Can Criterion Survive in Today's Market? (1 Viewer)

[Jun-Dai Bates]

Just a quick comment (I didn't get a chance to read Rouslan's latest comments before they were removed. . . too bad) about the 400 blows. Whether or not you think the 400 Blows is Truffaut's best film, I think it's pretty hard to argue that it is not only his most important film, but also one of the most important films ever. It started the French New Wave, which changed cinema forever. As a landmark, I would even suggest that it's more significant than any other Criterion DVD (possibly excepting M or Grand Illusion). Forget Seven Samurai, Seventh Seal, or Brazil. The 400 Blows, like Birth of a Nation (not my favorite D.W. Griffith film) or Open City (not my favorite neo-realist film), changed the way people make films, forever. For that reason alone it deserves to be in the Criterion Collection, though it doesn't hurt that many people think it's Truffaut's best film, or at least one of them.

 

[Bob Movies]

The whole "I don't buy anything except anamorphic" argument really kills me. I love MOVIES, and that's why I have a HT setup. Of course I want a good transfer, and I want it to be the closest experience possible to the cinema, but give me a break.
The first time I ever saw Ghostbusters was a Pan and Scan version played on Television (with commercials). I loved it. I fell in love with the MOVIE, even though it was butchered with the pan and scan. Now I own the DVD, and I love it, but I only love it because I love the film. If I had to choose between seeing a second generation Pan and Scan VHS dub and not seeing the movie at all, I'd rather see the 2nd Gen P&S VHS dub, because I love the movie.
I know this is off topic, with the thread being about Criterion and all... Don't get me wrong, I'm a Criterion supporter. I own more Criterion LD's than my bank account would care to remember, and I agree with the comments that talk about Criterion building customer loyalty over time. That isn't something that can be bought, it can only be earned. Their dedication to high quality presenations of quality films is truly the best in the business.
P.S. I think Criterion's LD collection had much more variety than their DVD's. Ghostbusters was a Criterion LD, BTW. That's not criticism, because I love their DVD's, but it seems like people only see two schools - there's the old movies / foriegn films, and then there's the Michael Bay films.
It's a pity more studios don't allow their films to be done right. That is to say, done by Criterion.
P.P.S. I agree with the point made about Criterion Audio Commentaries. I love the way that they're edited, and one need only look at their LD commentaries to see even more out of print examples of this technique in action. When writing an essay, you edit. When preparing a television piece for broadcast, you also edit. Why should an audio commentary be any different? I always read DVD reviews where the reviewer complains about large gaps of silence in the commentary track. Try to find a criterion track that features giant gaps and descriptions of what is happening on screen.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Marc, I know where you are coming from, but the Criterion presentation of Brazil is excellent. I was recently reminded that anamorphic is not everything -- or even the most important thing -- when I watched the new MGM transfer of Silence of the Lambs. I found it to be inferior to the Criterion transfer in terms of both picture (dramatically) and sound (less obviously) despite the fact that the MGM was anamorphic and re-mixed to 5.1 and the Criterion was non-anamorphic and 2.0 pro-logic. I would rather watch a zoomed version of a non-anamorphic transfer with correct colors and densities than an anamorphic transfer that gets these things wrong. You are, of course, welcome to feel differently, but if you are a fan of Brazil, the Criterion release is really worth seeing.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

I haven't seen the MGM version of SotL, but damn! does the Criterion version have a lot of digital artifacting. Only a few of their dvd's have more (of course, I've only seen about half of them).

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I didn't see an excessive amount of digital artifacting on SotL, but the two really noticeable problems with that transfer were source element flaws (most of which look like they were holes in a negative element since they appear as black specks), and some shimmering around edges, especially during the opening titles. This was present on the laserdisc, so I assumed it was not compression related.
The new anamorphic transfer from MGM has slightly fewer source element flaws, and the ones that do appear seem to be from a positive element (white specks), and eliminates the edge shimmering, but as I mentioned before, the colors and densities are significantly different and, IMHO, worse.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Bryant Frazer]

The film and how it's presented is the most important thing. If any studio understands that, it's Criterion.

Yes, and one of the reasons they didn't release anamorphic transfers in the early days of the format was that the vast majority of their customer base -- including me -- does not have a 16x9 display. For the vast majority of consumers -- including me -- the Criterion version of Brazil looks better than an anamorphic version would.
I don't want to belabor the point; I just want to point out that Criterion's reluctance to go anamorphic was justifiable. (I believe that money also played a part; the transition from LD to DVD had to be hard on the company, and $100,000 for a new transfer isn't chump change for a boutique publisher.) Personally, I'd rather see Criterion working on new titles rather than anamorphicizing old ones; even if Universal releases a new version of Brazil, Criterion's will still remain indispensable.
-bf-
------------------
Bryant Frazer
Deep Focus
www.deep-focus.com

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Yeah, I'd rather not see Criterion revisiting old titles yet, and when they do, I'm not sure I really want them as new catalogue numbers.
There are far too many titles Criterion could be working on from just the Janus catalogue, let alone a lot of independent films from all over the place that deserve decent attention.
------------------
Link Removed | Burt Lancaster is Link Removed | dOc

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I think that Criterion are like Apple, in a good way.
Neither Apple nor Criterion have aspirations of owning the whole market; instead, they cater to their specific niche. Just because Compaq makes a computer that can do most or in some cases all of the things that a Mac can do, and Compaq has significantly more market share than Apple...well, that doesn't make Apple a failure, does it?
Yes, Criterion discs cost more. Some are willing to pay the extra and some are not, but by charging more, Criterion are making money without having to sell a bazillion units, meaning that they can make money from a low-selling title.
I doubt that a price drop would significantly increase sales of many Criterion titles, and obviously Criterion feel the same way. That's fine by me: I'd rather have them around to buy from and pay that extra than have cheap discs for a while and then see them go belly-up.

 

[Jon Robertson]

I'd just like to back up Bob. I personally find the view of people who refuse to buy anything non-anamorphic a pretty bizarre way of building a collection.
Those who refuse to WATCH any film that isn't in it's OAR - please! A friend just lent me Blue Velvet, on a pan-and-scan VHS. I'm going to watch it, as the story will still come across, and when I finally do see it in its OAR (should I like the film enough to buy it), I will appreciate the 2.35:1 frame all the more.
I recently saw Paths of Glory projected at 1.85:1 at the cinema. Now, it was shifted towards the top of the frame, so no heads were cut off, but I genuinely believe there are some people here who would have walked out, despite the fact the film looked pretty much fine in terms of composition.