criterionforum.org

SWO also just failed with that post to send me a $20 gift certificate to the Olive Garden.

it should be obvious why the cases go for a good amount:
1) People are stupid and cannot read
2) collectors want the third man original case because they were stuck with the far surperior keepcase
3) bootleggers want a case to fob off their bootleg.

Ebay sucks for stuff like that. No matter how many different ways I try to explain about region coding, about one out of ten imports I sell ends up with some idiot who's incensed that it won't work in their DVD player.

This is indeed amazing that even by writing clearly in bold what they will get, they still order thinking they are going to get something else, and then even complain and threaten.
That's, honestly, beyond me.

It looks as though Leon Morin, Priest is indeed Studio Canal. I suppose we can update the list to as follows then:

Army of Shadows
Big Deal on Madonna Street
Le cercle rouge
Le duolos
La haine
Hopscotch
Last Year at Marienbad
Leon Morin, Priest
Mafioso
Robeson Box (The Proud Valley)
Stage and Spectacle (Elena and Her Men)

Anyone know of any other Studio Canal- (through Rialto) possible forthcoming titles?Other than the fan favorite Hopscotch 4 disc Blu upgrade.

Mafioso is also SC.

Well The Man Who Fell To Earth and Diary of a Country Priest were both screened by Rialto earlier this year at Film Forum, and at other places around the country I'd assume, and the former Criterion releases of the two films had nothing to do with Rialto. Some people are suspecting Studio Canal gave up on their failed endeavor to create their own label that would compete with Criterion, and are now letting Criterion have the rights to their films again. Why else would they have released Leon Morin, Priest? But it also begs to question, why would they have been so quick to re-release Orpheus on its own.

rrenault wrote:Some people are suspecting Studio Canal gave up on their failed endeavor to create their own label that would compete with Criterion, and are now letting Criterion have the rights to their films again.

[-o< I want this to be true so badly.

rrenault wrote:Some people are suspecting Studio Canal gave up on their failed endeavor to create their own label that would compete with Criterion, and are now letting Criterion have the rights to their films again.

But of course that's complete nonsense since they signed a long-term contract for Lionsgate to exclusively distribute more than 2,000 of their films. They can't just say, "Oh, this deal sucks. Nevermind."

They can if both parties involved agree that the deal sucks.

But what indication do we have that Lionsgate is unhappy? It's not likely they ever had any intention of ever distributing most of the SC titles.

Well basically only Studio Canal needs to decide the deal sucks, but that's besides the point. Then again, maybe SC pulled back and decided they'd after all allow other parties to get dibs on their catalog, as well, since they realized it was infeasible to rely exclusively on one company to release their films in North America. Besides, I'm sure Lionsgate wanted T2 more than anything else. Keep in mind though, Lionsgate did release a bunch of 80s Godard films owned by SC like Passion and Prenom: Carmen, so they're not entirely averse to releasing off beat titles. At the same time, as I just said SC probably realized it's a bad business decision to rely exclusively on one company to serve the North American market. Then of course, Ran and The Third Man are clearly films that transcend the "hoity toity" cinephile community, so they probably presumed those were worth releasing, and the Contempt release was probably more symbolic than anything else.

rrenault wrote:Well basically only Studio Canal needs to decide the deal sucks, but that's besides the point.

No. They signed a binding contract with Lionsgate, stating that Lionsgate would be the exclusive distributor of StudioCanal product in the U.S. Leon Morin and other extant Criterion releases are subject to earlier licensing agreements that pre-dated that deal, and as soon as those agreements expire, those titles will revert to Lionsgate as well. Lionsgate has a vested financial interest in being StudioCanal's exclusive distributor, and SC can't decide to just yank those rights away. Of course both parties are much more interested in SC's vast library of mainstream commercial titles, with the former Criterion titles being a very minor consideration. Yes, it is remotely possible that SC and LG could decide together that that it would be in their mutual best interests to sub-license the some titles to Criterion and split the royalties. That seems pretty far-fetched though, and I certainly wouldn't count on the daydreams of some guy on Facebook being evidence of that.

But what would LG and SC have to lose by sub-licensing a film to CC that Lionsgate isn't willing to release themselves?

The law doesn't care about what you want or feel is right. SC signed a binding contract stating until X date Lionsgate will be their only distributor in the US. Until X date Lionsgate has those rights and can do dick with them if they so choose. Even if SC is upset at the lack of releases, something we haven't seen any indication of, they have to just let it happen until X date. That's how the law works whether you like it or not.

rrenault wrote:But what would LG and SC have to lose by sub-licensing a film to CC that Lionsgate isn't willing to release themselves?

There probably wouldn't be much to lose at all. In fact it would probably in their best interest; it's just unlikely to happen for the same reason that LG isn't doing much with these titles; they can't be bothered.

rrenault wrote:But what would LG and SC have to lose by sub-licensing a film to CC that Lionsgate isn't willing to release themselves?

StudioCanal has become very protective and controlling of their library, which was the reason for switching to a single U.S. distributor. By the time revenue gets split between three companies like that (on what are ultimately niche titles that sell a few thousand copies at best), the chances that it would even justify the cost of striking a new transfer are slim. Again, it's theoretically possible, it just doesn't seem likely.

rrenault wrote:and the Contempt release was probably more symbolic than anything else.

Just stop now.

Oh, I understand what you're saying entirely. I'm just wondering why you're assuming CC wouldn't be able to acquire rights for an SC film through Lionsgate? I understand LG can do whatever it wants with films while they have the distribution rights. I'm just wondering why you assume LG would unconditionally say 'no' to anything CC requests if it were to request the license to something.

Uh, did I offend you in some way Tom?

It's a tired and boring argument that goes no where because it's just stupid fan wish fulfillment. That's why he wants you to stop this boring idiocy.

rrenault wrote:Oh, I understand what you're saying entirely. I'm just wondering why you're assuming CC wouldn't be able to acquire rights for an SC film through Lionsgate? I understand LG can do whatever it wants with films while they have the distribution rights. I'm just wondering why you assume LG would unconditionally say 'no' to anything CC requests if it were to request the license to something.

Lionsgate can't "do whatever they want." The titles are still StudioCanal property. They'd have to jointly sub-license with StudioCanal's expressed consent for each title. Sub-licensing just doesn't happen, since the chances of that being a profitable arrangement for anyone are slim.

When studios license titles, they get paid a royalty on each title sold. For the sake of argument, let's say that the average royalty payment is $3.00 per disc sold. If Lionsgate sells a disc of a StudioCanal film, be it T2 or Contempt, they would have to pay StudioCanal three bucks. If Lionsgate were somehow able to sub-license, say, Ran to Criterion, Criterion would pay the $3.00 royalty to Lionsgate, and Lionsgate would have to pay the $3.00 royalty to StudioCanal even though they didn't make any additional profit from the title. Lionsgate ends up getting nothing.

whatever, let's drop the discussion. To the others, you're right, I probably shouldn't have gotten tied up in a meaningless discussion, along with dwelling on DVD rights issues, in other words, things that aren't worth stressing yourself over. It's all compulsive behavior on my part and perhaps some wishful thinking, but in turn, I think it's just as ridiculous to anger yourself, stress out, and lash out over a measly little post that annoyed you on an internet forum. So there, all I can say is two wrongs don't make a right. I'm willing to make a truce. Take it or leave it.

rrenault wrote: I'm willing to make a truce. Take it or leave it.

Black Knight to King Arthur: "All right, we'll call it a draw."

Lionsgate can't "do whatever they want." The titles are still StudioCanal property. They'd have to jointly sub-license with StudioCanal's expressed consent for each title. Sub-licensing just doesn't happen, since the chances of that being a profitable arrangement for anyone are slim.

Without seeing the actual contract, what either party can and cannot do is pure speculation. We do know, however, that SC can unilaterally breach the agreement if they choose to. Why they would do that is just more speculation...and probably more fan wish fulfillment. But it is definitely possible.