|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Charles Everett Vs. Miramax Film Corp.
|
James R. Hammonds, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 931
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-19-2003 10:10 PM
I have always been curious, and lately even more curiosity is beeing aroused among other members in the National Security review thread of all places.
Charles likes to take stabs at Miramax every chance he gets.
Seems Miramax is to blame for everything from other movies not being shown at certain places, films arriving in poor condition, global warming, and the death of Christ.
So the question here is does Charles have a personal beef with this company or what?
Other than being ACCUSED of buying awards (is there any real evidence of this?), the limited availability of certain titles, and their tendency to sit on and push back the releases of certain movies, I haven't really seen any dirty work from these guys.
So here it is, Charles.
Your chnace to let it all out once and for all.
Don't be afraid, we don't bite. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Stambaugh
Film God
Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 01-20-2003 11:12 AM
Charles has said things like former New York Mayor Giuliani is a fascist (because Giuliani opposed spending tax dollars on "art" such as the crucifix of Christ in a jar of urine). He's made anti-Bush comments. He posts links to Internet "news" sources that push radical leftist agendas. None of this bothers me at all, except that it's largely inappropriate subject material for Film-Tech forums. (Yet here we are talking about it. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) )
With the Miramax thing, all we can do is read between the lines since Chaz won't explain his views. What we do know is he hates the company and Harvey Weinstein. The basis of his disdain for Miramax seems to be that:
1) Miramax is aggressive about promoting its films as Oscar bait. It also seems to do a lot of arm-twisting to get its product in certain markets. I guess this makes Miramax an industry bully.
2) Miramax sometimes delays the release of certain films (e.g. "The Quiet American") for what might be construed as purely political reasons. Yet he neglects to mention that Miramax funded all or at least part of the making of those films in the first place. Miramax probably knew what they were buying before production started, and that begs the question "Why did they get involved at all if they're then going to sit on the release for political reasons?" This makes no business sense.
3) In this thread Charles says certain films should not get any awards whatsoever, SOLELY because Miramax was involved with making them. (He also rejects the notion of giving awards to anyone who's one awards in the past.) In other words, Miramax's sins (whatever they may be) are so grievous that everyone involved in a Miramax release (actors, directors, etc.) must be punished for the alleged sins of Miramax the company.
4) In this thread Charles seems to be accusing Miramax of "punishing" certain theatres and even certain digital sound formats by omitting them from newspaper ads. Miramax's motivation for dissing the theatres and sound formats is never explained though. Never mind the fact that all newspaper movie ads are notorious for containing errors. Sloppy editing and proofing are probably the worst offenses Miramax can be accused of.
I could go on, but I won't. But this anti-Miramax thing just begs to be explained...
[ 01-20-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: David Stambaugh ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-20-2003 01:26 PM
I agree with David here. I think people posting in certain topics should be clear about personal agendas that may be driving their opinions. (although I would NEVER attack someone for making anti-Bush statements .
For example, a member made a comment about his own negative review of the movie Chicago. No problem there. The film didn't work for him, and he explained the reasons why. Totally valid comments. Films either work or don't work for us. We bring in our own life experiences to every film we see. (I haven't seen the film yet, but I loved the the stage revival I saw in Vegas several years ago).
Charles, on the other hand, has not seen or admits to seeing Chicago, but thinks everyone who has seen and liked it are vivtims of some kind of hype brainwashing.
The problem with Charles is his hit-and-run mentality. He refuses to respond to any legitimate question posed. I personally see nothing wrong with asking those questions. The number one priority of ANY film company, Miramax included, is to return a profit to the owners/shareholders. It is true Miramax will from time to time re-evalute its films and decide a limited or straight-to-video title is in the best interests of the company at a particular time. (I'm sure the company behind Pluto Nash now wish they had taken the same track). What Bill says is also valid, that the company (as all do) essentially balance the short-term economic choices with keeping talent happy (perhaps a certain film will get a push that may not deserve it to demonstrate to talent that they are valued, hoping that a better or more commercial film will emerge from them in the future). All one has to do is take a look at the trades to see that all studios, not just Miramax, play the hype game around Oscar season. Films and acting "performances" that even Miramax would be embarrassed to pitch for.
If it hadn't been for Miramax "forcing" theatres to take their product, some of the films that never would have come to Bakersfield would have included "Strictly Ballroom," "Muriel's Wedding," "Red," "White," Blue," "Like Water for Chocolate," "Shall We Dance," and many others. As a matter of fact, many of these played at a struggling art house that eventually closed. According to the owners, Miramax was the company that gave them the best terms for films in the hopes of developing an art-house market locally. Other companies put them low on the booking lists and didn't give them a chance to book until months after the films closed in other markets.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
over the year. I spend alot of time running for Paramount
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic