Peter Neski
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,191
Originally Posted by Mark-P
Hey, Lionsgate overruled Storaro for the upcoming "Apocalypse Now" blu-ray and is presenting it in its OAR for the first time on home video. Maybe there's hope for TLE yet.
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong /forum/thread/303017/last-emperor-uncropped#post_3719414
And in the process been sued (possibly into bankruptcy), and be unable to license films from many, if not all major studios and filmmakers. In the meantime, as Michael points out, Storaro and Bertolucci (or more likely the production company) simply give it to another distributor who doesn't care about anything but getting it out the door.Originally Posted by cafink
Criterion will have strengthened their reputation for uncompromising presentation quality, even in the face of poor decisions by revisionist filmmakers.
Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow last-emperor-uncropped#post_3719477
How is Criterion "blindly" doing anything? They're not the production company of the film, they're the distributor, and are therefore legally bound (the whole point of licensing) to adhere to what the producers demands of the film. If the cinematographer wants a certain framing, and the director goes along with it, then chances are essentially zero that the production company would give the distributor the ability to disregard those wishes. Criterion's financial ability and opportunity to license films is limited enough as is. Why would you want them to spend what would likely be millions of dollars in legal fees, irrevocably damage their reputation, and/or almost certainly be blacklisted by major studios and filmmakers over one film with a limited audience?
Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow
And in the process been sued (possibly into bankruptcy), and be unable to license films from many, if not all major studios and filmmakers. In the meantime, as Michael points out, Storaro and Bertolucci (or more likely the production company) simply give it to another distributor who doesn't care about anything but getting it out the door.
Â
So, in the end, the extremist "give me the best no matter what it costs anyone else" viewpoint gets you the same AR, minimal (or no) extras, probably worse video quality, and last but not least destroys a company and its employees in the middle of a recession. All in the name of one film. Would that make you happy? I'm a fan of the original presentation as much as the next guy, but for heaven's sake, at least think about from at least one other point of view before taking an uncompromising stand.
Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow
And in the process been sued (possibly into bankruptcy), and be unable to license films from many, if not all major studios and filmmakers. In the meantime, as Michael points out, Storaro and Bertolucci (or more likely the production company) simply give it to another distributor who doesn't care about anything but getting it out the door.
Â
So, in the end, the extremist "give me the best no matter what it costs anyone else" viewpoint gets you the same AR, minimal (or no) extras, probably worse video quality, and last but not least destroys a company and its employees in the middle of a recession. All in the name of one film. Would that make you happy? I'm a fan of the original presentation as much as the next guy, but for heaven's sake, at least think about from at least one other point of view before taking an uncompromising stand.
Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow
Why would you want them to spend what would likely be millions of dollars in legal fees, irrevocably damage their reputation, and/or almost certainly be blacklisted by major studios and filmmakers over one film with a limited audience?
Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow
I'm a fan of the original presentation as much as the next guy, but for heaven's sake, at least think about from at least one other point of view before taking an uncompromising stand.
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong
Nope. I lay the blame partially on Criterion. Just because they're just doing what they always do, which is usually a good thing, doesn't mean that blindly following an established, well-intentioned policy is always right or good.
This particular case is pretty clear, and if Criterion would ever choose to do otherwise, this should probably be one such exceptional instance.
Yes, I understand that perhaps part of the rationale is to not offend/turnaway filmmakers in general (not just a particular one like Storaro in this case) in order to maintain good relationships for future/ongoing collaborations. But IMHO, Criterion could've also simply opted to *NOT* release TLE at all under the circumstance in order to take some sort of well thought-out, respectful stance while minimizing potential future problems w/ other filmmakers.
_Man_
Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow /forum/thread/303017/last-emperor-uncropped#post_3719521
Originally Posted by Jarod M
Sure, I think we all remember all those lawsuits that were filed back in the 1980s and 1990s because of director's objections that their films not be shown in the 4:3 ratio on home video and tv. Companies all over the place went bankrupt.