The Criterion Collection

[alexrinse]

Originally Posted by tatterdemalion

So the 1.37 image was softly matted on the top of the negative?

What does that mean, for the less-initiated of us? Thanks!

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by tatterdemalion

I was there reading that too. The screen shots they did only seemed to work at 1.37 or 1.66. Didn't they mention that United Artists at that time was pushing 1.66 as it's preferred WS ratio? So the 1.37 image was softly matted on the top of the negative?

Anyway, I prefer this in the summertime:



Bates Motel and RCRochester, I do agree that Criterion should at least give an option on ratios. That way there wouldn't be dissatisfaction about it for some. We the viewer can decide which one works better for our own preference. A little more of Venice or tighter framing.

Glad for once to get into a conversation. I don't post often, just usually read through the thread. And when I did I drew Bates...I'm official now!

Btw, when I worked I used to say 'Thank you, have a nice day' not 'so long..' with angry customers. I was a manager a few times and 99% of the time they came back because I said that. Posting at 12:30am will do that to you.

I wish Criterion would release it in both ARs and give the viewer that option to decide for themselves. I don’t think it’s too much to ask since what used to be fairly standard extras on their releases such as commentaries and booklets are practically extinct these days.

I used to love those volcano nightlights on The Big Island too. From a distance of course.

[tatterdemalion]

Originally Posted by alexrinse

What does that mean, for the less-initiated of us? Thanks!

When I'm looking at the 1.37 image it looks to me like a large portion of the image meant to be matted to create whatever WS ratio this film was shown in is at the top of the image, but that's just a guess. There's definitely more open space up on top. But that would be a weird way to frame the movie while filming.

If you're asking about matting we have some posters that are experts on that, I believe we have an actual projectionist or two on here, and can explain it better but I'll try.

Pretty much all non-anamorphic films starting from around that 1953-1954 time period to modern times shoot a film in 1.37, but have markings on(?) or near the lens to frame the film the way it's expected to be shown in the theaters. When it gets to the theater the projectionist then mattes the film; I'm not going to pretend I know how they do that; into the ratio sent on the information given to them on projecting said film to cover/hide the image not supposed to be seen.

Sorry if that comes off as didactic.

[tatterdemalion]

Originally Posted by hoytereden

I wish Criterion would release it in both ARs and give the viewer that option to decide for themselves. I don’t think it’s too much to ask since what used to be fairly standard extras on their releases such as commentaries and booklets are practically extinct these days.

I used to love those volcano nightlights on The Big Island too. From a distance of course.

Lol. Distance is always better when Kilauea's erupting. And since Madame Pele started it back up in Halema'uma'u Crater just before Christmas last year the glow is back...and so is the vog with southerly winds.

Yeah, if the 1.37 ratio thing is because they're uncertain and just don't want to make a mistake on the wrong WS ratio then just do both. One of those is bound to be correct, or at least close enough.

[bsend]

Originally Posted by ukulelemonster

This movie is high on my list of Criterions to purchase, but I've been holding off on the chance it'll be upgraded. And I really want it in 4K.

I recently purchased it during the last flash sale. Chances went up a little.

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by NeoNical

Happy 75th Anniversary to One of the Greatest British Dramas:

Black Narcissus
A Film by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger

[Show spoiler]

Premiered on this day in London.

On a side note, thought that there already was a 4K UHD release of this. Hopefully there is one in the makings!

A beautiful film; I’d definitely love a 4K. Probably lower on on most folks’ upgrade list but The 49th Parallel would sure make me happy.

[Abdrewes]

Question for somebody more in the know: Is there a greater chance of Netflix licensing out more of their content now that their stock has taken a giant hit (69% in the last 6 months)?

Obviously it won't solve their problems, but at least it's a small revenue stream that'll help a few people keep their jobs. I'm hoping that Okja is a sign of more to come. There's a small handful of Originals I'd like to own on disc.

[BaronVH]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Because it's wrong, and not what the artist intended. It should 100% be complained about, and the company doesn't get a "pass" just for releasing it on a dying physical media format.

It's cool (I guess) if you want to support errors, but I'm pretty sure if you made art that was then reproduced incorrectly, you wouldn't just shrug and say "whatever." You're fine with "owning" a movie even if its wrong. Thankfully, most of us feel the opposite, and would rather have it presented correctly.

And you DID finally see those mentioned films in proper aspect ratio, unlike this film, which has always—and continues to be—maligned.

And if the artist is David Lean, then they need to get it right. I have not seen Harris’ comments about the elements, but they should clearly state why it is Academy. At a minimum release multiple versions on the disk. I do not mind paying more for Criterion versions, but no way would I do so if they do not have the OAR.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Question for somebody more in the know: Is there a greater chance of Netflix licensing out more of their content now that their stock has taken a giant hit (69% in the last 6 months)?

Obviously it won't solve their problems, but at least it's a small revenue stream that'll help a few people keep their jobs. I'm hoping that Okja is a sign of more to come. There's a small handful of Originals I'd like to own on disc.

Since part of the problem is losing subscribers, I don't see how making their content available elsewhere would help that. They wouldn't get as much from licensing fees as they do from new subscribers. Netflix also only licenses to Criterion thus far, so that is a very narrow library of titles from Netflix that could feasibly get a physical release. A label like Shout! Factory would be a good place for many other movies/shows of theirs, but it's very unlikely to happen. Given the insane competition over the last years, and the amount of people sharing accounts, it's amazing they still have had decent subscriber growth over the last few years.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Since part of the problem is losing subscribers, I don't see how making their content available elsewhere would help that. They wouldn't get as much from licensing fees as they do from new subscribers. Netflix also only licenses to Criterion thus far, so that is a very narrow library of titles from Netflix that could feasibly get a physical release. A label like Shout! Factory would be a good place for many other movies/shows of theirs, but it's very unlikely to happen. Given the insane competition over the last years, and the amount of people sharing accounts, it's amazing they still have had decent subscriber growth over the last few years.

They're probably realizing that they're a movie studio like any other. Licensing is a revenue stream. It's not a major revenue stream, but it is one.

When you're not growing anymore, you need to make money where you can.

I'd call it possible.

[TolerancEJ]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Question for somebody more in the know: Is there a greater chance of Netflix licensing out more of their content now that their stock has taken a giant hit (69% in the last 6 months)?

Obviously it won't solve their problems, but at least it's a small revenue stream that'll help a few people keep their jobs. I'm hoping that Okja is a sign of more to come. There's a small handful of Originals I'd like to own on disc.

I hope so. There are a number of titles I'd like to own on physical media.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by tatterdemalion

but have markings on(?) or near the lens to frame the film the way it's expected to be shown in the theaters.

The markings are on the viewfinder (also the monitor will usually have some kind of markings, not always official or 100% accurate, but enough to aid the director in judging the framing). If the markings were on the lens itself, they would be recorded on film.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Since part of the problem is losing subscribers, I don't see how making their content available elsewhere would help that. They wouldn't get as much from licensing fees as they do from new subscribers. Netflix also only licenses to Criterion thus far, so that is a very narrow library of titles from Netflix that could feasibly get a physical release. A label like Shout! Factory would be a good place for many other movies/shows of theirs, but it's very unlikely to happen. Given the insane competition over the last years, and the amount of people sharing accounts, it's amazing they still have had decent subscriber growth over the last few years.

You are correct on that first point, but I would like to add that it wouldn't hurt either. Unless boutique bluray buyers axing their Netflix accounts the second more of their content is available on disc would really hurt their bottom line

Again, as I said earlier, it won't cure their woes, not even 1% of them, but it'll still be a steady, small revenue stream nonetheless.

Originally Posted by dvining

They're probably realizing that they're a movie studio like any other. Licensing is a revenue stream. It's not a major revenue stream, but it is one.

When you're not growing anymore, you need to make money where you can.

I'd call it possible.

Agreed!

[NeilZ]

Isn't netflix still sitting on Dolemite is My Name? That was great and infinitely better than the abominable Coming to America 2. Would make for a good pickup from Criterion I'd think.

[Nailwraps]

Sometimes I don't know what I want more; a 4K/Blu-ray edition of Westworld from Scream Factory or one from Criterion?

Either way we need a 4K/Blu-ray of Futureworld to go with it from Kino or Scream.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Nailwraps

Sometimes I don't know what I want more; a 4K/Blu-ray edition of Westworld from Scream Factory or one from Criterion?

Either way we need a 4K/Blu-ray of Futureworld to go with it from Kino or Scream.

Arrow would be the best fit in my opinion.

[tatterdemalion]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

The markings are on the viewfinder (also the monitor will usually have some kind of markings, not always official or 100% accurate, but enough to aid the director in judging the framing). If the markings were on the lens itself, they would be recorded on film.

Thank you, I could picture it but the words view finder wouldn't come to me. I figured it couldn't be on the lens, thus the question mark, but I wasn't absolutely sure.

[HipsterTrash]

I hope with Kino releasing 7 Truffaut films it lights a fire under Criterion to get back to releasing some more Truffaut as well. I hope they still have Shoot the Piano Player and the Antoine Daniel films.

[AreaFive]

Originally Posted by JasonMichael

Tell that to my fifteen year old flip phone! I ain't entering all my movies by hand.

[Rayjg]

Surely Criterion will release Airplane! eventually? Right