The Criterion Collection

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

I agree with what you're saying, just not about Sorcerer. I saw it because of the WB release for the first time and seems like a lot of people are already big fans of the film. I'd rather Criterion use their slots for films that don't already have HD releases and save the big studio films for the big studios themselves.



Again, it's fine for the film itself to get a nicer upgrade, but rather it be handled by the studio itself and for Criterion to save their monthly minimal slots for films that don't have HD releases, and Criterion has about a 1000 of those. I'd take almost any of those before another 4K upgrade of a film that already has a decent to good Blu-ray.

I mean, there would be a debate about HD, and I’m glad you’re happy with it, but too many people think of this HD as a compromised and miserable transfer. It’s highly unlikely the studios were going to do anything about that. If the studio released a 4k, it would almost certainly have been from that ‘director approved” version. If it was going to happen, it was almost certainly going to have to be a boutique.

[Sifox211]

Originally Posted by Sommerswerd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiuHyOtavek

She owns a Citroën DS!

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

But then again some enjoy hamburger and fries and some of us like fine wine and caviar.

I think this is a good argument for being logical versus being excessive. A good burger is usually more fulfilling, tastier and a better economic choice. Caviar on its own isn't very tasty, salty, will cost you a lot more than the burger, and ultimately leaves you hungry. You're paying that extra money to feel fancy even though it's not a logical by most standards.

Which is what a lot of these Criterion upgrades are. You already have something done well, but you want more than what's already present. You want something fancier, while there is already a good alternative choice. Criterion has become the excess, the unneeded in many cases, and people will still eat it up. I'd rather be introduced to new meals and better meals versus getting an upgrade on something I've already had that was mostly satisfying.

[ophone]

Originally Posted by Sifox211

She owns a Citroën DS!

[MifuneFan]

It seems this discussion comes up every week or so. While I do admire Duke's passion, and agree that we need more new to HD releases, I do feel that that in itself would not be good for business.

The funny thing is, and I feel many don't acknowledge this enough, but Criterion has actually been doing way more new to HD releases in recent times compared to past years.

New to HD worldwide debut:

Choose Me
Crossing Delancey
Jo Jo Dancer, Your Life Is Calling
The Killer of Sheep
King Lear
Midnight
Prince of Broadway
Thelonious Monk Straight, No Chaser
Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould
You Can Count On Me

Plus new to HD in the US:

Anora
Antoine Donel films (besides 400 Blows)
Basquiat
Carnal Knowledge
Drugstore Cowboy
How to Get Ahead in Advertising
Three & Four Musketeers
The Mother and the Wh0re
Withnail & I
A Woman of Paris


That's nearly half of their 2025 output! The rest are either upgrades, or a newly acquired and usually popular/major film (like Sorcerer). Can you imagine what Criterion's sales would be like if they dropped those latter two things though? If they just filled it with new to HD stuff, even supposing they added some long-anticipated Japanese titles to the mix, there's no way they would be making as much as they would by including Barry Lyndon, Sorcerer, Umbrellas of Cherbourg, and others.

I think people look at Criterion as the smaller under the radar arthouse boutique they were back in the day, where Kurosawa titles were their bread and butter. But they are arguably more mainstream than ever. I mean, the fact that they can tour around a freaking Mobile Criterion Closet is proof enough of that. So, while they're not completely abandoning the more niche/arthouse crowd, they do have to cater to people that also now look to them to drop major titles too.

And for the record, as I've said before, I agree with Duke that we need some more upgrades of stuff they have rights to when possible, particularly from Kurosawa and Ozu (but also Naruse and others too), but I can't knock Criterion for picking up some major titles for 4K as well, when I know that they need titles like that to offset the undoubtedly lower expected sales from many of those New to HD titles listed above.

[Egbert Souse]

Half of Criterion's slate this year are titles that are new to at least Blu-ray. There's so many long-awaited titles like Midnight, The Three/Four Musketeers, A Woman of Paris, and Winchester '73 - plus Killer of Sheep, which we hadn't really expected to come from Criterion instead of Milestone/Kino.

We're probably also getting WCP No. 5 this year, along with Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, I Know Where I'm Going!, possible a Bunuel in Mexico set, and maybe even La Roue.

I do agree that there should be more Japanese titles (when the heck are we getting a Kurosawa or Ozu set?) but right now I have the longest list of must-have titles for the July B&N sale I've had in years and most are going to be new to my collection.

[darrellmaclaine]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

Look up Drew Struzan to learn about “awesome” movie art.

Drew Struzan's art is rightfully celebrated but that is just one approach, and there isn't "one" way of doing anything. A willingness to take risks and try new things with cover/poster art is what has given us all a lot of our favourite pieces and artists.

I think that Sorcerer cover is an absolutely stunning piece of design and one of the best things I've ever seen on a Criterion release, to the point where I am genuinely baffled people aren't loving it.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by darrellmaclaine

Drew Struzan's art is rightfully celebrated but that is just one approach, and there isn't "one" way of doing anything. A willingness to take risks and try new things with cover/poster art is what has given us all a lot of our favourite pieces and artists.

I think that Sorcerer cover is an absolutely stunning piece of design and one of the best things I've ever seen on a Criterion release, to the point where I am genuinely baffled people aren't loving it.

I must of stepped into a different dimension. There is nothing “stunning” or “awesome” about the Sorcerer cover. Criterion can do better, see below.



Kino and Arrow video is doing an awesome and stunning job, for the most part, in cover art department (mostly sticking to the original movie poster art).



Is there also a general consensus in the thread that Howard Hawks’ Scarface is “stunning” and “awesome” cover art? We live in a funny time.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

I must of stepped into a different dimension. There is nothing “stunning” or “awesome” about the Sorcerer cover.

No, you're in a dimension where people have a different opinion than you. I think it's an interesting cover, and becomes more so when the history of that image with the film is factored in. It's maybe a little busy, but that iconography has been tied to the film back to its actual production and I'm glad to see it finally codified as the "face" of the film.

And I don't love the Scarface cover, but I also recognize it's part of the signature style of Mark Chiarello, one of the most interesting comic artists working today, who loves to scuff and erode pop imagery - often with big fat felt pens. It's not my taste. It doesn't mean it's bad.

[darrellmaclaine]

Art and design are subjective - no single person or mindset is the arbiter. FWIW I also think that Lord Of The Flies one is beautiful and like you am not a fan of the Scarface one (it fails in execution for me because although I like the palette and the typography, it doesn't have a focused enough concept and has a clash of analogue and digital design grammar - moire dots and digital pen strokes make no sense together, so it looks genuinely unfinished rather than abstract or minimalist).

Criterion sleeves are by and large graphic design-led, with artwork created to fulfil a design concept, whereas most other boutiques start by commissioning an illustration and then try to make a design work around it. For me, there is no label's art department in the world as good with typography as Criterion's quality bar usually hits, and bad typography is a bit of a plague elsewhere.

The variation and willingness to experiment that Criterion uniquely boast does mean that now and again there are covers that I wouldn't personally say work as pieces of art/design, and sometimes there are great concepts that don't quite stick the landing on execution, and some that I would personally call poor. But the flipside of this is that when it all works you get gobsmackingly stunning covers which are at the pinnacle of what modern commercial art can be - not just in the artwork assets but also the inks and the processes - and no other label is even getting close to that quality bar, something evident by when other labels (Paramount Presents for one, and Arrow often) try and go for "Criterion style" artwork.

A safe, formulaic, predictable middle-ground might avoid the overt misses more often, but you don't get the hits either. You just get lots of conformist boutique Blu-ray covers that are all designed to match and sit together on a shelf like Funko Pops. Boring! Live a little!

[jt839]

This has nothing to do with above but the fact that Criterion still doesn't include new bds with their 4ks is absolutely wild to me.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by jt839

This has nothing to do with above but the fact that Criterion still doesn't include new bds with their 4ks is absolutely wild to me.

Oh, I get it. What happens to all the BD editions in circulation if they do that? Should they be stuck with old editions? Will people who buy the 4k get the new BD but you’re SOL if you have the old BD? Does Criterion withdraw all the BDs in circulation and issue new BDs? If not, do they have to do an upgrade program for every title? Do they release new packaging with subtle SKU changes that people will have to look out for?

Or: everyone who gets a BD gets the same BD. It sucks somewhat, but it averts a possible logistical nightmare.

[jt839]

Originally Posted by DimitriL

Oh, I get it. What happens to all the BD editions in circulation if they do that? Should they be stuck with old editions? Will people who buy the 4k get the new BD but you’re SOL if you have the old BD? Does Criterion withdraw all the BDs in circulation and issue new BDs? If not, do they have to do an upgrade program for every title? Do they release new packaging with subtle SKU changes that people will have to look out for?

Or: everyone who gets a BD gets the same BD. It sucks somewhat, but it averts a possible logistical nightmare.

As scummy as their practices usually are, Kino and Shout usually issue new bds with their 4ks and still keep the old ones in print, Criterion could easily do the same thing. I'm not asking for the new bds to get standalone releases, I just want new ones to be included with 4ks. When I pay premium prices for their 4ks I want both discs to look premium, not a new disc and an old disc that has a master that's possibly around 20 years old.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by jt839

As scummy as their practices usually are, Kino and Shout usually issue new bds with their 4ks and still keep the old ones in print, Criterion could easily do the same thing. I'm not asking for the new bds to get standalone releases, I just want new ones to be included with 4ks. When I pay premium prices for their 4ks I want both discs to look premium, not a new disc and an old disc that has a master that's possibly around 20 years old.

These forums are full of people raving that the old BD is better than the new 4K. Page after page of rants that the encode is inferior because it wasn't done by a small colony of gnomes in the German Black Forest. That the new 4K has revisionist coloring. That the colors don't look natural. That the colors look too natural. That the picture doesn't have any teal or orange. That the picture has too much teal and orange. That the picture is too dark. That the picture is too bright. That they didn't use HDR. That they didn't use DV. That they used DV and should have stuck with SDR. That the picture is full of DNR. That the real grain was removed and fake grain applied. That the real grain is too prominent That the image is too sharp. That the image is too soft. That they didn't use the full frame. That they used 1.75 instead of 1.66. That they used 1.75 instead of 1.85. That the soundtrack hasn't been remixed. That the soundtrack has been remixed. That the soundtrack has too many channels. That the soundtrack doesn't have enough channels. That they didn't use the 40 year old analog LD mono soundtrack. On and on and on.

So Criterion takes care of that. They give you the crappy 4K that we all learned in advance is bad even before it was released, along with a copy of the original classic old school BD that most people on BR.com forums say was always better. So there was no reason to buy--or even create--an inferior 4K.

Criterion is giving superior options to their customers. Rather than sticking customer with two inferior new versions of the title, you get the good version they always had, and then the new 4K version nobody actually wanted!

[Egbert Souse]

Originally Posted by DimitriL

Oh, I get it. What happens to all the BD editions in circulation if they do that? Should they be stuck with old editions? Will people who buy the 4k get the new BD but you’re SOL if you have the old BD? Does Criterion withdraw all the BDs in circulation and issue new BDs? If not, do they have to do an upgrade program for every title? Do they release new packaging with subtle SKU changes that people will have to look out for?

Or: everyone who gets a BD gets the same BD. It sucks somewhat, but it averts a possible logistical nightmare.

Half of the 4K releases that re-use existing Blus are either off the same master (like The Red Shoes or Ugetsu) or it's not really a big enough deal (Blow Out, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg). But I did find it annoying that Brazil and The Last Emperor were not remastered for their Blu discs despite the higher MSRP.

In fact, including remastered Blu-rays with 4K would probably add to sales, especially when it already exists.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by DimitriL

No, you're in a dimension where people have a different opinion than you. I think it's an interesting cover, and becomes more so when the history of that image with the film is factored in. It's maybe a little busy, but that iconography has been tied to the film back to its actual production and I'm glad to see it finally codified as the "face" of the film.

And I don't love the Scarface cover, but I also recognize it's part of the signature style of Mark Chiarello, one of the most interesting comic artists working today, who loves to scuff and erode pop imagery - often with big fat felt pens. It's not my taste. It doesn't mean it's bad.

From “stunning” and “awesome” to “interesting” in a span of a few posts. I cannot argue against “interesting”.

I may have my bias, but I am sure none of you are hanging the cover art of Criterion’s Sorcerer in their entertainment room (except maybe the graphic designer’s mother). I would definitely hang Criterion’s Lord of the Flies cover art (original painting) in my entertainment room.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by darrellmaclaine

Art and design are subjective - no single person or mindset is the arbiter. FWIW I also think that Lord Of The Flies one is beautiful and like you am not a fan of the Scarface one (it fails in execution for me because although I like the palette and the typography, it doesn't have a focused enough concept and has a clash of analogue and digital design grammar - moire dots and digital pen strokes make no sense together, so it looks genuinely unfinished rather than abstract or minimalist).

Criterion sleeves are by and large graphic design-led, with artwork created to fulfil a design concept, whereas most other boutiques start by commissioning an illustration and then try to make a design work around it. For me, there is no label's art department in the world as good with typography as Criterion's quality bar usually hits, and bad typography is a bit of a plague elsewhere.

The variation and willingness to experiment that Criterion uniquely boast does mean that now and again there are covers that I wouldn't personally say work as pieces of art/design, and sometimes there are great concepts that don't quite stick the landing on execution, and some that I would personally call poor. But the flipside of this is that when it all works you get gobsmackingly stunning covers which are at the pinnacle of what modern commercial art can be - not just in the artwork assets but also the inks and the processes - and no other label is even getting close to that quality bar, something evident by when other labels (Paramount Presents for one, and Arrow often) try and go for "Criterion style" artwork.

A safe, formulaic, predictable middle-ground might avoid the overt misses more often, but you don't get the hits either. You just get lots of conformist boutique Blu-ray covers that are all designed to match and sit together on a shelf like Funko Pops. Boring! Live a little!

Art is subjective is a partial truth. Like in music, painting has an underlying harmony and structure. We all have the inherent nature to know when someone is playing off key or rhythm, even when we cannot differentiate between a quarter note and eighth note. The same goes with painting and design. Errors in perspective are easily perceived. Color disharmony is a bit more subtle. The few times fluorescent red with green work is during the Christmas holiday or horror film.

Like Thelonious Monk’s Jazz masterpieces, one can bend the rules and have an awesome result. But if you put lipstick on a pig and want me to believe it is a “stunning” woman, sorry my senses work well enough to differentiate the two, and I am not in a cult to hinder my reasoning.

Art commissions with an excellent art director would help greatly in maintaining a good quality. The art cover quality during the Criterion DVD era was good to excellent with very few exceptions. Maybe this graphic design led work flow has deteriorated the quality.

[Gacivory]

Any LA people make it to the Criterion truck?

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

From “stunning” and “awesome” to “interesting” in a span of a few posts. I cannot argue against “interesting”.

I may have my bias, but I am sure none of you are hanging the cover art of Criterion’s Sorcerer in their entertainment room (except maybe the graphic designer’s mother). I would definitely hang Criterion’s Lord of the Flies cover art (original painting) in my entertainment room.

…you do realize I was talking about two different titles, right?

And it’s the same workflow with most of the same people - Eric Skillman especially - that they had during most of the DVD era. I know some of the artists and they’ve told me this directly. It’s only rarely that a cover came out of an unplanned impulse. (Sam Smith’s House is one. I was around when he developed the original silkscreen for the Belcourt Theater.)

I do love the lecture on art theory, though. It’s the kind of nonsense people spewed around at the beginning of the cubist and expressionist movements. “I know bad art when I see it!” Or hell, the people who said rock music was nothing more than inept kids banging on garbage cans.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by DimitriL

…you do realize I was talking about two different titles, right?

And it’s the same workflow with most of the same people - Eric Skillman especially - that they had during most of the DVD era. I know some of the artists and they’ve told me this directly. It’s only rarely that a cover came out of an unplanned impulse. (Sam Smith’s House is one. I was around when he developed the original silkscreen for the Belcourt Theater.)

I do love the lecture on art theory, though. It’s the kind of nonsense people spewed around at the beginning of the cubist and expressionist movements. “I know bad art when I see it!” Or hell, the people who said rock music was nothing more than inept kids banging on garbage cans.

Thinking that the cubist movement is similar to rock music is pretty hilarious. Not only should your pals learn about art theory, but it would not hurt to learn a bit about music theory as well.

Playing a single major chord on the guitar surpasses anything the cubists and abstract artists have done the past hundred years.

Picasso and Bougureau for reference below