Kodak may not last much longer...

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Looks like Kodak may not be able to keep up with it's financial obligations. I hope they turn this around...

[Ryan Gallagher]

I had no idea they were in the pharma chemical business too, trying to get into the pharma business.

How many other companies out there can do what the film industry still needs?

[Ryan Gallagher]

Geez, the answer appears to be zero for 35/65 color roll film negative stock.

The internet, or at least the AI search results part of the internet claimed Kodak had previously committed to continue that capacity through 2028 only.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I had no idea they were in the pharma chemical business too, trying to get into the pharma business.

How many other companies out there can do what the film industry still needs?

None that I am aware of. The big problem is they have 500 million in debt coming due pretty soon. Will they be able to pay it? Or will they end up selling off profitable divisions like they did in the past. Is the film division profitable and saleable? I doubt it... I'd be shocked if it even broke even...

[Leo Enticknap]

From the coverage I've seen, the statement in their SEC filing about the $470m debt and their ability to pay it off is either an indication of a real problem, or simply verbage that is legally required, the reality being that they will likely be able to roll over those debts with little difficulty. The frustrating thing is that none of the coverage that I've seen has tried to do any investigation as to whether Kodak in its current form is systemically loss-making and probably not fixable (in which case the end is likely near), or systemically viable with the right management and leadership, and some major changes.

Obviously what matters to us is the core viability of the Entertainment Imaging division. In other words, is their film manufacturing business viable, and if Kodak can't make it work, could it be sold to another company that can? If I remember correctly, that operation was only saved from closure about a decade ago as the result of a deal between some major Hollywood studios and Kodak to guarantee a base level of film stock sales in the years going forward. The crucial question is whether the current value of the market for film stock is big enough to enable the stuff (and the chemistry needed to process it) to be manufactured at a profit.

[Chris Haller]

My father was on the team that designed Vision 3 print stock and still has some Kodak contacts though he was laid off in 2014. I asked him about this article yesterday in regards to the film print uptick of sorts that we're in in terms of 70mm print manufacturing as of late, and he claimed that up until recently film manufacturing was one of the few money making components of Kodak left. Take it with a grain of salt, as its just hearsay, but I'd suspect Entertainment Imaging is still somewhat viable.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Making high-quality 35mm color film at the current quality levels is a hugely complex process, looking at all the steps involved, I don't see that replicated anywhere else at a profit at any scale that quickly. Once such a plant has been shut down, it will be very expensive to get the production up-and-running again.

While the following videos focus on 35mm film for photography, much of the process for 35mm film stock is the same. I guess the backing materials will be essentially the same polyester-based material and are probably coming from the same extrusion process. Nonetheless, it shows how difficult and dedicated the proces is.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Making high-quality 35mm color film at the current quality levels is a hugely complex process, looking at all the steps involved, I don't see that replicated anywhere else at a profit at any scale that quickly. Once such a plant has been shut down, it will be very expensive to get the production up-and-running again.

While the following videos focus on 35mm film for photography, much of the process for 35mm film stock is the same. I guess the backing materials will be essentially the same polyester-based material and are probably coming from the same extrusion process. Nonetheless, it shows how difficult and dedicated the proces is.

Yeah you beat me to it, I was gonna share Destin's tours here too eventually. I agree to be viable the business unit would have to be sold while plants are still operating, along with transferring all the staff/expertise.

Of course it's not just 70mm that is needed for the handful of deep pocketed projects and release prints, plenty director's still love working with 35mm film shooting process (or don't love it but the project or sequence makes it appealing for artistic reasons)... and then just do digital production for the rest of the pipeline.

Losing color negative stock except for those who have squirreled a stash away, would be a real creative loss for directors/cinematographers. But if the stock goes away the labs will go away too, so even if you had some, hard to use it. Would obviously impact ability to re-print any older classics too. Kodak is kinda the "keystone" that holds up the entire film on film cottage industry that still remains. Hollywood obviously knows this which is why they were pretty involved last time they seemed at risk.

[Mark Ogden]

It's not just Kodak. Arri is having their financial difficulties as well, and are looking for a buyer. After decades of building top quality film cameras and lighting instruments, and having the industry leading digital cinematography camera, they're sadly starting to find out that you don't need a $35,000 Alexa and a case full of $10,000 lenses to make a viable movie, you can do it on a tiny Sony ILX or even an iPhone. It doesn't bode well.

I hope Kodak makes it, but I just don't see the point of shooting on film any more. A few days ago I saw a very clean 70mm print of Sinners at the Museum of the Moving Image, and about the only thing "filmic" about it were some clearly underexposed scenes with little to no shadow detail. I first started noticing this with the Spielberg remake of West Side Story a few years back. This was a film where they went so far as to list the different Kodak film stocks used in the end credits, but between the CGI, the color timing, the degraining and the digital scan out I would defy you to point out what the advantage of shooting on film was. There used to be a sort of film aesthetic that you could claim, the "magical dancing film grains" and whatnot, but any more, it all looks so . . . digital.

[Frank Cox]

I was in "the city" earlier today and went by a television van. I saw a woman jump out of the van with a phone on a stick and do some kind of stand-up news-reporter-on-the-scene thing on the sidewalk.

So I guess live-on-the-street is a one-man show now and you don't even need a cameraman with you.

[Harold Hallikainen]

I was in "the city" earlier today and went by a television van. I saw a woman jump out of the van with a phone on a stick and do some kind of stand-up news-reporter-on-the-scene thing on the sidewalk.

So I guess live-on-the-street is a one-man show now and you don't even need a cameraman with you.

Film at 11!

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Film at 11!

That's why she was in the van. Film lab in the back of it!!

[Ed Gordon]

image.png

Kodak, a venerable Rochester institution facing questions about its financial state, is pushing back against concerns its future is in peril.

"Kodak is nowhere near going out of business," said Kurt Jaeckel, senior director, WW Communications, for Kodak on the morning of Aug. 13 in an email.

Jaeckel sent this statement from the company to the Democrat and Chronicle:

"The 'going concern' language in Kodak’s 10-Q is essentially required disclosure because Kodak’s debt comes due within 12 months of the filing. Kodak is confident it will be able to pay off a significant portion of its term loan well before it becomes due, and amend, extend or refinance our remaining debt and/or preferred stock obligations. To fund the repayment, we plan to draw on the approximately $300 million in cash we expect to receive from the reversion and settlement of our U.S. pension fund (the Kodak Retirement Income Plan, or “KRIP”) in December.

"However, the KRIP reversion is not solely within Kodak’s control and therefore is not deemed “probable” under U.S. GAAP accounting rules, which is what triggered the “going concern.” Once the KRIP reversion is completed Kodak will be virtually net debt free and will have a stronger balance sheet than we have had in years."

What is a 'going concern?'

A going concern is an accounting term that indicates a business is financially stable and can operate with the expectations of indefinite existence, according to Cornell University's Legal Information Institute.

The filing reported on Aug. 11 said the upcoming debt raised doubt of Kodak's ability to continue as a going concern due to its current lack of committed financing or available liquidity.
How will Kodak pay its debt?


David Bullwinkle, Kodak’s chief financial officer, said the company is prioritizing its advanced chemicals and materials business moving forward. Kodak also recently announced cuts to its retirement plan in an effort to pay down debt.

Bullwinkle said the company expects to “have a clear understanding” of how it will address its financial obligations by Aug. 15.

The breadcrumbs to Kodak’s repayment of its debt trace back to last November, when it filed a material change form, announcing a plan to sell the assets of the Kodak Retirement Income Plan (KRIP.) The sale of $764.4 million in illiquid assets, primarily private equity holdings, would generate $550.6 million.

The funds from the sale would then pay out to pensioners in lump sums or annuities from insurance companies.

As the program is overfunded, the remaining assets — between $885 million and $975 million — could be used to pay back creditors, minus a 20% excise tax. The creditors of Kodak's debt included terms in which the remaining assets would pay down those balances first.

Source: https://www.democratandchronicle.com...s/85641057007/

[Sean McKinnon]

FYI, I was installing a projector for someone in the organization actually someone quite high up in the entertainment imaging business and they assured me they are doing quite well so I think the reports of their death have been greatly exaggerated.

[Dustin Grush]

I was in "the city" earlier today and went by a television van. I saw a woman jump out of the van with a phone on a stick and do some kind of stand-up news-reporter-on-the-scene thing on the sidewalk.

So I guess live-on-the-street is a one-man show now and you don't even need a cameraman with you.

Our local stations have been doing the "one man band" style of reporting going back at least a decade for at least some of their reporting. I'd guess that anything that isn't strictly "live on air" gets this treatment. Of course they were using a proper expensive camera and tripod. With the cuts being made to traditional media, especially local, an iPhone on a selfie stick is probably next...