Very curious. Now equipment is far better for filming xxx-rated movies. From 1974 on, i was under the impression 16 mm reels were used. What did the moviemakers do with them after, destroy them? Any info appreciated. Thanks for your time.
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 13 2009 : 5:15PM
I think some were shot in 16mm and probably some larger productions were shot in 35mm. Metzger i think used super 16m stock, which is not easy to convert. Theatrical release of hc films were done on 35mm film stock (if they were shot on 16mm film stock, they would have them blown up to 35m for movie prints). What happened to these prints after their theatrical run is another matter altogether. The prints would have been returned (to a great extent) back to the distributor, but dies to the fact that the majority of them are no longer in bsuiness, I have no clue what happened to them. I think one of the oldest firm like Arrow still has certain control over their old prints. Radley Metzger still has his negative prints. The fact that the majority of the so-called remastered DVD's that have been marketed lately are still in the full-screen format and with generally average print quality, it would suggest that the original source material is no longer around, and what you are getting is basically recycled VHS material. It is possible some people in the exhibition end of the these movies (projectionists, local distrubutors) may have kept some old reels or prints, but I don't know whether anyone has made an analysis of the situation. There weren't that many movie theaters in the USA in the late 1970's or early 1980's and there could not have been that many prints runs off for a particular hc title. Large companies like Caballero did continue making and releasing hc movies even in the late 1980's and early 1990's on 35m stock if my memory serves me well (I believe some of the early Andrew Blake movies were in 35m).
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 13 2009 : 8:01PM
Debatable, I don't think many productions these days look as good as the best shot features of the 70s and 80s, which were shot on 16mm and 35mm. The quality and care of the releases on DVD is another matter of course, where usually the source material is taken from a VHS or beta master instead of film. But look at the DVD release of Neon Nights or many of the Alpha France releases, the quality is exquisite.
^ I agree. I just love movies shot on film. Even the best-made adult films these days don't have that richness and texture of the classics. Of course, nowadays it's better then the late 80s... Weirdly, as I've said elsewhere, I kind of enjoy the flaws in dvd/video/print transfers. Of course, it's wonderful to get a perfect, clean copy, but watching Maraschino Cherry in its Video X form was strangely appealing.
Have read that most porno theaters just bought outright the 16mm prints from the distributors. Maybe they feared that they would not receive the full percentage of the profits and got all their money upfront. Surely some 16 and 36mm prints are in storage in some garages around the country. Personally transferred my super 8mm prints to VHS but never heard that 16mm was that much harder to transfer than 35mm. Seems like a major effort to transfer 16mm to 35mm. Would love to see some of those 16mm films I watched at the Commerce St. theater in Dallas in the early 70's. Those were true Gonzo. Story, we don't need no fucking story. With the technology today, surely that is possible. Wayne In Dallas
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 14 2009 : 12:36AM
It is hard to compare old hc movies produced in the 1970's and early 1980's to what is shot today. If our point of reference is some old so-called VHS or movie print "remastered" to DVD, then for the most part we would draw negative and inaccurate conclusions. The source material in existance today of those movies is in a very sorry state and no one in the industry is going to spend $200,00-$400,000 or whatever it would take to restore an old hc classic. There is really no expectation that they would make their money back. I have seen the remastered TABOO series by Kirdy Stevens and CANDY STRIPERS and they are quite good. Radley Metgzger movies are in a class by themselves since he still has the original negatives, which are apparently in very good condition (audio and video). Film stock and video are very different, and if you have seen a hc movie (shot in 16mm or 35m) in a movie theater you have a pretty good idea what we are talking about. Film has a richer and softer tone that you cannot get from video. Most of us remember the VHS movies with rather bland colors and awful audio tracks. (you even used to hear the director giving instructions to the performers). Now that we have DVD for the past few years, we finally are able to see better quality. High Definition and Blu-Ray are a definite improvement only to the sense of what we remember what VHS was like. There were very few hc companies in the VHS heyday that put out higher quality product (meaning video/audio, not porn content): Cal-Vista, Caballero, etc. Even in its early days, Vivid product was more or less average looking. It is unfortunate that the original negatives of the old hc feature movies may be lost forever (I think they only recently found the original DEEP THROAT negative) or may be seriously damaged that it would be too costly to attempt serious restoration. I recall seeing BABYFACE in a movie theater and saw it on VHS later on, and the video quality was just terrible. Whether visual quality now equates with content quality is another matter.
What also doesn't help is some appear to be mislabeled. I believe that was the case with Deep Throat that the reels actually contained a different movie title on the outside. As for what is in existence. Some old theaters apparently still had reels stacked in them. There was one in I think it was Florida recently that was bought by a religious group that destroyed all the reels in it. I think that as far as actual masters go, the quantity is dropping considerably. However, I think that as far as grindhouse reels still existing, I think there are quite a number in existence. The problem is getting a studio that's willing to put the money into restoring them. As has been mentioned some directors, like Radley Metzger and Cecil Howard, have masters of their films. Others might too, for instance, a lost John Holmes film was found by Bob Chinn.
Shake for me girl... I wanna be your backdoorman ! 2776 Posts 10/07
Posted - Oct 14 2009 : 12:13PM
^ That's as bad as the Taliban destroying the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. Bunch of fucking nimrods ! I wonder if Something Weird video still has unreleased reels. Where did they get their adult content ?
[Link]
Len801 Deactivated User
754 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 14 2009 : 12:58PM
I don't know if they ever mentioned it, or even care to say it. Judging from the quality of the conversionios, I should think they not from any original source but from hand me down battered prints or VHS copies.
I just watched the 40th Anniversary double-disc, letter-boxed edition of the DEVIL IN MISS JONES (1973) and it really sounds great, looks terrific with remastered digital sound and picture quality. Gerard Damiano says he shot this on 35 mmm for about $33,000. On the commentary, he also states that DEEP THROAT cost $25,000. He thought his next project STORY OF JOANNA was the best of the three. Anyway, look for my review of this DMJ 2 disc set in a day or two on ADT---T0M/T0MBOne Edited by - T0MBOne on 10/14/2009 8:12:03 PM
I hope that producers and webmasters of today keep better track of their high res masters and negatives if shooting on film. I would have loved to see more high res versions of older scenes that may have been shot on early HIGH Def cameras. Its to bad its no economy in it.
