It is currently Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:14 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 425 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:51 pm 
~_~
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ
malcolm1980 wrote:
cdnchris wrote:
There's now a thread on IMDB (pointing to this one) and Rotten Tomatoes, so yes, it's making its way around.

I'm responsible for the IMDb and RottenTomatoes one. :oops:

We're famous!


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:47 pm
exte wrote:
We're famous!

It's starting to seem so.

But the odds do seem stacked against this emerging in one piece.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
So 125000-- how's it coming along? The reels are no doubt on their way to "hospital" now viz the invitation of Janet Bergstrom, right?-- at least to have them cared for (especially now that they've popped open after their long sleep) while this guy wraps his head around his discovery?

In other words, there's no way this guy is going to let those opened cans sit around his attic for weeks while he decides whether or not he wants to ask for money, right? He just may wait long enough to see the cans let out a big flammable burp that'll cause the whole world of cinema to groan in unison... imagine the agony-- before the cans even got to be looked at by the right folks!

Seriously-- I'd encourage him to pick up (or you pick up for him and show it to him) a copy of Kino's RICHARD III, which shows a class act example of a man most likely from his age group, and demographic (old-school lover of cinema who built up a collection of reels that turned out to contain a genuine piece of crucial and lost history): the guy knew what he had, and turned them right over to the AFI. Drive home the point that this isn't like a vase or a painting, that it's nitrate and very unstable, especially now that it's been opened, that it's got to be cared for like pronto.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:19 pm 
Happy-Fun Sunshine Minion of Intolerance
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:44 pm
Location: Confusing and open ended = high art.
Gropius wrote:
exte wrote:
We're famous!

It's starting to seem so.

Quote:
Of course, this entire conversation has occurred on the Internet, led by a guy with a tiny cartoon Hitler as his avatar, so this could be a complete hoax.

my favorite quote from the linked article. :)
by the way, did i mention my friends cousin's roommate found the lost final 45 minutes of Orson Welles's The Magnificent Ambersons behind his couch last wednesday?


Last edited by godardslave on Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:22 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
I better post my head shot and resume in this thread


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR
HerrSchreck wrote:
In other words, there's no way this guy is going to let those opened cans sit around his attic for weeks while he decides whether or not he wants to ask for money, right?

I hope it's at least in a freezer or something... Just leaving it in his attic seems to be a very bad idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
HerrSchreck wrote:
So 125000-- how's it coming along? The reels are no doubt on their way to "hospital" now viz the invitation of Janet Bergstrom, right?-- at least to have them cared for (especially now that they've popped open after their long sleep) while this guy wraps his head around his discovery?

In other words, there's no way this guy is going to let those opened cans sit around his attic for weeks while he decides whether or not he wants to ask for money, right? He just may wait long enough to see the cans let out a big flammable burp that'll cause the whole world of cinema to groan in unison... imagine the agony-- before the cans even got to be looked at by the right folks!

Seriously-- I'd encourage him to pick up (or you pick up for him and show it to him) a copy of Kino's RICHARD III, which shows a class act example of a man most likely from his age group, and demographic (old-school lover of cinema who built up a collection of reels that turned out to contain a genuine piece of crucial and lost history): the guy knew what he had, and turned them right over to the AFI. Drive home the point that this isn't like a vase or a painting, that it's nitrate and very unstable, especially now that it's been opened, that it's got to be cared for like pronto.


I just want to support Herr Shreck's post and say either 125000 is doing what is necessary in this situtaion, OR it's all a hoax, OR the people who matter are closing in.

But I know 125000 has been contacted by the experts. So talk to us or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:37 am
Location: Manila, Philippines
It made NY Magazine!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Yea I've been tempted to think it may be a hoax too. I'm thinking the guy may be in it for the long haul since he changed his avatar (in other words he cares what people think and doesn't want to go through this whole process being mistaken for a Nazi). SO on that end I'm thinking maybe he wasn't "expecting" all this to happen like a hoaxer would, and cares what folks think like a hoaxer wouldn't. But still and all, anything's possible.

And yea, the fact of his going silent may just mean a lousy lawyer-- who really is the biggest enemy of the process since his goal is two bucks for his client and a buck for him, not the safety of those damned cans-- told him to Get off this board and clam up until they make a deal. Who knows.

I can argue either side of the coin to myself pretty believably.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
HerrSchreck wrote:
Yea I've been tempted to think it may be a hoax too. I'm thinking the guy may be in it for the long haul since he changed his avatar (in other words he cares what people think and doesn't want to go through this whole process being mistaken for a Nazi). SO on that end I'm thinking maybe he wasn't "expecting" all this to happen like a hoaxer would, and cares what folks think like a hoaxer wouldn't. But still and all, anything's possible.

Ah yes, but 125100 should know that as Criterion and Master of Cinema fans most of us have seen F For Fake and therefore (hopefully!) can get extremely excited over the possibility but at the same time be able to maintain a healthy scepticism as well!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: UK
Bilge Ebiri at NY Magazine wrote:
the film-nerd blog/message board/newsgroup community

Hi, Bilge.

HerrSchreck wrote:
And yea, the fact of his going silent may just mean a lousy lawyer-- who really is the biggest enemy of the process since his goal is two bucks for his client and a buck for him, not the safety of those damned cans-- told him to Get off this board and clam up until they make a deal.

Or maybe his mum just told him to get off his dad's computer and stop teasing the film nerds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:10 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:00 am
Location: England
Kinsayder wrote:
Bilge Ebiri at NY Magazine wrote:
the film-nerd blog/message board/newsgroup community

Hi, Bilge.

HerrSchreck wrote:
And yea, the fact of his going silent may just mean a lousy lawyer-- who really is the biggest enemy of the process since his goal is two bucks for his client and a buck for him, not the safety of those damned cans-- told him to Get off this board and clam up until they make a deal.

Or maybe his mum just told him to get off his dad's computer and stop teasing the film nerds.

The thing is, that's worryingly likely. I'm only saying this because his whole post history prior to this thread was a troll-like bating game towards MoC fans, whereby each time a new release was announced he'd whine and say that he was going to wait for the criterion because criterions have a "prestige" factor that MoC are incabable of replicating.

That's not to say I'm not hoping this is true. Good lord no. But I might have swallowed it a bit easier coming from any other poster (sorry Mr numbers if you're genuine!).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:35 am 

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:54 pm
MichaelB wrote:
The most annoying "acquisition" was Robert Maxwell's personal print of Shoah - 36 unscreenable reels (we'd never have got away with a clandestine screening of that one!) taking up lots of valuable shelf space! But after his death, no-one seemed interested in reclaiming it (the despatch costs would have been eye-watering, which I imagine was a factor). For all I know, it's still there.

*quivers*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am
Cinetwist wrote:
The thing is, that's worryingly likely. I'm only saying this because his whole post history prior to this thread was a troll-like bating game towards MoC fans, whereby each time a new release was announced he'd whine and say that he was going to wait for the criterion because criterions have a "prestige" factor that MoC are incabable of replicating.

This is true, of course, but having had a quick look at his earlier posts, it seems many of them were not unreasonable and interesting.

125100, if you're reading this, don't be annoyed at us. It's just that the possibility that we made ourselves into pretty dull looking idiots by too easily believing in a hoax isn't all too pleasurable. In other words: if this is not a hoax, just ignore the doubts and go on doing your best to get the film into good hands. If it was a hoax, well, at least it was very cleverly done.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
He's not reading this. He hasn't even logged on in a day or two, whereby PM's in folks' outbox can even plunk over into the sentbox.

(To those who don't know what I mean, if you PM someone and they are not on the site, the PM will sit in your outbox.. as soon as that person logs on, your message goes to their inbox-- regardless whether or not they open it-- and leaves your outbox to go to your sentbox. Yawn. zzzz that was exciting.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
People

Even if things are entirely on the up and up -- the resolution of the matter is going to take a fair amount of time. Instant answers might be nice -- but sometimes they just are not available. And this is a case where expecting fast results is not especially reasonable.

At some point, we will know whether the film has been found or not. It could easily turn out that the cannisters (was the number of reels found ever mentioned) were simply labeled wrong.

Think about the supposed Japanese treasure trove (which passed to the government when the owner died without leaving any relatives) from a few years back. All sorts of things were supposedly there -- but apparently nothing of significance ever surfaced.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Michael,

we all know those things, and they have been repeated ad nauseum. I know know this guy is not responding to anyone public or private-- he's disappeared to the frustration and great suspicion of folks who are good and quite busy folks who would simply, out of care and passion for the subject matter, like to know that the nitrate situation is being acted upon.

The fact is this man came on this board to initiate this process and chose it to announce "suspicions" about his "discovery". He asked for help and advice, and he's got more help and avice knocking on his door than he could have dreamed of. Now he's not answering a knock. If it's a hoax-- cheers... but on the thin chance its' not surely you MK would pop a few neck veins thinking that a lawyer may be delaying the placement of these cans into a safe environment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:25 pm 

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Just in case anyone is interested, I think that 125100 did not post anything here after my post offering specific details about the film's history (which I wrote about) and possibilities for "saving" it, as opposed to maybe having "found" it. 125100 never replied to me off-line either. Janet Bergstrom


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
HerrSchreck wrote:
Now he's not answering a knock. I

If it is known for sure that he hasn't contacted any of the professional people who offered to provide expert advice and assistance, it looks a bit grim.

On the other hand, the owner could have had a fit over all the attention and forbidden this individual from making any more contacts. (Old and crotchety collectors can behave pretty irrationally)

Query -- Did the individual in question _ever_ actually say how many film canisters there were that were marked as containing the Murnau film? (If so, was this before the experts said how many reels there should have been).

P.S. Didn't seen Janet's posting until after I wrote mine. If _I_ had found anything of the (alleged) sort, I know that I would have accepted her offer of help in a flash. ;~}


Last edited by Michael Kerpan on Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:53 pm 

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:08 pm
Michael Kerpan wrote:
Query -- Did the individual in question _ever_ actually say how many film canisters there were that were marked as containing the Murnau film? (If so, was this before the experts said how many reels there should have been).

Hey, I'm a lurker. I've been following this with great interest and from what I can tell, no he didn't. I think that someone asked at one point but he didn't replay.

Things are looking grim indeed, but on the bright side I can get back to my life without checking this site every hour or so.

I just wanted to compliment everyone one for giving me a great deal of interesting thought over the last week. Except for the boring tit for tat section on copyright laws, this has been great. Even Schreck kept his trademark melodrama to a minimum.

This has been the internet at its finest. Throwing a hoax (which we all suspected all along, didn't we?) into the deal makes it all the more, well, internet. How random and great.

Good job everybody. Well played.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
SheriffAmbrose wrote:
Even Schreck kept his trademark melodrama to a minimum ...

Good job everybody. Well played.

eh?

An internet Peter Travers?

"Don't sit around saying '...so I found something better to do this summer...' People-- don't be caught having NOT found this season's coolest thread, called 'SO I FOUND A LOST FILM...' It's educational, nail bitingly suspenseful, and laugh-out-loud funny."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: NY
I often get my Travers confused with my Hammond.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:38 pm
Location: 'Frisco
Hi there. Delurking for the first time in a while.

I'm trying to brace myself for this being a hoax.

The fact that the thread appeared right at the time when many of the world's most passionate silent film archivists and scholars are collected in a town in Northeastern Italy right now seems quite possibly too well-planned-out.

125100 wrote:
denti alligator wrote:
Fuck, what IS this?! Give us some hints!

I'd really rather not unless I decide I'm going to give it up as I'll probably get hounded. I can't really give clues either as most here would guess it straight away.

I'm also suspicious of the fact that one minute he's keeping mum over the title, but 50 minutes later he succumbs. Was this all an elaborate guessing game?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:03 pm
HerrSchreck wrote:
An internet Peter Travers?

"Don't sit around saying '...so I found something better to do this summer...' People-- don't be caught having NOT found this season's coolest thread, called 'SO I FOUND A LOST FILM...' It's educational, nail bitingly suspenseful, and laugh-out-loud funny."

You forgot to add:

"...and cool as hell."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:47 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
In all fairness to 125100 he must have changed his e-mail on his account because his account was deactivated. I have to go in and manually reactivate the account and just did that now. So he wouldn't have been able to logon to the site.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 425 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection