Has "London After Midnight" been found?!

[PaulKTF]

Perhaps...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37599

[Matt W.]

Like some, I find this suspicious. In the original post (a link to which can be found in the above link), the poster states he discovered the print in 1998. Why wait ten years to announce it? Why not announce his find ten years ago, if the find truly is legitimate?

[PaulKTF]

Like some, I find this suspicious. In the original post (a link to which can be found in the above link), the poster states he discovered the print in 1998. Why wait ten years to announce it? Why not announce his find ten years ago, if the find truly is legitimate?

Good question... to which I can't think of a single good answer.

[zobalob]

The story doesn't ring true to me...the man held it in his hands and yet didn't then mention the import of the find to his contact, beyond asking her to amend the entry in the database? :shake: Logically, he would have told her that it was a find of historical value, a film that had been thought lost for decades, filed under an alternate title, and insist that she relay this info to her superiors, who could have checked it out in minutes.

[apileocole]

Mm I doubt it.

[AH On Vibes]

Hi Everyone,

Lurked for years, first time post.

While this seems highly dubvious, I have been wanting to see this film again for over 30 years! I don't really expect it to be true, but what a fantasy! In the sixties, I saw what I considered (as a 5-6 year old) the scariest movie I had ever seen (because of the makeup) on TV, ONCE , then never saw it again. Only in recent years did I realize it was London After Midnight. I always wondered why I never saw it again. Now I know why.

This would be very cool, but there seems to be no substantiation.

Fingers crossed?

[apileocole]

Welcome, AH On Vibes :wave:

[reechie]

Something here doesn't add up. The author writes of finding the film in the Turner archives, after Turner's buyout of MGM's film assets. Later, he writes this:

"Sometime in the early 1990's (approximately '90 to '92),.word got out that LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT was going to be shown on Turner's AMC (American Movie Classics) cable television station. It was about time! They must have either found the missing reel (or realized it was as I suspected, a complete print to begin with) and done the nitrate-to-safety-film restoration and transfer! However, even though dates were actually set for the broadcast, when that day came it didn't show. Instead, a substitute movie was shown, the name of which I can't even remember."

Here's what doesn't wash: To the best of my knowledge, Turner never owned the American Movie Classics network. As a matter of fact, Turner's buyout of MGM crippled AMC's ability to show classic films, as Ted Turner hoarded them for his own TCM network- Turner Classic Movies.

Based on that gaffe, I find the whole article a bit dubious.

[Hawkman]

Something here doesn't add up. The author writes of finding the film in the Turner archives, after Turner's buyout of MGM's film assets. Later, he writes this:

"Sometime in the early 1990's (approximately '90 to '92),.word got out that LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT was going to be shown on Turner's AMC (American Movie Classics) cable television station. It was about time! They must have either found the missing reel (or realized it was as I suspected, a complete print to begin with) and done the nitrate-to-safety-film restoration and transfer! However, even though dates were actually set for the broadcast, when that day came it didn't show. Instead, a substitute movie was shown, the name of which I can't even remember."

Here's what doesn't wash: To the best of my knowledge, Turner never owned the American Movie Classics network. As a matter of fact, Turner's buyout of MGM crippled AMC's ability to show classic films, as Ted Turner hoarded them for his own TCM network- Turner Classic Movies.

Based on that gaffe, I find the whole article a bit dubious.

I agree with Reechie here. The Turner AMC thing stuck out like a sore thumb. And frankly, the sheer length of the story is just a bit TOO MUCH if you ask me. ANYONE can write a story saying that they saw this or that. I say, produce it and THEN tell the story.

Sounds like an aspiring fiction writer to me.

[AH On Vibes]

Welcome, AH On Vibes :wave:

Thanks :)

[JBStephens]

What Turner aired was a recreation of London After Midnight, assembled from production stills. It got the same treatment as the restoration of Greed, when they filled in the holes in the storyline in the same manner. Tastefully done, but still like giving a starving dog a rubber bone. Better than nothing at all, anyway.

I miss AMC. It was a good channel, once.

[wayneklein]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[DjBryan]

One movie I really want to be found

[MilesSmiles]

I'll believe it when I see it. +1, not very convincing.

[Vidiot]

Good story on it on Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_After_Midnight_%28film%29)

I remember vividly the stills from the picture that Forry Ackerman used to print in the old Famous Monsters magazine in the 1960s. If, as Wikipedia says, the only surviving print was a nitrate element from 1965, I would almost guarantee you, it ain't around 45 years later. That's unless they kept it in a refrigerated room at low humidity for four decades. Nitrate holds up very, very badly over time, especially in the average vaults I've seen used by major studios.

[Greatest Hits]

What Turner aired was a recreation of London After Midnight, assembled from production stills. It got the same treatment as the restoration of Greed, when they filled in the holes in the storyline in the same manner. Tastefully done, but still like giving a starving dog a rubber bone. Better than nothing at all, anyway.

I miss AMC. It was a good channel, once.

Hmm, I think I remember this.. I don't remember it being on AMC... I thought it was TCM.

[pcain]

This whole story reads like bad fiction.

[wayneklein]

Good story on it on Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_After_Midnight_%28film%29)

I remember vividly the stills from the picture that Forry Ackerman used to print in the old Famous Monsters magazine in the 1960s. If, as Wikipedia says, the only surviving print was a nitrate element from 1965, I would almost guarantee you, it ain't around 45 years later. That's unless they kept it in a refrigerated room at low humidity for four decades. Nitrate holds up very, very badly over time, especially in the average vaults I've seen used by major studios.


Agreed. At the UCLA archive the remaining nitrate prints that they have are treated like gold.

[apileocole]

Agreed. At the UCLA archive the remaining nitrate prints that they have are treated like gold.

Or... dynamite? :shh:

Yup, unfortunately it is most unlikely.

[JBStephens]

Hmm, I think I remember this.. I don't remember it being on AMC... I thought it was TCM.

Yes, it was TCM that aired London After Midnight. The author of the original story about it seemed to be a little confused. AMC once stood for "American Classic Movies". AMC even aired the restoration of My Fair Lady years before Turner got it! It was TCM's equal in days gone by, but it fell on to hard times and became just another spam channel. A sad ending, but such is the fate of many good channels.

[El Bacho]

AMC even aired the restoration of My Fair Lady years before Turner got it! It was TCM's equal in days gone by, but it fell on to hard times and became just another spam channel. A sad ending, but such is the fate of many good channels.

I've read many praises about their new show, "Mad Men", created by one of the "Sopranos" main writers, which has brought them new audiences. So, there might still be life in them, even if it isn't the same life.

[JBStephens]

I've read many praises about their new show, "Mad Men", created by one of the "Sopranos" main writers, which has brought them new audiences. So, there might still be life in them, even if it isn't the same life.

So the "M" in AMC now stands for what?

Of course, to some of us, AMC means Gremlins and Pacers. :D

[Brother_Rael]

Tastefully done, but still like giving a starving dog a rubber bone. Better than nothing at all, anyway.



So a rubber bone dipped in some beef stock then maybe?! :D

Joking aside, I saw this in an old book on "Horror Movies" (Alan Frank - 1974 or so) and LAM was well featured, along with many of the early Melies, German silent era and 30s Universal classics. Always wanted to see it (can't recall if BBC2 in the UK showed it once on their mid-1970s Saturday late night horror double bill).

[andy749]

*

[Chris Gerhard]

This is just publicity for the yet to be announced remake with Jim Carrey taking the Lon Chaney role. The guy was paid to make the claim and when no print is found, the remake will be announced.:)

Chris