Kodak Pacts to Supply 20th Century Fox With Film

Kodak inks deal to supply film

Shrunken photography firm has pacted with six major studios in last year

35mm film stock may be on its way out, but as far as Kodak is concerned, it’s not dead yet.

The venerable Rochester, N.Y.-based firm, much shrunken in bankruptcy, has pacted to supply Fox with motion picture film for both features and TV. Deal covers film for “content creation, distribution and archival,” according to Andrew Evenski, pesident of Kodak’s Entertainment & Commercial Films Division.

Kodak has concluded deals within the last year to supply film stock to six majors: Disney, Warner Bros., NBC-Universal, Paramount, Sony and Fox.

With the digital transition in theaters nearly complete, there is shrinking demand for 35mm print stock. Yet many directors and cinematographers still prefer to capture on film, and as yet there is no better long-term archival solution for moving images than 35mm black-and-white film stored in a climate-controlled vault.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 6

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. occultology says:

    The trend away from film stock, and toward digital film making, began when comedian, actor, writer, director, and spazz Jerry Lewis stated, in a film class he was teaching at the time, that he literally had licked the celluloid he had shot, “…to get more of me on the emulsion.” Something had to be done to remedy this heinous situation.

  2. Frank W says:

    Deal covers film for “content creatin, distribution and archival,” Isn’t anyone proofing on the internet anymore? I don’t know if they meant to say “Content cretin or creating or creation.” I’d like to think they wanted to say Cretin, it’s the romantic in me.

  3. G. Jardoness says:

    Memo to Kodak: Film? Really?

    • Frank W says:

      You know, I’m really getting sick of “green” and “pale”.

      There is a glow and patina with film. Sure, you can fake it with filters and such if you take the time, but like the over use of greenscreen, sometimes it’s nice to get it “in-camera” the first time.

      Also, there is a cost and time savings with digital but with film, you can get the cheapest wind up camera and shoot a better image for lower initial cost than digital. Seeing a photo of Kubrick holding a small hand-held 35mm shooting a scene for “A Clockwork Orange” kind of proves this.

      I’ve been looking at some of my scans of 35mm slides and the color and depth is so much better than what my two Canons can do. I actually bought my first pro-canon to use mostly for check lighting on my pro-shoots and shoot “junk” but as a pure cost savings when quality wasn’t needed, yes, I let film fall to the wayside. Kodak’s introduction of negative scanning to printing didn’t help. They forgot there would be a problem with moirés when the pixel resolution conflicted with photographing items like mesh screens.

      IMAX is still the greatest format, not that pretend stuff but the real 2 1/4″ inch image on a 5 story screen.

      Though, the irony in my initial comment, the last 35mm projected movie I saw was SKYFALL and it looked “green” and muddy. Seeing it digital–as it seems to have been shot from production stills I’ve seen–the movie was beautiful. But a master was at work in this case. (The film theater was a crappy one run by AMC).

      And I don’t hate digital, i’ve been using it one way or another since ’84, but as a cost and time savings.

    • There’s a reason film has been around for over a century and you can still watch archival films older than any of us. Digital sucks.

    • Kodak still makes billions of linear feet of motion picture film a year. It’s a profitable business for them. It’s one of the few profitable businesses they have and it’s a key part of their plan to emerge from bankruptcy.

More Film News from Variety