Criterion and Warner Bros.

[Cronenfly]

I'm hoping it's a mix of direct-from-Warner licenses and rights expiration; the latter just seems to have been more the norm thus far (based on Mishima and Naked, at least, which similarly went from a New Line license for the DVD to Film4 for the Blu).

[criterion10]

I would take the absence of the WB logo with a grain of salt. Kim clearly confirmed that the film was licensed from WB during the Wexner chat, and I don't see why this would suddenly change.

[Cinephrenic]

I'm still not convinced that there is a Warner deal. Probably a one shot or a couple for a tradeoff. You guys think they have like a '12' film deal or something in the works?

[Matt]

Only time will tell. Certainly no one at Criterion will.

[peerpee]

I have no info whatsoever, but I wouldn't be surprised if THE DEVILS turned up at some point – considering the sterling work the BFI have already achieved prising this away for the UK.

[knives]

Criterion would demand a Blu though which seems off the table.

[peerpee]

I would like to think that's not an insurmountable problem, and I'd like to think the great BFI release was a step towards WB coming to their senses about this title. They need to do an HD master of the uncut version and let someone else (Criterion / BFI) put it out, if they don't want to themselves. I have no idea who's got such a bee in their bonnet at WB about this film – presumably a very religious person – but it's petty and childish to continue suppressing it, and the Rape of Christ.

[knives]

The only way I could see them allowing it is a 'Something Wicked This Way Comes' situation where the producer of the DVD removes all mention of WB from the disc including the opening logos which is another thing I doubt Crit would do. It is a pretty large bee is what I'm saying.

[peerpee]

Let's find the man with the bonnet then. We live in the age of the internet.

[dwk]

Over at the AV Manaics forum, I mentioned the lack of Warner Brothers credit on the sell sheet for Badlands and another member posted that a few months ago he learned that WB no longer has the rights to The Wanderers. So, I guess that Philip Kaufman's visit to the closet probably was sign that Criterion is going to release The Wanderers but not because they licensed it from Warners.

[malpractice]

Hopefully this means Linklater's "SubUrbia" is finally going to get a release as it was the other film mentioned (or rumored) to be a part of the Warner deal all those years ago.

[ianungstad]

Over at the AV Manaics forum, I mentioned the lack of Warner Brothers credit on the sell sheet for Badlands and another member posted that a few months ago he learned that WB no longer has the rights to The Wanderers. So, I guess that Philip Kaufman's visit to the closet probably was sign that Criterion is going to release The Wanderers but not because they licensed it from Warners.

That would make sense as to why their were two male greasers in the "Bad Lambs" clue instead of a male-female couple.

[cdnchris]

I'm still waiting for a confirmation (they're usually pretty quick) but Warner does still own the home video rights and the DVD is still in print, and everything I learned before is that this is coming from Warner (plus the Wexner talks seemed to confirm this.) I'll actually be really surprised if it's not Warner. But I guess it's always possible the rights lapsed and Criterion just happened to pick it up when they could OR (edit) there's some deal with Pressman where Warner and Criterion can release the film on home video, like a non-exclusive thing.

[rwiggum]

Over at the AV Manaics forum, I mentioned the lack of Warner Brothers credit on the sell sheet for Badlands and another member posted that a few months ago he learned that WB no longer has the rights to The Wanderers. So, I guess that Philip Kaufman's visit to the closet probably was sign that Criterion is going to release The Wanderers but not because they licensed it from Warners.

That would make sense as to why their were two male greasers in the "Bad Lambs" clue instead of a male-female couple.

I think that's reading too much into it. The only reason there were two male lambs is because then it would have been "Bad Lamb and Girl Lamb." The clue needed plural lambs, nothing more.

[kneelzod]

Over at the AV Manaics forum, I mentioned the lack of Warner Brothers credit on the sell sheet for Badlands and another member posted that a few months ago he learned that WB no longer has the rights to The Wanderers. So, I guess that Philip Kaufman's visit to the closet probably was sign that Criterion is going to release The Wanderers but not because they licensed it from Warners.

Yes, I posted that over at AVManiacs. I was told this by a critic who is a longtime champion and friend of Kaufman, so I don't doubt the veracity of this report. It's backed up by the fact that the WANDERERS DVD appears to be OOP now (it is only available via Amazon Marketplace sellers at Amazon).

"The Wanderers" Comes Home at Last : The New Yorker

Wrote a little about it here.

[captveg]

You know, I was just bumping Woody Allen's To Rome with Love to the top of my Netflix queue when I had this thought:

Deconstructing Harry is owned by Warner due to the folding in of New Line's library. It's their only Woody Allen film in their library, and the DVD is out of print. He's a living director that, while he doesn't contribute to special features, would certainly be worthy to be added to the Criterion Collection.

In any case, it's not a title that had been mentioned yet that "qualifies" per our understanding of the agreement. Just throwing it out there.

[What A Disgrace]

I wonder if the rumored pre-code title could be the OOP Rouben Mamoulian adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?

[captveg]

^ Would make sense - Not originally a WB film, decent bonus available from the WB DVD they could license as well, fascinating history with its multiple versions of certain scenes for different markets, etc.

[John Doe]

My sixth sense tells me The Magnificent Ambersons and Scarecrow are among the films included in the deal with WB.

[hearthesilence]

I really, really hope so. The latter had a DCP made up and is or was screening at Film Forum, and I think Robert A. Harris said the original camera neg still exists for the former, which looked great when Film Forum screened a 35mm print of it a year or two ago. In other words, both could look amazing on BD.

[Moe Dickstein]

Just wish all the original camera negative survived.

The criterion bonus materials on Ambersons are great too.

[Brian C]

But there's not actually any chance that AMBERSONS is on its way, is there? Not to doubt someone's sixth sense or anything, but this is just flat-out wishful thinking.

[Arthur Bannister]

My sixth sense tells me The Magnificent Ambersons and Scarecrow are among the films included in the deal with WB.

I wonder if the missing-in-action The Lusty Men is going to turn up with a wacky C.

[Moe Dickstein]

Why not? There seems to be a deal of some sort with WB for more than just Badlands and they haven't done anything with TMA in all these years, and CC has supplements ready to go. Seems like a natural fit.

[knives]

The released a barebones DVD of it actually.