From: john porter (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Mar 09 2006 - 12:03:34 PST
Sorry, I missed the posts before Xander's.
But I'm grateful that super 8 even existed, let alone
on Kodachrome!
I'll be happy & creative with only one s8 reversal
stock, even black & white, any quality, made by
anybody! If it costs $100/roll, my $100 film budgets
will still be far lower than most filmmakers'.
Thankyou Kodak. You're welcome to fuck off now.
John.
--- Jason Halprin <email suppressed> wrote:
> I agree with you here John, but I think what was
> being refered to here
> was that from Kodak's point of view, this is a
> bottom-line, dollar
> driven decision. Even if they can make a profit on
> something, they are
> always looking for the most efficient business model
> to maximize
> overall profits. We may even owe the nostalgia of
> some executives for
> the fact that Kodachrome and other stocks lasted as
> long as they did...
>
> -Jason Halprin
>
> > --- "xander!!! ." <email suppressed> wrote:
> >
> > > the thing about film-making that is such a
> > > dirty secret is the money, which always or never
> > > gets talked about
>
> --- john porter <email suppressed> wrote:
> >
> > Yes it's dirty, but more of a myth than a secret.
> > People OFTEN talk about the high financial cost of
> > filmmaking, but it's not necessarily true. Many
> > filmmakers, including in the "avant-garde", CHOOSE
> to
> > make costly films, then complain about it.
John Porter, Toronto, Canada
http://www.super8porter.ca/
email suppressed
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.