criterionforum.org

Jeff wrote:

Gary Gnu wrote:Naqoyqatsi is also in production. It's a trilogy box. (Woot!!) Maybe it'll contain Reggio's other works, as well.

I expect Naqoyqatsi will be included, but it's not licensed from MGM.

Sorry. I assumed that it was. It is Miramax.

Gary Gnu wrote:It is Miramax.

Wouldn't be entirely surprised if Miramax's distribution rights expire in 2012 with the film rights reverting to either Reggio's Qatsi Foundation, The Santa Fe Institute for Regional Education, or Steven Soderbergh (who funded the completion of the film). I imagine the three films will be released as a trilogy box, the first two being licensed from MGM, with Soderbergh and Reggio ensuring the inclusion of the final film. My guess would be that the wait for Miramax's rights to lapse is the cause for the lengthy delay of the set.

Not to mention, Three Colors is also being released next year. What are some more likely Miramax titles? Wasn't The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, And Her Lover on the way??

But I believe the rights for Three Colors expired prior to Criterion getting them. So this is like New Yorker - Criterion is picking these titles up from the world rights holders rather than other distributors.

Hey Jeff, you can probably remove It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World from the speculation list now that MGM has released it themselves.

Jeff wrote:No Verhoeven.

When you say "no Verhoeven" you mean they've already ruled it out or just that they haven't mentioned it?

captveg wrote:Hey Jeff, you can probably remove It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World from the speculation list now that MGM has released it themselves.

I think I'll just leave those titles as a record of what titles Criterion responded about, but maybe include some kind of notation. MGM recently released Blu-rays of Last Tango in Paris and Vera Cruz from that list too.

felipe wrote:When you say "no Verhoeven" you mean they've already ruled it out or just that they haven't mentioned it?

The former, though not publicly. Of course it's possible that there has been/will be another licensing agreement.

... And still Scanners has not yet been given proper treatment. Seriously, MGM should just hand it over to Criterion, who would know what to do with it. (There's a seven second delay, right??) I saw the current DVD transfer today, and MGM f****d it up beyond belief, to the point where it's not even watchable. The audio isn't even properly synchronized with the video!! I had heard awful things about the transfer in customer reviews, but... Okay, if there's a film in this list (that I've seen) that is in need of an upgrade of any sort, it's Scanners. That DVD pissed me off more than when I heard Videodrome was being remade.

I think I've read that the audio sync issues on Scanners is a problem with the source materials and not a DVD fuck up. Now about licensing the film, a pretty reliable poster over at the AV Maniacs forum said that MGM may no longer have the rights to Scanners.

Gary Gnu wrote:And still Scanners has not yet been given proper treatment. Seriously, MGM should just hand it over to Criterion, who would know what to do with it. (There's a seven second delay, right??) I saw the current DVD transfer today, and MGM f****d it up beyond belief, to the point where it's not even watchable. The audio isn't even properly synchronized with the video!! I had heard awful things about the transfer in customer reviews, but... Okay, if there's a film in this list (that I've seen) that is in need of an upgrade of any sort, it's Scanners.

SCANNERS is full of bad ADR and has had sync problems from the day it was made. The bad sync is inherent in the film.

I've seen Scanners in the theatre, and the source didn't seem so bad. It certainly wasn't high quality, but it was watchable. For whatever reason, the DVD seemed much worse. Maybe it was just the experience of seeing Scanners on the big screen that distracted me from the technical errors. Call me out on it, but how hard could it be to fix that issue? A distributor that cared could definitely fix it. Was it filmed in a bizarre way, or something?? (ADR?)

dwk, that's great news; and what I was hoping to hear. I wouldn't even mind if MGM was to upgrade it themselves, though. Even better if Criterion snags it, of course.

ADR/dubbing is pretty much impossible to change without rerecording the lines from scratch - and I doubt anyone wants to go through the length of the film adjusting the odd line here and there which could be placed slightly better.

Peacock wrote:ADR/dubbing is pretty much impossible to change without rerecording the lines from scratch - and I doubt anyone wants to go through the length of the film adjusting the odd line here and there which could be placed slightly better.

I forgot to clarify that I wasn't sure what ADR was, but you addressed it. I wouldn't rule it out, though. What's Michael Ironside up to?

Scanners is an Embassy title, so it's actually owned by Studio Canal and licensed to MGM. If MGM lost the rights, that means Lionsgate would have it. No chance of a Criterion.

You do all realise that it is a film to do with mind-reading, so some of the dialogue is not really meant to lip sync?

But seriously I've never really had any trouble with Scanners in that sense with its roughness becoming a part of its charms after many revisits. I might have an issue with a couple of the early over-emphatic music cues, such as the 'horror film'-style one over the establishing shot of McGoohan's lab, which can tip a scene into unintentional comedy (a quality Scanners shares with a couple of scenes in Rabid), but even there the score reaches powerful heights as it goes on.

This is what Marc Edward Heuck posted on the AV Maniacs forum about Scanners:

Not sure who even owns SCANNERS now. Embassy released it in the states, MGM put out the DVD when they initially had first pick of the Embassy titles in their Polygram buyout, but I remember being told that all the rights reverted back to the Canadian financiers.

If he is right about the rights going back to the Canadian financiers, then I'd say Criterion has a pretty good shot at picking the film up.

In other news, I just dropped a quarter on the ground. I think there's a pretty good chance Criterion will pick it up.

Sorry, but that quarter is owned by Studio Canal.

knives wrote:Sorry, but that quarter is owned by Studio Canal.

Unless it has a caribou on the back of it, which means it has reverted back to its Canadian financiers.

Scanners is also Cronenberg's worst film, so there's another reason why Criterion shouldn't bother with it. I (and IMDb voters) would much rather they picked up The Brood or eXistenZ.

Yeah, but IMDb voters would evidently also pick The Green Mile over The Magnificent Ambersons, so...

Matt wrote:Scanners is also Cronenberg's worst film, so there's another reason why Criterion shouldn't bother with it.

Uhh.. have you not seen Fast Company?

The Brood or eXistenZ aren't going to happen. Well, The Brood might if they were able to strike a new deal with MGM. (And, for the record, Cronenberg's worst film isn't Scanners it is A History of Violence.)

Maybe he doesn't have a worst film?

Was M. Butterfly directed by some other David Cronenberg?