Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Charles Everett Vs. Miramax Film Corp.

This is topic Charles Everett Vs. Miramax Film Corp. in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001665

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 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]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-19-2003, 10:13 PM:

Releasing a limited number of prints, IMHO, isn't 'dirty work' it's, just good business sense.

If only fewer prints of Movies like Master of Disguise, Undercover Brother, and etc. were available, the world would be a much better place. [Smile]

For popular titles, a limited availabilty of prints only drives up demand for when you finally get it (or you just never get it in competitive areas - in which place you play something else).

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-19-2003, 10:19 PM:

Fewer prints is an excellent idea for any film that can't pull in huge crowds the opening weekend. Films that need word of mouth or nurturing and dont pull in the teen crowd would be dead opening in 3000 plus screens.
Miramax is good at what it does. It gets publicity (all studios do, although the way Charles talks, you'd think there was a total blackout on all other studio films. Anybody who watches tabloid TV will realize that is a crock). So a double standard exists. So it MUST be personal.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 01-19-2003, 10:47 PM:

OK, who the hell is Charles Everett? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-19-2003, 10:50 PM:

Wait about 2 years and he will bump this up. [Big Grin]

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-19-2003, 11:14 PM:

I didn't mean to make the limited number of prints thing to sound like I was referring to it as dirty work.
It's something that has been mentioned before.
For example, I think he mentioned some theatre that was unable to play Amelie (even after it had become a hit) because it was already playing somewhere else in the city.

Then again, I tend to not word things properly anyway.

I agree with the idea of fewer prints.
If my buildup guys and I have to build up 5 or 6 prints for one week, I'd much rather have 5 or 6 different movies than 3 or so of two different titles.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-19-2003, 11:24 PM:

James, I know you didn't think limited releases were bad. I know the mystery man does though. [Smile]

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-20-2003, 02:07 AM:

Charled will never answer. I dont know who this guy is but I take issue with him strongly. He is always commenting on the company that I work for he seems to know all this stuff about what is supposedly going on and its all crap. Anyone who reads these forums will know that I will defend my company to the death I honestly love working for them. I have asked Charles before to explain where he gets some of his untrue information from and he cannot be bothered to respond to my emails or respond to my questions in the forums. I for one take nothing this person says seriously and I do not think that he contributes here in anyway. Just my opinion.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-20-2003, 02:18 AM:

I'll bet that Miramax pulled all their advertising from his newspaper and that he's held a grudge against them ever since. In fact, Miramax probably advertises heavily (to supposedly over promote their product) in his newspapers competition.

But we'll probably never know. It's funny, I've never met someone that worked at a newspaper that was afraid to respond to something. Then again, it explains the totally one-sided, apparently biased and possibly prejudicial, 'editorials'. [Smile]

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-20-2003, 10:56 AM:

Now with the Golden Globes finished with. Maybe Charles is counting how much Miramax spent to get the awards. Miramax won with films like
Chicago, Gangs of New York (Director & Song), Frida (Score) and
The Hours (Paramount/Miramax). Like what was said above about Miramax
it's gets Publicity and releases some fine films. But they release some [bs]

over the year. I spend alot of time running for Paramount
and Miramax. They keep the film maker happy. They spend money getting the film made & released. All the other studios do the same thing.
Paramount Classics (Paramount), Focus (Universal), Fine Line (New Line), UA (MGM), Sony Classics (Sony). Miramax has alot of clout in
this department, they know what buttons to push. I guess they pushed
Charles button on something. Every Studio on every release tries to get as many screens, as they can. So they can take that full page ad in the Trades for their Big weekend gross.

And that keeps the Film Maker very Happy. [Big Grin]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 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]

)

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...

[Smile]

[ 01-20-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: David Stambaugh ]

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-20-2003, 11:25 AM:

Whats funny about theatre digital formats in newspapers. Fox only
puts the regular Dolby logo, on most releases in the stack ads in
New York. But in Los Angeles, Fox puts the full digital formats in
the stack ads. Fox most have a former Miramax person in the ad
deparment. [Big Grin]

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-20-2003, 12:29 PM:

quote:
VERY IMPORTANT - These forums are moderated in the respect solely toward personal insults. Everyone is welcome to participate in any capacity until the point comes at which other members are being singled out and directly insulted. This does not mean you cannot post a negative report on a product, service or customer support. All this refers to is the tone of the post if made toward a specific member of the forums. Disagreements are a daily occurence on the forums and will not be moderated, but personally attacking another member will not be tolerated. If you are unsure if your post will "read" poorly toward another, please consider using smileys to assist in expressing the tone of your post or re-word it before posting. The smiley codes are explained above. The bottom line is to please be polite, mature and professional towards the other members or you will be removed from the forums, regardless of your knowledge or stature in the industry. This includes sending harrasing emails to other members and comments made in the chat room. When in doubt, please do as your mother told you and keep your comments to yourself.

Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the forums.

=TMP=

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-20-2003, 12:57 PM:

I don't think it's a "personal attack" to ask someone "Why do you keep slamming Miramax?" When a debate erupts here over whether or not twisting speaker wire with a drill is good practice, knowledgable industry people state their views and their reasoning, and readers can choose a side if they want. Nobody's feelings should be hurt one way or the other. When the merits of SDDS are debated, some people love it and some hate it; all sides of the issue are aired; nobody's mind is likely to change; but at least people explain WHY they like or hate it. If a frequent contributor wants to make "guerilla attacks" against a company like Miramax, is it unreasonable to ask "Why do you feel that way?" [Wink]

Really this is much ado about nothing and now I kind of regret jumping in at all. [Embarrassed]

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 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 [Wink]

.

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.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-20-2003, 01:45 PM:

Thomas, in my personal opinion, nobody has made any sort of personal attack. In fact EVERYONE has based their posts on information provided by Mr. Everett himself, nothing more.

Now if 'Miramax' was to register itself as a forum member, there's definetely someone who would fall under the category of 'personal attacks against other forum members'. [Smile]

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-20-2003, 03:49 PM:

quote:
Thomas, in my personal opinion, nobody has made any sort of personal attack. In fact EVERYONE has based their posts on information provided by Mr. Everett himself, nothing more.

True, but it just seemed to me that in addition to the Miramax discussion, people have taken jabs at Charles's political views, his job working for a newspaper, his news sources, etc. I just think steering a whole discussion into a big joke about one person is equivalent of stooping to their level. As if all of the news that spews from CNN and MSNBC and Christ forbid, FOX News is all the truth. Charles isn't exactly popular around here, and people have expressed this more than once. This just seemed to me like another, "We're bored, what makes us tick about Charles?" discussion. Remember the thread about Matthew Bailey? Hell, even Andrew McCrea didn't get this much negative attention.

So let's get back to the topic... Why is Charles so pissed at Miramax? Well how about one reason I am pissed at them: Their demand for censorship when they wanted to shoot a film in Times Square when Adbusters had their billboard up.
http://adbusters.org/campaigns/flag/nyc/

Second, the incredible potential that never happened with their "re-release" of A Hard Day's Night.

Other than that, they've been known to occasionally churn out a good movie or two.

=TMP=

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-20-2003, 04:18 PM:

You know, some people like to be a little devious about stirring things up, while slyly winking and keeping tongue planted firmly in cheek. Maybe we've all been HAD! [Wink]

In all seriousness, speaking for myself, I like a good debate, even if I'm a lousy debater. [Big Grin]

If it turns out I've been ignorant on the subject of Miramax, I'll admit it and eat crow. "I've been wrong before." [beer]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-20-2003, 04:19 PM:

We could make it "Miramax Anonymous" forum.

Personally, I think you guys are completely missing Charles' sense of humor, and that he chooses to bash Miramax because he finds it amusing to do so. I certainly find it amusing to watch him.

Obligatory why I am not deeply enamored of Miramax: they are not able to provide useful predictions of when their films will be available to the non-theatrical market, and because of this, they've caused us no amount of grief when Miramax films we've scheduled have turned out to be unavailable on the dates we've scheduled them.

--jhawk

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-20-2003, 04:28 PM:

That billboard is located on 42nd Street (between 6th & 7th Aves).
That billboard has corporate logos. I'm glad that the banner stayed up
. That building and all the properties to the right of that building
are going to be razed. For a new office building, the only real loss
was a 15 story building that was going tobe converted into affordable
housing. From that location, it's not a very good shot of Times Square.

There is a place of on the web, that has alot of former Miramax
people. Early last fall, Miramax had a large turn out of people
in the publicity end.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-20-2003, 04:31 PM:

Nobody here is saying that Charles is a bad person or is an idiot or anything like that. From the way I read this thread it seems that people just want to know why Charles does not like Miramax. Asking someone for a reson to back up their statements isn't an insult.

Come on Charles, fill us in. [Smile]

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 01-20-2003, 04:39 PM:

Interesting is the quote taken from the "rules" of the FT site that says that moderation by the owners of the site is done purely in the case of personal insult. That simply is not true. Moderation is based here on agenda. Everyone has an agenda...even the operator(s) of this site. A person can get defensive, sometimes subconsciously, if their own personal agendas are not being served.

I have neither the time or interest to seek out the exact thread at this time, but some time ago someone asked a question that was along the lines of "what ever happened to....?" in inquiry of some of the past members of FT whom had posted much in previous time but very little in the present....Some of them too have grown weary of the agendas, know it all attitudes, veiled insults, and being treated as if a child. Some just don't have the time to devote to posting.

I personally won't be bothered with being worried about such things...but some here now, and some here in the past do indeed notice and react to these things.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-20-2003, 05:34 PM:

If I were to post invented or misrepresented "facts", I would expect to be corrected. If I were to continue to do so, I completely expect to be bitch-slapped.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-20-2003, 06:23 PM:

Wes,

An interesting post you have made. If I ignore it, you will continue to serve out your own anger oriented agenda (or to put it bluntly, you will continue to make little hidden stabs around the forums until such point that I reply). If I reply to it, then in your mind you will have proven your point with a defensive reply on my part. Ok whatever, I'll make you happy and explain this to you one last time. I'll even word this defensively for you. [Smile]

Your post above represents your opinions and your general take on how things are moderated here. I'm sure there are others that agree with your opinion and I'm sure there are others that don't agree with that opinion. Regardless, I shouldn't have to remind you of this, but you still don't seem to get it. Regarding moderation decisions, you do not know everything that happens behind the scenes and I do resent your post above because your comment is made out of spite and ignorance to everything that goes on that you are unaware of. Although I'm sure the members here will not really understand the intention in your post above, I feel your comment is made as a quiet stab because of personal issues you have had in the past with the way I run this website.

I, like you, do commonly find it not worth my time to be bothered with some things (especially this kind of petty nonsense). You must understand that if something on this site bothers you to a certain point, you can always leave. If something on this site bothers me to a certain point, I have two options. #1 close the site or #2 remove the member. I cannot just leave. (It should be noted that I am not planning on closing the site anytime soon.)

Now if you do not like this particular thread, then don't click on it again. Your reading the discussion on this page is your choice. No one is forcing you.

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 01-20-2003, 07:28 PM:

Quite simply Brad, I do not have any issues with the way this website is run. As you say, it is yours to run as you wish. It was clear very early after my discovery of FT that it is indeed your playground.

I would do exactly the same if it were my site. I do think this website is a valuable resource!

And like you said, I (and others) am always free to leave...to change the channel. I (and others) do so often.

Oh, and I don't make "quiet stabs." At least I don't do so intentionally as I feel they are not worth my time. So far in my life my "stabs" have had a history of being quite loud and well heard, as well as honest, fair, and well thought out. Nevertheless, I will give your comment some more personal thought. Remember that you know very little about me, and I you! I am no child and any campaign you think I may be on to elicit some type of response from you is just silly at best. I do have better things to keep myself occupied in my life than to be quite passive aggressive for no reason to someone I don't even know.

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 01-20-2003, 08:00 PM:

The person, or thread, referenced above was one of my own. I eventually exchanged emails with different parties to obtain waht I hoped would be a "whole" story.

I feel that I succeeded, as far as the "whole story" goes. I developed my own opinion from that and the rest is history.

Personal agendas aside, there are some very, very knowledgeable people on this forum. Sadly, some have left, and others remained. I, for one, am compelled to visit the site each time I log online, which, more often than not, winds up occuring numerous times a day.
I have learned about several different things, been agitated by a few different people, probably agitated as many people, and still have the ability to enjoy the site!

There are many varied levels on intellect represented within this forum. It is up to teh sole discretion of the reader of any gievn thread to discern what he/she may from the information contained therein. One must remember, there is no set "tone" in the reading of mere text. There are, quite frankly, some folks who simply, no matter how hard they try, get their point (or idea, or information) across due to the inability to put it in text so that the broad appeal of viewers here are all on the same page. Actually, that is probably impossible for any of us to do!

I'm rambling on now. It's also time to hit the floor...

[Big Grin]

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 01-20-2003, 08:02 PM:

Well spoken Jason.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 01-20-2003, 08:26 PM:

It seems to me it's appropriate to follow a post you disagree with with a question or rebuttle, but most inappropriate to build up a dossier against a film-tech member, especially from comments made on a forum outside of Film-tech, and then dump a load of crap attacking an individual for his dislike of the practices of a corporation, his political attitudes, etc. Especially when it produces a football pileup of bad-mouthing accusations from me-too yesmen.

Frankly, I haven't noticed the complaints being attributed to him, but I appreciate the frequent, highly detailed information Charles
continually supplies as to cinemas on both East and West coasts, their auditoriums, booth equipment, and feature film showings, past, present and future.

Back off, gentlemen, and consider the 2x4s in your own eyes.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-20-2003, 10:03 PM:

Wes, if you wish to continue this little thing of yours offsite (the way it should have been done in the first place) go ahead. Of course I do not know you, and likewise you do not know me. Stating the obvious is a waste of time. Given your past with this site, your post was rude and an insult towards me. Even though it is a minor stab, it's the little things like this that can frequently be more annoying than a direct attack when it is someone you don't even really know.

If you want to continue this nonsense of yours here, you won't be any longer. Simple as that.

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 01-20-2003, 11:07 PM:

Many apologies for causing you to take offense, Mr. Miller.

I have no interest in pursing something offsite, mainly since I am somewhat ill informed as to exactly WHAT the issue we would continue is and therefore would not be aptly prepared to quarrel, and partially because I simply do not care (and I do not intend that in a rude way).

Once again, it is never my intention to offend.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-21-2003, 01:14 AM:

I know that I am not "attacking" Charles I would just really like some explanations. If I have one flaw it is that I HATE to be wrong, I know that I am sometimes and that I am Human but I hate it. If someone tells me that I am wrong about something that is fine I just appreciate it if they can back it up with FACTS. Back when my company was going to buy Landmark charles stated that they would not be run as a part of "Loews Cineplex", He was wrong and I backed it up with facts (If anyone gets the "In-Focus" magazine there was an article in there about it and it clearly said it would be part of LCE) All I ever and still ask for is an explanation as to why he is posting mis-information. It is my belief that us as a community need to have some level of trust for each other as we give out advice about machines that cost thousands of dollars, if someone posts information that is not true and will not admit it I fell that it is a serious offense to all of us as a community.

I have an agenda I will admit it my Agenda is to get the TRUTH from him.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-22-2003, 04:03 PM:

*BUMP*

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-22-2003, 05:06 PM:

quote:
I have an agenda I will admit it my Agenda is to get the TRUTH from him.

You'll never get it. He's obviously been here since this started.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-22-2003, 05:31 PM:

I demand to know how he can think National Security is great!

(Not that I've seen it. But I still want to know.)

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-22-2003, 05:46 PM:

National Security might be great in the same way that Kung Pow was great. [Wink]

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-22-2003, 08:09 PM:

quote:
I demand to know how he can think National Security is great!

It's not made by Miramax? [Razz]

=TMP=