The 3rd Annual Miramax Sucks! Thread

[GringoTex]

Peter Biskind, who wrote the extraordinary "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" has just published "Down and Dirty Pictures : Miramax, Sundance, and the Rise of Independent Film," which supposedly confirms my long-held belief that Harvey Weinstein is Satan.

My favorite tidbit in the book is this quote from the great Italian director Bernardo Bertolucci:

"Harvey Weinstein is the Saddam Hussein of independent cinema."

[DoctorJones24]

He was being interviewed on Weekend Edition this morning, talking about this book. To be honest, it didn't seem particularly profound--basically his thesis is that Weinstein sees himself as a "filmmaker" at heart, and so he often convinces himself he could do a better job than some of the people he's paying. Talked a little bit about the Redford/Soderbergh spat post-Sex, Lies, and about Ben and Matt getting "screwed" by Harvey on royalties from GWH. I was left underawed by the mountain of evidence against Weinstein.

As the interviewer noted at the end: "When the history of this era in American film is written, Redford and Weinstein are going to be remembered as having really helped give voices to a lot of filmmakers who never would have been given a shot in the old studio system. In short, they will be seen as heros of American independent cinema."

To which Biskind said, "Oh, I agree. And justifiably so."

[skipshady]

Originally posted by GringoTex
Harvey Weinstein is Satan.Indeed, Weinstein is the modern day reincarnation of the devil Robert Johnson encountered at the crossroads. Just as the devil promised, and gave, Johnson success in exchange for his soul, Weinstein gives voice to filmmakers who would not otherwise have access to multiplexes and in return, takes the soul, i.e. creative control.

The Satan is certainly evil, but we are all benefit from him. God bless Satan.

[Ghost]

The thing about Miramax is that on the one hand, I can point to the way the studio battles harmed Gangs of New York, and look at the way MIramax convinced everyone that Amlie, LIfe is Beautiful and Shakespeare in Love are splendid filmmaking and conclude that Miramax sucks.

On the other hand, if I listed my ten favorite films of the decade, a number of the contenders, (Solaris, Memento, In the Bedroom, etc.) are Miramax films.

[GringoTex]

Originally posted by DoctorJones24
I was left underawed by the mountain of evidence against Weinstein.


I've yet to read the book but I know the mountain of evidence is there from Rosenbaum's book and numerous other sources.


As the interviewer noted at the end: "When the history of this era in American film is written, Redford and Weinstein are going to be remembered as having really helped give voices to a lot of filmmakers who never would have been given a shot in the old studio system.

This is way overblown. Weinstein has rarely signed a filmmaker that he didn't have to win a bidding war over. He signs filmmakers and buys films that everybody wants. The difference is he has more Disney money than everybody else.

[microbrew]

Miramax and Asian cinema: the butcher of Hong Kong

A recent victim of the Miramax treatment: Shaolin Soccer

http://alliance.hellninjacommando.net/

[TheSlipperyOne]

Originally posted by GringoTex

I've yet to read the book but I know the mountain of evidence is there from Rosenbaum's book and numerous other sources.

In Biskind's book he doesn't really get into the evidence, but in fact just hints at it. But he definitely paints a picture of the brothers that makes you think it is definitely something they would do and makes you all the happier when things like the Shine incident happen or when Peter Jackson gives a little "******** you" to Harvey in his Golden Globe speech last night.

Originally posted by GringoTex

This is way overblown. Weinstein has rarely signed a filmmaker that he didn't have to win a bidding war over. He signs filmmakers and buys films that everybody wants. The difference is he has more Disney money than everybody else.

This is very true, but part of their sway is that they had a good record when they first started of really getting behind the some of the indies they purchased before selling to Disney and making those indies well-known and well-regarded as well as making a tidy profit.

[Footix]

Originally posted by microbrew
Miramax and Asian cinema: the butcher of Hong Kong

A recent victim of the Miramax treatment: Shaolin Soccer

http://alliance.hellninjacommando.net/

What a load of nonsense.

Filmmakers/owners know EXACTLY what they are getting into when they do a sale or distribution deal with Miramax. If you don't want to risk your film getting chopped differently than your vision, don't fukcing sell-out.

As far as Shaolin Soccer goes, I've seen the original and 2 Miramax edits. If they left it totally alone, nobody but seriously hardcore soccer nudniks (i.e. BigSoccer denizens) and the tiny Asian movie buff crowd would go see it. As it stands already, most of that crowd HAS seen it, either in it's unedited big screen screenings in Chinatown theatres (pre-Miramax purchase), or on the Chinese/Korean DVD releases which happen to be all-region and widely available.

The American edits drop some of the very very Chinese stuff that most Americans would be confused by, and the storyline, which most people who have seen the original will tell you is pretty meandering, has been tightened up to the film's benefit, in my opinion. Miramax tried very hard to keep most of the bizarre stuff in (the street dancing scenes, etc.) because the style of the director is all about unexpected ridiculousness. However, these are the scenes that will confuse Mr & Mrs Kansas, who'll take their equally confused kids to see the film. As hard as they tried, the testing results were more or less "It was pretty good, but why did he break into song?" and "The fat guy jumping so high was pretty unbeleivable."

The Weinsteins have NEVER pretended to be about anything other than making money first, and many many people in and out of the film industry have benefitted from their machine. They may not be percieved as the patrons of the arts they'd like to be seen as, but I don't think they lose sleep about it either. Their business is making films available for as many people to see as possible. I'm quite sure "Amelie" made many more people happy than pissed off because it was "trite/derivitive/juvenile/manipulative" or whatever else Miramax-haters called it once it became a hit.

There are very few filmmakers that can resist the dough...Not many auteurs are content with making Dogme films and living on cans of tuna and bags of dried beans.

Bottom line...if you don't want your films to be fukced with, don't take a check from Miramax. They are certainly not the only game in town.

[amerifolklegend]

Originally posted by microbrew
Miramax and Asian cinema: the butcher of Hong Kong

A recent victim of the Miramax treatment: Shaolin Soccer

http://alliance.hellninjacommando.net/

Let me tell you something, I have seen Shaolin Soccer. The original version. I saw it a long time ago.

It was god awful.

Sure it may have made millions over there wherever the hell it came from, but it simply isn't something that can translate well into something a US audience wants to see. People that pay money to go see major release movies in the states want something cleaned up, crystal clear asthetically and sensically, and they want to relate to what the characters are doing.

US audiences don't like soccer, don't particularly like sports movies i general, really can't stand kung-fu movies, don't like movies they have to read unless they are phenominal, and most of all, can't tolerate really really bad acting.

Don't blame anyone for Shaolin Soccer's failure over here but the people who made it. Nobody that matters wanted to see it.

[MeridianFC]

I loved "Amelie" and I don't care who knows it.

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

BTW isn't everbody in the movie business pretty much a bastard, thief, or direct spawn of satan?

[skipshady]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
I loved "Amelie" and I don't care who knows it.I liked "Amelie" too.

More importantly, watching "Amelie" helped me get laid, as did "Cold Mountain". For that reason alone, Miramax is okay by me.

[TheSlipperyOne]

Originally posted by skipshady

More importantly, watching "Amelie" helped me get laid, as did "Cold Mountain". For that reason alone, Miramax is okay by me.

Ditto for "Amelie", but not for "Cold Mountain".

[GringoTex]

Originally posted by Footix
What a load of nonsense.

Filmmakers/owners know EXACTLY what they are getting into when they do a sale or distribution deal with Miramax. If you don't want to risk your film getting chopped differently than your vision, don't fukcing sell-out.


Foreign filmmakers usually have no say when their films are sold to Harvey and he cuts them down, or worse yet, shelves them so that they don't compete with Miramax productions.


I'm quite sure "Amelie" made many more people happy than pissed off because it was "trite/derivitive/juvenile/manipulative" or whatever else Miramax-haters called it once it became a hit.


Amelie was a piece of shit before Harvey bought it. That's why he didn't cut it down.

[GringoTex]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
I loved "Amelie" and I don't care who knows it.


Since when did it become a chic sign of martyrdom to like Amelie? EVERYBODY likes that stupid movie. That's what's so frustrating- I've tried to show all of you the light time and time again and you ignore me. I'M the martyr, got that?

[Footix]

Originally posted by GringoTex
Foreign filmmakers usually have no say when their films are sold to Harvey and he cuts them down, or worse yet, shelves them so that they don't compete with Miramax productions.


That's not exactly true.

Miramax doesn't steal films. If a foreign filmmaker sells worldwide rights to his film without retaining edit control, it's his own damn fault if it's in-turn sold to Miramax or another domestic firm who chop it up for local market. These deals are not made underhandedly...it's all straight-forward and in the paperwork that usually travels with the buyout check.

Same goes for shelving...yeah, the practice totally sucks, but happens much less than film "fans" think. More often than not, films that are shelved are done because Miramax's (usually pretty accurate) research shows that it makes better business sense to not release a film than take a deeper hit by printing & advertising a film that's a sure commercial bomb. It's all business. Believe me, if Miramax thinks a film will make a net profit of $20, they'd release it, because any film in the black is good to them. Case in point? That trainwreck "The Battle Of Shaker Heights". That film suuu-uuu-cked, but will have made a couple bucks when all the money is counted because of the Greenlight connection, the teengirls who'll buy any Shaya film on PPV and DVD, etc.

[Ghost]

Well, Gringo, looks like people are beginning to agree. One single nomination (to Jude Law) for "Cold Mountain" One slight blow against the cinematic terrorism we all face.

[MeridianFC]

Originally posted by GringoTex
Since when did it become a chic sign of martyrdom to like Amelie? EVERYBODY likes that stupid movie. That's what's so frustrating- I've tried to show all of you the light time and time again and you ignore me. I'M the martyr, got that?

Your John the Film Critic crying in the wilderness routine ain't workin, Tex.

As the man said, I may not know art, but I know what I like. I actually got this out of a 1970s Playboy if anybody is interested. Man they had curves back then.

[GringoTex]

Originally posted by Ghost
Well, Gringo, looks like people are beginning to agree. One single nomination (to Jude Law) for "Cold Mountain" One slight blow against the cinematic terrorism we all face.

Now THIS is the kind of attitude we need. Even if Cold Mountain is a halfway decent film, polemicism demands that we treat it like a piece of crap because of Weinsten's involvement. I like that, btw- "cinematic terrorism!"

[microbrew]

Film-makers often don't actually own the rights to their film, or even to the original print. And some filmmakers just aren't aware what Miramax is capable of.

As for "Shaolin Soccer": What Shaolin soccer failure? It was never released in this country- theatrical or otherwise. I didn't like Shaolin Soccer, but I doubt the Disney meddling and hacking will make it better.

As for the "sitters", it doesn't hurt for them to release it on DVD, unedited, with original langauges and subtitles. I can't get "Fist of Legend" or "Tai Chi Master" subtitled and in Chinese. Of course, the longer they sit, the more people will get region 0 imports, and the more customers are lost.

[microbrew]

Originally posted by amerifolklegend
Don't blame anyone for Shaolin Soccer's failure over here but the people who made it. Nobody that matters wanted to see it.

No, you have it all wrong. The movie was never given a *ucking chance. None, what-so-ever. It was never released. Not even straight to DVD, in any form: hacked, original, dubbed, subtitled, etc.

It's not about what US audiences want to see- it's what the industry gatekeepers think audiences should want to see. Or they go by the magic eight ball that is test-marketing.

Then again, maybe the mass-market gets the movies it deserves (which is different from what it wants).

(Yes, I know the movie was nonsense. I just chose it as a Bigsoccer appropiate reference.)