The Criterion Collection

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by jkoffman

The corrected BD disc has “Second Pressing” printed on the disc itself, along the outer edge.

Excellent! Thanks. I do have the second pressing BD.

The packaging for this Citizen Kane is not…entirely practical. I put my 4K UHD disc in the top folding slot for easier access.

[gbm82]

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by JupiterMission

I can't speak for Neil at all, and I understand you reading racism into "overly diverse," but speaking for myself I don't like "diversity" or "inclusion" as a standard taking priority over "quality." I think a lot of people try to make that point and come off as racist, or anti-LGBTQIA2S+, misogynist, etc. That may indeed be their true motivation, but there are legitimate issues to have with valuing diversity over quality.

The two things I'll try to get ahead of on that point are 1) The Criterion Collection is not the end all be all mark of quality, even if some people want to think it is. And 2) everybody has their own idea of what makes a film high quality. All of that is debatable, and people will land where they will, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's inherently bigoted to notice and discuss when a company explicitly shifts its brand from "the mark of quality" to "the mark of inclusion and diversity and also quality." There are bigoted ways to discuss it, but there are also legitimate gripes to be had.

Not that anybody asked, but one thing I thought was annoying about the NYT and Criterion equity controversy was I don't really remember anybody giving Kino credit at the time. Kino Lorber has (and had at the time) a tremendously diverse (in all kinds of ways) output, and nobody had to bend their arm to achieve it. It made the equity criticism feel spoiled and insincere - complaining when you aren't getting what you want, but not appreciating where you are. I think Criterion was only in the sights because it - like the Oscars, or various universities, or whatever - carries (rightfully or not) prestige, and that's all the activists really care about anyways. Not movies, not physical media, just prestige, politics, and power.

Anyways. Hopefully we'll get Red Beard soon.

Originally Posted by NeilZ

I thought it would pretty obvious what I was referring to. A certain article written by the NYT intended to bully Criterion into submission using the usual social justice tactics employed on so many companies these days.

Since JupiterMission phrased it better than I could, I’ll just quote that passage from his post:



As a fan of Criterion from back in their early days that article has been a bane in my existence. I’m all for a larger output of lesser known films, but for it to be done the way it has (basically by humiliating the label) and done at the detriment of the old favorites (namely many Japanese films) many of us old time Criterion fans have been longing for blu rays of is truly a tragedy.

That being said I’m glad for those who love these newer releases. Me I’ll be sitting tight hoping for them to ride through this and hoping that they eventually resume something looking more like what I used to expect from them.

I don't want to start up this argument again but I will say this. It's pretty remarkable that the only time anyone complains about diversity it relates to race or sexual identity. I remember a time when they had very few female directed films in the collection. They recognized a weak spot and addressed it. The same could be said for their lack of Czech films in the collection. No one complained about the lack of Japanese films and "diversity" when more Czech films were being released. Don't act like this is just people pining for the old days of Criterion releases.

All that article did was point out a weak spot in Criterion's lineup. And if the tone of the article bothered you it's clear it struck a personal nerve you seem unwilling to confront. People need to stop identifying with these labels and take any criticism as a personal attack on them.

This is Criterion's mission statement.

Since 1984, the Criterion Collection has been dedicated to publishing important classic and contemporary films from around the world in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements.

And yet their releases leaned heavily toward only a few countries and very few black directors, female directors, or world films. Who knows if Criterion was already rectifying the first of those things before the article. It really shouldn't matter. They recognized these as an issue and are working to fix them.

But honestly, would we have even had this conversation if there was an NYT article about Criterion not releasing enough films from South America? Or a lack of contemporary films in their mission statement?

And I don't think NYT has to mention that another label is doing better about releasing diverse films. Making that comparison would only make the article seem negative and not constructive.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by JupiterMission

The Criterion Collection is not the end all be all mark of quality, even if some people want to think it is.

I agree 100%. I laugh when I see those who wonder when a film will get the "Criterion Treatment" when the film is already available on a high quality Blu-Ray or 4K UHD disc. Yes, Criterion produces high quality releases. But they're not the only ones.

[themp3000]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

I really think Criterion could easily do this. Maybe scale down on some features or do some upgrades and use those old features.

I think one issue might be that they want to seem more exclusive and that their selection is more limited to the "prestige" title they are often associated with. I don't know.

Either way, they really need to release more titles since they are hoarding so many that could be released by others.

I don’t want Criterion to become Kino. Kino has always been a quantity over quality company to me. That shows in almost every facet of their release from announcement to street date. I don’t remember 90% of what Kino announces, I can’t. It’s just not possible. I only remember one of their titles when I see it go up on DiabolikDVD or Amazon. There’s nothing wrong with Kino, I buy from them but they are at the bottom of the totem pole because I can’t keep up with them at all. And their quality is well… yeah. Everyone else takes priority.

I’d rather Criterion continue what they are doing because it is working for them and for the rest of us. I’d rather keep replacement schemes to a bare minimum or nonexistent. I’d also rather keep the moaning and groaning about problems with Criterions to a minimum or nonexistent here too.

That’s all I’m going to say on the matter and that’s my two cents.

[Egbert Souse]

I find it amusing that Criterion releasing a dozen films over two years is somehow holding back "more important" films. Sweet Sweetback and Menace II Society were important enough for laserdisc!

We only have their schedule through May and...

Films by Campion, the Coens, Sirk, McCarey, Melville, Aldrich, Scorsese, Tashlin, De Sica, Wilder, and Losey. Their first-ever releases of films from Hungary and Nigeria. For that matter, getting 11 UHDs released within seven months is pretty impressive.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by themp3000

I don’t want Criterion to become Kino. Kino has always been a quantity over quality company to me. That shows in almost every facet of their release from announcement to street date. I don’t remember 90% of what Kino announces, I can’t. It’s just not possible. I only remember one of their titles when I see it go up on DiabolikDVD or Amazon. There’s nothing wrong with Kino, I buy from them but they are at the bottom of the totem pole because I can’t keep up with them at all. And their quality is well… yeah. Everyone else takes priority.

I’d rather Criterion continue what they are doing because it is working for them and for the rest of us. I’d rather keep replacement schemes to a bare minimum or nonexistent. I’d also rather keep the moaning and groaning about problems with Criterions to a minimum or nonexistent here too.

That’s all I’m going to say on the matter and that’s my two cents.

I personally like Kino more now than Criterion, so I wouldn't mind if Criterion became more like Kino. A lot of the releases Kino put out have new remasters and look great. Plus, a huge assortment of great films. Criterion has better features, packaging, and booklets, but Kino has been pretty impressive with a lot of their encodes and picture presentations. Kino's 2022 slate has been much more impressive than Criterions.

[themp3000]

I’m really hoping we see Jessica Beshir’s Faya Dayi in the announcements next week. I’d love to see a nice luxurious UHD but I’d be happy with BD. Watched it on the Channel earlier this week and it’s really stuck to me and would love to own it.

[NeilZ]

Originally Posted by bergman864

I don't want to start up this argument again but I will say this. It's pretty remarkable that the only time anyone complains about diversity it relates to race or sexual identity. I remember a time when they had very few female directed films in the collection. They recognized a weak spot and addressed it. The same could be said for their lack of Czech films in the collection. No one complained about the lack of Japanese films and "diversity" when more Czech films were being released. Don't act like this is just people pining for the old days of Criterion releases.

All that article did was point out a weak spot in Criterion's lineup. And if the tone of the article bothered you it's clear it struck a personal nerve you seem unwilling to confront. People need to stop identifying with these labels and take any criticism as a personal attack on them.

This is Criterion's mission statement.



And yet their releases leaned heavily toward only a few countries and very few black directors, female directors, or world films. Who knows if Criterion was already rectifying the first of those things before the article. It really shouldn't matter. They recognized these as an issue and are working to fix them.

But honestly, would we have even had this conversation if there was an NYT article about Criterion not releasing enough films from South America? Or a lack of contemporary films in their mission statement?

And I don't think NYT has to mention that another label is doing better about releasing diverse films. Making that comparison would only make the article seem negative and not constructive.

What a nicely veiled way of insinuating I have some sort ingrained racism that I would be unaware of.

The way I see it Criterion went through with the changes after seeing the NYT article for the same reason most businesses do when faced with such criticism by the blm and social justice groups that attack them: fear.

Criterion does have more of a safety net than most labels thanks to their support and ties with various organizations, so they were able to prioritize correcting this so called perception of lacking diversity in the hastiest of ways.

In my view this was done at the detriment of many longtime fans who spent most subsequent months seeing the kind of output they’d hope for thin down dramatically. Apparently expressing this view subjects us to being viewed as bigoted.

I would add that I’ve never once picked a movie because of the color of the skin or the gender of the director. To be honest I find that quite disturbing.

[Abdrewes]

Can we just go back to slobbering over slipcovers? Here's one I just got in the mail:

[gbm82]

[bergman864]

Originally Posted by NeilZ

What a nicely veiled way of insinuating I have some sort ingrained racism that I would be unaware of.

The way I see it Criterion went through with the changes after seeing the NYT article for the same reason most businesses do when faced with such criticism by the blm and social justice groups that attack them: fear.

Criterion does have more of a safety net than most labels thanks to their support and ties with various organizations, so they were able to prioritize correcting this so called perception of lacking diversity in the hastiest of ways.

In my view this was done at the detriment of many longtime fans who spent most subsequent months seeing the kind of output they’d hope for thin down dramatically. Apparently expressing this view subjects us to being viewed as bigoted.

I would add that I’ve never once picked a movie because of the color of the skin or the gender of the director. To be honest I find that quite disturbing.

But you've chosen them based on country of origin. Thanks for proving my point.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Can we just go back to slobbering over slipcovers? Here's one I just got in the mail:

[Show spoiler]

Now that's one even I would throw in the recycle bin.

[moviebuffed]

Originally Posted by JWFORD

And this is what it looks like to actually support a company. Instead of just talking s***.

Nice picks. Great Criterion bling for you. Only purchased 3 from the recent sale. Two excellent Japanese films by the inimitable Ozu and an excellent classic Hollywood film starring Charles Boyer.

[NeilZ]

Originally Posted by moviebuffed

Nice picks. Great Criterion bling for you. Only purchased 3 from the recent sale. Two excellent Japanese films by the inimitable Ozu and an excellent classic Hollywood film starring Charles Boyer.

Was that A Love Affair? Boyer is great.

[Dankk]

For the eagle eyes among us who are subscribed to the Criterion Channel:

How do you feel about the picture quality/encoding quality for most of the films that are on the channel? Is the general quality quite good, by streaming service standards? Or do you find that you are sometimes distracted by compression artifacts, macroblocking, or other symptoms of poor bitrate?

I'm a bit of an A/V snob, and I like to watch movies in their highest quality possible; thus, I'm generally averse to streaming services and prefer buying physical instead. At the same time though, I'm also a student living in a small-ish apartment with not a lot of money. I have to be careful with how many blurays I buy.

So many times I've been tempted to simply get an annual subscription to the channel, so I have easy access to such a great treasure trove of films whenever I want... but I'm just worried that the streaming quality may be subpar to the point where it may actually distract me (and thus make me slightly disappointed).

I know that Criterion's video encodes are hit-or-miss even on their physical blu-rays, a topic that has already been discussed to death and probably doesn't need to be discussed further. But as far as their streaming channel is concerned, how does it compare?

Would love to hear any opinions. (Also, I cannot sign up for a free trial, because apparently I already used up a free trial a couple years ago and they won't let me do another one. )

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Now that's one even I would throw in the recycle bin.

That explains the scarcity.

[moviebuffed]

Originally Posted by NeilZ

Was that A Love Affair? Boyer is great.

Correct. My apologies for making that comment vague. Perhaps adding Irene Dunne with his name would've clarified that.

[blurayisnice]

Originally Posted by JWFORD

And this is what it looks like to actually support a company. Instead of just talking s***.

"Instead of just talking shit"? Really? Very distasteful comment.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by JWFORD

And this is what it looks like to actually support a company. Instead of just talking s***.

Black Orpheus has been on Criterion Blu-ray for 11 1/2 years and My Own Private Idaho has been available 6 1/2. If you're such a champion of diverse cinema, why'd it take you so long to pick those up?