The Criterion Collection

[Tin Drum]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Modern Times was release in November 2010

Really, though, I would definitely love City Lights and it'd be my pick for next Chaplin title in the collection. Put that with a theatrical/director's cut of Tin Drum and I'd die happy.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by stevezissou

Anyone know what time/where the November releases will be posted by Crierion?

Not sure yet. They usually give a heads-up on Twitters.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Tin Drum

Really, though, I would definitely love City Lights and it'd be my pick for next Chaplin title in the collection. Put that with a theatrical/director's cut of Tin Drum and I'd die happy.

Well everyone seem to be predicting City Lights (which is my favorite Chaplin) so at this point I am not sure if I should be happy or nervous about it

[blkhrt]

The Criterion Cast has tweeted what might be their first hint for the day:

[Show spoiler]Korda's The Elephant Boy

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I think the beef some have over Anderson and others is that since they are already well popular and are receiving releases already because of their following from major studios it take's away some chances of getting something else from Criterion. I don't go to mad over since I can't do much to tell Criterion how they should run the business but I understand some of the anger it can create.

Originally Posted by jcs913

Pat, thanks for stating that, as it seems that most people in this thread cannot understand this concept.

The problem is that this just isn't true. The only way one release would prevent another release is if Criterion was going to only release a specific number of titles. If they said "we are stopping after 600 releases" then the point would be true; otherwise, not so much. The fact is, releasing one title doesn't take away any chance at another title. The other title might come a little later, but in many cases that delay could just as easily be caused by restoration.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by blkhrt

The problem is that this just isn't true. The only way one release would prevent another release is if Criterion was going to only release a specific number of titles. If they said "we are stopping after 600 releases" then the point would be true; otherwise, not so much. The fact is, releasing one title doesn't take away any chance at another title. The other title might come a little later, but in many cases that delay could just as easily be caused by restoration.

That may well be the case as well. Like I said, I don't go mad over it myself, I just understand why some people would be frustrated over it.

I just take my releases when Criterion is nice enough to make them available

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by blkhrt

The problem is that this just isn't true. The only way one release would prevent another release is if Criterion was going to only release a specific number of titles. If they said "we are stopping after 600 releases" then the point would be true; otherwise, not so much. The fact is, releasing one title doesn't take away any chance at another title. The other title might come a little later, but in many cases that delay could just as easily be caused by restoration.

But do you agree that it costs money to upgrade a title to blu-ray? You have read the booklet, almost every title has been rescanned and that is not free. All the production funds used to 'upgrade' an already modern title that has a perfectly good dvd transfer is fundamentally taking money away from purchasing potential films in the future. As for upgrading pre-1970 titles, there is a huge difference in the presentation as it gets upgraded to blu. It makes no sense to upgrade a 10+ year old title than a 60+ year old title, no? The only sense it makes is that Criterion's business model is brilliant, as they know people will upgrade anyway, as it is a Wes film.

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

That may well be the case as well. Like I said, I don't go mad over it myself, I just understand why some people would be frustrated over it.

I just take my releases when Criterion is nice enough to make them available

Yeah, I wasn't intending to direct anything at you or anyone in particularly

I understand people's frustration about releases...heck if people didn't have things to complain about, the internet might cease to exist. But at the same time, I don't understand the venom that goes with some of the frustration (again, not directing that comment at anyone in particular).

On a side note, since I never got around to posting my top ten list when people were doing that a few weeks back, here goes. I have included DVD and blu ray releases, and the list could easily change by this afternoon.

In no particular order:
Fat Girl
Peeping Tom
Hoop Dreams
Passion of Joan of Arc
Hausu
400 Blows
For All Mankind
Carnival of Souls
Vivre Sa Vie
Dazed and Confused

and, for good measure, I will add Paths of Glory and The Killing.

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by jcs913

But do you agree that it costs money to upgrade a title to blu-ray? You have read the booklet, almost every title has been rescanned and that is not free. All the production funds used to 'upgrade' an already modern title that has a perfectly good dvd transfer is fundamentally taking money away from purchasing potential films in the future. As for upgrading pre-1970 titles, there is a huge difference in the presentation as it gets upgraded to blu. It makes no sense to upgrade a 10+ year old title than a 60+ year old title, no? The only sense it makes is that Criterion's business model is brilliant, as they know people will upgrade anyway, as it is a Wes film.

You make some very good points, but you have left profit out of the equation. As others have pointed out, Criterion will likely make a lot of money off of Rushmore, which gives them money to produce other titles. Therefore, I would say that producing Rushmore does not take money away from other purchases, but actually makes them possible.

I will disagree about upgrading 10+ year old titles...some recent films definitely need some attention.

As I said earlier, I don't find any fault with complaints about specific titles you might, I just might not agree with them. But heck, that's what makes this all fun.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by blkhrt

I understand people's frustration about releases...heck if people didn't have things to complain about, the internet might cease to exist. But at the same time, I don't understand the venom that goes with some of the frustration (again, not directing that comment at anyone in particular).

The venom is usually the result of passion. I spend a lot of time in the Star Wars thread soI know all about passion, craze and serious fanboy issues

I think that the Internet can be an easy way to bring out the venom and say things most people would never say, anyway on a face to face conversation. I doubt that most people posts reflect who they really are in the real world. The fact that you can be anonymous can free certain people to say and act in ways they never would in real one on one interraction. That is just my guess, I am not a specialist on social behavior but I suspect it may be so.

[rebelmswar]

I would probably melt down if they did Hard Boiled again.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I think the beef some have over Anderson and others is that since they are already well popular and are receiving releases already because of their following from major studios it take's away some chances of getting something else from Criterion. I don't go to mad over since I can't do much to tell Criterion how they should run the business but I understand some of the anger it can create.

And I have a "beef" with people using this logic, because it is wrong. It is not taking away the chance of something else getting released by Criterion - it is funding their budget for more niche titles that don't bring in lots of money themselves. There is no 1:1 correlation - modern films require less work, and re-releases require even less. And I have to assume Criterion is capable enough to properly allocate resources for titles they want to release - I can't imagine there are any "Oh darn, we could have released x super rare film if only we weren't up to our necks in Rushmore work!" If they have the opportunity and desire to release a certain title, they will make it work.

And I also dislike that logic because, even if it were true, it's a case of individuals drawing an arbitrary line in the sand. Not EVERY title Criterion releases can be something that otherwise would never see the light of day - and many of their titles don't even close to fit in that category.

There are multiple tiers of releases in terms of popularity / "mainstream-ness":
- brand-new-from-theaters films that would SURELY see release on DVD & Blu-ray without any involvement from Criterion - Curious Case of Benjamin Button, all the IFC films, etc.
- cult films on the edge of mainstream that Criterion probably sells the most of - the Gilliam films, Dazed & Confused, Blow Up, the recent Kubrick releases, etc. These would be (and in many cases, ARE) released by other studios
- classic films that the mainstream recognizes - Breathless, Seven Samurai, Bicycle Thieves, etc. Surely Kino and a few other labels would love to get their hands on these, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see major studios handling them (albeit poorly) if there were no art-house labels doing this kind of thing
- deeper cuts into the filmographies of "important" directors like Kurosawa and Godard and Fellini that Kino and other labels would dip into (if not as frequently or thoroughly as Criterion).
- the real rarities (Music Room, Rosselini's War Trilogy, People On Sunday, etc.)

Should Criterion pass on all these titles save the last two categories? Hell, even those two categories have overlap with some foreign labels, and yes I have seen people express disappointment that Criterion and Masters of Cinema releases overlap even though they are selling to two different territories and only the extremely small number of importers truly have access to both sets of titles. Is it a sustainable business if they only focus on the last two categories? And would even those two categories be truly better off without the benefit of the income provided by the other titles? And this is all even assuming that is Criterion's goal - which I think they've made it pretty clear that it is not.

But please, let's ignore all this greater context and arbitrarily draw the line at the Wes Anderson titles.

[SammyJankis]

The Battle of Algiers is only $20 on Barnes and Noble.

[rebelmswar]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

The Battle of Algiers is only $20 on Barnes and Noble.

I really want to start collecting these as I have been a late bloomer in regards to exploring movies other than my comfort zone.

My question is - Is this a good one to be my first one? It is an idiotic price on Amazon and that seems a great price.

Could someone let me know if it is a good one to start with?

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

The Battle of Algiers is only $20 on Barnes and Noble.

$22.49 + tax..... at least for me....



Island of Lost Souls is $20 too.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by blkhrt

You make some very good points, but you have left profit out of the equation. As others have pointed out, Criterion will likely make a lot of money off of Rushmore, which gives them money to produce other titles. Therefore, I would say that producing Rushmore does not take money away from other purchases, but actually makes them possible.

I will disagree about upgrading 10+ year old titles...some recent films definitely need some attention.

As I said earlier, I don't find any fault with complaints about specific titles you might, I just might not agree with them. But heck, that's what makes this all fun.

If the bolded line were the case, all of his films would have been upgraded already. IMO, spreading them out over the years does Criterion no good. For all we know, as we have no access to their books, they could fold next month. I read the comment Pat made about fanboys and frankly I think there is some of that in this thread too. I am curious, since this was a discussion a while ago; Would the people rather have a Rushmore upgrade, or a release of Nolan's The Following?

[Illy Scorsese]

I'd love to have "City Lights"...

I'm not holding out much hope though.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

And I have a "beef" with people using this logic, because it is wrong. It is not taking away the chance of something else getting released by Criterion - it is funding their budget for more niche titles that don't bring in lots of money themselves. There is no 1:1 correlation - modern films require less work, and re-releases require even less. And I have to assume Criterion is capable enough to properly allocate resources for titles they want to release - I can't imagine there are any "Oh darn, we could have released x super rare film if only we weren't up to our necks in Rushmore work!" If they have the opportunity and desire to release a certain title, they will make it work.

And I also dislike that logic because, even if it were true, it's a case of individuals drawing an arbitrary line in the sand. Not EVERY title Criterion releases can be something that otherwise would never see the light of day - and many of their titles don't even close to fit in that category.

There are multiple tiers of releases in terms of popularity / "mainstream-ness":
- brand-new-from-theaters films that would SURELY see release on DVD & Blu-ray without any involvement from Criterion - Curious Case of Benjamin Button, all the IFC films, etc.
- cult films on the edge of mainstream that Criterion probably sells the most of - the Gilliam films, Dazed & Confused, Blow Up, the recent Kubrick releases, etc. These would be (and in many cases, ARE) released by other studios
- classic films that the mainstream recognizes - Breathless, Seven Samurai, Bicycle Thieves, etc. Surely Kino and a few other labels would love to get their hands on these, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see major studios handling them (albeit poorly) if there were no art-house labels doing this kind of thing
- deeper cuts into the filmographies of "important" directors like Kurosawa and Godard and Fellini that Kino and other labels would dip into (if not as frequently or thoroughly as Criterion).
- the real rarities (Music Room, Rosselini's War Trilogy, People On Sunday, etc.)

Should Criterion pass on all these titles save the last two categories? Hell, even those two categories have overlap with some foreign labels, and yes I have seen people express disappointment that Criterion and Masters of Cinema releases overlap even though they are selling to two different territories and only the extremely small number of importers truly have access to both sets of titles. Is it a sustainable business if they only focus on the last two categories? And would even those two categories be truly better off without the benefit of the income provided by the other titles? And this is all even assuming that is Criterion's goal - which I think they've made it pretty clear that it is not.

But please, let's ignore all this greater context and arbitrarily draw the line at the Wes Anderson titles.

Hey! Don't shoot me down, I was only explaing to someone what was the problem some had over Anderson.....

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by rebelmswar

I really want to start collecting these as I have been a late bloomer in regards to exploring movies other than my comfort zone.

My question is - Is this a good one to be my first one? It is an idiotic price on Amazon and that seems a great price.

Could someone let me know if it is a good one to start with?

I don't think it's an idiotic price on Amazon...... but with that said, it's at a price on B&N that would allow you to easily recoup most of your money if you decide you don't like it.

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by jcs913

If the bolded line were the case, all of his films would have been upgraded already. IMO, spreading them out over the years does Criterion no good. For all we know, as we have no access to their books, they could fold next month. I read the comment Pat made about fanboys and frankly I think there is some of that in this thread too. I am curious, since this was a discussion a while ago; Would the people rather have a Rushmore upgrade, or a release of Nolan's The Following?

I think all of us are fanboys (or fangirls) to some extent. That's why we come here. And as I said to Pat, the fact that many of us disagree is what makes things interesting.

As for your question, I would rather have a Rushmore upgrade. The reasoning? I never purchased the DVD because I was pretty broke when it came out, and I enjoy the movie. I watched the Following on Netflix instant after everyone started talking about it and I wasn't that impressed. It has some interesting Nolan twists, but other than that, it seemed like a very well made student film, and not one that needs to be in the collection. I imagine many will disagree with me, though, and if I watch it again, I might like it more.