criterionforum.org

Jeff wrote:Disney didn't buy Miramax until 1993. Most Miramax films released prior to 1994 were only produced by Miramax, and licensed to other independent distributors. There are a couple of titles like The Grifters whose rights eventually reverted to Miramax, but most of their early stuff is owned by other companies. If Criterion has the rights to the Greenaways or Atame!, they didn't get them from Miramax.

Are you sure? Cook, Scandal, and Atame, when licensed to Anchor Bay for their DVDs, had Miramax as the sole licensee on the back covers. The back covers on Amazon.com attest to this:

Atame
Cook
Scandal

But, then again, Working Girls, also a Miramax license to AB, is now with First Run Features (a sure rights lapse), so who knows for sure?

Cronenfly wrote:Are you sure? Cook, Scandal, and Atame, when licensed to Anchor Bay for their DVDs, had Miramax as the sole licensee on the back covers.

They all have Miramax logos, since Miramax was the theatrical distributor, but you will notice that the copyright notices below the Miramax logo belong to different companies. I would imagine that some holding company (a bank, perhaps) actually has the North American distribution rights to Miramax's early 90's stuff, and perhaps Criterion has contracted with them. Many of Miramax's films from that period (including Scandal, Atame, and Cook...)were co-productions with now-defunct Palace Pictures. Perhaps whoever inherited the Palace rights controls these films.

If you look at the list of films that Miramax has distributed, you will notice that they have distributed almost all of the post '93 ones on DVD themselves, and only a couple of the pre-'94 ones. Again, rights could have reverted back to them, but my cynical nature tells me not to count on a flurry of Miramax titles, especially the ones made since the Disney acquisition. Of course I would love to be proven wrong.

Kirkinson wrote:Is this actually a "relationship," or is it simply a case of Criterion grabbing titles whose rights to Miramax had lapsed? I ask because we (the audience) were told before a screening of Chungking Express that it was being projected from the DVD because Miramax's rights had lapsed and they know longer had any prints.

Jeff wrote:Exact same thing happened at the last minute at a Chungking screening in Denver.

This doesn't make much sense. I can't speak for Miramax, but when Sony loses theatrical rights to a title we offer to return the prints to the new rights holder -- destruction would be unfathomable. Which is to say if the venues were able to get last minute permission to screen a CHUNGKING DVD from the new rights holder, I don't understand why they couldn't have gotten permission to screen an extant print. My guess is the venues never made contact with the new rights holder and the DVDs were screened illegally.

jaredsap wrote:This doesn't make much sense. I can't speak for Miramax, but when Sony loses theatrical rights to a title we offer to return the prints to the new rights holder -- destruction would be unfathomable. Which is to say if the venues were able to get last minute permission to screen a CHUNGKING DVD from the new rights holder, I don't understand why they couldn't have gotten permission to screen an extant print. My guess is the venues never made contact with the new rights holder and the DVDs were screened illegally.

I don't know. Is it possible that Miramax would have returned film elements before their home video rights expired? The Denver screening was Labor Day weekend 2005, and I received an email the day before the screening that they would be unable to show the scheduled 35mm print, and the film would be screened from DVD instead.

souvenir wrote:Exotica is in play, right? It's out of print, as is Ready to Wear, but I could see Criterion more likely taking on the former.

Oooh, I hope so. I've been waiting for a while now for someone to put this out with a cover that does not make it look like a porno.

Hey--it stars a hot, young Mia Kirshner, long before The L Word, so why not market it like a "porno," as Kevin Smith would call it?

It's also possible that other companies, not just Criterion, could be picking up these Miramax titles. Wasn't ARIA a Miramax title originally, now to be a Warner Bros DVD?

I doubt Miramax ever held any video rights for Aria, as it was released well before they moved into the video market. The old Image DVD was licensed from Lightyear Entertainment, who now have a distribution arrangement with Warner.

Jeff wrote:I don't know. Is it possible that Miramax would have returned film elements before their home video rights expired?

Sure, but screening a film on DVD in a theatrical setting has nothing to do with home video rights. That's theatrical rights.

tavernier wrote:Hey--it stars a hot, young Mia Kirshner, long before The L Word, so why not market it like a "porno," as Kevin Smith would call it?

So my mom can look through my DVD collection without crying. The Last Temptation of Christ already did irreparable damage.

P.S. No, I do not live with my mom.

swo17 wrote:P.S. No, I do not live with my mom.

No one would EVER think that.

This doesn't make much sense. I can't speak for Miramax, but when Sony loses theatrical rights to a title we offer to return the prints to the new rights holder -- destruction would be unfathomable. Which is to say if the venues were able to get last minute permission to screen a CHUNGKING DVD from the new rights holder, I don't understand why they couldn't have gotten permission to screen an extant print. My guess is the venues never made contact with the new rights holder and the DVDs were screened illegally.

There are definitely prints of Chungking Express, I just screened one a few months ago. They must not have gotten in touch with the new rights-holder, because prints are readily available if you ask.

ptmd wrote:There are definitely prints of Chungking Express, I just screened one a few months ago. They must not have gotten in touch with the new rights-holder, because prints are readily available if you ask.

That's exactly what I figured. Hence the DVDs were screened illegally.

ptmd wrote:

This doesn't make much sense. I can't speak for Miramax, but when Sony loses theatrical rights to a title we offer to return the prints to the new rights holder -- destruction would be unfathomable. Which is to say if the venues were able to get last minute permission to screen a CHUNGKING DVD from the new rights holder, I don't understand why they couldn't have gotten permission to screen an extant print. My guess is the venues never made contact with the new rights holder and the DVDs were screened illegally.

There are definitely prints of Chungking Express, I just screened one a few months ago. They must not have gotten in touch with the new rights-holder, because prints are readily available if you ask.

So do you know who the new rights holder of Chungking is?

And speaking to your points, Jeff, I think what you said (about a bank or some other holding company owning home video rights to a bunch of early Miramax titles) makes sense, and it would explain why Miramax announced and cancelled their release of Zentropa a few years back, why the Anchor Bay-Miramax titles all went OOP (though I think they were at some point in Miramax's control on home video, even if they aren't any longer; I take the credits on the back of the DVD cases to Allarts, El Deseo S.A., etc to be like when Criterion credits Les Films de Losange, say, on the back of a DVD: they were the original production company, but the films are Criterion-controlled in North America, same as with the Miramaxes [at least at one point, though the contention of this may have forced the titles OOP], though I could be off base) why Working Girls ended up at First Run Features, and why The Crying Game/The Piano are with Lionsgate. I guess it's just a waiting game, then, until we know the licensee for the first of the (theatrically distributed, at least) Miramax titles (I'm guessing Zentropa, given how long ago it was confirmed in the CC blog).

Cronenfly wrote:So do you know who the new rights holder of Chungking is?

I don't know the video situation, but for theatrical/non-theatrical screenings it's Buena Vista/Swank, depending on whether or not the venue is associated with or on a college campus.

Wasn't Double Life of Veronique Miramax?

Cinephrenic wrote:Wasn't Double Life of Veronique Miramax?

It was but the rights fell to Image at some point since that's who Criterion licenced the film from.

Cinephrenic wrote:Now that several Miramax titles have been confirmed, I think it is proper to have a thread for this new relationship, and discussions on possible titles for release.

THE YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT is a tantalizing possibility...

Gandahar (aka Light Years)? Does Miramax still have the rights?

This is from Wikipedia (I know, I know) but I still thought this was worth posting (whether it's true or not). It's from the Playing for Keeps page, which is a Miramax-produced, Universal-released title:

The film was produced by Miramax and released by Universal Pictures. To date the film is the only Miramax production (excluding co-productions) that The Weinstein Company doesn't own after acquiring the pre-2005 Miramax films (Universal still owns the film).

Also, from the Wikipedia Weinstein Company page:

In recent months, rights to films originally produced by Miramax (under the leadership of the Weinsteins), as well as some films either distributed by or had rights reverted to Miramax now lie with the Weinstein Company. For example, Genius Products/Weinstein Company Home Entertainment has reissued both released versions of Cinema Paradiso, originally distributed theatrically and on home video by Miramax.

While this wouldn't explain Delicatessan (which I think is in the same boat as The Piano/Reservoir Dogs in terms of ending up at Lionsgate), say, I could see Disney letting the Weinsteins take hold of the early Miramax titles (I wouldn't have expected Disney to let go of Cinema Paradiso, which is definitely now a Weinstein Co. title, but there you go) and then license some of them to Criterion.

I'm still not certain, and sorry if I'm only fueling the confusion, but I really want to get to the bottom of this.

I think we've looked past at least one major possibility from the laser disc days.... DEAD PRESIDENTS!

I have my fingers crossed!

LightBulbFilm wrote:I think we've looked past at least one major possibility from the laser disc days.... DEAD PRESIDENTS!

I have my fingers crossed!

That's Hollywood Pictures, not Miramax...

CSM126 wrote:

LightBulbFilm wrote:I think we've looked past at least one major possibility from the laser disc days.... DEAD PRESIDENTS!

I have my fingers crossed!

That's Hollywood Pictures, not Miramax...

Touché. Distributed by Buena Vista though.

LightBulbFilm wrote:

CSM126 wrote:

LightBulbFilm wrote:I think we've looked past at least one major possibility from the laser disc days.... DEAD PRESIDENTS!

I have my fingers crossed!

That's Hollywood Pictures, not Miramax...

Touché. Distributed by Buena Vista though.

While Dead Presidents would be nice (helluva laserdisc, it was), I sorta pray Hollywood Pictures isn't ever open to Criterion for DVD because I just know they'd wind up wasting time and resources on fucking Evita if they had the chance (FOUR DISC LD package they gave that movie. Christ).

Hollywood Picture did license to Criterion one film for DVD release one time. Remember The Rock (1996)?