Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2018 20:54:31 GMT
Nope. Plenty of ones I wish would get lost though.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Jul 16, 2018 1:16:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 1:34:53 GMT
It would be really cool if some of the lost stuff was found somewhere. I know in many cases a fire destroyed what's thought to be the only copy.
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Jul 16, 2018 15:22:20 GMT
London, After Midnight
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jul 16, 2018 15:26:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Jul 16, 2018 15:43:32 GMT
MARE INGRAM, a 1923 silent film thought to be lost, has been discovered and restored.
It's been shown on TCM's Sunday night silent movie roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 16, 2018 22:27:01 GMT
I'm curious too, but it is possible...without being a century old, that is. As I understand it, the remaining positive print and preprint elements were lost in a fire only as late as 1967. |
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jul 16, 2018 22:51:31 GMT
I'm curious too, but it is possible...without being a century old, that is. As I understand it, the remaining positive print and preprint elements were lost in a fire only as late as 1967. Right. If I’m not mistaken, Everson saw it—in the ‘50s, maybe? (I may be misremembering and he saw it earlier.) I probably shouldn’t have come off as so sarcastic; it’s just that, for years and years, there have been people who have reported seeing it and then, when pressed for details, just say that it was scary or that Chaney walked like Groucho Marx (the latter detail having appeared in contemporaneous reviews). But maybe koskiewicz means he saw the TCM restoration? |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 16, 2018 22:59:59 GMT
I'm curious too, but it is possible...without being a century old, that is. As I understand it, the remaining positive print and preprint elements were lost in a fire only as late as 1967. Right. If I’m not mistaken, Everson saw it—in the ‘50s, maybe? (I may be misremembering and he saw it earlier.) I probably shouldn’t have come off as so sarcastic; it’s just that there, for years and years, have been people who have reported seeing it and then, when pressed for details, just say that it was scary or that Chaney walked like Groucho Marx (the latter detail having appeared in contemporaneous reviews). But maybe koskiewicz means he saw the TCM restoration? koskiewicz left active military service in 1971. So if the movie was destroyed in 1967 then he might have seen it. Or as you put it he could have seen the TCM restoration. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 16, 2018 23:06:22 GMT
Salzmank From Rotten Tomatoes It's possible to "view" London After Midnight, the most successful (in box-office terms) collaboration between director Tod Browning and actor Lon Chaney, in only one form, a "photographic reconstruction" by Rick Schmidlin, who was also responsible for the reconstruction of Erich von Stroheim's legendary Greed. The difference here is that no motion-picture elements still exist; the last known print was lost in a fire in the mid-'60s. Despite the loss of many hours of footage from London After Midnight, the core action remains available on film. Schmidlin assembled stills and added a musical score by Robert Israel, using a shooting script to recreate the intertitles. This version, which premiered on Turner Classic Movies in 2002, clocks in at 48 minutes, considerably shorter than the film's original running time (75 min)
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 16, 2018 23:13:11 GMT
I'm curious too, but it is possible...without being a century old, that is. As I understand it, the remaining positive print and preprint elements were lost in a fire only as late as 1967. Right. If I’m not mistaken, Everson saw it—in the ‘50s, maybe? (I may be misremembering and he saw it earlier.) I probably shouldn’t have come off as so sarcastic; it’s just that, for years and years, there have been people who have reported seeing it and then, when pressed for details, just say that it was scary or that Chaney walked like Groucho Marx (the latter detail having appeared in contemporaneous reviews). But maybe koskiewicz means he saw the TCM restoration? We can only hope we'll be favored with a forthcoming elaboration. I daresay the chances of that are better as they stand than equally imminent solutions to those two other mysteries of the age. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 16, 2018 23:31:48 GMT
RE: two other mysteries of the age. #1 = Coke or Pepsi #2 = ? Doghouse6 |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jul 16, 2018 23:39:24 GMT
RE: two other mysteries of the age. #1 = Coke or Pepsi #2 = ? Doghouse6 You may fool me, but you can't fool them:   |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 16, 2018 23:44:45 GMT
Doghouse6OF COURSE ! duh me .. so obvious , what in the world was I thinking ? coke /pepsi definitely #3
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jul 16, 2018 23:50:47 GMT
Thanks, fellas. Aj_June, he might well have actually seen London After Midnight, and if so I’d love to talk to him about it. Again, I apologize for rushing instantly to sarcasm; I’ve just seen the claim so much that I’m almost reflexively skeptical. There was an Australian guy on the Classic Horror Film Boards who insisted for months that he’d seen it and lambasted anyone skeptical. He didn’t have many concrete details, but he did have more than “Chaney walked like Groucho,” and a specific date and time when he’d seen it—and an explanation for why the print had it in the ‘80s. (He said that another copy had been sent to Australia, and the theater-owner had bought it without knowing it was a lost film.) The story was strained, but he himself was fairly convincing (he was a film historian, with apparently no reason to lie about any of this). Except…then people started doing some checking, and found out the theater he’d named didn’t exist, and had never existed. Nor was there any evidence for the elderly theater-owner whose name he’d given us. And the story became more and more absurd as he went on. All very unfortunate. BATouttaheck I’ve seen the restoration and just couldn’t get into it much, for better or worse. Oddly enough, despite the famed Chaney-Browning collaboration, I tend to agree with William K. Everson that the best Chaney works were without Browning and the best Browning works were without Chaney!  Doghouse6 Very true!  I’m starting to become skeptical of my own memories for the Columbo episode (which I’ve now been assured is not a Columbo episode). I don’t see how the three of us all could have dreamt it up, but… Oh, well, that’s for that thread. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 17, 2018 0:01:05 GMT
Salzmank for a while I had TMC and did see the glued together film. .. for me it was like watching a movie version of one of those books with all of the frames and dialogue from a film .. but MOST of the pages were missing.
Columbo and the Singer shall be found !
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jul 17, 2018 0:05:15 GMT
Salzmank for a while I had TMC and did see the glued together film. .. for me it was like watching a movie version of one of those books with all of the frames and dialogue from a film .. but MOST of the pages were missing.
Columbo and the Singer shall be found ! The blessed hope! |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 17, 2018 3:39:54 GMT
I have seen a movie of me and my grandma but it's probably in a box in a closet somewhere and must at this point be considered pretty much "lost" !
|
|
|
|
Post by wickedkittiesmom on Jul 17, 2018 15:46:04 GMT
Not totally lost but almost impossible to find: Alexandre Le Bienheureu (Happy Happy Alexander) starring Philipe Noiret as a lazy farmer who just wants to sleep all the time.
Gigot starring Jackie Gleason as a deaf/mute French janitor
It took me years to find copies of these films, someone from the old boards helped me locate copies.
p.s. I have no idea why part of this post is in Bold Type. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 15:55:09 GMT
As far as i know i have not.
|
|
