TV. These brave holdouts still do exist. Off topic, here's a little teaser for what's next. Given that we have some very good Original Camera Negatives to work with, it will be a faster and less costly restoration... a perfect excuse to make the jump to working (and delivering?!) in 4K. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Ben Solo posted:Yep, the 13th of October is our official street date. At this moment, the Amazon Blu-ray preorder costs even less than the DVD preorder, and of course you'll be getting the unrestored "grindhouse" print on the Blu-ray as an exclusive bonus. I actually sent a message to the kickstarter page a while back asking if i could switch my backer disc from DVD to Blu Ray but never got a response. Is it still possible?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Ben Solo posted:Yep, the 13th of October is our official street date. At this moment, the Amazon Blu-ray preorder costs even less than the DVD preorder, and of course you'll be getting the unrestored "grindhouse" print on the Blu-ray as an exclusive bonus. Can't wait for a special features documentary about Xeres the Cat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I actually sent a message to the kickstarter page a while back asking if i could switch my backer disc from DVD to Blu Ray but never got a response. Is it still possible? I may have forgotten to respond, but every request to change formats before the order date was included in the order. If you'll message me again (to confirm your identity) I can verify it for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:Why not save everything? There's no reason not to. Movies are an artform and art should be preserved. You haven't made a compelling argument at all. because that's called 'hoarding'. you want an entire society of hoarders. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Ben Solo posted:Yep, the 13th of October is our official street date. At this moment, the Amazon Blu-ray preorder costs even less than the DVD preorder, and of course you'll be getting the unrestored "grindhouse" print on the Blu-ray as an exclusive bonus.  Edit-- nevermind, I checked my Kickstarter messages and it looks like you have my updated address. Thanks! Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:because that's called 'hoarding' It would only have an impact on culture if we were saying all works should be an equal part of active consideration; as in we should care about actively watching all things equally. Historical preservation is for reflection, it's not part of live culture. I mean, this is what the Library of Congress has been doing with books for over 100 years but no one complains that the LoC's mandatory deposit policy for literally every book registered for copyright in the US since 1909 is somehow a negative impact on literary culture, because they aren't actively part of the culture of the day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Also Ben Solo, this thread on film restoration might be of interest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:because that's called 'hoarding'. you want an entire society of hoarders. Well, if we make sure that the A&E show Hoarders is preserved for future generations, we can warn them about the dangers of hoarding. Therefor, our hoarding of Hoarders will prevent hording!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:20
|
|