Tweet LAT Review of NAPOLEON

The article states that it cost $720,000 to put Napoleon on the screen in Oakland, so I definitely don't think it will be playing anywhere else.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 5788.story

The article states that it cost $720,000 to put Napoleon on the screen in Oakland

HA! Awesome waste of money!

The article states that it cost $720,000 to put Napoleon on the screen in Oakland

HA! Awesome waste of money!

Speak for yourself, I've waited years to see this and I'm not going to miss it.

The article states that it cost $720,000 to put Napoleon on the screen in Oakland, so I definitely don't think it will be playing anywhere else.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 5788.story" target="_blank

I'm having trouble reading this link. Could someone please C & P the article?

Thanks

The article states that it cost $720,000 to put Napoleon on the screen in Oakland

HA! Awesome waste of money!

Speak for yourself, I've waited years to see this and I'm not going to miss it.

That's all well and good and have a GREAT time. Just remember how many other restorations could have been funded with the $720k when you're sitting in your seat.

Louie

That's just rude. ymmv, as we all know, mine (and dozens of others) too.

I, for one, am really looking forward to this. It's an epic achievement in restoration, seen as a silent film should be seen. It's worth the money. For the record, Brownlow's dance card on restorations is full and he needs to make no excuses. The San Francisco Silent Film Festival also has helped fund restorations and has a grant for student archivists every year. They need to make no excuses.

So for today my friend, bah humbug to you.

Louie

That's just rude. ymmv, as we all know, mine (and dozens of others) too.

I, for one, am really looking forward to this. It's an epic achievement in restoration, seen as a silent film should be seen. It's worth the money. For the record, Brownlow's dance card on restorations is full and he needs to make no excuses. The San Francisco Silent Film Festival also has helped fund restorations and has a grant for student archivists every year. They need to make no excuses.

So for today my friend, bah humbug to you.

Like I said, go nuts and have a great time. Not rude, just that I don't see spending tons of money on something like this when there are so many films sitting in vaults. And who ever said I was against Brownlow? THIS IS MY OPINION............are we still allowed to have one on this forum??

Louie

That's just rude. ymmv, as we all know, mine (and dozens of others) too.

I, for one, am really looking forward to this. It's an epic achievement in restoration, seen as a silent film should be seen. It's worth the money. For the record, Brownlow's dance card on restorations is full and he needs to make no excuses. The San Francisco Silent Film Festival also has helped fund restorations and has a grant for student archivists every year. They need to make no excuses.

So for today my friend, bah humbug to you.

Like I said, go nuts and have a great time. Not rude, just that I don't see spending tons of money on something like this when there are so many films sitting in vaults. And who ever said I was against Brownlow? THIS IS MY OPINION............are we still allowed to have one on this forum??

Of course you are! I'm just disagreeing with you.

Of course you are! I'm just disagreeing with you.

Super! $720,000 for 4 screenings, never to be seen again. Just sayin'.

Of course you are! I'm just disagreeing with you.

Super! $720,000 for 4 screenings, never to be seen again. Just sayin'.

$116 million for some of Elizabeth Taylor's jewels. I'll never see those, not even once. It's the way it works.

$116 million for some of Elizabeth Taylor's jewels. I'll never see those, not even once. It's the way it works.

And that has what to do with film?

$116 million for some of Elizabeth Taylor's jewels. I'll never see those, not even once. It's the way it works.

And that has what to do with film?

In a free market system, everything is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it. Frankly, I'll bet that $720 K is probably less than the cost of an opera production, but it's a similar type of event.

Dear Louie

What is the purpose of a film? Why, to screen it to an audience - and if today it costs $720,000 to hire an orchestra and a suitable cinema palace in order to screen a silent picture as it should be seen - then you should be all for it. Why? Because it puts bums on seats, draws the public in to look at a picture they may not normally see and shows them exactly how the silent pictures were originally shown. Who knows, out of that audience may come more enthusiasts, more interest in silent cinema and a wider market for restored silent films.

Having had to watch silent pictures cold, shown in small rooms and looked at on television screens - I say full marks and three cheers to those who put up the money to put these films on at a stunning venue with a full orchestra in attendance.
To see a silent film in such a situation is an overwhelmingly stunning experience.

Of course you are! I'm just disagreeing with you.

Super! $720,000 for 4 screenings, never to be seen again. Just sayin'.

Well, in fairness, they get a lot more film for the buck with NAPOLEON at $720,000 than they get with A TRIP TO THE MOON at $500,000, and if they want to convince themselves they're getting a classic and a once in a lifetime experience because they managed to stay awake through it, let em have their fun. We did the same thing at Slapsticon with A THIEF CATCHER in 2010, but we spent less than $500.

But can't resist, 20 fps as the correct speed for NAPOLEON is B*LLSH*T! Make that turkey even longer.........


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Of course you are! I'm just disagreeing with you.

Super! $720,000 for 4 screenings, never to be seen again. Just sayin'.

Well, in fairness, they get a lot more film for the buck with NAPOLEON at $720,000 than they get with A TRIP TO THE MOON at $500,000, and if they want to convince themselves they're getting a classic and a once in a lifetime experience because they managed to stay awake through it, let em have their fun. We did the same thing at Slapsticon with A THIEF CATCHER in 2010, but we spent less than $500.

But can't resist, 20 fps as the correct speed for NAPOLEON is B*LLSH*T! Make that turkey even longer.........


RICHARD M ROBERTS

And at that you overspent.

Unless I'm misreading things, $720,000 has been invested in putting it on......to be recouped by the ticket sales of approx 12,000 tickets at $80-$100 or whatever each. It's not spent never to be seen again.....

Unless I'm misreading things, $720,000 has been invested in putting it on......to be recouped by the ticket sales of approx 12,000 tickets at $80-$100 or whatever each. It's not spent never to be seen again.....

Yeah, but if you add up how much money has actually been spent over the last 30 years to restore NAPOLEON, it's probably triple that figure.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

As long as I eventually get my Blu-ray of the super-mega-deluxe-ultimate restoration, I'll be happy.

Unless I'm misreading things, $720,000 has been invested in putting it on......to be recouped by the ticket sales of approx 12,000 tickets at $80-$100 or whatever each. It's not spent never to be seen again.....

You can't argue with an habitual provocateur, as logic isn't a factor.

Dear Louie

What is the purpose of a film? Why, to screen it to an audience - and if today it costs $720,000 to hire an orchestra and a suitable cinema palace in order to screen a silent picture as it should be seen - then you should be all for it. Why? Because it puts bums on seats, draws the public in to look at a picture they may not normally see and shows them exactly how the silent pictures were originally shown. Who knows, out of that audience may come more enthusiasts, more interest in silent cinema and a wider market for restored silent films.

Having had to watch silent pictures cold, shown in small rooms and looked at on television screens - I say full marks and three cheers to those who put up the money to put these films on at a stunning venue with a full orchestra in attendance.
To see a silent film in such a situation is an overwhelmingly stunning experience.

Cool, I'm glad you have YOUR OWN OPINION, I have mine also!

We did the same thing at Slapsticon with A THIEF CATCHER in 2010, but we spent less than $500.

And for the price of two tickets to Nappy, I could get 4 days of laughs in Arlington!

As long as I eventually get my Blu-ray of the super-mega-deluxe-ultimate restoration, I'll be happy.

Keep waiting.....................................

But still, the logic of complaining about the 750,000 doesn't make sense. The film has ALREADY been restored, this is the cost of showing it on the West coast.

The point is that this is a revenue event. People pay to see Napoleon, and for a lot of those films still on the shelves, they will end up either a dead loss or close to it because no one will pay money to see them.

If they get the money back on tickets, and they may even make a profit, then they can use that money to restore those films on the shelves you are so worried about. So this outcome will actually HELP these films.

If they break even, that's still great because it's given a lot of people a chance to see what may be a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

If they lose a lot of money, then you could say they could have used some of that money for other projects. That's why they had to plan for this carefully..and it doesn't look that will happen. But even if they lose some money, it will give silent film a bigger profile on the West coast and may make some converts for SF and for Niles.

The point is that this is a revenue event. People pay to see Napoleon, and for a lot of those films still on the shelves, they will end up either a dead loss or close to it because no one will pay money to see them.

I disagree. I know many people who would pay to see films in archives that are not shown because they only exist in original prints.

Unless I'm misreading things, $720,000 has been invested in putting it on......to be recouped by the ticket sales of approx 12,000 tickets at $80-$100 or whatever each. It's not spent never to be seen again.....

You can't argue with an habitual provocateur, as logic isn't a factor.

Lets see if they make their money back before we start accusing anyone of not using logic Bright boy.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[quote="WaverBoy"]As long as I eventually get my Blu-ray of the super-mega-deluxe-ultimate restoration, I'll be happy.[/quote]

The Coppola version resulted in a VHS and Laserdisc set being produced,
by logic, this one should produce a Blu-ray version.

Do you think investors are throwing 3/4
of a million dollars at this event because
they care about silent film fans?

It is an investment that is expected to bring larger returns.

The point is that this is a revenue event. People pay to see Napoleon, and for a lot of those films still on the shelves, they will end up either a dead loss or close to it because no one will pay money to see them.

I disagree. I know many people who would pay to see films in archives that are not shown because they only exist in original prints.

I can appreciate your opinion and I too wish that more silents could be restored and shown to the public. But I don't know of many other films that I would be willing to pay $100.00, (not to mention food, lodging, and travel costs) to see. I'm a fan/freak about seeing silents in a theater with an audience, but recouping the cost of a full orchestra just isn't realistic in today's world.

Napoleon wasn't just a film, it was an experience and one that I know I will always remember and cherish.

Ron

As long as I eventually get my Blu-ray of the super-mega-deluxe-ultimate restoration, I'll be happy.

The Coppola version resulted in a VHS and Laserdisc set being produced,
by logic, this one should produce a Blu-ray version.

Do you think investors are throwing 3/4
of a million dollars at this event because
they care about silent film fans?

It is an investment that is expected to bring larger returns.

You mean, like it did the last time they released it?

Like I said, we'll see.......


RICHARD M ROBERTS

I can appreciate your opinion and I too wish that more silents could be restored and shown to the public. But I don't know of many other films that I would be willing to pay $100.00, (not to mention food, lodging, and travel costs) to see. I'm a fan/freak about seeing silents in a theater with an audience, but recouping the cost of a full orchestra just isn't realistic in today's world.

Napoleon wasn't just a film, it was an experience and one that I know I will always remember and cherish.

Ron

Super! VERY happy for you! All I know is I spent $90 a couple of weeks ago (not to mention food, lodging, and travel costs) and got to see 3 1/2 days of rare silent and sound films. I think I got the better deal.

Unless I'm misreading things, $720,000 has been invested in putting it on......to be recouped by the ticket sales of approx 12,000 tickets at $80-$100 or whatever each. It's not spent never to be seen again.....

You can't argue with an habitual provocateur, as logic isn't a factor.

Lets see if they make their money back before we start accusing anyone of not using logic Bright boy.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Spoken by another habitual provocateur, Dickie.