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

[Rouslan Sytnik]

-
[Edited last by Rouslan Sytnik on September 07, 2001 at 10:01 PM]

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

wish RUSCICO startl release dual layer DVDs instead of this 2 DVD set.

If they are anything like the recently released Moscow Does Not Believe In Tears (Kino licenced Ruscico title) both discs ARE dual layered.
------------------
Link Removed | Burt Lancaster is Link Removed | dOc

 

[Ted Todorov]

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.

Oh come on, don’t tell me that you are actually in favor of region coding? I hope this abomination goes away, and soon. (If the world took it’s trade laws seriously, region coding would have been declared illegal a long time ago).
The fact is, that a studio like Criterion would be greatly HELPED by the abolition of region coding. Most of their releases would easily beat their foreign competitors. And if competition forces them to upgrade some of their non-anamorphic transfers, that will ultimately help them with increased sales.
I long for the day of free worldwide DVD competition, where studios like Criterion and MK2 would reign supreme and Fox-Lorber would be out of business.
Ted

 

[Rouslan Sytnik]

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

 

[Bryant Frazer]

WB did extensive restoration on “North By Northwest” and MSRP is $20.
Other movies Criterion buy rights and do restoration too but also ask $40.

I think maybe you're underestimating the economies of scale that are involved in a Hollywood studio releasing a beloved Hitchcock film versus a New York-based boutique DVD publisher releasing an earlier, lesser-known black-and-white film.
Even if The 39 Steps sold on the order of North by Northwest, Criterion has a vested interest in adhering to a pricing scheme that works across their catalog, rather than one that varies widely depending on the perceived value and/or sales potential of each given title. After all, if Criterion priced The 39 Steps at $20, wouldn't purchasers of, say, Sullivan's Travels want to know why that disc isn't $20, too?
-bf-
------------------
Bryant Frazer
Deep Focus
www.deep-focus.com

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

My review of Moscow Does Not Believe in tears is here . It may only be 150 minutes, but has three 5.1 language tracks plus a good deal of supplemental features.
As for region coding, I am in favour of respecting the distribution rights for a given territory, especially for a company such as Ruscico, who would most likely be the source Criterion would have to buy their license from. If I held the ownership of a film, licensed it to third parties exclusively for a given territory, then released my own version into those territories, it is illegal, especially when I could also be holding up the delivery of suitable elements for the licensee, or providing inferior materials. It is a conflict of interest.
I am not accusing Ruscico of this, but the potential is there, and if so, why should a company like Criterion bother to license anything at all, other than having some protection that they won't face unfair competition in regions they own distribution for?
That is not to say that a private citizen is not allowed to import the version created in another region, as is commonplace, however distributing titles whose rights you do not hold in a territory is not acceptable.
------------------
Link Removed | Burt Lancaster is Link Removed | dOc

 

[Kevin M]

quote: 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?
Yes, the other houses will do!
Check “Hong Kong Legends” titles. RUSCICO. Anchor Bay.
I bought CTS DVD of Russian movie “Thief”. Great picture quality and translation. I can speak Russian and I read translation. It’s good.
Criterion approach WAS unique, but not anymore.[/quote]
That is all well & good but would houses like "Hong Kong Classics" & RUSCICO release such widely different films as Alphaville - Wages of Fear - Seven Samurai - Carnival of Souls - SALO - The Long Good Friday - Rushmore - M - Nanook of the North - Fishing with John(TV) & Spartacus? No I very much doubt that any house would have this kind of diversity and that is why I will pay the money that they ask, to me and many others it is very much worth it that any house is releasing these obscure films let alone doing them with respect. In fact the only two other houses that I can think of that stray outside of their niche market(I.E. Horror/Russian/Hong Kong) are Image & Anchor Bay and not nearly as wide as Criterion.
Only Anchor Bay IMO has the level of quality & respect that Criterion shows towards these obscure films but still stays for the most part in the Horror/B-movie/Sci-fi genera.
quote: 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".
Who owns Criterion? I think that Criterion do have “board meetings” and they discuss such things like profits.[/quote]
Yes but they seem to not listen to these "market polls" or "board meetings" because I doubt the suits would have thought that a film like Carnival og Souls or Fishing with John or SALO would ever pull in a profit like Armageddon or The Rock would.....but they still put them out with as much attention to detail and respect as they do the "big" films.
Now on to the original point of the whole thread: Do I Think That Criterion Can Make It In Todays Marketplace?
......I not so sure of that anymore because I agree that the big studios are seeing that there is a buck to be made in these funny little "DVD things" and will not be as giving to the little guys as they had been in the past but I also think that it depends on how much we DVD lovers actually want quality presentations of the more obscure titles and hard to get classics (Foreign or not) that Criterion offers us.
Time will tell and I tend to agree that even if they do go under (I doubt this but...) that at least there are a few houses out there that might be able to take up the mantle.
------------------
-Kevin M.
"Have a good time all the time........that's my philosophy, Marty."
[Edited last by Kevin M on September 04, 2001 at 07:05 PM]

 

[Alex Shk]

I've made this comparison before - and I think it bears repeating:
In the audio realm, there are several labels (Classic Records, DCC, MFSL*) that lease titles, remaster them and offer superior resolution for discriminating customers. As these companies are small, and as the cost of their restoration cannot be covered by mass market sales, the price is high. The major labels do not mind leasing these titles - even as their own versions remain in print - because the high sticker price clearly aims at a different market.
I feel the same about Criterion. The investment they make will not be supported by high volume sales. They have repeatedly shown a superior understanding of the films they offer by providing insightful, interesting supplements. (Please understand - I have yet to remove the second disc from the case on The Abyss, T2, Fight Club or Cast Away. I have watched all the Criterion supplements on every disc I've purchased). The fact that they occasionally deal in more mainstream fare neither takes away or adds to the luster, if you feel their issue of Armageddon or The Rock is worth the investment, go for it. If not - the standard issue is available.
It's quite simple - sometimes a couple of Budweisers is just what you need. And sometimes you just got to have a bottle of Dom Perignion.
*BTW - MFSL went out-of-business due to a distributor that went belly-up and left them holding the bag. The name, equipment, mastering patents and active "title leases" have been bought, are currently in production, and titles should re-appear in the fall.
------------------

 

[Rob Robinson]

Kevin= Good Points.
I appreciate Criterion, but some people have points-
I think we do treat them different as a company- they are "good guys" as opposed to the "suits" at AOL/Warner/Vivendi/Universal/Microsoft-globex megacorp.
Having said that, I think they have 2 worries, neither of which have much to do with their "niche status":
1. Content owners wisening up- perhaps seeing how beloved Criterion is to enthusiest, and brining much of those values in house. In fact, i bet next year we'll see a couple spinoff "prestige" brands coming out of the studios. Not lines, like Platinum or infifilm, but full fledged business units with their own management, etc. (Maybe they will try something underhanded and a couple of the big guys could create this company together, in order to compete directly with Criterion (and themselves).
2. Now that DVD is really establishing itself as a legitimate creative/production outlet in and of itself, and the tools to create them are becoming accessible (new mac g4 with burner and software for under 5k- remember the desktop publishing "revolution") I bet we can look forward to more tiny niche shops springing up, creating top caliber discs for independent/public domain films, and possibly earning enough loot or professioanl respect to get AAA titles.
I think Criterion may have it's work cut out for them, but that's a good thing. Assuming the market continues at the pace it is right now, they'll always be ok (they've made it this long). Hopefully we'll get some new crews of gifted creative film lovers and producers churning out discs we love, fighting for our dollars- Then Criterion may have to step up, and show us all WHY they are the best niche house. We could all win. woohoo.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Well, if the desktop publishing analogy holds up Criterion has nothing to fear, as all DT did was bring the quality of publishing down as every yahoo with a computer figured he was publisher, despite having no asthetic ability, knowledge of typesetting or printing. It did lead to lots and lots of crap being produced.
While the authoring systems are coming down in price, it still requires talent to produce top quality product. You aren't going to get people who know color, compression and UI design just anywhere, let alone those who excel at it. So long as Criterion can gain access to great films, I have no problem supporting them (assuming I can support myself).
------------------
Link Removed | Burt Lancaster is Link Removed | dOc

 

[Rob Robinson]

Jeff-
you make a decent point, but at the same time you're pointing out the obvious. It's silly to consider anyone with a copy of MS publisher or a warez version of photoshop a "designer". Possession of tools does not make one a craftsman. But I stand by my point that the accessibility technology brings with it benefits everyone- look at Kyle Cooper and the late Scott Makela- their roots were in Mac based design and typography and they went on to animate perhaps one of most influential modern title pieces (Se7en), which ulitmately allowed Coop to establish Imaginary Forces as one of the powerhouse motion graphics design and effect firms in Hollywood. I will be bold enough to say that that probably COULD NOT have happened without the mac.
You mentioned compression- this is a good example. This technology is moving forward quickly, and I'm confident that within the next couple of years, it will be nailed to the point where getting a high quality DVD master from a high quality source (key) will be a no brainer- pick a bandwidth rate from a pulldown menu and render.
I think at the end of the day the biggest thing we have going is a new familiarity with the medium. There are tons of expereienced, award winning interactive art directors and designers (ahem) who are spending ALOT of time picking apart the benefits the format brings. Just as Adobe AfterFX got traditional type based designers such as David Carson and Makela interested in making their work come to life, I think it's only really a matter of time before some one notices the cheap DVD mastering software and decides to branch out and trys to push this new medium- and thats what it's becoming- a new medium. It's only a matter of time before art schools with motion departing start programs, and surely some kids will rise to the top.
I think the biggest issues facing "indy" DVD firms are:
1) Business Issues/film rights etc...
2) Quality Producers; producers with the access neccesary to assemble supplimentary footage from ground one, and with the vision to create a package that both showcases the film and pushes the medium at once.
Again Jeff, typesetting the company newsletter doesnt make one a designer, just like a having a "Home Page" on geocities or tripod (or god forbid, your own "domain name")does make one a "web designer".
I do feel VERY strongly though that there will be a wave of talent ready to bring their skills and vision to the format that we love so much. We will notice, and Criterion will too.
I've not been here very long (though I do like it), so make of my opinion what you may. But it's how I feel, and I'm laying it out there.
[Edited last by Rob Robinson on September 05, 2001 at 01:55 AM]

 

[Jeff Adkins]

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).

That's wrong. Criterion does own most of the films they release (the Janus film library) and has also released several public domain titles. Also, Anchor Bay has to pay licensing fees on many of the titles they've released, but have yet to release a $40 single-disc DVD. Anchor Bay also reprices older titles from time to time. This is being done by just about everyone in the industry except Criterion. Repricing of back catalog is about to become even more common in the 4th quarter of this year as this story indicates. Criterion simply refuses to let go of the laserdisc mentality in terms of repricing of back catalog. Goodtimes is paying licensing fees on the titles they've licensed from Universal, yet they're available for $5.99 at any K-Mart. Other studios such as Image and Synapse do great restoration and have to pay licensing fees but don't charge $40. This excuse regarding "licensing fees" being the reason for $40 discs is total bullshit.
Jeff

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Some posts in this thread seem to assume that when a title lapses into the public domain, that the owner of the best available film and audio elements is somehow obligated to loan them to every Tom, Dick, and Madacy that wants to do a video release. Criterion goes the extra mile to find and license the best materials they can locate. Madacy & Laserlight et al do not. If a quality presentation is important to you, then you are debating the prices of apples versus oranges. Even owning the license for a title does not mean that you will have access to the best available elements if the licensor does not have and/or provide them.
Criterion is not perfect, but they are among the most trustworthy of DVD brands. If you read the descriptions of other companys' elite brands such as Buena Vista's new "Vista" series ("celebrating the filmmaker's vision"), they sound like they are aspiring to accomplish what Criterion has been doing since their first laserdisc release.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Gary Tooze]

Super discussion... I would love to add something being one DVD owner that has every Criterion title in his collection... I think it is useless complaining about prices as it is all supply and demand. The market dictates the price. Criterion is aware they could sell more DVDs if their prices were lower, but I'll assume that their market share would not be the same: they wouldn't sell enough to make the same coin... they are not selling a product that is as mass produced and sold as say "The Matrix"... it's their choice and yours whether or not to purchase...

If they are anything like the recently released Moscow Does Not Believe In Tears (Kino licensed Ruscico title) both discs ARE dual layered.

My RusCiCo "The Cranes are Flying" is dual layered on one disc and my review is http://207.136.67.23/film/Reviews/cranes%20are%20flying%20ruscico.htm#[email protected]
DVD COLLECTION CONTEST , My DVD Collection ,My Home Theatre
DVDBeaver's 15 Member choices of the TOP 111 DVDs available today!

 

[Rouslan Sytnik]

[Edited last by Rouslan Sytnik on September 07, 2001 at 10:08 PM]

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

And speaking of anamorphic... The Ruling Class specs are listed as 1.77:1 and "Not Anamorphic". Looks like they fudged another release.

Subsequent to Marc Colella's post, Criterion revised http://www.criterionco.com/asp/release.asp?id=132
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Why they don’t do it? They did something like this for Brasil. For me the answer is obvious. There was already Brasil from Universal and they need to make a better version.

Not quite as obvious as you assume. Criterion's Brazil was the pinnacle of the LD market, and the DVD is a pretty direct port, as was Hard Boiled, as was The Killer. Try to remember also that all three of these releases are years old now (1998), where newer versions have come to market since. If Criterion were to address any of theses titles NOW, the results could be quite different. At the time, Killer and Hard Boiled were the only versions available, and were director approved transfers on the equipment of the day, and from elements Fox Lorber had provided.
While Universal had a bare bones Brazil DVD out first, the original SE preceded it by several years on LD.
------------------
Link Removed | Burt Lancaster is Link Removed | dOc

 

[Bryant Frazer]

And WHY do you LIKE to pay high prices? Why do you always looking for justification for a higher prices?

I like paying Criterion's prices simply because I find their products endlessly delightful. I mean, I bought the Ruscico release of Solaris and I think it's pretty damn good. But I'm still looking forward to the Criterion disc, which I fully expect to be better -- at least in terms of extras. (I wouldn't mind losing that 5.1 remix, either, though it's actually pretty good. It lost me during the scene where it sounded like my room was actually inside a wind chime, which I doubt was Tarkovsky's intended effect.)
And I'm confident that a studio release of Sullivan's Travels would no way, no how, include the type of delightful supplements that Criterion has unearthed. I mean, just the package is a treasure. It makes me happy merely to slide it onto my shelf.
I'll say it again: Criterion has cultivated a different sensibility. It's not a mass-market sensibility, nor is it one that could thrive in the mass market. Is that sensibility worth the higher price it commands? To me, the answer is yes, yes, quite literally a hundred times yes. I could have a DVD library made up entirely of Criterion titles -- to the exclusion of everything else -- and derive endless pleasure from it. (Throw in all the laserdiscs and I may never leave the TV room.) I can't say that about any other single producer of DVDs.
-bf-
------------------
Bryant Frazer
Deep Focus
www.deep-focus.com

 

[Kevin M]

Rouslan,
the list and link you gave still do not convince me that a company like Ruscico or a company like Hong Kong Legends(sorry) have (or ever will have) the intentional diversity that Criterion has. And I do not understand why you think an independent that primarily deals in Russo films like Ruscico would, or in fact could, ever have the diversity that Criterion has.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not ignoring the non-Russian films in their catalog & I'm not putting the company down at all but I'm also not ever expecting to see SALO, Sisters or Carnival Of Souls in their catalog either (needless to say I also don't expect "Hong Kong" Legends to have them either) I know you will argue this point but, again, nothing you have shown me has convinced me otherwise.
Also I have to wonder if you are even reading my posts all the way through because I clearly stated that Image & Anchor Bay do indeed go outside of their apparent niche markets of B-Movies/Horror/Sci-fi films and TV shows to offer a bit more diversity but not nearly as wide as Criterion's catalog.
Also I have to say that Image didn't IMO go into this "specialty market" until the big studios began getting more & more greedy (or if you wish, wise) with their back catalogs, the main reason some folks think Criterion is going to have a hard time of it.
By the way what ever happened to Elite? I haven't heard much about them for some time.
------------------
-Kevin M.
"Have a good time all the time........that's my philosophy, Marty."
[Edited last by Kevin M on September 06, 2001 at 10:01 AM]

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Elite has gone onto the shit list after their thoughtless massacre of Masterworks of German Horror and their badly botched Drivein discs. I suspected that once Don May was gone that Elite would head for the tank, and I think I was right. The quality all went with Don to Synapse.
The part that bothers me is why the majors refuse to release their classics themselves but also refuse to license them to Criterion. Is it really that some midlevel manager is afraid of looking bad if someone else makes a little money on their property? Warner's enormous and almost completely unreleased back catalog comes to mind.
------------------
"This movie has warped my fragile little mind."