Criterion Press Release: The Princess Bride (Blu-ray)

3 Stars
D1sGyBP0Y8kOCMxXgh7HuaLPzmPBP9_large.

A high-spirited adventure that pits true love against inconceivable odds, The Princess Bride has charmed legions of fans with its irreverent gags, eccentric ensemble, and dazzling swordplay. A kid (Fred Savage), home sick from school, grudgingly allows his grandfather (Peter Falk) to read him a dusty storybook—which is how we meet the innocent Buttercup (Robin Wright, in her breakout role), about to marry the nefarious Prince Humperdinck (Chris Sarandon) though her heart belongs to Westley (Cary Elwes). The wedding plans are interrupted, however, by a mysterious pirate, a vengeful Spaniard, and a good-natured giant, in a tale full of swashbuckling, romance, and outrageously hilarious spoofery. Directed by Rob Reiner from an endlessly quotable script by Oscar winner William Goldman, The Princess Bride reigns as a fairy-tale classic.

FILM INFO

  • Rob Reiner
  • United States
  • 1987
  • 98 minutes
  • 1.85:1
  • English
  • Spine #948

SPECIAL FEATURES

  • New 4K digital transfer, with 5.1 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack on the Blu-ray
  • Audio commentary from 1996 featuring director Rob Reiner, screenwriter William Goldman, producer Andrew Scheinman, and actors Billy Crystal and Peter Falk
  • Edited 1987 audiobook reading of Goldman’s novel The Princess Bride by Reiner
  • New program about Goldman’s screenplay
  • New program about Goldman’s tapestry based on the film
  • Archival interviews with Reiner, Goldman, and actors Crystal, Cary Elwes, Christopher Guest, Mandy Patinkin, Chris Sarandon, Fred Savage, and Robin Wright
  • New interview with art director Richard Holland
  • Programs about makeup, fencing, and fairy tales
  • On-set video diary filmed and narrated by Elwes
  • Five behind-the-scenes videos with commentaries from 1996 by Reiner, Scheinman, and Crystal
  • Trailer
  • PLUS: An essay by author Sloane Crosley and, for the Blu-ray edition, Goldman’s introduction to his Princess Bride script from the 1995 collection Four Screenplays, in a lavishly illustrated, clothbound book

New cover by Angela Rizza

  • October 30, 2018

Published by

Ronald Epstein

administrator

75 Comments

  1. The price link below will take you directly to the product on Amazon. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

    [parsehtml]
    <iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=htfronsposts-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B07FMHCMT2&asins=B07FMHCMT2&linkId=b6be514d6e943cf670515f7c5cbd74b0&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"></iframe>
    [/parsehtml]

  2. When I saw this announced earlier this morning, I immediately added it to my list of future purchases. We know the Criterion will do the film justice.

    But then I found out that the new 4K digital transfer has been used to make a true 4K HDR version of the film available via both VUDU and iTunes. At iTunes it is 4K Dolby Vision and currently priced at $14.99.

    As much as I love collecting Criterions, I'm now having a difficult time justifying spending more than $14.99 for a version that I know will look great, but almost certainly not as great looking as a true 4K Dolby Vision presentation.

    That said, while watching Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation via my Apple TV 4K yesterday, I noticed some stuttering during a fast pan of the cityscape. It was quite obvious and somewhat objectionable. I rather doubt the 4K Blu-ray would exhibit the same problem.

    I sure wish Criterion would start doing UHD releases. Or perhaps this will get a 4K Blu-ray release from the studio after it's been available on the Criterion standard Blu-ray for awhile?

    Mark

  3. Turns out the 30th Anniversary Blu-ray version (released in September 2017) includes a digital HD copy that is redeemable in iTunes. That Blu-ray is currently available at Amazon for $7.99. Which means the 4K Dolby Vision version through Apple TV 4K is only $7.99 if you buy the 30th Anniversary Blu-ray and redeem the code directly in iTunes.

    I've ordered the 30th Anniversary Blu-ray from Amazon. I'll report my findings.

    Mark

  4. There is no question in my mind that The Princess Bride deserves the Criterion treatment. It was never one of my favorites, but as a child of the late eighties, it was a favorite for so many of my friends that I feel like I can quote the movie from beginning to end through sheer osmosis. It's nice to see the Criterion audio commentary from the laserdisc release brought to high-definition.

    But I'm always a little disappointed when Criterion announces a title that's already gotten a studio release on Blu-Ray. There are so many movies that haven't made it to high definition at all yet that I hate to see double dips. Hopefully the revenue from the higher profile double dips helps fund the more esoteric offerings.

  5. This is what, the fourth Blu-ray release of this particular film. We had the original BD release then a 25th Anniversary followed by a 30th Anniversary just last year that is available in 4K/UHD on Vudu and iTunes. I have to agree with Adam, Mark and Bryan about this particular title. I think I'm going to buy the 30th Anniversary release and redeem my digital copy on iTunes and call it a day.

  6. Mark Booth

    Turns out the 30th Anniversary Blu-ray version (released in September 2017) includes a digital HD copy that is redeemable in iTunes. That Blu-ray is currently available at Amazon for $7.99. Which means the 4K Dolby Vision version through Apple TV 4K is only $7.99 if you buy the 30th Anniversary Blu-ray and redeem the code directly in iTunes.

    I've ordered the 30th Anniversary Blu-ray from Amazon. I'll report my findings.

    Mark

    This is exactly what I did months ago. $7.99 for a 4K digital copy blues Blu Ray is a steal.

  7. Tino

    This is exactly what I did months ago. $7.99 for a 4K digital copy blues Blu Ray is a steal.

    The disc on the 30th Anniversary is the same as the 25th Anniversary. The 4K digital copy is something different on the 30th Anniversary while this Criterion release is a different disc derived from the same transfer as the 4k digital copy.

  8. BTW, in another forum, someone posted that it is generally agreed that a streaming 4K image is generally considered about on par with a standard HD Blu-ray image. I didn't respond there, but that's a load of hogwash. Yes, I've had a few instances of stuttering in the image during fast pans while watching 4K content via my Apple TV 4K. Possibly a result of compression? But, other than that, the 4K content I've watched via Apple TV 4K has been superlative! Particularly the Dolby Vision content.

    Granted, some movies just don't benefit much from a 4K HDR release. But those that do are just as beautiful from the Apple TV 4K as they are from the 4K Blu-ray.

    Mark

  9. I think we're reaching the tipping point for Criterion. When enthusiasts who are their target audience start passing on what should be a no-brainer release like this it's time for them to jump in the UHD game. Getting a new Criterion should never feel like one is settling for something less than the best available.

  10. I'm not a fan of Criterion putting out editions of films that have already been well covered on the blu-ray format – The Breakfast Club, Being There, Silence of the Lambs, Dr. Strangelove, Some Like It Hot, The Princess Bride, etc. The exception to that would be if Criterion can really bring something new and novel to the public like in the case of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. If the reason for the release is a marginal to somewhat better master or new extras, I'd just rather see Criterion use its time and resources on something that isn't available on blu. That said, I've heard the argument that these type of releases help the company stay in business, and I can respect that logic (the late David Shepard remarked that another edition of The Phantom of the Opera typically would pay for the silent films that didn't sell all that well). I also can't say that I've been entirely shut out this year – King of Jazz, Young Mr. Lincoln, Heaven Can Wait, My Man Godfrey, etc. I wish that I could include a Harold Lloyd title and The Wedding March to that list, but that's a topic for another discussion.

    As for The Princess Bride, I've only seen it once some twenty years ago and that was in my sixth grade English class. Perhaps I should revisit this title since I really don't have much more than a few fleeting memories of it.

  11. Arthur Powell

    As for The Princess Bride, I've only seen it once some twenty years ago and that was in my sixth grade English class. Perhaps I should revisit this title since I really don't have much more than a few fleeting memories of it.

    Inconceivable!

  12. Michel_Hafner

    No UHD no purchase.

    This week I decided to raise the maximum price I'd spend for a 4K Blu-ray catalog title from $9.99 to $14.99. I went a bit nuts during Amazon's Prime Day sale and have 19 titles arriving. I even stretched the budget for a couple of titles, spending a bit more than $14.99 but justified it because I got 8 titles for $10 each and a few other titles below $13. The average for the 19 is $12.52 each.

    I'm sure I'll buy more Criterion titles in the future but, in all likelihood, they will only be titles that I don't already own. I'm not going to upgrade an existing HD DVD or Blu-ray with another standard HD Blu-ray. If the film is getting a 4K restoration then I want the title on 4K Blu-ray. Criterion needs to jump on the 4K bandwagon, and soon.

    Mark

  13. dpippel

    Inconceivable!

    He made that phrase so iconic that I cannot see Wallace Shawn in any other role without that phrase coming to mind. He was recently on Young Sheldon for a few episodes and I kept hoping maybe he'd say it. 😀

  14. So far Criterion has no interest in releasing UHD period (since its too damn expensive for one and their catalog doesn't really lend itself to that format) so saying "NO UHD NO SALEZ!" is not going to mean a hill of beans to them.

  15. Received my $7.99 Blu-ray + digital HD copy of 'The Princess Bride'. Had no trouble redeeming the code directly in iTunes. Fired up the Apple TV 4K and watched about 15 minutes of the movie (in 4K Dolby Vision), skipping around a bit. The image quality is outstanding! I see filmic grain structure and I don't see edge enhancement. Colors are bright yet natural. HDR appears to be used effectively yet not excessively (I didn't watch the entire film yet).

    I'm sure the Criterion will look good, maybe even great. But there's no way it will look as good as what I just viewed.

    $2.99 plus tax after my friend takes the Blu-ray off my hands.

    Mark

  16. Lord Dalek

    So far Criterion has no interest in releasing UHD period (since its too damn expensive for one and their catalog doesn't really lend itself to that format) so saying "NO UHD NO SALEZ!" is not going to mean a hill of beans to them.

    I forget – how long did it take Criterion to move to Blu-ray?

    I know they were slow to adopt anamorphic DVDs…

  17. Colin Jacobson

    I forget – how long did it take Criterion to move to Blu-ray?

    About three years. Bottle Rocket, Chungking Express, and Walkabout came out in October 2008, with sporadic releases following thereafter. They didn't fully support the format completely until 2012 IIRC.

    They'd probably have to axe dvds completely to support UHD.

  18. Lord Dalek

    About three years. Bottle Rocket, Chungking Express, and Walkabout came out in October 2008, with sporadic releases following thereafter. They didn't fully support the format completely until 2012 IIRC.

    They'd probably have to axe dvds completely to support UHD.

    I think you're right about it being the Fall of 2008. There were about 6-8 titles.

  19. I wonder how Criterion would handle HDR. Unless it's used very sparingly, or not at all, it would seem to run counter to their practise of presenting films as closely as possible to their theatrical presentation.

  20. Lord Dalek

    So far Criterion has no interest in releasing UHD period (since its too damn expensive for one and their catalog doesn't really lend itself to that format).

    I disagree with that. Technically their catalogue with all the 4K restorations definitely is suitable for UHD. Artistically their choice of films is also as well. Every classic shot on 35mm or even 16mm can profit from UHD with cinema gamut and 10 bit resolution and better compression (HDR is not needed but nice for selected titles). Financially it may be early still to launch UHD, but a trial balloon with a top title to see the response would hardly bankrupt them. If they continue to ignore UHD other labels will step in with these 4K restorations where Criterion has not worldwide exclusive rights. If they are afraid of costs they could at least make the titles available on streaming sites.

  21. Worth

    I wonder how Criterion would handle HDR. Unless it's used very sparingly, or not at all, it would seem to run counter to their practise of presenting films as closely as possible to their theatrical presentation.

    Seems to me Criterion has already strayed from that practice, given there are at least a handful of releases that lack the original theatrical audio.

    And never mind transfers that may or may not have been "recolored"!

  22. The price link below will take you directly to the product on Amazon. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

    [parsehtml]
    <iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=htfronsposts-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B07FMHCMT2&asins=B07FMHCMT2&linkId=b6be514d6e943cf670515f7c5cbd74b0&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"></iframe>
    [/parsehtml]

  23. Arthur Powell

    I'm not a fan of Criterion putting out editions of films that have already been well covered on the blu-ray format – The Breakfast Club, Being There, Silence of the Lambs, Dr. Strangelove, Some Like It Hot, The Princess Bride, etc. The exception to that would be if Criterion can really bring something new and novel to the public like in the case of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. If the reason for the release is a marginal to somewhat better master or new extras, I'd just rather see Criterion use its time and resources on something that isn't available on blu. That said, I've heard the argument that these type of releases help the company stay in business, and I can respect that logic (the late David Shepard remarked that another edition of The Phantom of the Opera typically would pay for the silent films that didn't sell all that well). I also can't say that I've been entirely shut out this year – King of Jazz, Young Mr. Lincoln, Heaven Can Wait, My Man Godfrey, etc. I wish that I could include a Harold Lloyd title and The Wedding March to that list, but that's a topic for another discussion.

    As for The Princess Bride, I've only seen it once some twenty years ago and that was in my sixth grade English class. Perhaps I should revisit this title since I really don't have much more than a few fleeting memories of it.

    When did Criterion release Some Like it Hot?

  24. battlebeast

    Criterion has so many titles that need upgrading from DVD to Blu, it makes no sense for them to jump into UHD and have to start all over again.

    Agreed I have no desire to start replacing my Criterion BRs with UHD, most of my UHD discs are new releases.

  25. battlebeast

    Criterion has so many titles that need upgrading from DVD to Blu, it makes no sense for them to jump into UHD and have to start all over again.

    Yes, no, maybe…but what would be wrong with Criterion upgrading those DVD titles by offering both a Blu and a UHD in the same package…as others have been doing? Future-proof, my good friend, future-proof.

  26. PMF

    Yes, no, maybe…but what would be wrong with Criterion upgrading those DVD titles by offering both a Blu and a UHD in the same package…as others have been doing? Future-proof, my good friend, future-proof.

    If you included UHD and Blu, then you have to have DVD and Digital as well, because it you don't people will complain otherwise.

  27. darkrock17

    I understand, but shouldn't the classics be getting the UHD treatment before anything else though?

    Well, first off, I agree with your sensibilities concerning classics coming first. Now, with that said, it's been stated that not all classics are candidates for UHD; and when I say "candidates", I am borrowing a term used by Robert Harris from other threads on this very topic. And then there's the needed revenue. Contemporary titles bring those very monies in, which are sometimes needed to make it possible for a classic to get such treatment. The same applies even with titles that are just recently making it from DVD to Blu, after so many years. And that's just the simplified information, whereas far greater experts on HTF; such as RAH, Matt Hough, haineshisway, Josh Steinberg and the like; have taught us on wider and more intrinsic levels. Yup, I sure do wish that every title was UHD material; but apparently they are not. But Blu seems to be the reliable answer for all films, especially when anything more ends up being too much. Still, this is not a deal-breaker towards my own interests in UHD. The best from both are always welcomed and embraced.

  28. darkrock17

    If you included UHD and Blu, then you have to have DVD and Digital as well, because it you don't people will complain otherwise.

    Valid point. But where, then, do we go from here or there?

  29. PMF

    Valid point. But where, then, do we go from here or there?

    I have two answers, the sarcastic one is to appease everyone by not only having everything already stated but have VHS, Laserdisc, Beta and Super-8 as well.

    The non sarcastic one is to just follow the trend of including everything or separately for those who only want one over the other.

  30. darkrock17

    I understand, but shouldn't the classics be getting the UHD treatment before anything else though?

    No – new movies should be the primary candidates for UHD because… why wouldn't they? It makes sense for titles to debut on UHD.

    After that, studios are more likely to go with newer titles that already have "modern" transfers and they don't need to invest in upgrades for 4K…

  31. Colin Jacobson

    No – new movies should be the primary candidates for UHD because… why wouldn't they? It makes sense for titles to debut on UHD.

    After that, studios are more likely to go with newer titles that already have "modern" transfers and they don't need to invest in upgrades for 4K…

    But if you cater only to the new films, that leaves the ones who truly need the 4K job to rot in their cans in a vault somewhere.

  32. darkrock17

    But if you cater only to the new films, that leaves the ones who truly need the 4K job to rot in their cans in a vault somewhere.

    It's not "catering". Do you think they shouldn't release 4K UHD versions of new films, like they need to meet a quota of old films before we can get the new "Avengers" on UHD? <_<

  33. Colin Jacobson

    It's not "catering". Do you think they shouldn't release 4K UHD versions of new films, like they need to meet a quota of old films before we can get the new "Avengers" on UHD? <_<

    Like I said already, UHD is fad in my opinion, it should be ONLY for films that do need restorations, not just any old film like they are doing currently.

  34. darkrock17

    Like I said already, UHD is fad in my opinion, it should be ONLY for films that do need restorations, not just any old film like they are doing currently.

    Why? A new film quite likely will already have a 4K transfer available. Why should that transfer only be downconverted to 1080p quality and made available only on a BD when it can just as easily also be put on a 4K UHD? There isn't much additional cost, unlike a classic which may require extensive costs for a 4K restoration.

    If 4K UHD is just a fad, then so was BD, DVD, Laserdisc, etc.

  35. darkrock17

    Like I said already, UHD is fad in my opinion, it should be ONLY for films that do need restorations, not just any old film like they are doing currently.

    "Fad" is a really odd word to use for an entire format.

    In keeping with the movie featured in this thread, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    So you don't think brand-new movies should come out on UHD? "Dunkirk" was shot mainly with IMAX film cameras – should it have only been available on Blu-ray instead of 4K UHD as well just because it's not old?

  36. Scott Merryfield

    Why? A new film quite likely will already have a 4K transfer available. Why should that transfer only be downconverted to 1080p quality and made available only on a BD when it can just as easily also be put on a 4K UHD? There isn't much additional cost, unlike a classic which may require extensive costs for a 4K restoration.

    If 4K UHD is just a fad, then so was BD, DVD, Laserdisc, etc.

    That's the point the money should be used for the restoration not some stupid popcorn flick.

  37. Colin Jacobson

    "Fad" is a really odd word to use for an entire format.

    In keeping with the movie featured in this thread, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    So you don't think brand-new movies should come out on UHD? "Dunkirk" was shot mainly with IMAX film cameras – should it have only been available on Blu-ray instead of 4K UHD as well just because it's not old?

    Everything and it's mother getting a 4K UHD release is a fad in my opinion, if everyone is getting it it doesn't make it special or mean anything.

  38. darkrock17

    Everything and it's mother getting a 4K UHD release is a fad in my opinion, if everyone is getting it it doesn't make it special or mean anything.

    Sigh.

    Why does every release need to be "special"? Why shouldn't "everything and its mother" get a UHD release? Should the format only be reserved for "classics"? Who decides what these "classics" are, anyway?

    More 4K UHD releases is a good thing. Even if some of them boggle the mind – "Dirty Grandpa"? – the more titles that are available, the better for the format's future.

    No format ever succeeded by limiting its product in the severe manner you apparently prefer.

    If you don't like the titles available and think 4K UHD is a pointless "fad", awesome – vote with your wallet and buy Blu-rays or DVDs or laserdiscs or VHSs or old Super 8 reels.

    But don't get on some weird high horse to declare that only "classics" should be out on the format and complain that they release movies you don't think are worthy… :thumbsdown:

  39. darkrock17

    That's the point the money should be used for the restoration not some stupid popcorn flick.

    The point is there is not much money involved to release a new film on both UHD and BD. Besides, that UHD release of a new film is going to make the studio a lot more money than what they will make investing a bunch of funds into restoring an older film that has limited interest (outside of forums like this). The last time I checked, the studios are in business to make money.

    If new films shouldn't be released in UHD, then why not take it to the next level — why release anything on BD when there are so many films that have never been released on DVD?

    I'm a fan of classic films, but I am also a realist — and I also happen to enjoy some modern films, too.

  40. PMF

    Yes, no, maybe…but what would be wrong with Criterion upgrading those DVD titles by offering both a Blu and a UHD in the same package…as others have been doing? Future-proof, my good friend, future-proof.

    It will cost Criterion WAAAAAY too much. They need to be profitable in order to continuw releasing high quality blu rays.

  41. darkrock17

    I understand, but shouldn't the classics be getting the UHD treatment before anything else though?

    Absolutely. I think every film that has been 4K remastered(there are an awful lot of them) should be released on UHD BD. Otherwise we are back to the days of HD material being released downrezzed to Standard definition DVD only. It is really counterintuitive. Illogical.

  42. Bryan^H

    Absolutely. I think every film that has been 4K remastered(there are an awful lot of them) should be released on UHD BD. Otherwise we are back to the days of HD material being released downrezzed to Standard definition DVD only. It is really counterintuitive. Illogical.

    Which films have been 4K remastered, there's only been a few titles I've seen out.

  43. darkrock17

    Which films have been 4K remastered, there's only been a few titles I've seen out.

    From Criterion there are too many for me to list. Off the top of my head–
    Midnight Cowboy, The Graduate, Blood Simple, The Breakfast Club,
    Easy Rider, Ghost World, My Own Private Idaho, Akita Kurosawa's Dreams, and many many more.

  44. I think RAH said in another forum that if the blu has a 4K master and the UHD is the same master or vice versa than the uprezzing on the blu would be good to the point where there wouldn't be much difference between the UHD and the blu using the 4K master. Having recently watched Criterions The Age Of Innocence on my UHD Television, and UHD blu ray player, I saw a massive difference than when I watched it on my standard blu ray player and standard high def television. I've also compared the UHD with the uprezzing on the blu and it's very subtle. I will not be complaining about Criterion, especially with the quality releases they are doing. 4k UHD is great, but I think it should be on a film by film basis. We still don't have movies on Blu ray yet, Star! for one thing and some of us can't keep on upgrading, so I am being very selective in what I am switching over from blu to UHD. I'll take RAH's upgrade from Blu as my advice. The Forrest Gump review obviously didn't warrant an upgrade based on his review, although the transfer was good.

  45. Colin Jacobson

    It's not "catering". Do you think they shouldn't release 4K UHD versions of new films, like they need to meet a quota of old films before we can get the new "Avengers" on UHD? <_<

    I agree. And "catering" is an interesting word for this discussion. After all, we all wish to see our own personal favorites released at the here and now. But that's not realistic. I see nothing wrong with current films gaining a UHD release; be it for the reasoning of Colin Jacobson and/or for the consumers who are less apt to appreciate classic films. Twilight Time, WAC, Criterion, et al, have supplied me enormously with my desired classics; while, at the same time, "catering" to the tastes of other audiences. I feel that the so-called catering has been, on balance, with all demographics in mind. And someone out there, correct me if I'm wrong; but of what I've been learning here at HTF, a 4K/UHD release is not part and parcel to a film that has actually been restored. They are two separate animals. BUT, when the two species are brought together and deemed compatible, there is nothing more magnificent.

  46. PMF

    I agree. And "catering" is an interesting use of words for this discussion. After all, each and everyone one of us wish to see our own personal favorites released at the here and now. But that's not realistic. I see nothing wrong with our most current films gaining a UHD release; be it for the reasoning as cited by Colin Jacobson and/or for the consumers who are less apt to appreciate classic films. Twilight Time, WAC, Criterion, et al, have supplied me enormously with my desired classics; while, at the same time, "catering" to the tastes of other audiences. I feel that the so-called catering has been with all demographics in mind. And, anyone out there, please correct me if I'm wrong; but of what I've been learning here at HTF, a 4K/UHD release is not part and parcel to a film that has actually been restored from the ground up. They are two separate animals. BUT, when the two species are brought together and deemed compatible, there is nothing more magnificent. And let's not forget, it may be OUR money when it comes to that time of purchasing; but in its embryonic stages, it all begins as THEIR money. So, unless any one of us are able to cough up all the monies needed for our most desired title(s); which in some cases can easily hit the million mark, especially when a true restoration enters the picture; then I say that they have more than purchased that very right to distribute and offer the films as they so choose. But, as I've said before, I feel that the "catering" has been – on balance – with everyone in mind.

    Exactly this. The cost vs. demand curve is probably such that Criterion just doesn't deem it necessary to release UHD at this time, especially if its going to be on a very occasional basis.

  47. We've also got to remember and acknowledge all the other treasures we have been given; such as the upcoming Boxed-Set of Ingmar Bergman. That, along with their Olympic Boxed-Set, are epic undertakings; both for the viewer as well as those who put it together. As for individual titles? I'll bet than it's a single-digit percentage out there who has purchased and viewed every title of individual interest. As I covet future titles to purchase, I've still got plenty in-house discs that have yet to be enjoyed.

  48. Criterion blus look better than most HDR 4Ks anyway so why bothuh? That’s a fad I just don’t get. As a 3 D aficionado I’ll take depth anyday over poppin colors.

  49. Brian Husar

    I think RAH said in another forum that if the blu has a 4K master and the UHD is the same master or vice versa than the uprezzing on the blu would be good to the point where there wouldn't be much difference between the UHD and the blu using the 4K master. Having recently watched Criterions The Age Of Innocence on my UHD Television, and UHD blu ray player, I saw a massive difference than when I watched it on my standard blu ray player and standard high def television. I've also compared the UHD with the uprezzing on the blu and it's very subtle. I will not be complaining about Criterion, especially with the quality releases they are doing. 4k UHD is great, but I think it should be on a film by film basis. We still don't have movies on Blu ray yet, Star! for one thing and some of us can't keep on upgrading, so I am being very selective in what I am switching over from blu to UHD. I'll take RAH's upgrade from Blu as my advice. The Forrest Gump review obviously didn't warrant an upgrade based on his review, although the transfer was good.

    I have the greatest respect for Robert but I don't think he's viewed the 4K Dolby Vision version (iTunes) of 'The Princess Bride'. I found that HDR was used quite effectively and it enhanced the film. In no way did I feel it detracted from the film. The HDR wasn't "in your face" but it wasn't exactly subtle either. The HDR "timing" (if you will) seemed pretty darn appropriate to me. And the 4K presentation is absolutely outstanding.

    As I've already said, the Criterion Blu-ray will surely look fantastic. But it's not going to match the 4K Dolby Vision version. There's no way it really can.

    Mark

  50. Let's get this thread back on topic, at least for a little bit.

    Can someone explain to me, which studio released/owns this movie, the 20th Century Fox logo appears at the beginning of the film, but why has MGM been releasing it on home video and not Fox?

  51. darkrock17

    Let's get this thread back on topic, at least for a little bit.

    Can someone explain to me, which studio released/owns this movie, the 20th Century Fox logo appears at the beginning of the film, but why has MGM been releasing it on home video and not Fox?

    MGM releases their titles through Fox Home Entertainment. A similar setup that Paramount had with Warner a while back.

  52. darkrock17

    Let's get this thread back on topic, at least for a little bit.

    Can someone explain to me, which studio released/owns this movie, the 20th Century Fox logo appears at the beginning of the film, but why has MGM been releasing it on home video and not Fox?

    Nearly all of Rob Reiner's output from This is Spinal Tap through City Slickers (exceptions being Stand By Me) ended up in the Polygram catalog when they acquired Nelson Entertainment in the mid-90s. New owner Seagrams (of booze and Ginger Ale fame) sold Polygram Pictures' pre-1996 catalog to MGM when they acquired the company to merge it with Universal Music Group.

  53. Robert Crawford

    MGM releases their titles through Fox Home Entertainment. A similar setup that Paramount had with Warner a while back.

    Except in this case, Fox did distribute the film theatrically, though it was financed independently.

  54. darkrock17

    Let's get this thread back on topic, at least for a little bit.

    Can someone explain to me, which studio released/owns this movie, the 20th Century Fox logo appears at the beginning of the film, but why has MGM been releasing it on home video and not Fox?

    Norman Lear owns this movie. He financed it, made a deal with Fox to distribute it theatrically, and made a separate deal with another company for video, whose assets are now with MGM.

  55. For the last time…

    Production began at Embassy which became Nelson after briefly being DEG. Nelson had home video distribution rights in association first with Orion and later New Line (New Line was actually the company that licensed Princess Bride out to Criterion along with This is Spinal Tap for its SE CAV reissue back in 1997). Nelson goes bust in the early 90s and most of their catalog (which includes the old Embassy Catalog) gets sold to a French bank which later sells it to Polygram. Polygram is bought by Seagram which sells the movie library to MGM.

Leave a Reply