The Criterion Collection

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Makes you wonder if Criterion doesn't want to open Pandora's box and have a situation where consumers start to ask "should i buy this, or is Criterion going to re-release this in a better version later like they did with XXXX".

Yes, but there are no guarantees that a film will or will not be remastered or restored in the future.

When Monterey Pop was released on Blu-ray in 2009, I don't think anyone thought that a 4K restoration would happen eight years later. Even with that knowledge, I can't imagine holding off on purchasing a film for that long of a time because it may be released in a better edition almost 10 years later.

That being said, I find it poor on Criterion's part if they decide not to release the restoration. You don't go through all that work so that only theater audiences in a few major cities can experience the new version.

[UncleBuckWild]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Does Playtime count for that?

Sure it does, but it's more of an exception.

Since they were anyways gonna release the Tati boxset, it would've seemed silly to use an older transfer.

I think Criterion should reevaluate their ways of doing things...

This might sound over reaching, but I hope someday they upgrade to actual 4K UHDs.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Yes, but there are no guarantees that a film will or will not be remastered or restored in the future.

When Monterey Pop was released on Blu-ray in 2009, I don't think anyone thought that a 4K restoration would happen eight years later. Even with that knowledge, I can't imagine holding off on purchasing a film for that long of a time because it may be released in a better edition almost 10 years later.

That being said, I find it poor on Criterion's part if they decide not to release the restoration. You don't go through all that work so that only theater audiences in a few major cities can experience the new version.

I think it's likely that they re-evaluated the economics and decided that they wouldn't sell enough copies to make it worthwhile.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Yes, but there are no guarantees that a film will or will not be remastered or restored in the future.

When Monterey Pop was released on Blu-ray in 2009, I don't think anyone thought that a 4K restoration would happen eight years later. Even with that knowledge, I can't imagine holding off on purchasing a film for that long of a time because it may be released in a better edition almost 10 years later.

That being said, I find it poor on Criterion's part if they decide not to release the restoration. You don't go through all that work so that only theater audiences in a few major cities can experience the new version.

Not saying I agree with that stance, but customer perception is a fickle thing, and it effects the bottom line. Just look how the while dual format venture ended.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by belcherman

I think it's likely that they re-evaluated the economics and decided that they wouldn't sell enough copies to make it worthwhile.

That's an excellent point. One would think most people who would be the market for the new release already have the current release. How many of them would buy the new one?

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by senseabove

Could it just be they hired another designer, rather than canceled the release?

Janus is definitely behind the theatrical release of the 4k restoration that's touring right now. I can't imagine they'd go through the trouble of getting the rights to the restoration (or paying to restore it?), letting multiple sources announce a "special 50th-anniversary commemorative edition," and then abruptly deciding, "Oh, well, nevermind..."

Could be but I hope they'd have the taste to not reject that cover. I think it's really good.

[Bolo Seagull]

Does anybody know if there's a reason why Criterion never releases Woody Allen films? Lots of his films get licenced out to distributors like Twilight Time. He's generally considered a great filmmaker and a huge influence on other filmmakers whose works are released by Criterion. I just find it somewhat odd. I'd love it if they'd show him some love and even pick up some of the TT released titles that have gone OOP.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Bolo Seagull

Does anybody know if there's a reason why Criterion never releases Woody Allen films? Lots of his films get licenced out to distributors like Twilight Time. He's generally considered a great filmmaker and a huge influence on other filmmakers whose works are released by Criterion. I just find it somewhat odd. I'd love it if they'd show him some love and even pick up some of the TT released titles that have gone OOP.

Criterion are known for their often extensive supplements, but Woody Allen prevents any for his movies, so I imagine that's a dealbreaker for CC

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Criterion are known for their often extensive supplements, but Woody Allen prevents any for his movies, so I imagine that's a dealbreaker for CC

I don't think Woody prevents it in as much as once he makes a film he moves on to the next project without delay. I don't think he would mind if others produced extras for his films. I do think he would approve a transfer if Criterion selected one of his f ilms.

[MJD64]

I can't say for sure, but I always thought Criterion didn't release Allen's films because he pretty much prohibits any of the supplements Criterion is known for providing for their releases. I know Annie Hall was a Criterion laserdisc, but that was back in the day when a number of their laserdisc releases didn't come with supplements.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I don't think Woody prevents it in as much as once he makes a film he moves on to the next project without delay. I don't think he would mind if others produced extras for his films. I do think he would approve a transfer if Criterion selected one of his f ilms.

I might be mis-remembeing, but I recall Arrow wanting to produce some new extras for their Woody Allen boxset(s) and were prevented from doing so.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I don't think Woody prevents it in as much as once he makes a film he moves on to the next project without delay. I don't think he would mind if others produced extras for his films. I do think he would approve a transfer if Criterion selected one of his f ilms.

I think Woody blocks it as a condition for licensing. I can't imagine a company like Arrow would release 19 of his films on blu-ray and voluntary choose to not create or include any on disc supplements.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I might be mis-remembeing, but I recall Arrow wanting to produce some new extras for their Woody Allen boxset(s) and were prevented from doing so.

Interesting. I hadn't heard that. I wonder if they wanted him to participate?

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I might be mis-remembeing, but I recall Arrow wanting to produce some new extras for their Woody Allen boxset(s) and were prevented from doing so.

It was definitely said that Twilight Time produced extras for one of their recent Woody Allen discs including a commentary track (nobody involved in the movie itself), got the approval from his office, but they were nixed at the last minute by whichever company owned the movie. So it might be true of Arrow too, or you might be misremembering. I can't remember which movie off-hand.

Back in the days of DVD, Woody Allen was definitely quoted several times as saying that he didn't like special features because "the movie is the special feature". But I believe that some of his post-2000 output has had minor special features from time to time, because they were produced as marketing material.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

But I believe that some of his post-2000 output has had minor special features from time to time, because they were produced as marketing material.

Yes. Mostly small stuff like trailers and short interviews with the cast.

[Bolo Seagull]

Thanks for the answers, everybody. I can see why the special features thing might be a dealbreaker, although I'm sure Criterion has released some fairly barebones releases in the past. It's a pity if that's the case, because I'd love to see some of his films get a top notch Criterion presentation (or some cases, any blu release at all would be better than none).

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by Bolo Seagull

Thanks for the answers, everybody. I can see why the special features thing might be a dealbreaker, although I'm sure Criterion has released some fairly barebones releases in the past. It's a pity if that's the case, because I'd love to see some of his films get a top notch Criterion presentation (or some cases, any blu release at all would be better than none).

At least go region free and pick up the arrow box sets. No on disc supplements, but each box comes with a book.

[Bolo Seagull]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

At least go region free and pick up the arrow box sets. No on disc supplements, but each box comes with a book.

Thanks, for 'Crimes & Misdemeanors' I just might do that. It's one I love yet keep forgetting to buy. So, if by the time I get around to buying it, nobody else has released it on blu ray, I might just go international on that one.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Bolo Seagull

Does anybody know if there's a reason why Criterion never releases Woody Allen films? Lots of his films get licenced out to distributors like Twilight Time. He's generally considered a great filmmaker and a huge influence on other filmmakers whose works are released by Criterion. I just find it somewhat odd. I'd love it if they'd show him some love and even pick up some of the TT released titles that have gone OOP.

Hi everyone...I'm back from a week-long hiatus (went on a road trip, guerilla camping, to check out the total eclipse down in North Carolina, with great success).

Anyway, this posting got my attention on Woody Allen...

But it also makes me wonder what other notable filmmakers are opposed to being filmed or interviewed for special features other than Woody Allen (the only other directors I can think of are Malick and Kubrick).

I also wonder about those directors who don't like doing commentary tracks. Directors who come to mind are Spielberg, Lynch, Coen bros., Tarantino, PT Anderson, Jarmusch, etc.).

With that said, can anyone here, in their opinion, tell me what are the VERY BEST commentary tracks in the Criterion Collection? Which films and directors/authors/scholars come to mind?

[Bolo Seagull]

Originally Posted by jw007

With that said, can anyone here, in their opinion, tell me what are the VERY BEST commentary tracks in the Criterion Collection? Which films and directors/authors/scholars come to mind?

It wasn't recorded for Criterion, it was ported from a previous release, but Roger Ebert on 'Beyond the Valley of the Dolls' is hugely entertaining. Russ Meyer was a larger than life character and hearing Ebert tell anecdotes about him is lots of fun.

It's really the ideal commentary track in that it is entertaining, but also provides first person insight into the film's creative process since Ebert was screenwriter on this film. He's able to articulate what he was going for, as well as share some history on how the film took shape. The oddest revelation was that Ebert did not intend the boxer character to draw comparisons to Muhammad Ali. But considering the actor they cast and how they styled him, it seems hard to believe that Meyer wasn't intentionally courting the comparison.