Kodak to Sell Kodak Park

Ken Nadvornick said:

If the complete inability of EK to scale back production levels from the glory years were going to kill that business entirely, wouldn't that have already happened years ago? Especially as EK has aggravated the problem itself by discontinuing so many film product lines over that period?

The glory years were a long time ago.

Just thinking out loud...

Ken

Click to expand...

Nope. Movies have kept EK rolling a lot more film than we could ever use. Sony's last ( ) contract with EK was for half a BILLION feet of film for 2 years. That's a ton of film (probably many tons). Once movies stop using film next year, then all bets are off. EK will see an even more dramatic free fall in demand.

Ilford and Fuji do not have this problem.

We'll see. Nothing in Sony's two-year contract would prevent EK from attempting to reduce the film production volume envelope while that contract is being serviced. In fact, those two years would be the precise time EK might want to undertake such an R&D effort, if it hasn't already happened. It's when they would have the breathing space to think about and experiment with it using the non-MP stocks.

As I've said in other threads, if I were KA there's absolutely no way I sign an agreement to take over Kodak's consumer film selling business if the only way it can succeed is to sell the same glory years volumes that even EK can no longer sell. That would be a losing proposition from the get-go.

Turning the argument around, there's no way such a deal with me even happens unless EK can demonstrate to my satisfaction that they can consistently supply me with the reduced volumes of consumer film that I can successfully sell into the current reduced markets. No scaling down, no signature on the dotted line. It's a prerequisite. Ya' gotta' convince me it's possible first.

Like any supplier agreement, the deal would be dependent upon the supplier being able to manufacture the required volumes. Except in this case those would be minimum, not maximum, volumes.

I have to assume that the last thing KA wants to do is throw its retirees under the bus by making unworkable and risky deals.

Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

We'll see. Nothing in Sony's two-year contract would prevent EK from attempting to reduce the film production volume envelope while that contract is being serviced. In fact, those two years would be the precise time EK might want to undertake such an R&D effort, if it hasn't already happened. It's when they would have the breathing space to think about and experiment with it using the non-MP stocks.

As I've said in other threads, if I were KA there's absolutely no way I sign an agreement to take over Kodak's consumer film selling business if the only way it can succeed is to sell the same glory years volumes that even EK can no longer sell. That would be a losing proposition from the get-go.

Turning the argument around, there's no way such a deal with me even happens unless EK can demonstrate to my satisfaction that they can consistently supply me with the reduced volumes of consumer film that I can successfully sell into the current reduced markets. No scaling down, no signature on the dotted line. It's a prerequisite. Ya' gotta' convince me it's possible first.

Like any supplier agreement, the deal would be dependent upon the supplier being able to manufacture the required volumes. Except in this case those would be minimum, not maximum, volumes.

I have to assume that the last thing KA wants to do is throw its retirees under the bus by making unworkable and risky deals.

Ken

Click to expand...

1. What choice did KA have? Get the film/digital business or get nothing. EK could offer no more.
2. KA seems to have a lot more than film. I asked in a different thread a long time ago, what percentage of KA's business is film? No one replied. Looking at the KA web site and the KA press releases sees a LOT more than film. They look a lot more like Xerox than like a film company.
3. Imagine a general motors plant built in the '50s that made 250,000 cars per year. Then try to down size it to produce 10% of that volume, or less. You (hopefully) can see how ridiculous it would be to try to use the same facility to make a tiny fraction of the former production.
4. Sony is just one studio. The 4 or 5 other major studios are also consuming billions of feet of film per year until next year. All that is going to drop away, in an instant. Unlike the consumer side of film, Hollywood appears to be going digital on the drop of a dime. Very few, if any businesses can survive such an instant drop in demand of that magnitude.

As I said, we'll see...



Ken

I have a few speculations ...

1. Kodak-Alaris bought the company to make it APPEAR more appealing and then will sell it off to some sucker who will take the fall while they run away with the cash.

2. Remember the "discovered" roll of TechPan? The one that supplied tech pan for quite a few years after it had stopped being produced? Yea, so they make 5-10 years worth of film and deep freeze it and sell it as it goes. I wouldn't be surprised if they only run the non-MP stock every few years, and the increase in price is to prepare for a new run since it's been a few years since they made any film runs.

3. Those machines sitting unused for long periods of time, sitting idle will ultimately cause problems and will need sudden and expensive repairs at some point.

4. Kodak (any of them) doesn't have the finances to down-scale their production to current levels, and no one is buying the larger machine, so, unless they can find something they can run on the machine and sell that (like making flexible solar panels or something) will keep the machines more useful than just making film every few years, then I think the future is dim.

5. There is hope, if the right people can find a solution, there will be film for years to come.

6. Ilford/Ferrania in about 5 years buy the color patent and production stuff from kodak and continue to make film, either as a joint venture or one of them on their own. Or on a smarter move (for slight positive perceived competition) Ferrania buys the Fuji patents and Ilford buys the Kodak ones.

Ken Nadvornick said:

As I said, we'll see...



Ken

Click to expand...

The situation that Ratty speaks so clearly about is not unique to film... it has happened in many of our core and critical industries. I understand what you say about "we'll see" but even Stevie Wonder can see that the chances of good things happening are slim. We are now in such a big hole there doesn't seem to be a shovel big enough to dig us out. Yes, we'll see... but we might not like what we see. Time will tell (that's my version of your "we'll see")

I think archival cinema preservation will be the factor that determines the continued production of large amounts of photographic film. It's already clear that the marketplace has decided that it doesn't care about the analog preservation of still images, but movies are a different matter. The financial stakes are high.

Digital archiving of movies presently involves an expensive, laborious and (so far) endless cycle of copying and migrating from one format or medium to another, with a resting period of two to five years. Analog archiving is a relatively simple process of passive safekeeping and monitoring, with a resting period of many, many decades.

Whether the analog film is color negative or positive, B&W monochrome or CMY separation, it is currently the superior method of archiving a serviceable copy of a movie. A digital copy may be an exact clone of the original source master, but perfect is the enemy of the good when it comes down to a digital duplicate that can't be decoded vs. an analog duplicate that's dirty, moldy or discolored but viewable.

Is it possible to develop a high-capacity digital image storage method that is passively archival to the extent that film already is? The big movie producers are in the driver's seat here. If they want it to happen, then they will make the attempt. So far they have not, but if they were to succeed, large-scale photographic film production would vanish for good.

In the meantime, from a long-term cultural perspective, it is worth preserving the single remaining Kodak film line in operational condition indefinitely, even if it were only to be run once a year to produce a single batch of archival movie film. I don't know how this idea would work out as a business model for Kodak Alaris, but I do know what the current Eastman Kodak management would think of it.

I'm hoping you are right, Lee. I have a vague recollection of hearing once (maybe 10 years ago) that the US Government had a mandate from Congress to back up digital imagery on film. I never could track down any information corroborating that memory, though. Given the amount of digital imagery the government must have... that should be lots and lots of film.

StoneNYC said:

I have a few speculations ...

1. Kodak-Alaris bought the company to make it APPEAR more appealing and then will sell it off to some sucker who will take the fall while they run away with the cash..

Click to expand...

Which photo plant has been sold since the Agfa/AgfaPhoto case for serious money?

I don't concern myself with kodak's business affairs I let the shareholders do that, I just use the film.

AgX said:

Which photo plant has been sold since the Agfa/AgfaPhoto case for serious money?

Click to expand...

Well they are selling the park, that's some good pocketable money, it will be ripped apart and squeezed till there's nothing left and then sold off. That's what investment companies are all about now. Again this is all prediction I have no facts, but I would hedge my bets with this in mind.

StoneNYC said:

I have a few speculations ...

1. Kodak-Alaris bought the company to make it APPEAR more appealing and then will sell it off to some sucker who will take the fall while they run away with the cash.

Click to expand...

There you are! I knew I wasn't far of the mark when I introduced the spirit of Gordon Gekko into the scene. KA's sentiments in the above quote could be regarded as "dubious" to say the least but of course there was a period when British actors were in high demand in Hollywood to play all the villains, usually with a London cockney accent which is how we all speak in the U.K. So maybe that kind of villainy has spread from our actors to our businesses

Come to think of it, the poor man with the gun who asked me if I could spare a few pounds did have a passing ressemblance to Alan Rickman or was it Vinnie Jones? Jack Palance eat your heart out

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

There you are! I knew I wasn't far of the mark when I introduced the spirit of Gordon Gekko into the scene. KA's sentiments in the above quote could be regarded as "dubious" to say the least but of course there was a period when British actors were in high demand in Hollywood to play all the villains, usually with a London cockney accent which is how we all speak in the U.K. So maybe that kind of villainy has spread from our actors to our businesses

Come to think of it, the poor man with the gun who asked me if I could spare a few pounds did have a passing ressemblance to Alan Rickman or was it Vinnie Jones? Jack Palance eat your heart out

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I don't know any of the names in this post so I'm not sure if you're mocking me, agreeing, or not... Lol

Stone, here's some names for you--Jack Benny, Ed Wynn, Harriet Hilliard, Julie London, Donna Reed, Gracie Allen, Tyrone Power. You young whippersnappers heard of these names?

Tom1956 said:

Stone, here's some names for you--Jack Benny, Ed Wynn, Harriet Hilliard, Julie London, Donna Reed, Gracie Allen, Tyrone Power. You young whippersnappers heard of these names?

Click to expand...

Vaguely but I can't recall from where... I know the important ones like Ginsberg and Margaret Atwood and FDR

Important names like that?

Tom1956 said:

Important names like that?

Click to expand...

We seriously need a NEW new deal...

Stone, Alan Rickman was the arch villain in one of the Die Hard films.The other bloke - now there's a real British word was the American hero( Willis? ) and now advertises Sky Broadband on British TV. So fair enough you make villains out of our British actors and we do the same with yours

Vinnie Jones a former football player in the U.K. made or tried to make a name for himself in Hollywood. He obviously failed. I have to refer to him as a football player and dare not use the other U.S. word given Vinnie's tough guy reputation ( superb american phrase of tough guy used to maintain balance) and sensitivity to what he regards as a completely foreign word to describe the game with a round ball and goals that begins with "s"

If none of the above has helped then you'll have to take it from me that there was a period and well within your living memory when in U.S. films Brit = Bad.

We used to be stupid chimney sweeps with phoney cockney accents but that was in Dick Van Dyke's day( Tom, can you help here with a resume of Dick in case he too has sunk without trace?)

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Vinnie Jones a former football player in the U.K. made or tried to make a name for himself in Hollywood. He obviously failed. I have to refer to him as a football player and dare not use the other U.S. word given Vinnie's tough guy reputation ( superb american phrase of tough guy used to maintain balance) and sensitivity to what he regards as a completely foreign word to describe the game with a round ball and goals that begins with "s"

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Just say he played rugby...

Everybody knows who Dick van Dyke is. I think an education on Julie London is in order though. Wife of Bobby Troup (writer of Route 66).
Here's Julie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNPIopXfaE4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQPiV_cauyI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2f40eQcYXk

Enjoy

You folks realize that without Kodak Park, none of us would ever have known who any of these people are? We'd still be going to town to see a Vaudeville act.

Here are some missed points.

1. KA at Harrow does not coat film. Film and paper are not normally coated on the same machines due to the dust from the paper support. I doubt that KA will make film. It will come from Rochester.

2. Kodak in Rochester has cancelled all responsibility to existing pensioners and has no obligations to them.

3. Kodak can make film at any speed that they desire. There has to be a reformulation to do this, I am sure, but they can slow the machines down if they wish.

PE

StoneNYC said:

All I can say about ilford is they are foolish to not own the properly, too costly to move all that equipment.

Click to expand...

In the US a company can write off lease payments at 100% on the taxes. Therefore it is often a wise business decision to lease rather than buy. I do not know the tax laws in England, but I would think that they would be the same in this respect.

Instead of firing off a posting criticizing a company, that you do some due diligence for a change. A little research you do you a great deal of good.

StoneNYC said:

All I can say about ilford is they are foolish to not own the properly, too costly to move all that equipment.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they think it is better business sense to focus their resources on photography, and pay another company to be better at managing the grounds and buildings economically than Harman would be themselves.

Sirius Glass said:

In the US a company can write off lease payments at 100% on the taxes. Therefore it is often a wise business decision to lease rather than buy. I do not know the tax laws in England, but I would think that they would be the same in this respect.

Instead of firing off a posting criticizing a company, that you do some due diligence for a change. A little research you do you a great deal of good.

Click to expand...

Well you don't actually buy it with company money you create a shell that manages the property that is a subsidiary or something of the main company and then can still deduct. It's all about loop holes... Anyway I'm not exactly unfamiliar with this stuff, I bought my first rental property at 23....

I didn't say I was good at, as I now have NO properties... But I know stuff ... I especially learned a lot by failing at it... Lol