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
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.
--- 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
> > make costly films, then complain about it.
John Porter, Toronto, Canada
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.