The Criterion Collection

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

I was on my iPhone when I first read this and didn't see the spoiler - now that I'm home and I had some free time, I came back to lecture you about your Western history. Turns out I had no need! Cheers!

I was simply quoting IMDB, because the posters on there know everything. No lie.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

If anybody here is a Bergman fan - I just read a pretty hilarious article featuring 10 different responses from 10 different popular authors on the topic of "10 writing tips". So there were 100 tips from 10 different authors, many of which clashed. They argued a lot over whether it was good to read or not if you were writing/a writer, some suggesting that reading actually dampened your own creativity. (Whatever works for you is what I think, but I'm not a popular author so who cares?)

My favourite piece of advice, though: "If you have to read, to cheer yourself up read biographies of writers who went insane. And on Saturdays, you can watch an old Bergman film, preferably Persona or Autumn Sonata."

Just replying to draw your attention to these:

http://www.amazon.ca/Criterion-Colle...1611434&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.ca/Criterion-Colle...1611420&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.ca/Criterion-Colle...1611520&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.ca/Criterion-Colle...1611550&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.ca/Criterion-Colle...1611567&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.ca/Criterion-Colle...1611577&sr=1-1

Hurry! I wasn't sure which titles you wanted so I linked them all. I put Anatomy of a Murder first.

[DLizzle]

Thanks! Never pre-ordered a Criterion (or anything else) from Amazon.ca before, didn't realize the prices were so reasonable.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by DLizzle

Thanks! Never pre-ordered a Criterion (or anything else) from Amazon.ca before, didn't realize the prices were so reasonable.

NP! Better order now, because they jump up to 40 bucks or more rather quickly.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

NP! Better order now, because they jump up to 40 bucks or more rather quickly.

You got that right

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

You got that right

If I hadn't jumped on the 16.99 pre-order for Anatomy of a Murder, or if it had been cancelled, I'd be ordering from the Canadian site today, because it ends up being about 5-10 dollars cheaper than the US site (despite the Canadian price being a bit higher initially) even after the 15% tax is applied.

The only problem I have is waiting until February for the film.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by oildude

I know exactly what you are referring to because my Raymond Bernard Eclipse set arrived today in one of these same plastic envelopes with absolutely no padding of any kind. Thankfully it was in good shape. When did B&N.com start using these? Talk about bottom of the barrel cheap-ass packaging. They might as well just put a label on the disc case and mail it out.

I am glad Mulvaney wrote you back so quickly. From what people write here, he is always positive and very helpful. I picture him being one overworked and stressed out guy who loves his job. I take it he is sending you new cases? The Larisa Shepitko films are too good to be shipped in a plastic envelope.

As far as I know...they are new cases. I swapped cases from my Basil Dearden set for the time being, as the Shepitko set is a bit more special to me. I've watched Wings so far and will likely check out The Ascent this weekend.

I live in upstate New York, so I figure to see the cases today or tomorrow.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

If I hadn't jumped on the 16.99 pre-order for Anatomy of a Murder, or if it had been cancelled, I'd be ordering from the Canadian site today, because it ends up being about 5-10 dollars cheaper than the US site (despite the Canadian price being a bit higher initially) even after the 15% tax is applied.

The only problem I have is waiting until February for the film.

Yeah the waiting on these pre-order is always killing me Three or four months, good thing I have plenty else to watch to keep me busy in the mean time.

B&N as ship my order from November 2, finaly!! I should probably get them early next week, will have a busy next weekend.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by oildude

I am also tempted by the Shimizu set after watching parts of each film on hulu plus. Let me know what you think about it if you are able to watch it before the sale ends. I need to be careful, though, since I have already blown through my Criterion budget and will now be eating peanut butter and ramen for a few weeks.

Still, a few Eclipse sets keep tempting me with the current sale price and coupons. Shimizu is the big one. I also keep picking up the Leningrad Cowboys set then putting it back. It turns out this is one set without any movies available on hulu plus, so all I have to go by are youtube clips and the clip with Jim Jarmusch on Criterion's website. These movies look like fun, full of deadpan goofy humor. I am also on the fence about the Early Bergman set.

B & N hadn't delivered my Shimizu set to the store yesterday, so I need to check with them today. If they haven't gotten it today, I might have to either order it online or go to the store, "purchase" it with coups there and either have it shipped to the store or shipped to my house. I did the latter with my BBS set. It might come in by Monday, but I don't want to take a chance and get burned on the present 20% coup.

If the stars are in my favor and I get it today, I'll likely pop in the first film tomorrow morning. It's been confirmed as shipped to the store...but ya never know.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Yeah the waiting on these pre-order is always killing me Three or four months, good thing I have plenty else to watch to keep me busy in the mean time.

B&N as ship my order from November 2, finaly!! I should probably get them early next week, will have a busy next weekend.

I'm still waiting on all of mine from B&N :

Nook Charger for my mom - October 31st

Dazed and Confused, Kuroneko, The Wages of Fear, & the Four Feathers - all shipped on November 2nd, although Dazed and Confused was shipped first, and separately from the other 3

Amarcord, Island of Lost Souls, & The Magician - all shipped together on November 3rd

Stagecoach & Kiss Me Deadly - all shipped together on November 13th

Between last night and halfway through the day of November 27th, I have 54 movies set to record to my PVR from TCM, and I received Harry Potter 7.2 in the mail this past Tuesday. Amazon.com is shipping out 12 Angry Men and Army of Shadows on Tuesday, so I should get those within a week or so. It's only B&N that is slow, but I have plenty to watch in the mean time.

[drbikeshorts]

Don't know if anyone else saw this, but CriterionCast tweeted a link to Jeff Wells complaining about the aspect ratio of Anatomy of a Murder.
1.85 Fascism Strikes Again
In short, Columbia's DVD from 2000 claims its 1.33:1 ratio is "the original theatrical aspect ratio", yet Criterion's blu-ray is going to be in the 1.85:1 ratio.
Obviously, the film was shot open-matte, but which is the correct ratio?
If you're Jeff Wells and you don't know, then start calling people Fascists

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

Don't know if anyone else saw this, but CriterionCast tweeted a link to Jeff Wells complaining about the aspect ratio of Anatomy of a Murder.
1.85 Fascism Strikes Again
In short, Columbia's DVD from 2000 claims its 1.33:1 ratio is "the original theatrical aspect ratio", yet Criterion's blu-ray is going to be in the 1.85:1 ratio.
Obviously, the film was shot open-matte, but which is the correct ratio?
If you're Jeff Wells and you don't know, then start calling people Fascists

Interesting! Would it have been filmes still in 1.33:1 even in 1959?

What I mean is, it's well into the new era of widescreen but then it's a B&W movie and as a film noire feel to it, maybe the director felt 1.33:1 was a better idea?

[rkish]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

Don't know if anyone else saw this, but CriterionCast tweeted a link to Jeff Wells complaining about the aspect ratio of Anatomy of a Murder.
1.85 Fascism Strikes Again
In short, Columbia's DVD from 2000 claims its 1.33:1 ratio is "the original theatrical aspect ratio", yet Criterion's blu-ray is going to be in the 1.85:1 ratio.
Obviously, the film was shot open-matte, but which is the correct ratio?
If you're Jeff Wells and you don't know, then start calling people Fascists

I've got to believe that Criterion did their homework on this. The film was made in 1958/1959, so it's possible that they filmed it in widescreen.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by zui

Sounds like you're going to be very busy watching movies the next few weeks... ;-)

TCM is far too awesome this month. There's just so much I want to see, or haven't watched in awhile. I mean, you have stuff like UHF, The Maltese Falcon, Ivanhoe, The Green Slime, The Lady Eve, Band of Angels, Elephant Boy, The Jungle book, One Two Three, America America, My favourite Wife, Please Don't Eat the Daisies, With Six You Get Eggroll, and The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, you just can't help but want to record them all.

It's not a Criterion, but I implore everyone to check out Penelope, starring Natalie Wood on Friday, November 25 at 10:00 AM EST. It's such a fun little film that has yet to see any sort of home video release. I'd kill for even a DVD at this point, other than the one I recorded off TCM-HD with my parents' Toshiba upconverter/DVD recorder.

The film also has Peter Falk, Jonathan Winters, Ian Bannen, Lou Jacobi, Lila Kedrova, and Dick Shawn. It's one of the mid-60s fluffy comedies, but it's so enjoyable, and has a catchy title song. Dick Shawn is in top form.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by rkish

I've got to believe that Criterion did their homework on this. The film was made in 1958/1959, so it's possible that they filmed it in widescreen.

I know IMDB is totally not reliable for this, but they have the film listed at 1.85:1 as well, with no mention of 1.33:1.

[plattopus]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

Don't know if anyone else saw this, but CriterionCast tweeted a link to Jeff Wells complaining about the aspect ratio of Anatomy of a Murder.
1.85 Fascism Strikes Again
In short, Columbia's DVD from 2000 claims its 1.33:1 ratio is "the original theatrical aspect ratio", yet Criterion's blu-ray is going to be in the 1.85:1 ratio.
Obviously, the film was shot open-matte, but which is the correct ratio?
If you're Jeff Wells and you don't know, then start calling people Fascists

The thing that shits me about that article is that he offers no proof that 1.33:1 is the correct ratio, he just believes it is, and then makes all kinds of wild guesses as to why Criterion would use the "wrong" aspect ratio.

The apparent answer is that Criterion is going with a 1.85 to 1 a.r. because they damn well feel like it. Because they've decided "to hell with it, this is what we're going with and **** off." But either Sony was correct with its 1.33 proclamation in 2000 or Criterion is right about its forthcoming Bluray. They can't both be right.

The answer, I believe, is the rule of simple expediency. A boxier aspect ratio worked fine with 1.37 to 1 analog TVs 11 years ago, but it doesn't work with today's 16 x 9 high-def flat screens. It seems to be that simple.

He's decided that Criterion must have purposely and knowingly used the wrong aspect ratio for reasons of laziness, but has no proof whatsoever. Even if 1.85:1 turns out to be the incorrect aspect ratio, I'm sure Criterion had some reason why they chose it. They can't have just plucked the number out of thin air.

That response doesn't sit well with him, as you can see in this response he posted in the comments:

I've seen the 1.33 version of AoaM several times and it's quite lovely. Tens of thousands have seen it. It's quite beautiful. Why are these Criterion revisionists messing with a perfectly good thing?

I swear to effing Christ I am the Last Honest Man standing alone and speaking God's truth about this. Hearing from all these people going, "I don't know, cluck-cluck-cluck, but I'm sure Criterion knows what it's doing" and "TCM went with a 1.85 aspect ratio also so what's your problem, Jeff?"...God! They honestly make me feel like Olivia De Havilland in The Snake Pit. They make me feel like Winston Smith with his head inside the rat cage, or like Big Brother is trying to strap me down so the goons in their white outfits can give me an injection in my arm.

The problem is, there is absolutely no proof that 1.33:1 is the original aspect ratio. It's a bit strange for someone to get on such a high horse when their position may not even be factually accurate. And even if it is, there's no need to be such a dick about it.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by plattopus

The thing that shits me about that article is that he offers no proof that 1.33:1 is the correct ratio, he just believes it is, and then makes all kinds of wild guesses as to why Criterion would use the "wrong" aspect ratio.


He's decided that Criterion must have purposely and knowingly used the wrong aspect ratio for reasons of laziness, but has no proof whatsoever. Even if 1.85:1 turns out to be the incorrect aspect ratio, I'm sure Criterion had some reason why they chose it. They can't have just plucked the number out of thin air.

Someone in the comments posted a link to TCM:

http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/3737/...ect-ratio.html

And lookie lookie! TCM's going to have it on December 15th at 11:30AM EST! I may have to PVR this one to hold me over until February, as I'll be at work.

It's confirmed, this Jeff Wells is a raving lunatic. Not only does he have a hate on for Criterion, but for TCM as well. :

Really? Then TCM, sorry to say, has its head up its ass also. They've decided to deny the reality of what looks best and they're just going along with the 16 x 9 program, like mice. They don't want to stand out. They don't their incomes to be interfered with. They want to keep making payments on their mortgage and save for their kids' education. They know they can't go wrong if they say "make it wider so it conforms to today's 16 x 9 flatscreens." And they know that they might get into trouble if they stand up like men and say, "No, it looks much better at a 1.33 or 1.3 to 1 aspect ratio so leave it that way." They're simpering, snivelling cowards...and that's why this movie is being visually cut off at the knees. If Criterion had any decency in them they would do what those British Masters of Cinema guys did for their Touch of Evil Bluray -- presenting Orson Welles' 1958 classic in both the obviously incorrect and restrictive 1.85 a.r. and the obviously "right" 1.33 or 1.37 version simultaneously.

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2..._setback_f.php

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Interesting! Would it have been filmes still in 1.33:1 even in 1959?

What I mean is, it's well into the new era of widescreen but then it's a B&W movie and as a film noire feel to it, maybe the director felt 1.33:1 was a better idea?

A film is shot using the full frame (which is called "open matte") and later during projection a mask with the preferred aspect ratio is placed in front of the projector.
This is usually determined by the director, but is ultimately controlled by the projectionist.
When creating old TV and VHS masters, the full frame was often used, because back then we had TVs in the 1.33:1 ratio.
Now that letter-boxing is not an issue, we usually get DVDs and blu-rays in the theatrical aspect ratio - 1.85:1, 1.77:1 or 1.66:1.

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by plattopus

The thing that shits me about that article is that he offers no proof that 1.33:1 is the correct ratio, he just believes it is, and then makes all kinds of wild guesses as to why Criterion would use the "wrong" aspect ratio.


He's decided that Criterion must have purposely and knowingly used the wrong aspect ratio for reasons of laziness, but has no proof whatsoever. Even if 1.85:1 turns out to be the incorrect aspect ratio, I'm sure Criterion had some reason why they chose it. They can't have just plucked the number out of thin air.

Wells is obviously a lunatic, which is why I usually stay well away from his site

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

It's not a Criterion, but I implore everyone to check out Penelope, starring Natalie Wood on Friday, November 25 at 10:00 AM EST. It's such a fun little film that has yet to see any sort of home video release. I'd kill for even a DVD at this point, other than the one I recorded off TCM-HD with my parents' Toshiba upconverter/DVD recorder.

Hey, did you see they've re-opened the Natalie Wood case!
Apparently, someone has come forward with more information or something.