The Criterion Collection

[BAMJoe]

I have a question about the big director boxes. Do they include the same extras as the individual releases? Any reason to double dip? Thanks.

[Frankinho007]

Originally Posted by Shanghai Express

It's frustrating that Criterion sits on the rights to films for years (sometimes over a decade) without releasing them, preventing other labels from picking them up and getting them into collectors' hands, but will release second, third, or fourth editions of films that have already had their time in the sun with the public.

This frustrates me as well. Criterion is allegedly sitting on so many licenses without releasing them and as a collector, who is very much interested in classic US studio productions some months are really sobering but on the other hand another is very happy about titles being announced that I have no interest in.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by HipsterTrash

But PTA said that Hard Eight isn't with Criterion. And there's music rights issues with California Split.

Don't get me wrong. I want these on the label. Badly.

Oh, I see, I didn't know that was your angle with that post. I don't know about Hard Eight, but I do know that the music rights issues have apparently been resolved with respect to California Split.

Originally Posted by Rayjg

Good point. The same can be said for the Sweet Sweetback's Badassss Song re-issue in the Melvin Van Peebles box set too. Hard to imagine Criterion topping Vinegar Syndrome on that one even if they initially released it on laserdisc. Something critics of Criterion probably weren't even aware of.

I wasn't aware that Criterion had released it on laserdisc. I'm wondering if anyone will kick up a fuss about the sex scene involving an underage Mario Van Peebles that caused it to be censored in the UK. I thought that because of that, nobody but Vinegar Syndrome would even touch it despite its historical significance.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by bergman864

I've found Her and The Road Warrior at the Dollar Tree. Being sold at Dollar Tree is not solely indicative of quality or commercial viability.

Agreed, however the perceived quality of the film itself was never addressed in any of my posts. From my perspective, it's not relevant except to the individual.

So, let's stick to commercial viability and justification for release.

While you are correct that a film found at Dollar Tree selling for a dollar is not solely indicative of commercial viability, the underlying principle is the same, as commercial considerations were definitely in play for both of the specific releases you cite, i.e., stock for both Her and Road Warrior were cleared to facilitate newer releases from the same studio. While I don't have the numbers at hand, I am curious how many units WB moved for both Her and Road Warrior in comparison to Love and Basketball.

Listen, we all understand the criticism Criterion received as a by-product of the NYT's article, and the need to release films from Black filmmakers on physical media in spite of the fact the Criterion Channel offered a wealth of selections and specific series highlighting such films before the article was published.

If the answer is releasing Love and Basketball, honestly, they have a problem.

When Criterion releases a title for which the same master was recently available for a dollar, the question is the same, whether it's Her, Road Warrior or Love and Basketball.

In other words, the risk is the same.

One segment of the Criterion customer base is going to ask why are they releasing this film? In the case of Love and Basketball, why when there are so many critically acclaimed titles from Black filmmakers, e.g., One False Move from Carl Franklin, which have never been released on Blu? Another example is Sweet Sweetback, which was just released a few years ago and is still available.

Then, there is a another, perhaps overlapping, segment of the Criterion customer base who is going to resent the fact these films are being released in place of many long-sought after films. Perhaps these titles were previously released but no longer available and where a new restoration is desired and/or available elsewhere. Have you asked yourself just how many Criterion customers were clamoring for Love and Basketball?

You, and others, seem to have a position which states Criterion has overlooked Black filmmakers so therefore any release by a Black filmmaker is not only justified, but also free from scrutiny. That's perfectly understood, as we're all entitled to our own opinions.

The risk, as I cited in my post, is simply not every Criterion customer shares that opinion, and from a commercial perspective, there may be consequences.

Consequences not limited to the purchase of a single title, e.g., Love and Basketball, but to the brand. Just as there may be consequences if it is perceived that Criterion has perhaps not released a sufficient number and/or specific releases from Black filmmakers.

So, as I see it, there is a great deal of risk at present for Criterion.

Are you telling me something different, or are you telling me you take exception to the fact that someone has identified the above risk?

[HipsterTrash]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Oh, I see, I didn't know that was your angle with that post. I don't know about Hard Eight, but I do know that the music rights issues have apparently been resolved with respect to California Split.

No worries. No venom from me. I really want both titles but I've heard other state they're unlikely.

But if the rights to the latter have been resolved then that's great news to me.

[dressedtokill]

I don't necessarily agree with all the points that were made regarding Love & Basketball, but to the credit of this thread somehow everyone managed to keep it civil so there's that. However, many users keep saying Criterion is using the same master for Love & Basketball and that is false. It's a new 4k restoration that was performed exclusively for this release and supervised by the director. Now, carry on with the discussion.

[dkelly26666]

I just saw the new Criterion release of "Streetwise" today.

I hadn't seen that film since 1986. Man, it still packs a punch.

Then, a little research shows me some shocking details about the fates of some of the subjects from the film, which I wasn't aware of.


Just sad all the way around.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by bergman864

I've found Her and The Road Warrior at the Dollar Tree. Being sold at Dollar Tree is not solely indicative of quality or commercial viability.

I've also bought Enough Said, Inherent Vice, The Namesake, and one of the best baseball movies you'll ever see, Sugar, at the Dollar Store, so yeah... agreed.

[Member-682067]

So happy 'The Damned' is getting it's due with CC.

That one(as well as others) has come up around here a lot to be picked, do you think they monitor these boards for ideas about which movies to get for release??

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Agreed, however the perceived quality of the film itself was never addressed in any of my posts. From my perspective, it's not relevant except to the individual.

So, let's stick to commercial viability and justification for release.

While you are correct that a film found at Dollar Tree selling for a dollar is not solely indicative of commercial viability, the underlying principle is the same, as commercial considerations were definitely in play for both of the specific releases you cite, i.e., stock for both Her and Road Warrior were cleared to facilitate newer releases from the same studio. While I don't have the numbers at hand, I am curious how many units WB moved for both Her and Road Warrior in comparison to Love and Basketball.

Listen, we all understand the criticism Criterion received as a by-product of the NYT's article, and the need to release films from Black filmmakers on physical media in spite of the fact the Criterion Channel offered a wealth of selections and specific series highlighting such films before the article was published.

If the answer is releasing Love and Basketball, honestly, they have a problem.

When Criterion releases a title for which the same master was recently available for a dollar, the question is the same, whether it's Her, Road Warrior or Love and Basketball.

In other words, the risk is the same.

One segment of the Criterion customer base is going to ask why are they releasing this film? In the case of Love and Basketball, why when there are so many critically acclaimed titles from Black filmmakers, e.g., One False Move from Carl Franklin, which have never been released on Blu? Another example is Sweet Sweetback, which was just released a few years ago and is still available.

Then, there is a another, perhaps overlapping, segment of the Criterion customer base who is going to resent the fact these films are being released in place of many long-sought after films. Perhaps these titles were previously released but no longer available and where a new restoration is desired and/or available elsewhere. Have you asked yourself just how many Criterion customers were clamoring for Love and Basketball?

You, and others, seem to have a position which states Criterion has overlooked Black filmmakers so therefore any release by a Black filmmaker is not only justified, but also free from scrutiny. That's perfectly understood, as we're all entitled to our own opinions.

The risk, as I cited in my post, is simply not every Criterion customer shares that opinion, and from a commercial perspective, there may be consequences.

Consequences not limited to the purchase of a single title, e.g., Love and Basketball, but to the brand. Just as there may be consequences if it is perceived that Criterion has perhaps not released a sufficient number and/or specific releases from Black filmmakers.

So, as I see it, there is a great deal of risk at present for Criterion.

Are you telling me something different, or are you telling me you take exception to the fact that someone has identified the above risk?

You like to babble in your posts to make it seem like you're saying more than you actually are.

The Criterion release of Moonrise Kingdom was arguably worse than the Fox release because they cut the bitrate in half. It had more extras but the same can be said here with Love and Basketball.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but where was the same level of scrutiny for The Big Chill, The Breakfast Club, The Princess Bride, Amores Perros, and Fast Times at Ridgemont High? And your point about customers clamoring for Love and Basketball. I'm sure when Me and You and Everyone We Know and Hedwig and the Angry Inch were announced preorders went through the roof, right?

No one is saying that any black film Criterion decides to release is free of scrutiny. Just that they face a level of scrutiny unlike films from other filmmakers. Unlike films from others, every black releases seems to have to "earn" their place in the collection amongst some people around here. That didn't seem to be the case with films like Working Girls and Smooth Talk.

P.S. Sweetback is currently OOP.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dressedtokill

However, many users keep saying Criterion is using the same master for Love & Basketball and that is false. It's a new 4k restoration that was performed exclusively for this release and supervised by the director. Now, carry on with the discussion.

Thanks for the info. I was under the assumption that a new 4K scan was conducted for the 2015 Blu-ray, which most of us would agree was a pretty solid presentation of the film. But you are stating that another new scan was created, or perhaps a digital restoration of that scan was conducted to create a new master for this release. Is this info based on the statement made by Criterion on their website, or somewhere else?

If so, good news for those who were unhappy with the last release or didn't pick it up on the cheap, but from my perspective it wasn't a presentation that screamed it needed a new restoration. That said, there's always room for improvement so kudos to Criterion for paying the tab.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by bergman864

You like to babble in your posts to make it seem like you're saying more than you actually are.

You're entitled to an opinion about my post re: Criterion. That said, why don't you simply state what you think I'm saying, instead of taking a statement from my post out of context and then inserting your own word, quality, to support your post. It's not honest.

Originally Posted by bergman864

The Criterion release of Moonrise Kingdom was arguably worse than the Fox release because they cut the bitrate in half. It had more extras but the same can be said here with Love and Basketball.

If you're suggesting that Criterion has released films that have shortcomings in comparison to other releases, well, we're in complete agreement.

In my opinion, that's not the same issue as a terrific presentation of a film selling for $1 as overstock at a dollar store.

Originally Posted by bergman864

Correct me if I'm wrong, but where was the same level of scrutiny for The Big Chill, The Breakfast Club, The Princess Bride, Amores Perros, and Fast Times at Ridgemont High? And your point about customers clamoring for Love and Basketball. I'm sure when Me and You and Everyone We Know and Hedwig and the Angry Inch were announced preorders went through the roof, right?

Why stop there? This thread is filled with criticism of those titles and many more.

It's not only a question of Criterion releasing films which some segments of their audience believe are undeserving. It's the fact that Criterion has released a slew of films to address the criticism leveled at their film selection process and related collection, and the films Criterion has subsequently released to respond to that criticism will be viewed in that context. It may be unfair, but that's the dynamic that is present, and it's not of my making, it's simply what is.

Originally Posted by bergman864

No one is saying that any black film Criterion decides to release is free of scrutiny. Just that they face a level of scrutiny unlike films from other filmmakers. Unlike films from others, every black releases seems to have to "earn" their place in the collection amongst some people around here. That didn't seem to be the case with films like Working Girls and Smooth Talk.

Perfectly understood and agree that there is a segment of their audience who is opposed to the recent number of releases by Black filmmakers, just as there is a segment who question releases from Women directors, e.g., Working Girls and Smooth Talk.

So how does one be critical of a Criterion selection of a Black filmmaker without being accused of being racist, or of a selection from a Women director without being sexist?

Because I am critical of Criterion selecting Love and Basketball for the reason I cited, and obviously you believe that I'm singling out this film exclusively because it's from a Black filmmaker.

Furthermore, whether you believe it or not, I want Criterion to succeed in adding films by Black filmmakers, not because I'm such a virtuous person and I'm on the 'right' side, but because I believe it's in the best interest of Criterion and their audience.

That said, I'm being honest when I state I don't believe they're doing a very good job of it to date.

For every recent quality film from a Black filmmaker added to the collection, there are two or three that just make me wonder why they can't secure films that are more deserving or presented in a way that makes them a compelling purchase. I loved Atlantics and enjoyed Beast of No Nations, but both of these films are available to stream on Netflix. It's the same reason why The Irishman is not my collection.

Perhaps I'm alone in the opinion that Criterion could have taken a better approach to not only address the criticism from the New York Times but also in their selections to represent Black filmmakers. For their sake, let's hope so.

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

You're entitled to an opinion about my post re: Criterion. That said, why don't you simply state what you think I'm saying, instead of taking a statement from my post out of context and then inserting your own word, quality, to support your post. It's not honest.

If you're suggesting that Criterion has released films that have shortcomings in comparison to other releases, well, we're in complete agreement.

In my opinion, that's not the same issue as a terrific presentation of a film selling for $1 as overstock at a dollar store.

Why stop there? This thread is filled with criticism of those titles and many more.

It's not only a question of Criterion releasing films which some segments of their audience believe are undeserving. It's the fact that Criterion has released a slew of films to address the criticism leveled at their film selection process and related collection, and the films Criterion has subsequently released to respond to that criticism will be viewed in that context. It may be unfair, but that's the dynamic that is present, and it's not of my making, it's simply what is.

Perfectly understood and agree that there is a segment of their audience who is opposed to the recent number of releases by Black filmmakers, just as there is a segment who question releases from Women directors, e.g., Working Girls and Smooth Talk.

So how does one be critical of a Criterion selection of a Black filmmaker without being accused of being racist, or of a selection from a Women director without being sexist?

Because I am critical of Criterion selecting Love and Basketball for the reason I cited, and obviously you believe that I'm singling out this film exclusively because it's from a Black filmmaker.

Furthermore, whether you believe it or not, I want Criterion to succeed in adding films by Black filmmakers, not because I'm such a virtuous person and I'm on the 'right' side, but because I believe it's in the best interest of Criterion and their audience.

That said, I'm being honest when I state I don't believe they're doing a very good job of it to date.

For every recent quality film from a Black filmmaker added to the collection, there are two or three that just make me wonder why they can't secure films that are more deserving or presented in a way that makes them a compelling purchase. I loved Atlantics and enjoyed Beast of No Nations, but both of these films are available to stream on Netflix. It's the same reason why The Irishman is not my collection.

Perhaps I'm alone in the opinion that Criterion could have taken a better approach to not only address the criticism from the New York Times but also in their selections to represent Black filmmakers. For their sake, let's hope so.

The problem is, whenever a black filmmaker is added to the collection, someone uses the term 'woke' or brings up the NYT article. It's never solely about the merits of the film.

And if you or anyone else thinks that the Criterion releases of black filmmakers in the first half of this year are because of that article you're delusional Do you think Criterion did a quick deal to get the rights to Pariah, Deep Cover and the Marlon Riggs films?

As for the part I bolded, what exactly would be a better approach other than releasing more films by black filmmakers? If all you're saying is choosing different films you're really not saying anything at all.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

You're entitled to an opinion about my post re: Criterion. That said, why don't you simply state what you think I'm saying, instead of taking a statement from my post out of context and then inserting your own word, quality, to support your post. It's not honest.

[Show spoiler]

If you're suggesting that Criterion has released films that have shortcomings in comparison to other releases, well, we're in complete agreement.

In my opinion, that's not the same issue as a terrific presentation of a film selling for $1 as overstock at a dollar store.

Why stop there? This thread is filled with criticism of those titles and many more.

It's not only a question of Criterion releasing films which some segments of their audience believe are undeserving. It's the fact that Criterion has released a slew of films to address the criticism leveled at their film selection process and related collection, and the films Criterion has subsequently released to respond to that criticism will be viewed in that context. It may be unfair, but that's the dynamic that is present, and it's not of my making, it's simply what is.

Perfectly understood and agree that there is a segment of their audience who is opposed to the recent number of releases by Black filmmakers, just as there is a segment who question releases from Women directors, e.g., Working Girls and Smooth Talk.

So how does one be critical of a Criterion selection of a Black filmmaker without being accused of being racist, or of a selection from a Women director without being sexist?

Because I am critical of Criterion selecting Love and Basketball for the reason I cited, and obviously you believe that I'm singling out this film exclusively because it's from a Black filmmaker.

Furthermore, whether you believe it or not, I want Criterion to succeed in adding films by Black filmmakers, not because I'm such a virtuous person and I'm on the 'right' side, but because I believe it's in the best interest of Criterion and their audience.

That said, I'm being honest when I state I don't believe they're doing a very good job of it to date.

For every recent quality film from a Black filmmaker added to the collection, there are two or three that just make me wonder why they can't secure films that are more deserving or presented in a way that makes them a compelling purchase. I loved Atlantics and enjoyed Beast of No Nations, but both of these films are available to stream on Netflix. It's the same reason why The Irishman is not my collection.

Perhaps I'm alone in the opinion that Criterion could have taken a better approach to not only address the criticism from the New York Times but also in their selections to represent Black filmmakers. For their sake, let's hope so.

Why don't you just state succinctly what it is you're trying to say without all the hot air?

Why do you disapprove of Criterion releasing Love & Basketball?

Is it because there was a previous release that some people found for $1 in a dollar store?

Or do you just think it's not a very good film?

Or is there some other reason?

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by bergman864

The problem is, whenever a black filmmaker is added to the collection, someone uses the term 'woke' or brings up the NYT article. It's never solely about the merits of the film.

Thank you for your honesty. You should have simply stated that you believe citing the NYT's article is an issue, rather than citing the 'quality' of releases found at The Dollar Store.

That said, we all acknowledge that since the NYTs article, Criterion has made a transparent effort to release more films from Black filmmakers, so it is a challenge to remove that context even if not cited directly in a post.

Originally Posted by bergman864

And if you or anyone else thinks that the Criterion releases of black filmmakers in the first half of this year are because of that article you're delusional Do you think Criterion did a quick deal to get the rights to Pariah, Deep Cover and the Marlon Riggs films?

My opinion is Criterion would have licensed these films, and others, for their streaming channel, and that some of the physical releases would not have happened if not for the NYT's article.

While you're certainly entitled to an opinion, if you choose to throw around the word 'delusional,' the problem with that is simply these films were released post-article, not prior, and that's a big part of the issue.

Originally Posted by bergman864

As for the part I bolded, what exactly would be a better approach other than releasing more films by black filmmakers? If all you're saying is choosing different films you're really not saying anything at all.

The best approach would be a selection of films from Black filmmakers that justifies the criticism Criterion received in the NYT's article.

What you want to be able to say is simply here are the films that deserve to be with the other films in the Collection solely on the merit of the film, while acknowledging that merit is subjective and can be difficult to determine.

If you're suggesting that the films themselves don't matter, well, there may be an element of truth to that statement if all you are concerned with is an increase in the number as a some kind of badge. Not only do I not believe its sustainable, I don't believe it serves the intended purpose, and introduces the risks I cited in my earlier posts.

Let me suggest that to use any criteria other than the merit of the film itself, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, country of origin, sexual identity or any other label one chooses to use for the filmmaker, is artificial, diminishes the arbiter, and ultimately ends in failure.

Great films make themselves known, Criterion or no Criterion.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

My opinion is Criterion would have licensed these films, and others, for their streaming channel, and that some of the physical releases would not have happened if not for the NYT's article.

Just because it may be your "opinion" certainly doesn't make it a fact, and you have ZERO proof of any of the stuff you are claiming happened. When there are facts behind the real story, that's not how "opinion" works.

And no, they didn't just rush out physical releases when they plan them a year or more in advance. It would help if you knew how companies worked before you made false "opinions" about them. It also helps when you personally know people like Peter Becker, who is president of Criterion (which I do).

Since you haven't provided any facts to back up all your rants, you really just look like you're mad because they released a few films by black filmmakers, so that's not a good look, dude.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Why don't you just state succinctly what it is you're trying to say without all the hot air?

I did, right here:

Originally Posted by cgpublic

From my perspective, the fact that Love & Basketball had an excellent Blu-ray release and yet was selling for a buck is why Criterion is taking a risk with the perception that they are releasing titles from Black filmmakers exclusively as a knee-jerk response to the criticism as reported in the New York Times.

When a title is selling for a buck, that signals to many people that this film did not sell when released/available, i.e., overstock.

And that's a problem, especially for those who have carried a torch for many long-unavailable or in desperate need of restoration and/or supplement titles to be released by Criterion.

For some, it fosters a resentment.

What is it that you, and others, don't understand about the above statement.

I could be wrong, but I think you, and others, understand perfectly what I stated in my first post.

It's just an opinion. You want to call it 'hot air,' be my guest.

You want to challenge the above statement, I'll respond with respect and honestly.

You want to infer something about my character or motivations, perhaps it's you who needs to get to the point, and my response will likewise be direct.

But until someone tells me that I'm mistaken, that Criterion releases titles all the time that have had a perfectly fine Blu selling at The Dollar Store for $1, which I'm sure someone would have mentioned by now, well, I don't know what to tell you, except it's time to move on.

Like I am.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Just because it may be your "opinion" certainly doesn't make it a fact, and you have ZERO proof of any of the stuff you are claiming happened. When there are facts behind the real story, that's not how "opinion" works.

And no, they didn't just rush out physical releases when they plan them a year or more in advance. It would help if you knew how companies worked before you made false "opinions" about them. It also helps when you personally know people like Peter Becker, who is president of Criterion (which I do).

Since you haven't provided any facts to back up all your rants, you really just look like you're mad because they released a few films by black filmmakers, so that's not a good look, dude.

Well, opinions are not facts, which is why I stated it was my opinion. That's kind of how it works.

Second, my opinion is informed by Becker's own words in the NYT's article, where he stated he was attempting to expand Criterion's offerings with greater diversity via the streaming channel. As far as facts, what kind of facts are you looking for?

To be clear, you're not telling me that all these recent releases from Black filmmakers were released before the NYT's article? No, they followed, and not as if there is some big secret, and why should it be? Criterion wants to diversify their physical media Collection to reflect their streaming channel efforts, and that's a good thing.

But let's set all that aside, because since you know Becker, why not ask him on our behalf if Criterion is making progress in securing more films from Black and women filmmakers, and we're golden.

We all want more diversity, specifically more films from Black and Women filmmakers, but personally, I would prefer films that did not have a quality Blu release already available, especially if it was recently selling for a dollar.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by bergman864

P.S. Sweetback is currently OOP.

You can pick up the VS release, sans slip, from Amazon. But, if you don't already own it, I'm sure you'll wait for the box.

[Reddington]

I see that SC is releasing a 4K of Ran: