Do Lionsgate and Sony make 4k scans for preservation purposes?

[UniSol GR77]

Just wondering, since Lionsgate owns Universal Soldier and Sony owns Universal Soldier: The Return.

Hopefully they do 4k scans to preserve their movies.

[Clark Kent]

I doubt movies like Universal Soldier are getting 4k scans. It's usually reserved for the most popular catalog titles, either in sales or prestige.

[UniSol GR77]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

I doubt movies like Universal Soldier are getting 4k scans. It's usually reserved for the most popular catalog titles, either in sales or prestige.

To Lionsgate Universal Soldier is a best-seller.

[Yami]

It's possible but I doubt films such as Universal Soldier are getting anything above 2K at the moment. 4K+ is usually reserved for films like Dr. Strangelove and Taxi Driver.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Yami

It's possible but I doubt films such as Universal Soldier are getting anything above 2K at the moment. 4K+ is usually reserved for films like Dr. Strangelove and Taxi Driver.

Didn't Sony give The Bridge on the River Kwai an 8K restoration since it is a 70mm film?

[animefan77]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Didn't Sony give The Bridge on the River Kwai an 8K restoration since it is a 70mm film?

No, the Bridge on the River Kwai is NOT a 70mm film. And the restoration was done at 4k for that film.

Maybe you are thinking about the Sound of Music. That is 70mm film which was restored at 8k scan.

Another side note: Patton was actually filmed in 70mm. Which is why it's more surprising with the transfer that we got. Hopefully, the new signature edition will have the new transfer that was properly scanned at 8k.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by unisol gr77

to lionsgate universal soldier is a best-seller.

lol

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by animefan77

No, the Bridge on the River Kwai is NOT a 70mm film. And the restoration was done at 4k for that film.

Maybe you are thinking about the Sound of Music. That is 70mm film which was restored at 8k scan.

Another side note: Patton was actually filmed in 70mm. Which is why it's more surprising with the transfer that we got. Hopefully, the new signature edition will have the new transfer that was properly scanned at 8k.

Yeah, I must be thinking of The Sound of Music then.

[Yami]

Lawrence of Arabia is 70mm and received an 8K scan and a 4K restoration.

[UniSol GR77]

Originally Posted by #Darren

lol

It's a very successful movie.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by UniSol GR77

It's a very successful movie.

Just wondering, what proof do you have of this?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Just wondering, what proof do you have of this?

Universal Soldier cost $23 million to make in 1992 and brought in $102 million. That's why a few sequels were made.

[42041]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Universal Soldier cost $23 million to make in 1992 and brought in $102 million. That's why a few sequels were made.

A more important question is probably whether it still makes money on home video.
For example, As Good As It Gets made like $300million worldwide, and Sony decided it wasn't even worth releasing the bluray themselves.

For the Universal Soldier films, just storing the 35mm elements is probably a better bet for preservation. Today's (and the 90s') film stocks are long-lived if stored properly, digital archival is more expensive and a more of an unknown quantity at this point.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Universal Soldier cost $23 million to make in 1992 and brought in $102 million. That's why a few sequels were made.

If we're talking strictly about box office numbers, then I guess you could call that a moderate success. But what about home media sales? That's probably a better indication of whether they're doing any above average preservation of it.

And personally, I wouldn't count DTV sequels as a sign of it being a box office success. There have been plenty of poor box office movies that have received DTV sequels.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Universal Soldier cost $23 million to make in 1992 and brought in $102 million. That's why a few sequels were made.

Except that it really only made $36,299,898. Hardly $100+ mil.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=...salsoldier.htm

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by retablo

Except that it really only made $36,299,898. Hardly $100+ mil.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=...salsoldier.htm

Worldwide it made $102M is what he's saying.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by retablo

Except that it really only made $36,299,898. Hardly $100+ mil.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=...salsoldier.htm

That's just domestically. The movie was more popular overseas, and it did gross over $100 million.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

That's just domestically. The movie was more popular overseas, and it did gross over $100 million.

Right... but that's most action films, so there's nothing new there. Still not a hit in the states. And not enough to warrant a 4K scan.

[Kryptonic]

In 1992 that was a very good gross for a modestly budgeted action film. Obviously it was enough to get Carlco to produce Stargate which was an even bigger hit and that led to ID4.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

If we're talking strictly about box office numbers, then I guess you could call that a moderate success. But what about home media sales? That's probably a better indication of whether they're doing any above average preservation of it.

And personally, I wouldn't count DTV sequels as a sign of it being a box office success. There have been plenty of poor box office movies that have received DTV sequels.

Yes, but a lot of sequels have been made because of the profits brought in from the original. In many cases that has been the determining factor on whether or not a sequel gets made. I can give you plenty of examples: Ocean's Eleven, The Bourne Identity, The Hangover, Underworld, Ip Man, and many more.