What I'm referring to is actual print quality,not content or editing. I have the Niles 400' digest of " Flash Gordon Conquers The Universe" which qualifies for this award.My copy is very washed out,very soft focus.I'm assuming the negative had damage as well. Hopefully other copies out there are better than mine.

Maybe my Safety Last 200' silent. Can hardly see faces, just huge bright spots where skin should be

Errol Flynn trailer reel put out by Derann, some scenes in Robin Hood are almost pure white. I had to return a feature to them with the same issue. The feature was withdrawn, so all copies were probably the same. Someone in another forum claimed Derann checked every print, I don't think so.

This is an easy one, "Way of the Dragon", a 400' issued by some Asian company that contained just about every fault a film could,
besides the brown Ale processing, it weaves and wanders about the screen as much as Bruce does, it has optical sound that is
impossible to listen to, it "motorboats" and is inaudible, in short, a bloody nightmare, how these films ever gained release is
beyond me. Mr Lee must be revolving at high speed in his grave.

Hugh,
That reel sounds truly awful!

Even I would be hesitant to buy that ;-)

Vidar, there is no way on Earth I could ever sell this to anyone......... the amusement element alone is priceless.

I no longer have it, but it was a 50' reel of "Keystone Hotel" with the Keystone Kops. There is a seller on eBay who has sold well over 300 of these at $1 each and still has some available for sale. No disappointment with the content but the quality was atrocious to me. The movie came on an ultra-cheap, white plastic reel and the film squeaked as it came off of the feed reel. The picture was consistently jumpy and the cardboard box was not meant to last either. Even the feel of the film itself seemed substandard. These are supposedly new copies being sold and I wonder if they were some sort of giveaway item back in the day. There is no distributer listed on the packaging either. I know, what can you expect for a buck?

Tim,
I believe that reel was produced as a giveaway for Bell & Howell projectors back in the 1970's. Not sure where I read it but someone claimed that reel was one of the most mass produced Super-8 reels of all time.

Doug,
That's very interesting to hear and it makes perfect sense. I had a feeling it was a part of a promotion for something but didn't know what. I once owned a blister pack of children's throat lozenges that came with a free Matchbox car (from around 1970). The lozenges were cut out but the car was still in the package. It's funny the things that were given away in promos back in the day.

The worst print I ever bought was a 2x400' cut of the Marx Bros. film "Room Service" from Mountain, it was so washed out you couldn't see any proper features, it's strange though that the 4x400' I bought many years later (very cheaply, thinking it would be the same) was quite a decent print. Perhaps it was a bad batch of prints, as I've had this title a couple of times since then, and none of the prints were THAT bad.

I was never a fan of Mountain Films. They always appeared to have poor master material to work from for the most part. Many looked sub standard to my eyes from the 200 footers i used to have. When compared to a WDHM colour print, also brand new, they looked totally washed out..and that was when new!

WDHM in comparison, were amazing considering the era they were made in (pre 82). Pin Sharp and beautiful vibrant colours that simply leapt off the screen. I have many that still look great to this day.

I have no complaints with my King Kong feature from Mountain. Is quite okay in my opinin

Fletcher on the other hand, I've yet to see a good print from

They may have been better with b/w prints Vidar. The 200 footers i had when i was young were all in colour.

You are right though, Fletcher prints were awful.

Actually Andrew, I had a print of one of their films entitled "Plague of the Zombies", not the Hammer Classic, but a cut
price clip from the "Astro Zombies", a 60's "B" picture, but Fletchers releases was stunning, a 400' of absolute crap, but
great crap in S/8.

I quite liked Mountain Films, they had a huge range, something for everyone. Your right Andrew, some of the pre print material was not that great; some of my secondhand 16mm prints have less scratches on them. I was impressed with their L&H feature 'The Flying Deuces'

I once had a couple of dreadful washed out prints of Laurel and Hardy. So bad you could not see their faces in some scenes. Only a white blur.
They were both 600 footers of " BE BIG " and " ANOTHER FINE MESS " on Super 8mm.

I am truly surprised by that one Hugh. Nearly all the Fletcher films I have seen have been dreadful quality. Its interesting that now and then the unexpected surfaces! That is why forums like this are totally invaluable to collectors, so thanks for that one Hugh.

David, I have the walton version of the feature Way Out West, and although generally quite a good print, the distant scenes are exactly the same!
I have often felt like drawing faces on those frames shot from distance! Ha ha. No doubt the Blackhawk prints are much better? I don't know as I have never had any, but people generally rave over the Blackhawks. Especially our American Collecting friends.

David, we had a L&H exactly like that, it was "Brats". I sent it back to the dealer who sold it as a very good print!!!
There faces were just white blobs, utter useless, how these prints got out for sale from new is beyond me, especially when you think what someone must have paid for it as new.

Mountain's Day Of The Triffids scope version had very poor colour. Some of their shorts were quite good. All three King, Joe, Son are good. Once hired Great Diamond Chase glad I hired it, even worse than Triffids and the editing, well words fail me.

This is gong to be a shock, but I used to own the 400' edition of "The Great Diamond Chase", some wag had spliced in a bit of a nudie clip
halfway, but the print was beautiful, except for the horizon, which was at odds with dead level, the ocean was on a slope! The 400'
of "Blood of Dracula's Castle" was a nice print too, released as Castle of Death I think, very good colour. "Day of the Triffids" was not the
best example of colour, but it wasn't too bad I thought, on a par with some of the dupey '70s stuff from Derann. I've mentioned it before,
but after you've been subjected to "The Way of The Dragon" 400' from some unknown Asian film distributor, the worst print ever, pales
beside this, pale grainy colour, wobble on picture, I really mean it has a life all its own, it moves about a bit, so much so, if you were enjoying a beer while watching, you won't for long, the sound is like the sound you would hear standing outside the cinema, unintelligible, got this secondhand from Derann, quality control was off that day.

You sure it wasn't called "Wavy of the Dragon" Hugh, probably more appropriate .

I wouldn't say it's the worst, but strange, I've asked this question else where, and no-one has the answer. I have 400 ft digest of 'Bandolero' and it has burgundy/dark pink lines, ive seen green, black and white lines but never this colour, has any-one any idea what caused this?.

No expert, but could it be something about which layer was printed first? Normal is red first, then yellow and lastly blue. If the process was in reverse, red yellow combo might give the pink burgundy. As blue yellow would be green which is normal for emulsion stripes. Just speculations on my part

I thought the primary colours were red green and blue ?, but I was thinking along those lines Vidar, perhaps someone has tried a cleaner or lubricant on the film and this
has reacted with the emulsions in some way, strange one Steve as its the normal dreaded green line.