criterionforum.org

ianungstad wrote:Not happening. I asked James Finn on twitter and he stated flat out that Fox would be releasing a new edition of TGTBTU and not Criterion. It was certainly some bored office drone trying to toy with fans.

FrauBlucher wrote:Anyone care to speculate on which Bill Condon title could possibly be heading to a CC release.

willoneill wrote:It's obviously Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh.

dwk wrote:

ianungstad wrote:Not happening. I asked James Finn on twitter and he stated flat out that Fox would be releasing a new edition of TGTBTU and not Criterion. It was certainly some bored office drone trying to toy with fans.

I'm aware of Finn's response to your tweet, and, assuming Finn was telling you the truth, I'd still like to hear Criterion comment on the issue because posting fake info like that is a pretty dick move.

zedz wrote:

dwk wrote:

ianungstad wrote:Not happening. I asked James Finn on twitter and he stated flat out that Fox would be releasing a new edition of TGTBTU and not Criterion. It was certainly some bored office drone trying to toy with fans.

I'm aware of Finn's response to your tweet, and, assuming Finn was telling you the truth, I'd still like to hear Criterion comment on the issue because posting fake info like that is a pretty dick move.

On the contrary, I think people who analyze Criterion's tea leaves that obsessively are just begging to be toyed with like this.

I mean, if I were Bob Dylan, I'd be spiking my trash with all sorts of bewildering stuff for A.J. Weberman's benefit.

And anyway, what "fake info" was ever posted?

dwk wrote:People pages

swo17 wrote:

dwk wrote:People pages

Secret empty people pages only noticed by insatiable clue scavengers.

dwk wrote:I don't know if it can be considered a secret if it is accessible by typing a name in the site's own search bar

zedz wrote:If you can't handle that kind of hard landing, don't leap to conclusions in the first place!

swo17 wrote:And I'm sure that's one of the first things licensors check before ever putting ink to a contract.

zedz wrote:So how is it "fake info" for Criterion's website to have "Sergio Leone," say, as a searchable name on their website? Why can't they populate their website with the names of filmmakers they hope to one day include in their collection? If you embarrass yourself by making the massive and unwarranted leap of logic that the mere presence of a given name in their database equals Criterion officially announcing a film they don't currently hold the rights to, that's your problem, not theirs. Frankly, I find it hilarious that so many people get their noses way out of joint because Criterion doesn't lock step with their own wild speculation. If you can't handle that kind of hard landing, don't leap to conclusions in the first place!

swo17 wrote:Given that all fruit are pineapples, I conclude that when I am given a fruit it will be a pineapple.

zedz wrote: Why can't they populate their website with the names of filmmakers they hope to one day include in their collection?

Becker: We don't really comment on them. Because as soon we say, "Oh, yeah that sounds great" or "I'm really interested, we're actually pursuing that" or "We're looking at that or we're working on that", then that information would make its way through all of the usenet groups, bulletin boards and all that stuff. Two bad things can end up happening. One, is that we have four new competitors in the marketplace, who weren't looking for it until they were reading the boards and saw this excitement over the fact that Criterion was trying the land the rights. The other problem -- which is even worse -- is that very quickly it would go from "Oh, thanks for that great suggestion, we're actually looking into those rights" or "We're in negotiations for those rights now" to "Criterion has it scheduled" or "Criterion has it coming out next month" or even still, "I went to pre-order it my store, and my store doesn't know anything about it." After that, 48 letters go to Jon Mulvaney, me and to our sales staff saying, "Where is this title? Why do you keep announcing this vaporwear?" That's the fundamental reason that we no longer comment on title suggestions. As much as we love to receive them, and tell people to keep sending them (as helpful as they are), it very quickly feeds a rumor mill that is already willing to believe that we're working on things that we may not be working on. And that just causes disappointment in the customer base.

The biggest disappointment for all of us right now is Eraserhead, which is a title that we never announced. We were in year-long conversations with David Lynch. And it's one of these things where David Lynch is a very particular person. He has very peculiar ideas about how he wants to do things. And he doesn't want to be rushed to make up his mind. And he wants to do what he wants to do, in the way that he wants to do it. He doesn't want his privacy infringed, and he doesn't want to be reading about himself. We were in very protective conversations with him about Eraserhead that were all positive, over a long period of time. Suddenly, there's a rumor on the web that we were actually doing it, and had announced it. At some point, I even saw street dates posted for it. You know, this is something that never even made it on to our actual production load. It had been, at one point, penciled into a schedule -- if we could finish up negotiations in time. But that's as close as it ever come. We had certainly never announced anything about it. That's upsetting.