Criterion and Warner Bros.

[Noiradelic]

There was never a mention of 2001: A Space Odyssey , which I found interesting

But could see all three end up with Criterion releases.

It wasn't mentioned because nobody believed it could happen then. My guess is that Warner still won't let it go at this point, but with the current state of home video, I'd never say never. Barry Lyndon and Lolita seem much more likely. I'm guessing the reason WB didn't release multiple editions of Lyndon is that sales weren't great enough to justify it.

[flyonthewall2983]

Getting any, or all of those three titles would be great. I would think the only Kubrick titles WB would absolutely not be willing to part with at all are Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. For awhile I would have put 2001 in there too, but with them not giving the greenlight for things like the doc Douglas Trumbull wanted to do makes me think that by itself it's not as high priority for them.

[Minkin]

WB are also sitting on a new restoration of A Clockwork Orange - which has made cameo appearances in a special feature but still hasn't made it to disc (despite being released like 10+ times on blu-ray).

I think we'll be disappointed if this deal doesn't have like 500+ films. WB do own the largest film catalog, so there's no shortage of films that can be released. I guess its just a matter or priority. I don't think WB said: "you get to pick 70 titles, have fun" - but it was probably more about Criterion making a list and things being approved, changed or added as they finalize the list. So people complaining about Being There potentially taking up a spot that could've been used by Greed or Nothing Lasts Forever - are seeing these deals wrong. WB might even ask Criterion to handle certain films as part of the deal.

I sometimes get the feeling that these licensing deals are based more on internal issues at the Studios. Probably whichever person came in and pulled the plug on the Tom & Jerry releases might have also decided to let Criterion start handling some of their catalog (thus changing the long company policy of not licensing things).

[flyonthewall2983]

Repeating myself a little here, but I have got to think that the Filmstruck partnership is basically ensuring a more solid relationship between the two companies beyond whatever the initial plan was regarding their titles. That maybe the people at Time Warner could see the benefit of getting rid of what they could see as dead weight to them, to a company that could benefit from getting stuff like the Kubrick titles. And that whoever was behind the old policy, can see that their stuff is not just being thrown out willy-nilly to an outside party, but a company that has a long and storied reputation for film restoration, etc.

[FrauBlucher]

The all bets off indication has to be Mildred Pierce. This title getting licensed signals that anything can be available. Warner is a "Stars" studio. So, for them to give up argualbly Joan Crawford's biggest film, who is one of WB's top three female stars (Bette Davis and Ingrid Bergman being the other two) from the 30s and 40s signifies a bigger deal then expected. Which probably plays into Flyonthewall's suggestion that the Filmstruck deal opens up more WB titles to Criterion. It makes total sense. It's similar to the Criterion and Sony distribution agreement. CC benefited by getting certain Columbia Picture/Sony titles that no one ever expected to see in the Collection.

[swo17]

An nth rerelease of one of the later Kubrick titles might not sell much at this point from Warners, but it would from Criterion.

[oh yeah]

I never thought I'd say so, but I agree with everybody that Criterion snatching a later Kubrick title from Warners seems possible now. As noted, I doubt they'd give up ACO, Shining or FMJ, though. But Lyndon, Lolita, maybe 2001, and EWS are all possibilities.

Of these, EWS is the one I most pine for, not just because it's my favorite but because it's the one that stands to gain the most. While the Lyndon AR fuck-up is a shame, it's honestly not that big of a deal -- the transfer is otherwise stunning, and the difference between 1.66 and the blu's 1.78 is not monumental enough to ruin the film or really be very noticeable even. Eyes, though, has never really been released on home video in a version that faithfully reproduces the way it looked in cinemas, how it was intended to look. All DVD/blu releases of it basically wipe out the vast majority of the heavy grain that's present throughout the film (and perhaps fiddle with the color correction too), which makes a huge difference. In theaters the film looked like a moving painting practically, or a 16mm-shot home movie. The painterly use of grain (caused by source lighting/low-light, and pushing the negative 2 steps) is very unique, and the Warners blu and DVDs just don't capture it. I'd have faith in Criterion to do that film justice, and I could definitely see it happening. Maybe Warners wouldn't want to part with it, though, just because sales remain good for them because of the Cruise/Kidman star power?

[Noiradelic]

The all bets off indication has to be Mildred Pierce. This title getting licensed signals that anything can be available. Warner is a "Stars" studio. So, for them to give up arguably Joan Crawford's biggest film, who is one of WB's top three female stars (Bette Davis and Ingrid Bergman being the other two) from the 30s and 40s signifies a bigger deal then expected.

While Mildred Pierce is Criterion's biggest B&W film licensed from Warner so far, post-1960 color films generally sell better and I wouldn't be surprised if a movie like Pan's Labyrinth sells more copies. If WB cared about Mildred Pierce as much as you make out, they would've released it themselves before their relationship with Criterion took off. Judging by Warner Archive's releases in the last year, WB doesn't care much about upgrading their B&W catalog themselves other than a handful of films. So I don't see it as "all bets are off," but just opening the gates a little further.

[FrauBlucher]

I wasn't making a point about sales. Of course Pans Labyrinth will sell more. That's a no brainer. No one would have expected Warner to license such a high profile "Golden Age of Hollywood" title out to anyone even as recently as two years back. That's not the way they did business. Clearly, something changed inside their corporate offices that has kicked the vault wide open. That's why I will not be surprised if 2001 ends up with Criterion.

[flyonthewall2983]

God, that would be amazing if it does.

[Calvin]

So people complaining about Being There potentially taking up a spot that could've been used by Greed or Nothing Lasts Forever - are seeing these deals wrong. WB might even ask Criterion to handle certain films as part of the deal.

Speaking of Greed, it's maybe worth remembering that Christopher Nolan included it in his Criterion Top 10 and it has also said that he's been trying behind the scenes to get Warner to release Ken Russell's (2004) director's cut of The Devils.

[Big Ben]

In this day and age what's preventing a release of The Devils? Superstition? Fear? Maybe it's my lack of religious belief talking but I don't think the film is all that offensive...

[dda1996a]

I'm not a Christian and even can see why Christians, especially devout ones would find it offensive. What holding it back? Warner U.S. I think a nun jacking off with a crucifix is reason enough, let alone a whole covenant of nuns running naked and having a whole orgy in a church

[FrauBlucher]

Not familiar with it's history. Did it get a theatrical release in the States? Can't imagine it did unless edited down.

[Drucker]

In this day and age what's preventing a release of The Devils? Superstition? Fear? Maybe it's my lack of religious belief talking but I don't think the film is all that offensive...

I mean aren't they also holding back racist Tom and Jerry cartoons and the like? Original sequences from Fantasia? We are in an age where there are liberals protesting Boys Don't Cry.

Enough people will be angry with these releases to keep them locked away.

[domino harvey]

Unless you linked the wrong article, I think you mean Boys Don't Cry

[Drucker]

Thank you, corrected it.

[Big Ben]

I cannot speak for the trans community and I find it increasingly unwise to do so. So I won't comment. I can only really speak for the autism community and would be happier to answer those kind of questions on PM. (The same type of liberals are protesting their portrayal in media).

Looking at The Devils from my perspective I see it as an embodiment (and a good one) of seventies excess and freedom. I do not take personal offense to it at all. But being reminded of certain scenes by dda1996a I'm inclined to think it still spooks some very powerful people at Warner Brothers. If I had it my way we'd have a very informative release done. With historical information and the like put out to contextualize. And yes I'd even like Mark Kermode involved.

I don't think that many would object and I certainly think it would make WB money...

[swo17]

The line is that people high up at WB have thought The Devils to be unconscionably evil and have largely fought to suppress it throughout its life. (I believe this was still the case when the BFI put out their censored DVD-only edition.) Then again, the line a few years ago was that WB doesn't license.

[MichaelB]

Not familiar with it's history. Did it get a theatrical release in the States? Can't imagine it did unless edited down.

It was indeed heavily cut, without Ken Russell's involvement or authorisation.

The BFI DVD contains the British theatrical cut, which is the longest commercially-released version to have been signed off by Russell himself. The cut that was originally shown to the BBFC in February 1971 is believed no longer to exist.

There's also the 2004 semi-restoration, which restores material that Russell cut before the BBFC submission. In other words, while obviously welcome, this is nonetheless different from the February 1971 cut - but it appears to be the best we can do based on surviving materials. This version has had occasional one-off screenings in the UK, but has never been commercially released anywhere (at least not legally).

[captveg]

In this day and age what's preventing a release of The Devils? Superstition? Fear? Maybe it's my lack of religious belief talking but I don't think the film is all that offensive...

I was able to ask someone who works in a position to know just the other day. I specifically asked why they couldn't just give it to Criterion. His answer was that the executive or two that always hold the film back don't even want a Criterion release to "reflect back on them". I mentioned how stupid that was - look at all the money they make on A Clockwork Orange for example - but he said that every couple years they'll revisit this decision and every time they see the risk of release as an impossibility becaue of these internal beliefs/fears about how it would look for the company.

So, essentially, WB is ashamed that the movie was ever made, and even having their logo and name associated with it on the back of a Criterion package and at the head of the film is unacceptable for them.

It's all wholly ridiculous - as if anyone in the mainstream film world would give WB any grief over it, especially if they gave it to Criterion, who could take the brunt of any imagined criticism for a release. Frustrating, to say the least.

[MichaelB]

This was precisely the BFI's argument when trying to get it off Warner UK - but then again, the UK office was always much more tolerant of the film than its US parent.

[captveg]

This was precisely the BFI's argument when trying to get it off Warner UK - but then again, the UK office was always much more tolerant of the film than its US parent.

And what is frustrating there is that they got it, but only for DVD. So while the BFI can rightly point out that WB's fears were unfounded because of the total ignoring of the release from 99.99999% of the world's population, WB can come back and wrongly think that it's only because they prevented a Blu-ray release.

[criterion10]

I was able to ask someone who works in a position to know just the other day. I specifically asked why they couldn't just give it to Criterion. His answer was that the executive or two that always hold the film back don't even want a Criterion release to "reflect back on them". I mentioned how stupid that was - look at all the money they make on A Clockwork Orange for example - but he said that every couple years they'll revisit this decision and every time they see the risk of release as an impossibility becaue of these internal beliefs/fears about how it would look for the company.

Thank you for sharing this. Just out of curiosity, the person you asked -- how recent was this decision revisited? And also, did they comment at all on the newfound strength between Criterion and WB? In other words, given the supposed success of the licensing agreement, might Criterion have any power to push for a release, that they did not have before?

[knives]

In this day and age what's preventing a release of The Devils? Superstition? Fear? Maybe it's my lack of religious belief talking but I don't think the film is all that offensive...

I was able to ask someone who works in a position to know just the other day. I specifically asked why they couldn't just give it to Criterion. His answer was that the executive or two that always hold the film back don't even want a Criterion release to "reflect back on them". I mentioned how stupid that was - look at all the money they make on A Clockwork Orange for example - but he said that every couple years they'll revisit this decision and every time they see the risk of release as an impossibility becaue of these internal beliefs/fears about how it would look for the company.

So, essentially, WB is ashamed that the movie was ever made, and even having their logo and name associated with it on the back of a Criterion package and at the head of the film is unacceptable for them.

It's all wholly ridiculous - as if anyone in the mainstream film world would give WB any grief over it, especially if they gave it to Criterion, who could take the brunt of any imagined criticism for a release. Frustrating, to say the least.

Couldn't WB theoretically put forth similar demands that Disney did when they licensed out Something Wicked This Way Comes forcing all mention of WB off the release?