criterionforum.org

What's the Archive, at least in the case of Warner Bros.?

My best guess about things like Blow Up is that after a few years of replacing the old snapper-case releases with new keepcase releases as the old stock ran out, they decided it wasn't worth it anymore. I've often seen most of the keepcase replacements that I know of (e.g. Arsenic and Old Lace, Round Midnight, Hunchback of Notre Dame) being sold off at Amazon or Costco for $5-6, or in cut-out bins at Big Lots for $3, so they're increasingly letting the snapcase-released titles just go out of print. Their profit margin is higher with the Archive, and they don't care about a film's canonical status if the profits won't be enough for them, especially in their newer, far more cautious model vis-a-vis pressed releases. I agree that reconsidering their prohibition of licensing would make a huge amount of sense.

Blow Up is a fairly well known film though that even many people who aren't so film obsessive are bound to or have come across in some point in their lives. That's why I'm surprised they'd pull it out of print. It was huge mainstream film back in the 60s, and many people are familiar with it. I don't think it would be significantly less marketable than something like Strangers on a Train, of which Warner Bros. has released a two-disc special edition that happens to still be in print I believe.

rrenault wrote:My question is why take a key canonical film like Blow Up out of print. For most of their canonical classics they've released two disc special editions, which are mostly still in print. Why not do the same for Blow Up? Also, what do you mean by non-A list titles like The Wrong Man?

that there are probably one hundred or fewer titles in WBs hands that they consider "A list" these titles would be ones like Zhivago, Citizen Kane, Ben-Hur, Casablanca, Singin in the Rain North by Northwest. The classic titles that sell regularly enough that B&M stores will still stock them. non-A List titles, like The Wrong Man are the sorts that retailers hate, they don't put them in adverts and they sit on the shelves for years gathering dust because stock turnover is so low.

That sort of title, that has low turnover at the retail level, might be something WB would consider licensing to Criterion, but they'll reserve all their "A-list" titles for themselves.

the use of this term is reflective of sales and sales potential, not the quality of the films.

rrenault wrote:I don't think it would be significantly less marketable than something like Strangers on a Train, of which Warner Bros. has released a two-disc special edition that happens to still be in print I believe.

Hard to say without the facts and figures, but the Strangers on a Train set came out back in 2004, partly for inclusion in their big Hitchcock set. Things have changed a lot since then of course, and for a lot of titles that are non-A-list (in movielocke's sense), I think it comes down to the timing of when the original run sells out, particularly now with the old snapper releases, as I was suggesting.

One of Warner's latest Archive titles is Louis Malle's DAMAGE, previously released as a pressed disc by New Line.

So I guess we can count out future New Line titles (such as Cronenberg's CRASH). What I'm worried about is the current NL titles (especially MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO). Though there are only four current titles (not counting NAKED which was re-licensed from Channel Four), I'd hate for NL/WB to pull a Canal.

(Though unlike Canal, WB is likely to actually DO something with these titles.)

Is there another company that could re-license Crash?

Crash is owned by Jeremy Thomas. New Line was only the U.S distributor, so it should be easy for Criterion to license the film from Recorded Picture Company/Hanway when the rights are up for renewal. (Assuming Warner Brothers don't want to renew.)

agnamaracs wrote:One of Warner's latest Archive titles is Louis Malle's DAMAGE, previously released as a pressed disc by New Line.

So I guess we can count out future New Line titles (such as Cronenberg's CRASH). What I'm worried about is the current NL titles (especially MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO). Though there are only four current titles (not counting NAKED which was re-licensed from Channel Four), I'd hate for NL/WB to pull a Canal.

(Though unlike Canal, WB is likely to actually DO something with these titles.)

Several years ago, and I can't remember if Mulvaney actually confirmed it or not, but there were very strong hints that Criterion was set to release Damage and Crash. In fact, at the time the discussion on this board led to so much certainty, I ended up trading my copy of Damage. Much later it was confirmed that Criterion was not going to release those titles.

ianungstad wrote:Crash is owned by Jeremy Thomas. New Line was only the U.S distributor, so it should be easy for Criterion to license the film from Recorded Picture Company/Hanway when the rights are up for renewal. (Assuming Warner Brothers don't want to renew.)

I can't imagine why WB would want to. Especially considering the confusion with that *other* Crash it sadly encounters in the culture.

I think the only title that New Line actually owns outright from the batch they licensed to Criterion is My Own Private Idaho. The rights to all the others could in theory lapse and be picked up by Criterion. (or another company)

I agree with flyonthewall that it seems unlikely Warners is going to renew the rights to Crash. (I don't see Warner Brothers making the effort to negotiate new deals for many New Line titles.)

I'm sure they'd be happy to let someone else have Crash in particular since New Line kind of sabotaged it by putting a more commercial Hollywood vehicle the same week it came out.

But it's not like the same people who made that decision are in the position to make this decision - it's been almost two decades since that happened.

Of course it's not the same people. New Line Cinema no longer exists. Warner Brothers shut down their offices and laid off all the staff after The Golden Compass bombed at the box office. They still release films under the New Line banner but it's just a marketing tool/branding for films produced in-house at Warners . New Line hasn't existed as an entity in years.

I know all that but my point was if a studio like New Line, which was a leading independent studio for years with a track record of putting out controversial films, couldn't get behind a film like this, what would make anyone think a large conglomerate like WB would put their weight behind a proper Blu-Ray catalog release?

ianungstad wrote:Of course it's not the same people. New Line Cinema no longer exists. Warner Brothers shut down their offices and laid off all the staff after The Golden Compass bombed at the box office. They still release films under the New Line banner but it's just a marketing tool/branding for films produced in-house at Warners . New Line hasn't existed as an entity in years.

I had not realised that New Line was still used as a banner - what films have used the name since The Golden Compass?

Aren't most of the New Line films that Criterion released also from Fine Line Pictures, the arthouse sub-department of New Line? Would that have any effect on what Warners might or might not want to keep from the company's holdings - i.e. would they maybe sell off a department like that as a whole or would that not matter now New Line Cinema as a whole no longer exists?

colinr0380 wrote:I had not realised that New Line was still used as a banner - what films have used the name since The Golden Compass?

The Farrellys' Hall Pass, Sex and the City 2, The Rite, a couple of Final Destination movies, etc.

Ah, that makes sense - I had tried to avoid most of those movies, so had not seen the New Line logo on them!

ianungstad wrote:Crash is owned by Jeremy Thomas. New Line was only the U.S distributor, so it should be easy for Criterion to license the film from Recorded Picture Company/Hanway when the rights are up for renewal. (Assuming Warner Brothers don't want to renew.)

I used this reasoning to ask about the film on Facebook (yesterday morning), in a post which has since been deleted from Criterion's wall (it was still there early last night). I know Crash is one of the titles they get bothered about a lot, but you don't see them deleting every "ZOMG, Brick!!!" post, so maybe it's something.

While we are discussing the defunct New Line Cinema and how likely it is that Warners will renew the distribution agreements on licensed product, it should be noted that Criterion has Hoop Dreams posted on their Hulu page. If Hoop Dreams was still with New Line, Criterion would not be able to add it to their Hulu account.

Someone on my Facebook feed is claiming that Criterion, like the BFI, has licensed The Devils from Warners and is working from a different but also incomplete cut of the film. I am skeptical ... but is it possible there's any truth to this?

Not in a million years. Warner US wants that film dead and buried and they're only allowing the BFI to release it because they think it will remain obscured that way. Also the only other cut is the American one which is a massive step down.

Probably not but I asked Ken on his facebook page where he's active. Maybe he'll respond.

knives wrote:Not in a million years. Warner US wants that film dead and buried and they're only allowing the BFI to release it because they think it will remain obscured that way. Also the only other cut is the American one which is a massive step down.

Hasn't the head of Warners who was all hardcore-family been fired and/or quit? I was under the impression that it wasn't Warners as a company that wanted the film buried, but that one guy.