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

[Marc Colella]

If Columbia Tristar has a great reason to not get around to doing high quality SEs, does that change the fact that they are not doing them? Who cares what their excuse is?

Then by the same token, it's ridiculous that Criterion is charging so much for their DVDs, when other studios put out quality just as good or better - for a much cheaper price.
You shouldn't care what any of their excuses are then.

 

[Jon Robertson]

Misread your post, Marc. Whoops...
[Edited last by Jon Robertson on September 01, 2001 at 01:13 PM]

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

The difference Marc, is that Criterion does not own the films like the studios do, so they have to incur the cost of licensing them in addition to the cost of restoration and building supplements. They also have to license any materials they use in the supplements if they are owned by someone else (the Charlie Rose documentary for example). Considering some studios are charging the same amount (Paramount, Disney) for featureless discs when they don't have the licensing to contend with, I hardly think Criterion is that out of line. What is out of line is retailers selling the discs for full MSRP, rather than the discounted prices the others sell at. I don't care if the MSRP is $150 if I can get the disc for $30.
------------------
Link Removed | Burt Lancaster is Link Removed | dOc

 

[Ted Todorov]

Quote:

My perspective on watching a film is that the picture is the most important thing. Director commentaries are great, but the transfer is way more important. And again, I am not depriving myself of these movies -- in New York, at least, I have frequent enough opportunities to see them in a (good) movie theater.
Non-anamorphic subtitled films are especially problematic, as the subtitles are often on the letterbox, so you can't even zoom them in, which makes them essentially unwatchable on my 30" 16:9 TV. And so far as Mona Lisa is concerned, I will absolutely NOT buy it, because Criterion released it after their alleged conversion to anamorphic transfers. If they do not see any difference in their sales, they will just keep on pulling the same stuff in the future, possibly on movies I love even more. If they see that they are selling noticeably more of their 16:9 enhanced transfers, they will think twice the next time.
Don't get me wrong, as I said before, I love Criterion, they have given, and continue to give me much joy, but that does not mean I should happily accept anything with their name, nor that I should be impatient, just because I love a given movie.
Ted

 

[Marc Colella]

Well said Ted.
I noticed that Criterion's site has covers for their next batch of releases. Not a major deal, but I gotta say these covers are pretty bland compared to their usual artwork.
And speaking of anamorphic... The Ruling Class specs are listed as 1.77:1 and "Not Anamorphic". Looks like they fudged another release.
I am looking forward to Fellini's 8 1/2 however.
[Edited last by Marc Colella on September 01, 2001 at 05:57 PM]

 

[DonaldB]

This may seem like a stupid (flippant?) question, but why don't you 16x9 set owners upgrade to a 4x3 set? One that's large enough to accommodate widescreen films? One that does anamorphic squeeze?

 

[Ted Todorov]

quote: This may seem like a stupid (flippant?) question, but why don't you 16x9 set owners upgrade to a 4x3 set?[/quote]
Because 99.9% of movies released now a days are widescreen. Because the 1.37:1 movies do not demand a large screen in the manner that Lawrence of Arabia, 2001 or Star Wars do.
Because ALL of the world's best movie theaters have 1.85:1 or wider screens and the ultimate aim of a home theater is to be as close to them as possible. Human vision is, after all, deigned for "widescreen" viewing.
So the question is, why don't you 4:3 set owners face reality and upgrade to 16:9. Lets face, you are like the people who refuse to upgrade from a turntable to a CD player. 16:9 is the future. 4:3 is as dead as 8 track tape.
Ted
[Edited last by Ted Todorov on September 01, 2001 at 10:27 PM]

 

[Bryant Frazer]

Why don't you 4:3 set owners face reality and upgrade to 16:9. Lets face, you are like the people who refuse to upgrade from a turntable to a CD player. 16:9 is the future. 4:3 is as dead as 8 track tape.

Ya know, substantially every movie made before 1953 is in 4:3. Unlike phonograph records, which often sound better in the digital domain, Academy ratio films don't become widescreen just because they're played on a fancy TV. If your collection had lots of 4:3 movies in it (mine's about 50/50, I guess), wouldn't laying out the cash for that anamorphic screen become a little less pressing?
Anyway, to answer your original point, even if I had a 16x9 screen, it wouldn't have kept me from buying the non-anamorphic discs that are in my collection. I just don't think that way. Maybe that makes me part of the problem -- in that every non-anamorphic widescreen DVD that I happily consume is effectively a vote against our hobby going entirely anamorphic -- but I can't deny myself the pleasure of owning one of these titles just because the picture isn't as outstanding as it could be.
I mean, I've got about 300 laserdiscs that don't yet exist on DVD, and I still buy the occasional VHS tape. Maybe somebody should just take me out back and shoot me.
-bf-
------------------
Bryant Frazer
Deep Focus
www.deep-focus.com

 

[Jon Robertson]

The reason Mona Lisa isn't anamorphic is because Anchor Bay refused to give them access to the materials they needed to create a new transfer. Exactly the same with the two Bruce Robinson films.
Luckily they had very good, non-anamorphic filmmaker-approved transfers in all three cases.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Bryant: The attack on 4:3 people was not meant for you, but for those telling me/us to "upgrade" to 4:3 (Al Brown is another one). Of course there are reasons to have and keep a 4:3 set, and if your primary interest is in pre '53 movies, that is certainly one of them. In my case I do love (and have) plenty of old movies, but I have more wide screen ones. Also, as I said before, I don't see a problem with watching old 1.37:1 movies window boxed on my 16:9 TV -- they look just fine to me (indeed much better than on my old 27" 4:3 set).
Yes, I also understand the lesser allegiance to anamorphic transfers for people with large laser disk collections, etc. In my case, I didn't even have a TV much less laser/VHS collections before I got a DVD player (and per force, TV) in the beginning of '99. Before then I considered movies to be unwatchable on video -- you had to see them in a movie theater. DVD has (partly, anyway) convinced me otherwise. (I still strongly prefer to see them for the first time in a theater).
I don't think the Film Forum is all that bad -- it's no Walter Reade, but if you sit up close, at least the projection and prints are good. I just saw (for the first time!) The Wrong Man there and I had no complaints. The bad NYC theaters (IMHO) include the Anthology Film Archives and Angelika.
Ted

 

[DonaldB]

Ted, no one is telling anyone else to upgrade to a 4:3 set. We're just pointing out that a large 4:3 set with anamorphic squeeze accommodates widescreen films every bit as well as a widescreen set does. Better, in fact, because non-anamorphic discs with good transfers look outstanding on such a set, while they suffer when zoomed in on a widescreen monitor. I don't know the size of your set, but there are no doubt 4:3 anamporphic squeezing sets with screens that are just big from left to right as your's, probably even larger. Is it to their detriment that they also have extra screen area for displaying 4:3 images?
How can a widescreen set be superior when all it's good for is enhanced material? It obviously doesn't accommodate 4:3 material as well as a 4:3 set does, but I'm pleased to hear you're satisfied with the way your set handles it. Most 16:9 set owners bitch to no end about how small 4:3 images appear, and many mutilate 4:3 films by stretching them to fill the screen.
quote: So the question is, why don't you 4:3 set owners face reality and upgrade to 16:9. Lets face, you are like the people who refuse to upgrade from a turntable to a CD player. 16:9 is the future. 4:3 is as dead as 8 track tape.
[/quote]
This is quite frankly a specious line of reasoning, not to mention unnecessarily insulting. CDs and 8 track tapes are two completely different media with an obvious disparity in quality, while 16:9 and 4:3 sets are simply pieces of hardware with differing screen ratios, both capable of producing equally sharp images depending on the software used. Again, 4:3 sets display widescreen images just as wide, just as sharp as 16:9 sets do, with the added advantage that non-anamorphic material doesn't look like crap.
16:9 is not the future. 4:3 is not the future. There are brilliant films and, yes, TV programs, in all aspect ratios from the past, present and surely the future as well. Limiting yourself to a set which is only good for accommodating a fraction of the best films ever made is not a smart move for a cinephile.
Your overly defensive explanation for buying a widescreen set comes across not so much as a well-reasoned argument as it does a piss-poor rationalization for an unwise investment. I honestly say that with the greatest respect -- I know you're a fellow cinephile and I enjoy reading your posts, but it's clear you're missing out on many excellent discs due to the limitations of your hardware. I can't help but feel obliged to point that out. Please, civilly agree to disagree if you must, but don't take offense where none is intended, and don't think you're being belittled or told to do anything.
Sincerely,
Don
[Edited last by DonaldB on September 02, 2001 at 11:11 PM]

 

[DonaldB]

What was the subject of this thread again?

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Must we degrade this thread into a bunch of bitching and moaning over which aspect ratio TV is prefered?
The question here is whether Criterion can survive in today's market, and after reviewing yet another example of what Criterion is about with the Maysles' Grey Gardens, I have no fear that they will lose market share any time soon. They simply do an astounding job with what they have to work with, use impecable taste in selecting their supplements, and find films worthy of being bought sight unseen for my collection.
Personally, I prefer a widescreen set, as it presents both academy and widescreen films as relatively close to the theatrical experience as possible, by maintaining the height of the screen and varying the width, but I don't see any point in arguing over it.
------------------
Link Removed | Burt Lancaster is Link Removed | dOc

 

[Kevin Matthews]

Some houses might release a classic such as Seven Samurai or more obscure classics like Wages of Fear or Alphaville but will they go to the lengths that Criterion does to insure a quality picture and proper translations?
I doubt it, because the one thing that Criterion has over most (not all, but most) other independant DVD/video houses is a true love & respect for the films they are putting out & that isn't something that can be taught in "board meetings" or "market polls".
------------------
Kevin Matthews
No sir....I don't like it! - M. Horse

 

[Jon Robertson]

Amen, Kevin!

 

[Ted Todorov]

Donald,
I'm sorry, I take back everything I said about 8 track tape, etc. I was certainly not offended by anything you said, I just love to argue
Anyway, what I do stand by, as an argument for wide screen TVs, is the one I made about movie theaters screens in my above post. Any well designed movie theater maximizes the size of the screen for the space. HT is no different -- I couldn't even fit a 4:3 large enough to have as large a 16:9 picture as my 16:9 in my room. Furthermore, I don't think such a creature even exists -- to my knowledge there are no PAL/NTSC multi-standard 4:3, >= 36", with anamorphic squeeze TVs (the Europeans, who have the multi-standard TVs, have gone almost entirely 16:9 on TVs other than a tiny one for the kitchen -- and multi-standard is a non-negotiable feature for me).

Most 16:9 set owners bitch to no end about how small 4:3 images appear, and many mutilate 4:3 films by stretching them to fill the screen.

I am certainly not in that category -- I wouldn't dream of stretching 4:3 material. Nor do I have a problem with the size of my 4:3 image -- as I said above, I think that a movie like say Blade Runner requires a larger image than movies like Sullivan's Travels or Modern Times (which I consider to be two of the greatest movies ever made).
The one thing that a 4:3 set does deal with better are non-anamorphic subtitled movies, with the subtitles in the letterbox, with A.R.s between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1. The number of films that are in the above category, in languages I do not understand, is way too small to make any kind of argument for giving up on all the other advantages of a 16:9 TV (and I expect that all the ones falling in that category will be out in anamorphic transfer, somewhere in the world, within the next 3 years).
It doesn't matter for 2.35:1 films, because I can zoom them and move the picture to the top of the screen, leaving all the subtitles in the now wide enough letterbox at the bottom. I was just watching the Criterion Yojimbo this morning, and did just that.
Aha -- back on topic. As to Criterion survival so long as they are properly managed, and give us the best releases possible, they will survive. I'm counting on it.
Ted

 

[Jason_Els]

The reason "Brazil" is so spectacular is because of the horrendous battle the director had with Universal over how it was to be edited. Criterion wisely capitalized on that and went on to make a difinitive director's cut available that Universal would not release. No matter how great all the extras are however, it doesn't detract from the fact that Criterion's release is a direct transfer from a non-anamorphic laserdisc print. The truth is "Brazil" could look better but Criterion's "Brazil" boxed set tries to make up for it with some wonderful extras.
How many movies have this kind of twisted history? Truth is not many. Criterion will have to make up for its lack of library by producing technically masterful dvds and that includes anamorphic display, re-mastering of sound, and restoration where required along with enough extras to make the grade. Simply transfering a laserdisc title to DVD won't make it particularly if it's a widescreen title to begin with (with "Brazil" the exception).
I think for future security Criterion is going to have to delve more into classiic and foreign films which do not have major studios backing them in the American market. Even that market is not safe however since Criterion has lost rights to some of their better foreign dvds such as "400 Blows" and "Salo". Perhaps if Criterion created some boxed sets of particular genres like Masters of German Expressionism, The French New Wave, Film Noir, Italian Realism, Soviet Epics, Hammer Horror, etc. While maybe not the average fare it would be great for libraries and academic institutions and the few film collectors who like a varied and comprehensive library. There is no question DVD presents unparalleled opportunities for Criterion while it also presents some direct and difficult challenges.
I admire the work Criterion has done but as I've pointed out in past posts their customer service is abysmal and hasn't won me any particular loyalty from me as a dvd production house. If someone else can do it as well and cheaper then I'd buy it.
Thanks!
Jason Ashley
[Edited last by Jason_Els on September 03, 2001 at 02:19 PM]

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

Direct transfer from Laserdisc? I don't think so. First of all, I'm told Criterion swears that they haven't done that with any of their DVD's (which I'm not sure I believe), but in any case Brazil is one of the best pre-anamorphic Criterion transfers, and it is substantially better-looking than the original Universal DVD. If they make laserdisc transfers like that, then I wish more DVD's were laserdisc transfers. As far as I'm concerned, the only way the DVD could look better (except for a couple moments with digital artifacting) would be if it were anamorphic.

 

[Rouslan Sytnik]

-
[Edited last by Rouslan Sytnik on September 07, 2001 at 10:00 PM]

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

“The 39 Steps” is public domain and still MSRP is $40.

Which Criterion did extensive restoration on. If they have to license, or are spending time restoring things, do they not have a right to ask for a higher price? The market will decide whether they can get it.
As for titles that are not licensed in North America, such as Solaris, there is nothing stopping anyone from importing them, however if I held the rights for one of these in a region, I would be disturbed that someone was releasing product coded for that region, after all the rights aren't free.
------------------
Link Removed | Burt Lancaster is Link Removed | dOc