First, I don't think Alaris was part of the decision making at the time the bankruptcy was started was it? (I don't know for sure)
Originally Posted by jnanian
And two, the movie stock film production company is a separate company I think?
Third, what does my view of how the old company does business have to do with my decision of what products I might want to buy from them? Just because the company doesn't handle things well, doesn't mean there film isn't good, they just aren't good at the business end of things, but there film is still very good quality, something that as I said they rested their laurels on, it's great and it's something certainly to be proud of, but you have to have more than just a good product sometimes, it doesn't mean I won't buy from them if they have something good, it just means that I'll be cautious about investing in something long-term with them if they are poised to fail.
If you notice I didn't really use much kodak film until the Alaris announcement. Sure I tested a few rolls of TMY, mostly just to see what all the fuss is about, and at first couldn't get things right until I figure some stuff out, that said, I didn't buy any large quantities of TMY until after the announcement of Alaris, then I felt better about the company and decided I would give TMY a try long term as one of my films...
Double-X is a grand film but only recently have I even gotten a 4X5 and I know they wouldn't make it in 120, but cutting sheets as a special order is nothing new for Kodak (or any other film company) so I asked...
Again, nothing wrong with that...
No Stone , We will continue to run after you with torches and forks until you say Leica II is the best camera and lens is glowing your eye :)
Count me out. I can't run very far or very fast any more. :laugh:
Kodak Alaris is most probably a child born out of necessity laid upon by that bancruptcy.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Hah! I don't doubt it!! "I will only shoot a Leica, I will only use kodak Tri-X, I will only develop in D-76, I will only optically print... I will only use the zone system, Ansel is Jesus and Yellow is the god color...."
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
The stuff I saw indicated to me that the bankruptcy and the issues dealt with during the bankruptcy period necessitated an enormous amount of legal and accounting and valuation work.
Legal and accounting and other professional services totaled $242 million - that includes fees billed by those assisting creditor committees.
That is less than 3.5 percent of the $6.7 billion in debts dealt with in the bankruptcy. Seems reasonable to me.
And certainly less than a bankruptcy trustee would charge up here.
One should relate the fees for advisors or trustees not from the debts but from the remaining assets, as from those they are paid.
Originally Posted by MattKing
That will likely yield another percentage.
I don't necessarily disagree, but note that the value of those assets at the time of initial filing was uncertain but potentially extremely large (patent portfolios) and that the work associated with those assets was complex and extensive.
Originally Posted by AgX
I never worked for Kodak, or for that matter have never been north of Philadelphia once back in 1970 as a kid going to see old neighbors who were transferred up there. Anyway... But I DO believe without the Eastman Kodak Co., I would be where I am today, which is with a roof over my head, food in my belly, and a fire in the wood stove over here. Not too shabby. But one thing I never wanted to see in my lifetime was Kodak going belly up. But as a zombie now, I still hope them the best.
if you read what you actually wrote
it seems you are talking about the "modern kodak and companies that spun off of the old dying company "
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
at least that is what i translated your off the cuff remarks ..
whether it is the movie film division, the film / entertainment division or the other divisions they are all in play now hoping to stay alive..
and i found it to be kind of hilarious that you would make a comment that they are bleeding money everywhere after they restructured their company
into smaller divisions, private entities that are forced to work together in this new world they have found themselves in ...
20 years ago when they were in the middle of making boatloads of cash of of the movie industry, and the camera toting public and professional photographers
they would have laughed at you if you asked them to cut their movie film stock as sheet film but now they might do it as long as a minimum order is reached ...
it seems they have learned a great deal from the past, and they are catering to their small customer base's needs and doing their best to be profitable ...
not really bleed money everywhere.
unless of course you were suggesting their paying lawyers and consultants zillions of dollars was the bleeding of money everywhere .
i just thought your comment was kind of funny, and ill informed ...
couldn't care less about your equipment, what exposure system you use or what materials you expose what photographers you idolize
no ... not coming after you with pitchforks and torches, just getting a good laugh out of some of your threads LOL hahaha