Kodak profitable again thanks to Star Wars

[The Debts]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...dak-ceo-848593

With Help From 'Star Wars,' Kodak CEO Says Its Film Business Will Return to Profitability

The force is with Kodak, the last remaining motion picture film manufacturer.

J.J. Abrams' Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which premiered Monday evening in Hollywood, was shot on film by cinematographer Dan Mindel. Also shot on film are a string of additional Oscar contenders including The Hateful Eight from Quentin Tarantino — which will also be offered as a 70mm film Roadshow — as well as Sam Mendes’ Spectre, Todd Haynes' Carol, David O. Russell’s Joy and Steven Spielberg’s Bridge of Spies.

Looking ahead, Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke said, "It is our understanding that director Rian Johnson and cinematographer Steve Yedlin are planning to shoot Star Wars: Episode VIII on Kodak film. They are in preproduction and we are working with them to bring their vision to the screen the way they intend it.”

Clarke estimated that, in total, 90 studio and indie movies (in addition to television work) were shot on film this past year. And while that's a far cry from catching up to digital cinematography, Kodak is bullish on keeping film alive as another option for filmmakers. According to the chief executive, thanks to its film push and restructuring efforts, Kodak went from losing $100 million annually on its film business to "breaking even the last three quarters," and he expects it to be profitable in 2016.

Speaking with The Hollywood Reporter as The Force Awakens premiered, he called Abrams “an extraordinary supporter of film. His advocacy was a key part of Kodak's decision to keep making film when we were down 96 percent.”

[flash.over]

Good. Film>digital, anyday

[Mandalorian]

That's really cool. It would've been interesting if they took a stand and went 2D-only. Sure it would've resulted in less profits... Well, never mind then.

[Doctor Jack]

Originally Posted by Mandalorian

That's really cool. It would've been interesting if they took a stand and went 2D-only. Sure it would've resulted in less profits... Well, never mind then.

But then they wouldn't have been the biggest opening of all time. They wouldn't have been able to puff out their chest and say mine is bigger than yours.

[CinemaBlu]

Yeah, it's all because of Star Wars.

Honestly, having Star Wars in the title of the article is really just clickbait. It's good clickbait because it's promoting a good cause, but to say Star Wars saved Kodak is inaccurate. Sure the people behind Star Wars did their part to keep film alive, but they did no more than anyone else who contributed by deciding to shoot film. If anyone deserves the most credit it's people like Tarantino and PT Anderson who have shot their recent films in 70mm.

EDIT:
Sorry, correction: The article isn't inaccurate, it's pretty fair. The title of this thread is inaccurate.

[Kaiju]

Film will always look better.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by Kaiju

Film will always look better.

It won't.

This is nice news, though.

[Kaiju]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

It won't.

This is nice news, though.

Please.

[ajburke]

As a native Rochesterian, it's always really nice to hear good news regarding Kodak. A few decades ago it seemed like everyone in the greater Rochester area either worked there or was related to someone who did. Now I only know one person still there. It's just good to hear that the once proud company isn't completely forgotten about.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Kaiju

Film will always look better.

yeah no.

I'm a big film supporter, I love when movies are shot on film.

But digital is also amazing.

The key is that the cinematographer, and also in large part the colorist, knows how to use the format to its maximum.

Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and Social Network are 100% digital, and look better than the sweeping majority of film movies.

Using RED cameras helps...a lot.

[McCrutchy]

Great news. I have never enjoyed watching a digitally shot feature (even though I may have enjoyed the feature itself) and digital projection is especially poor when some unfortunate adult drama with a modest budget has been shot in 2K.

If you want a great example of the superiority of film over current digital technology, The Force Awakens actually has a great example, in a long close-up of both Rey (Daisy Ridley) and the digital character of Maz (Lupita Nyong'o). It's easy to tell that Rey looks much sharper and detailed, even though the overall shot must have been downscaled (apparently to 2K?!) for the final DCP.

I hope film not only survives, but thrives.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by spectre08

yeah no.

I'm a big film supporter, I love when movies are shot on film.

But digital is also amazing.

The key is that the cinematographer, and also in large part the colorist, knows how to use the format to its maximum.

Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and Social Network are 100% digital, and look better than the sweeping majority of film movies.

Using RED cameras helps...a lot.

RED is holding back digital looking better

[The Debts]

Originally Posted by CinemaBlu

Yeah, it's all because of Star Wars.

Honestly, having Star Wars in the title of the article is really just clickbait. It's good clickbait because it's promoting a good cause, but to say Star Wars saved Kodak is inaccurate. Sure the people behind Star Wars did their part to keep film alive, but they did no more than anyone else who contributed by deciding to shoot film. If anyone deserves the most credit it's people like Tarantino and PT Anderson who have shot their recent films in 70mm.

EDIT:
Sorry, correction: The article isn't inaccurate, it's pretty fair. The title of this thread is inaccurate.

Sorry. I was in a rush to get off the computer and tried coming up with a title that connected to the article well. Would you prefer it if I changed it?

[CinemaBlu]

Originally Posted by The Debts

Sorry. I was in a rush to get off the computer and tried coming up with a title that connected to the article well. Would you prefer it if I changed it?

Don't worry about it, I was just venting my frustration at the overabundance of Star Wars threads in this forum. In the case of this thread, it just seemed unnecessary to make it about Star Wars.

[The Debts]

Originally Posted by CinemaBlu

Don't worry about it, I was just venting my frustration at the overabundance of Star Wars threads in this forum. In the case of this thread, it just seemed unnecessary to make it about Star Wars.

Yeah I'll give you that, heh.

[applemac]

I ran across this article the other day:
http://www.theblackandblue.com/2014/...s-alexa-color/

There are definitely positives to the look of film or ARRI wouldn't be this invested in a process to make their digital cameras look more like film. Digital still has a way to go before it reaches its potential, currently it seems to be "good enough" but isn't there in some aspects, and is yet to match a 5/70 or 15/70 negative quality (4K projection is arguably close to the release prints though).

On ARRI:
"As Adams says, “Video is inherently an additive color medium, and most video cameras embrace that aesthetic. That’s one of the reasons why film and video have such distinctive looks. Alexa seems to buck that trend by emulating the functionality of a subtractive color model in an additive color system.”

To sum it all up, he adds, “I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Arri is ’emulating’ film so much as they are pursuing a film aesthetic in a digital medium.”

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

RED is holding back digital looking better

we're gonna come to fisticuffs over this one day, I know it

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by applemac

I ran across this article the other day:
http://www.theblackandblue.com/2014/...s-alexa-color/

There are definitely positives to the look of film or ARRI wouldn't be this invested in a process to make their digital cameras look more like film. Digital still has a way to go before it reaches its potential, currently it seems to be "good enough" but isn't there in some aspects, and is yet to match a 5/70 or 15/70 negative quality (4K projection is arguably close to the release prints though).

On ARRI:
"As Adams says, “Video is inherently an additive color medium, and most video cameras embrace that aesthetic. That’s one of the reasons why film and video have such distinctive looks. Alexa seems to buck that trend by emulating the functionality of a subtractive color model in an additive color system.”

To sum it all up, he adds, “I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Arri is ’emulating’ film so much as they are pursuing a film aesthetic in a digital medium.”

and this is precisely why Arri digital cameras are inferior.

Digital is digital, and it has its own aesthetic that when used properly can be stunning. But when digital tries to "create a film aesthetic" you just end up with footage that all looks like it was shot in a dust storm..like every Arri movie.

[The Debts]

Originally Posted by spectre08

and this is precisely why Arri digital cameras are inferior.

Digital is digital, and it has its own aesthetic that when used properly can be stunning. But when digital tries to "create a film aesthetic" you just end up with footage that all looks like it was shot in a dust storm..like every Arri movie.

I prefer the look of RED but I can agree when Alexa movies looks great. Damn near anything shot by Roger Deakins looks spectacular and Mad Max Fury Road are some the best examples.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

RED is holding back digital looking better

I hate the look of the RED, but it's hardly holding anything back. There are many companies making many different cameras. In fact, the ARRI is more of the Hollywood standard than the RED.