How about booking WOSAT in 35mm?
Mike Jittlov
>From what I've read on our favorite newsgroup, SGE struck only three prints
>of the WOSAT feature. Well, what's the current status of SGE, and
>where did these prints ever end up?
SGE lost one of the prints (and wasn't even aware of the fact, for at
least a year). The other two were sub-licensed to Films Inc. Which
has also lost one of those prints. And the remaining one is getting
pretty scratched and worn, last I heard.
As for SGE, I can only hope they're going belly-up, soon. They're
currently being pursued by the Screen Actor's Guild, for non-payment
of actors' residuals on all their film and video distributing. SGE
refuses to show SAG any of SGE's accounting statements, which would
indicate just how much was due in residual payments. So SAG is about
to take possession of our feature from SGE (even though SGE has it
illegally) and sell it at an auction.
Many friends have mentioned that this could be the ideal opportunity
to get together a fund, and bid on it, and regain it for the Forces
of Good. However, I've learned that SAG [aren't these initials fun?
I have a thousand pages of this convoluted mess] has a FAX from SGE,
stating that SGE wants "first refusal rights" at the bidding, and
SGE is prepared to bid a 6-figure sum. Why? Because whoever buys it,
will get it free and clear of all obligation to the film's financiers.
There's still the problem of ME, however. I still haven't formally
assigned my copyrights to anyone. AND I have the contractual right
to present the feature in any situation where I am lecturing. Which
includes a videotape, cable, or network presentation - so long as I
give a brief lecture. And this is not a little worrysome to the big
rollers. Like MCA/Universal - another player in this game, who's
just acquired SGE's video library.
If you're wondering why I haven't sought legal help in all this. I
have. And it's all winnable. But the cost may far outweigh the
cure. It's about as difficult finding a knowledgeable, capable, and
ethical attorney, as it is finding a similarly qualified Hollywood
producer. And it takes more money, and life-time. I can keep on
fighting the Good Fight, and save my First-born. Or realize it's
just a movie, and what's happened to me happens all the time in this
industry, so just go on and make the next one and try to get ripped
off a little less.
(Problem is, that my emotions are what guides and creates my films.
Much better that my emotions are built upon optimistism and successful
healing, than brooding pessimism and frustrated victimization. Too
many movies out now, embodying the latter, IMO.)
>(Perhaps we could devote a whole feature about the madcap multi-continental
>search for the missing WOSAT prints, ala Ilf and Petrov's "The Twelve Chairs"
>(later adapted into a disappointing Mel Brooks picture)).
I have far better movies to make. Like my original science fiction
epic - which inspired the Disney producers to force me into making the
original WIZARD filmshort, as a simple demonstration of just one of my
movie's attractions: the speed-running effect. A very important
special effect, since it's a carrier for all the subliminal healing
techniques I discovered in 1977.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely the film will ever get made. I'm still
not recognized by the System as a professional filmmaker, so I'm not
going to be allowed the necessary creative control to make a $15
million epic. And THE FLASH pretty much killed the novelty of the
speed effect, in the minds of studio producers. The public and
critics will say I copied the TV show - while the opposite is
actually the truth.
>Anyway, as a technical type who lives for projection and one of the few
>non-celebrities with 35mm set up at home, I'd love to know if the
>35mm prints are still available, for rental or sale.
Only to whomever saves the feature. The villains in this drama still
hold the feature's film and sound elements hostage.
>I've recently assumed projection duties for a new art house that will
>be opening in Columbus in a few months. I think it would be terrific
>to run the WOSAT in 35mm for the opening festivities, or at the
>upcoming 24-hour science-fiction marathon (I know, WOSAT isn't exactly
>hardcore science-fiction, but it's kinda hard to classify; it's more
>than just a COMEDY (as listed in most video stores)).
I have two prints, which I was able to buy (in return for making the
WIZARD's trailer in 4 days on a shoestring budget). One print's off
the negative. One's off the IP. Both are perfect. And they're about
all I have, so I'd rather not mail them around for projection until
I've regained access to the original negative elements.
Besides, the laserdisk has better editing and music. And it does
project beautifully, for modestly-sized groups.
>Mike, if you're listening, how about the 35mm blow-up of the original
>short? Did you ever get it back, and might *that* be available?
I have the elements for that. But it'll cost several hundred dollars
to retest and reprint. I have neither the time nor money to spare.
Maybe some day, though... Thanks for asking.
> "IF YOU SEE ONLY ONE MOVIE THIS YEAR..." | Mark A. Fontana
> ...you should get out more often! | Computer and Info. Science
> Projectionist, AMC Dublin Village 14 | THE Ohio State University
[-- Actually, that's from THE NAKED GUN 2.5]
-- mike
Dave J.
>There's still the problem of ME, however. I still haven't formally
>assigned my copyrights to anyone. AND I have the contractual right
>to present the feature in any situation where I am lecturing. Which
>includes a videotape, cable, or network presentation - so long as I
>give a brief lecture.
...
>I have two prints, which I was able to buy (in return for making the
>WIZARD's trailer in 4 days on a shoestring budget). One print's off
>the negative. One's off the IP. Both are perfect. And they're about
>all I have, so I'd rather not mail them around for projection until
>I've regained access to the original negative elements.
As someone who projected Mike's 35MM print of WOSAT when he lectured
at MIT (way back about three years ago or so), I can't tell you the
terror I had of scratching or (horror!) melting his beautiful print.
I don't think our projectors were ever as clean as they were before we
started the movie.
Jumping at every strange sound out of the projector took away most of
my enjoyment of the film. Of course, the lecture made up for it,
along with the magic tricks he performed for us after the lecture.
That, and the look on his face, when we served him a sushi pizza. :-)
>Besides, the laserdisk has better editing and music.
Not to mention, it's hard to melt! I'll be showing the laserdisc on
Feb. 6; I've had enough of 35MM projection hassles for now.
>
>-- mike
-Dave
--
-David Jedlinsky
op...@athena.mit.edu
Robert Cole
>Besides, the laserdisk has better editing and music. And it does
>project beautifully, for modestly-sized groups.
This brings up a question about the laserdisc. During the scene in
which Mike has an encounter with the rather out-of-it character that
believes Mike to be one of the wee green people (perhaps I should have
waited and asked this question on St. Patrick's Day), the video goes
pretty much insane as if the original print were damaged in some way.
Is this some unique defect to just my copy of the LD? It ruins an
otherwise flawless copy.
Just curious if anyone else has seen this on their LDs.
Robert G. Cole
co...@lea.csc.ncsu.edu
Steve Lionel
In article <cole.728972227@lea>, co...@lea.csc.ncsu.edu (Robert Cole) writes...
>This brings up a question about the laserdisc. During the scene in
>which Mike has an encounter with the rather out-of-it character that
>believes Mike to be one of the wee green people (perhaps I should have
>waited and asked this question on St. Patrick's Day), the video goes
>pretty much insane as if the original print were damaged in some way.
>Is this some unique defect to just my copy of the LD? It ruins an
>otherwise flawless copy.
>
>Just curious if anyone else has seen this on their LDs.
Nope - not on my oft-played copy. You may have some physicial damage
to the disk at that point.
Steve Lionel lio...@quark.enet.dec.com
SDT Languages Group
Digital Equipment Corporation
110 Spit Brook Road
Nashua, NH 03062
Robert Cole
[concerning LD defect on WOSAT]
dav...@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com writes:
>I noticed it on the video tape I rented a couple years ago, and it is on the
>copy of the video tape I own. So I think it is a problem with the master.
lio...@quark.enet.dec.com (Steve Lionel) writes:
>> Nope - not on my oft-played copy. You may have some physicial damage
>> to the disk at that point.
Okay, how about a third opinion? Perhaps only Mike himself can give the
definitive answer.
Robert G. Cole
co...@lea.csc.ncsu.edu
Steve Lionel
In article <1993Feb8...@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com>,
dav...@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com writes...
>>
>> In article <cole.728972227@lea>, co...@lea.csc.ncsu.edu (Robert Cole) writes...
>>>This brings up a question about the laserdisc. During the scene in
>>>which Mike has an encounter with the rather out-of-it character that
>>>believes Mike to be one of the wee green people (perhaps I should have
>>>waited and asked this question on St. Patrick's Day), the video goes
>>>pretty much insane as if the original print were damaged in some way.
>>>Is this some unique defect to just my copy of the LD? It ruins an
>>>otherwise flawless copy.
>>>
>>>Just curious if anyone else has seen this on their LDs.
>
>copy of the video tape I own. So I think it is a problem with the master.
>
>>
>> Nope - not on my oft-played copy. You may have some physicial damage
>> to the disk at that point.
>>
>
>talking about is after Mike leaves the party, and rides his bike to the
>doubing/transfer office/building and gives a couple reels (with Turkey footage
>on them) to the 'transfer executive' (the stoned guy in the booth) who in turn
>hands mike the 'real' tapes.
>
>When Mike rides away form the party, the quality is fine. But in the next shot
>at the booth, it is almost out of alignment or something. When Mike rides away
>the quality is fine again.
>
Ok, I checked again. On my copy, the video is fine throughout this
sequence. The shots of the guy in the booth are a bit jumpy with some
film scratches, but the video image itself is ok. The effect is like
watching a 16mm film on an aging projector, but I wouldn't call this
"video goes insane". The reverse angle shot of Mike handing the film
through the window are much clearer and steadier; they must have been
shot elsewhere.
James Kibo Parry
>In article <1993Feb8...@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com>,
>dav...@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com writes...
>>> In article <cole.728972227@lea>, co...@lea.csc.ncsu.edu (Robert Cole) writes...
>>>>This brings up a question about the laserdisc. During the scene in
>>>>which Mike has an encounter with the rather out-of-it character that
>>>>believes Mike to be one of the wee green people (perhaps I should have
>>>>waited and asked this question on St. Patrick's Day), the video goes
>>>>pretty much insane as if the original print were damaged in some way.
>>>>Is this some unique defect to just my copy of the LD? It ruins an
>>>>otherwise flawless copy.
>>>>
>>copy of the video tape I own. So I think it is a problem with the master.
>>
>>> to the disk at that point.
>>When Mike rides away form the party, the quality is fine. But in the next shot
>>at the booth, it is almost out of alignment or something. When Mike rides away
>>the quality is fine again.
Gee, folks, don't you think this might be what's called a 'joke'?
When Mike goes to the film transfer house, the movie changes to a bad
piece of film (8mm? 16mm). I.e. the film's Just Using Editing In A
Clever Way.
BTW, my favorite gag in the film is the "two-shots! medium shots! close-ups!
ECUs! over-the-shoulders! sync sound!" bit (right after the Time Tripper clip.)
The film "does" each of those shots (ECU = extreme closeup) as they're
called off, and the film cans get slammed down right on "sync sound".
It's a great touch.
-- K.
Ronald Cole
In article <cole.728972227@lea>, co...@lea.csc.ncsu.edu (Robert Cole) writes...
>This brings up a question about the laserdisc. During the scene in
>which Mike has an encounter with the rather out-of-it character that
>believes Mike to be one of the wee green people (perhaps I should have
>waited and asked this question on St. Patrick's Day), the video goes
>pretty much insane as if the original print were damaged in some way.
>Is this some unique defect to just my copy of the LD? It ruins an
>otherwise flawless copy.
>
>Just curious if anyone else has seen this on their LDs.
Nope - not on my oft-played copy. You may have some physicial damage
to the disk at that point.
it's on mine... looks like the film is scratched pretty badly (like a
16mm work print or sumptin'). more special effects I guess. It's not
a LD defect, however.
--
Ronald Cole +----------------------+ internet: r...@unify.com
Software Engineer II | Lord/Genis '96 | uucp: uunet!unify!rjc
Unify Corporation +----------------------+ voice: +1 916 928 6238
"THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"