4 ms·
> "I want to sell it to a serious producer who either restores it or keeps it locked away" It was arguments over money that caused the film to be "lost" in the
by autoexec 1y ago
> "I want to sell it to a serious producer who either restores it or keeps it locked away"
It was arguments over money that caused the film to be "lost" in the first place. It's a shame that it's still all about money and greed could cause it to be lost again. The best thing to do would be to release
it online for free so that everyone could see and learn from it. That way, if others want to restore it using modern methods they still can. I'd rather see it as it is anyway. Before the inevitable re-edited (perhaps even censored) AI "enhanced" version a "serious producer" would shit out and overcharge for.
- reddalo 1y agoYeah, I agree. He should release a high-quality capture of the VHS, without edits whatsoever. VHS quality also decays with time, so he better hurry up.
- Hamuko 1y agoI thought the main point of this version is that it's edited to be an actual movie based on the script. The Library of Congress already has a bunch of original material with no edits.
- daveFNbuck 1y agoIf you think this is more important than the money it can be sold for, you should be the one to buy it.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mulmen 1y agoExchanging money for something implies you believe it has a monetary value. That is the opposite of thinking something is too important to have a monetary value.
- aspenmayer 1y agoSo you mean to say it’s priceless?
- mulmen 1y agoI find this question offensive. I don’t appreciate the implication that I misspoke.
- aspenmayer 1y agoIt’s a double meaning, no need to interpret it as a slight, just punny.
- daveFNbuck 1y agoSpending money to ensure something is released online for free is not the opposite of thinking it should be released online for free though. If think the owner should give up its monetary value to satisfy your beliefs, you should be willing to do the same.