The Criterion Collection

[italy12]

Originally Posted by Der Spieler

HC was nothing but shock value. It had nothing else to offer to stand the test of time.

Yes, that's what I said...but just you wait for HC 2!

[whbinder]

Originally Posted by Hendershot737

Since most of us are rather keen on expressing our love for certain Criterion movies. What are some of the worst that you have seen?...if any. I think it would be an interesting conversation to discuss the titles that perhaps shouldn't have been given the CC process.

Well, I apologize if this seems like kind of a wishy-washy answer, but I honestly believe it.

I think every film belongs there, even the ones I find terribly stupid. The Criterion is a collection of relevant classic and contemporary films. I think anyone who studies film as art should be exposed to all kinds of film. Armageddon is the lowest form of trash, but I think we can acknowledge that the action blockbuster is part of the cinematic landscape. It may not challenge us, but we can't pretend it isn't part of the American moviegoing experience. I think of Criterion as giving us a true appreciation of film as art, and that includes occasionally including something outside our expectations.

To your thoughts. I actually enjoyed "Man Who Fell to Earth", but I probably wouldn't have under different circumstances. The first time I saw "Walkabout"
I found it incredibly boring. When I watched it years later, I found a new appreciation and that understanding of Roeg's filmic vocabulary made MWFTE a different experience. I always enjoy growing with Criterion and occasionally seeing a film that doesn't connect with me, because at least it challenges me.

To more directly answer your question, these films didn't resonate with me personally as much as some others: "Drive He Said," "Howards End," "The Killer," "The Fugitive Kind," "La Ronde".

I respect what those films represent and I don't begrudge them their place in the collection. They just didn't connect with me personally.

[Hendershot737]

Originally Posted by whbinder

Well, I apologize if this seems like kind of a wishy-washy answer, but I honestly believe it.

I think every film belongs there, even the ones I find terribly stupid. The Criterion is a collection of relevant classic and contemporary films. I think anyone who studies film as art should be exposed to all kinds of film. Armageddon is the lowest form of trash, but I think we can acknowledge that the action blockbuster is part of the cinematic landscape. It may not challenge us, but we can't pretend it isn't part of the American moviegoing experience. I think of Criterion as giving us a true appreciation of film as art, and that includes occasionally including something outside our expectations.

To your thoughts. I actually enjoyed "Man Who Fell to Earth", but I probably wouldn't have under different circumstances. The first time I saw "Walkabout"
I found it incredibly boring. When I watched it years later, I found a new appreciation and that understanding of Roeg's filmic vocabulary made MWFTE a different experience. I always enjoy growing with Criterion and occasionally seeing a film that doesn't connect with me, because at least it challenges me.

To more directly answer your question, these films didn't resonate with me personally as much as some others: "Drive He Said," "Howards End," "The Killer," "The Fugitive Kind," "La Ronde".

I respect what those films represent and I don't begrudge them their place in the collection. They just didn't connect with me personally.

Well said

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by Bunk123

I just finished watching Broadcast News and I am blown away at how funny that movie was. When it was first announced I didn’t know what this movie was about (and I still didn’t when I bought it) and it wasn’t a movie I was going to buy. I was playing Scene It the movie edition with a few of my friends about a week ago and one of the scenes they showed was from Broadcast News and I thought it was funny so I took a chance and boy was I glad I did absolutely wonderful film. I’m just waiting for Blow Out and Sweet Smell of Success which should arrive tomorrow.

Yeah, Broadcast News is one of the best comedies in recent (well almost 25 years) years. I'm glad Criterion released in on Blu ray even though the snobs trash it. Great stuff!

[jcs913]

Interesting to see the Beaver comparison in contrast to this sites review. Almost twice the bitrate is generally a big deal on all technical aspects, although Pro-B doesn't seem to think so. One of my favorite films of all time looks like a home-run in comparison to the Arrow. The Arrow cropping is also very noticeable and disappointing.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDRev...diabolique.htm

[capnnarcolepsy]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Interesting to see the Beaver comparison in contrast to this sites review. Almost twice the bitrate is generally a big deal on all technical aspects, although Pro-B doesn't seem to think so. One of my favorite films of all time looks like a home-run in comparison to the Arrow. The Arrow cropping is also very noticeable and disappointing.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDRev...diabolique.htm

i love how the first four screen comparisons all have slightly to completely different translations in the subtitles. feels like another argument waiting to happen akin to "what releases has the correct coloring". ;P

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Interesting to see the Beaver comparison in contrast to this sites review. Almost twice the bitrate is generally a big deal on all technical aspects, although Pro-B doesn't seem to think so. One of my favorite films of all time looks like a home-run in comparison to the Arrow. The Arrow cropping is also very noticeable and disappointing.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDRev...diabolique.htm

Yep. I agree. The kid's arm is missing in the Arrow version!

For those that wish to stay on this site. Here's the cropping comparison from DVD Beaver:



Credit: DVD Beaver
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDRev...diabolique.htm

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Interesting to see the Beaver comparison in contrast to this sites review. Almost twice the bitrate is generally a big deal on all technical aspects, although Pro-B doesn't seem to think so.

I most definitely do not think that it is a deal at all, and especially on this film. High bit rates alone are not indicative of superior quality, which unfortunately is a notion that has been promoted. Additionally, the Criterion release does look slightly softer in motion.

Pro-B

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

I most definitely do not think that it is a deal at all, and especially on this film. High bit rates alone are not indicative of superior quality, which unfortunately is a notion that has been promoted. Additionally, the Criterion release does look slightly softer in motion.

Pro-B

Usually you are correct Pro-B, as success typically has everything to do with the mastering not the bitrate. But if I am not mistaken, consistently a higher bitrate in B&W films generally means better contrast overall and resolution in the corners is much more defined.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Interesting to see the Beaver comparison in contrast to this sites review. Almost twice the bitrate is generally a big deal on all technical aspects, although Pro-B doesn't seem to think so. One of my favorite films of all time looks like a home-run in comparison to the Arrow. The Arrow cropping is also very noticeable and disappointing.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDRev...diabolique.htm

I'm getting really psyched for this one! Just another 10 days to go.

Yeah...that is unfortunate about the cropping...Arrow is typically good with their transfers.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by rkish

I'm getting really psyched for this one! Just another 10 days to go.

Yeah...that is unfortunate about the cropping...Arrow is typically good with their transfers.

Yeah, Rififi looks great as it seems to be opened up more on a 50gb disc. But Diabolique is on a 25gb disc. Again, not to argue specs, but Criterion seems to have opened it up more and it looks great. Too bad, as you would believe Arrow would have done the same for this great film.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by jcs913

But if I am not mistaken, consistently a higher bitrate in B&W films generally means better contrast overall and resolution in the corners is much more defined.

This isn't correct, jc.

Let's put it his way: If the master (as you noted) is compromised and you increase the bit rate, you will not see better resolution, etc. A lot of people assume that higher bitrate equates higher/better quality - this isn't correct.

In this case, Arrow and Criterion had access to the same master. The two releases look slightly different because Criterion performed various corrections/adjustments, which is something they do very well and are known for.

Pro-B

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This isn't correct, jc.

Let's put it his way: If the master (as you noted) is compromised and you increase the bit rate, you will not see better resolution, etc. A lot of people assume that higher bitrate equates higher/better quality - this isn't correct.

In this case, Arrow and Criterion had access to the same master. The two releases look slightly different because Criterion performed various corrections/adjustments, which is something they do very well and are known for.

Pro-B

My assumptions are that you are confirming that the master Arrow and Criterion used was compromised? And you are saying that Criterion used more 'corrections/adjustments' to make their release potentially look better? I also assume that these 'corrections/adjustments' take up more space on the disc? So your bottom line is that the extra space taken by the 'corrections/adjustments' by Criterion does not equal a difference in the 2 releases?

[Strevlac]

Bitrate is extremely important regarding the quality of the final product. No, it won't make a substandard 10 year-old master suddenly look like a 4K scan, but it sure as hell could hinder and otherwise great master. Warner has released countless bit-starved discs that have visible digital artifacting. That is far more egregious to me than a a few print related defects in the analogue domain. The shame of it is that it's completely avoidable.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by jcs913

My assumptions are that you are confirming that the master Arrow and Criterion used was compromised?

No, jc. It was just an example. I think that the master is probably as good as it could possibly be at the moment.

Originally Posted by jcs913

And you are saying that Criterion used more 'corrections/adjustments' to make their release potentially look better? I also assume that these 'corrections/adjustments' take up more space on the disc? So your bottom line is that the extra space taken by the 'corrections/adjustments' by Criterion does not equal a difference in the 2 releases?

Criterion have indeed performed various corrections. Whether their release looks better is debatable. Also, the corrections do not take more space. Finally, the type of corrections I refer to are the same ones that you could witness when you compare the Masters of Cinema and Criterion's M releases (and I don't mean the actual size of these adjustments, but the type of adjustments).

Pro-B

[Dave_6]

Just added Blow Out and Broadcast News to my collection.

[charnier]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Yeah, Rififi looks great as it seems to be opened up more on a 50gb disc. But Diabolique is on a 25gb disc. Again, not to argue specs, but Criterion seems to have opened it up more and it looks great. Too bad, as you would believe Arrow would have done the same for this great film.

If you check out reviews for several of the MoC discs, particularly the latest two Antonionis, you'll find that MoC tends to use 25 GB discs, plus the BFI; yet their transfers look fantastic.

[ShellOilJunior]

So is it safe to say the fact the Arrow version has less information in frame can be attributed to the use of 25gb rather than a 50gb blu-ray?

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

So is it safe to say the fact the Arrow version has less information in frame can be attributed to the use of 25gb rather than a 50gb blu-ray?

No. Cropping has nothing to do with bit rates.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

No. Cropping has nothing to do with bit rates.

I guess what I'm curious about is why did Arrow crop their release?