The Criterion Collection

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by Scholer

This has been said before, by others, and by me, but I simply cannot make any sense of relegating films which have new 4K restorations to blu-ray only releases in this day and age. I am no 4K completionist, and I have no problems with sticking to blu-ray only releases for films where a 4K master isn’t available, and there are films I have on blu-ray sourced from 4K masters released a few years ago that I probably won’t upgrade to a 4K re-release because the blu-ray I have seems adequate. But why should, in 2024, any new release of a film from a 4K master not include a UHD option…

Surely down to sales figures and how much detail the elements provide? There are sometimes UHDs which aren’t that different detail wise from a BD (see some of the talk over Holiday Inn and Roman Holiday).

[themp3000]

Just To Die For 4K for me. Watched it on the Channel this year and really liked it.

[CandymanHappyman]

I just posted this in the KINO thread, but since it's relative to this conversation, I'll also post it here.

Radiance Films just put up a list of 10 movies that they tried to license this year, but were unable to.

If you have a Letterboxd account, you can read the notes on each film to see some of the hurdles faced by boutique labels when it comes to licensing films, especially independently owned or Japanese films.

https://letterboxd.com/radiancefilms...s-2023/detail/

As I have said before on numerous occasions, simply having home video rights is not enough to release a movie on Blu-ray or 4K UHD.

• You need to have specific rights for release on Blu-ray and 4K UHD, beyond simple home video rights. Sometimes the rights owner will only grant you Blu-ray rights and keep the 4K UHD rights. Or they may ask for a lot more money to include the 4K UHD rights.
  
• You need access to the original elements for the best presentation possible. Sometimes they no longer exist, or are in very bad shape and the licensor is not willing to foot the cost of restoring the film.
  
• The cost of licensing, restoring, authoring and releasing a title has to be reasonable in an era when most of these Japanese titles will only sell copies in the thousands.
  
• Japanese companies like Toho are notoriously difficult to deal with. They also want to make as much money from the domestic Japanese market, before they will allow other countries to release their films.
  
• This year, Toho has released 7 Godzilla films in 4K in Japan only. These do not have English subtitles. This is not an accident. Toho does not want us to import these releases. They want to sell as many of these discs to Japanese fans as they can, before allowing Criterion, or another label, to release these films in the US and the rest of the world.

[jw007]

Some interesting new Criterion releases for March 2024. Nothing that screams out at me however.

[dressedtokill]

Originally Posted by jw007

Some interesting new Criterion releases for March 2024. Nothing that screams out at me however.

Same.

[CRASHLANDING]

Originally Posted by Scholer

This has been said before, by others, and by me, but I simply cannot make any sense of relegating films which have new 4K restorations to blu-ray only releases in this day and age. I am no 4K completionist, and I have no problems with sticking to blu-ray only releases for films where a 4K master isn’t available, and there are films I have on blu-ray sourced from 4K masters released a few years ago that I probably won’t upgrade to a 4K re-release because the blu-ray I have seems adequate. But why should, in 2024, any new release of a film from a 4K master not include a UHD option…

Besides the fact that it's likely cheaper to buy only BD licensing rights, 4K releases are also quite a bit more costly to author and manufacture. Since 4K still remains a relatively niche segment for home video shoppers, they would most likely need to include a BD in the 4K release or create a second, BD-only SKU. All that adds costs, so they're only going to bother with 4K releases for titles where they think it will drive enough added sales to make up those costs. For most of Criterion's vintage titles, a BD from a high quality 4K master should be more than adequate.

[JasonMichael]

Originally Posted by CandymanHappyman

I just posted this in the KINO thread, but since it's relative to this conversation, I'll also post it here.

Radiance Films just put up a list of 10 movies that they tried to license this year, but were unable to.

If you have a Letterboxd account, you can read the notes on each film to see some of the hurdles faced by boutique labels when it comes to licensing films, especially independently owned or Japanese films.

https://letterboxd.com/radiancefilms...s-2023/detail/

Your link seems to be broken, this should work:
https://letterboxd.com/radiancefilms...s-2023/detail/

Thanks for posting this though, very interesting behind the scenes info!

[Egbert Souse]

Originally Posted by Scholer

This has been said before, by others, and by me, but I simply cannot make any sense of relegating films which have new 4K restorations to blu-ray only releases in this day and age. I am no 4K completionist, and I have no problems with sticking to blu-ray only releases for films where a 4K master isn’t available, and there are films I have on blu-ray sourced from 4K masters released a few years ago that I probably won’t upgrade to a 4K re-release because the blu-ray I have seems adequate. But why should, in 2024, any new release of a film from a 4K master not include a UHD option…

Odd thing is that I think this would have been a good choice for UHD, but it does seem like 2023 is the first year where most of the titles with actual 4K masters (not 4K scans/2K masters like Hollywood Shuffle or Chilly Scenes of Winter) received a UHD release. Only exceptions this year have been Pasolini 101 (7/9 of the films), Imitation of Life, Romeo and Juliet, La Bamba, and The Servant.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Matt89

I would commit murder for a blu-ray (or 4K) release of Baby Face.

Good luck watching it on death row.

[Professor Echo]

Really digging that appropriate approximation of woodcut art for this cover! Rarely does Criterion come through for me with the combination of a movie I really want and emblazoned with cover art that I really love!

[jw007]

I was looking for some old articles from 1980 and stumbled upon this really nostalgic little blurb. I decided to create a clipping from this Irish newspaper (Sligo Champion from May 9, 1980) to share this with everyone today. The Terrence Malick film Days of Heaven was being screened at this ancient movie theater in Sligo, Ireland. I love how back then films were elegantly promoted and written about in actual newspapers! Plus, check out some of the spelling errors here.

Just thought this was cool, being that it's also a film in the Criterion Collection, and an excellent one that is mandatory for everyone's film library.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by tatterdemalion

For me, besides the Kurosawa films, Samurai Rebellion and Kon Ichikawa's Fires on the Plain are the two Japanese films that frustratingly haven't had an upgrade from DVD. Oh, and Kinoshita's Twenty-Four Eyes. And don't even get me started on the lack of Mikio Naruse films. Floating Clouds and Mother would be a nice start. But, in keeping with the season and all I know it'll be "onlyyyy in myyyyy dreaaaaaaaaaams..."

Yes, "Twenty -Four Eyes" please

[Taylor3978]

Originally Posted by jw007

I was looking for some old articles from 1980 and stumbled upon this really nostalgic little blurb. I decided to create a clipping from this Irish newspaper (Sligo Champion from May 9, 1980) to share this with everyone today.

Interesting. Just to provide some perspective, Belle Du Jour would have been un-banned in Ireland only a few years before, but Clockwork Orange and Life of Brian were still banned. If you wanted to stray outside of Hollywood mainstream (think Goldie Hawn), you'd join the Irish Film Theater in Dublin, I saw a lot of Fellini there. Your other option would be BBC2 if you were on the east coast. It really was a desert out in the hinterlands, so kudos to the proprietors of this cinema for trying to be a beacon in the wilderness (or maybe they were showing stuff that did not cost much).

[EinCB128]

Originally Posted by CandymanHappyman

• The cost of licensing, restoring, authoring and releasing a title has to be reasonable in an era when most of these Japanese titles will only sell copies in the thousands.
  

When it comes to licensing, Criterion has to pay the film distributors in order to release it on their label, correct? Not the other way around?

Also, is authoring synonymous for encoding? What does authoring mean in this aspect?

Thank you.

[mja345]

"The Devil and Daniel Webster" is one of the best films sitting in Criterion's DVD-only vault IMO, just a massive performance by Walter Huston and a wonderful film.

I have nothing against Criterion's slate this past month, but, I do have to say, some of the films feel like titles that would be released by Vinegar Syndrome's partner labels. Not bad films, but minimal if you're filling up a 5-film slate with a monster back-catalog of DVD-only titles under license. If Criterion wants to release a lot of contemporary titles, then they should license some of their DVD titles to other labels or pump up the output. There are just too many priceless DVD-only titles that Criterion really doesn't need to be d**king around with five physical titles per month at this point. You have the resources, go to 8-10, and then you can incorporate both newer titles and older films. Just my two cents.

[Fabs]

Originally Posted by tatterdemalion

For me, besides the Kurosawa films, Samurai Rebellion and Kon Ichikawa's Fires on the Plain are the two Japanese films that frustratingly haven't had an upgrade from DVD. Oh, and Kinoshita's Twenty-Four Eyes. And don't even get me started on the lack of Mikio Naruse films. Floating Clouds and Mother would be a nice start. But, in keeping with the season and all I know it'll be "onlyyyy in myyyyy dreaaaaaaaaaams..."

I’ve given up on Criterion releasing Japanese films, like they used to, anymore. Every release announcement I get excited, and then let down when they’re announced and nothing is there.

[gbm82]

Originally Posted by mja345

"The Devil and Daniel Webster" is one of the best films sitting in Criterion's DVD-only vault IMO, just a massive performance by Walter Huston and a wonderful film.

I have nothing against Criterion's slate this past month, but, I do have to say, some of the films feel like titles that would be released by Vinegar Syndrome's partner labels. Not bad films, but minimal if you're filling up a 5-film slate with a monster back-catalog of DVD-only titles under license. If Criterion wants to release a lot of contemporary titles, then they should license some of their DVD titles to other labels or pump up the output. There are just too many priceless DVD-only titles that Criterion really doesn't need to be d**king around with five physical titles per month at this point. You have the resources, go to 8-10, and then you can incorporate both newer titles and older films. Just my two cents.

This slate literally covers 4 separate decades...

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by EinCB128

Also, is authoring synonymous for encoding? What does authoring mean in this aspect?

Encoding, creation of menus and menu structure, etc etc.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by gbm82

This slate literally covers 4 separate decades...

Don't be obtuse, dude, two of the five titles in a month for a label that is sitting on a massive backlog of titles are 2022 movies that would fit in VS's partner label lineup. I'm not hating on that, but Criterion isn't f**king Altered Innocence or Utopia Distribution or a small label like that, which I like a lot, but probably the top label in home video distribution sitting on a colossal backlog of priceless DVD-only titles.

[Joe Cinema]

Originally Posted by mja345

"The Devil and Daniel Webster" is one of the best films sitting in Criterion's DVD-only vault IMO, just a massive performance by Walter Huston and a wonderful film.

I have nothing against Criterion's slate this past month, but, I do have to say, some of the films feel like titles that would be released by Vinegar Syndrome's partner labels. Not bad films, but minimal if you're filling up a 5-film slate with a monster back-catalog of DVD-only titles under license. If Criterion wants to release a lot of contemporary titles, then they should license some of their DVD titles to other labels or pump up the output. There are just too many priceless DVD-only titles that Criterion really doesn't need to be d**king around with five physical titles per month at this point. You have the resources, go to 8-10, and then you can incorporate both newer titles and older films. Just my two cents.

Licensing for DVD, BD, and 4K UHD are each separate deals, and Criterion doesn't own anything. Unless Criterion has licensed the rights for all 3 of those formats, they're not sitting on anything or preventing other boutiques from licensing them. See Kino.