The Criterion Collection

[jrsl76]

Seriously, I've just got to ask, what the hell is it with everyone constantly *****ing?

Some people want obscure world cinema, some want cult fav 70s cinema - so what?

There are 3 or 4 here who constantly harp on wanting this more obscure/or at least less mainstream stuff. That's fine.

Then people are constantly complaining for the people who want Fincher, Badlands, Wes Anderson and more mainstream or at least mainstream cult-y stuff. It's not hurting you, so why the constant derision?

There is room for all of these things. The Criterion Collection is a great place for movie lovers to enjoy old favorites and discover unknown voices.

None of you run the damn company. It doesn't always have to be just what a few of you want and to hell with everyone else if the releases don't light you up.

I enjoy this thread, but the level of pretension at times is overwhelming.

[HyperRealist]

^ If you think this is bad you should see the cheapskates in the Twilight Time threads.

[DarkRyder]

The only movies I'll ***** for a release would be The Carabineers and Titticut Follies. These two releases and I'm done, Criterion could release whatever the hell else they want.

[jrsl76]

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

^ If you think this is bad you should see the cheapskates in the Twilight Time threads.

I have and I think I said something in that thread too.

As far as the TT cheapskates go. If you want a movie, buy it. If you think it's too much, that's fine. I think the prices are a little high, but if I want a title, then that's what I have to pay and I have multiple times. If it's available and someone is too cheap to buy it (when it's not that bad of a price), they shouldn't complain.

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

I'd like Criterion to release Badlands so everyone will shut up about it already.

Originally Posted by Darkcritic

I am sure there is no end to it. If we get Badlands, another title will come and take its place to annoy everyone again . After all, with the new Criterion we are just an inch away from people seriously suggesting The Dark Knight.

Badlands is on a different level of requesting though. It's a Cult of Malick thing, of which I admittedly am not of membership.

I said this upon the last announcement as an end-of-the-year comment: I'm glad these particular set of 'FB most requesteds' are out of the way because I personally have little or no interest in most of them [Rosemary's Baby being the exception, if one wanted to piece that title in that crowd]. I'm just glad their inevitability has come. The many who are happy with them, fine.

But it has nothing to do with their perceived mainstreamed-ness for me.

[exolstice]

Originally Posted by jrsl76

Seriously, I've just got to ask, what the hell is it with everyone constantly *****ing?

Some people want obscure world cinema, some want cult fav 70s cinema - so what?

There are 3 or 4 here who constantly harp on wanting this more obscure/or at least less mainstream stuff. That's fine.

Then people are constantly complaining for the people who want Fincher, Badlands, Wes Anderson and more mainstream or at least mainstream cult-y stuff. It's not hurting you, so why the constant derision?

There is room for all of these things. The Criterion Collection is a great place for movie lovers to enjoy old favorites and discover unknown voices.

None of you run the damn company. It doesn't always have to be just what a few of you want and to hell with everyone else if the releases don't light you up.

I enjoy this thread, but the level of pretension at times is overwhelming.

Also, I'm betting the more mainstream releases help finance the more obscure titles.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by jrsl76

Then people are constantly complaining for the people who want Fincher, Badlands, Wes Anderson and more mainstream or at least mainstream cult-y stuff. It's not hurting you, so why the constant derision?

Mainly because lots of other companies are much less likely to release a more obscure work than a very popular one. That's it, really.

I do think there could be room for both, but looking back on 2012, there is very little variety there and it most definitely leans towards those well-known works or films from the same few countries.

Originally Posted by jrsl76

As far as the TT cheapskates go. If you want a movie, buy it. If you think it's too much, that's fine. I think the prices are a little high, but if I want a title, then that's what I have to pay and I have multiple times. If it's available and someone is too cheap to buy it (when it's not that bad of a price), they shouldn't complain.

I really agree with you here--- I don't understand their reasoning at all. It just depends on if you really want something.

[jayputter]

Originally Posted by exolstice

Also, I'm betting the more mainstream releases help finance the more obscure titles.

Exactly! It's releases like The Game that make releases like The Music Room possible.

[jrsl76]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

Mainly because lots of other companies are much less likely to release a more obscure work than a very popular one. That's it, really.

I do think there could be room for both, but looking back on 2012, there is very little variety there and it most definitely leans towards those well-known works or films from the same few countries.



I really agree with you here--- I don't understand their reasoning at all. It just depends on if you really want something.

I get you. I like some of the obscure titles too. Let it be said that though I still need to watch many of the Criterion titles I bought this year, one of my favorite releases, one of the best surprises was Francesco Rosi's "The Moment Of Truth". That film was phenomenal. Even so, the titles I often get most excited for are the 30s - 70s American Cinema, British Cinema and some better known French and Japanese Cinema.

But that's just me. I respect all tastes in film and see the allure in both getting great editions of well loved films as well as discovering new ones.

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by DarkRyder

The only movies I'll ***** for a release would be ...Titticut Follies.

If this is ever released on blu-ray in the states, it'll probably be from Zipporah Films, who have a DVD release out.

[exolstice]

Originally Posted by jayputter

Exactly! It's releases like The Game that make releases like The Music Room possible.

I actually love both those movies.

[Darkcritic]

Originally Posted by Cinemach

Badlands is on a different level of requesting though. It's a Cult of Malick thing, of which I admittedly am not of membership.

I said this upon the last announcement as an end-of-the-year comment: I'm glad these particular set of 'FB most requesteds' are out of the way because I personally have little or no interest in most of them [Rosemary's Baby being the exception, if one wanted to piece that title in that crowd]. I'm just glad their inevitability has come. The many who are happy with them, fine.

But it has nothing to do with their perceived mainstreamed-ness for me.

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

Mainly because lots of other companies are much less likely to release a more obscure work than a very popular one. That's it, really.

I do think there could be room for both, but looking back on 2012, there is very little variety there and it most definitely leans towards those well-known works or films from the same few countries.

+1 to all of this. I don't really have any problem with Criterion releasing mainstream stuff as long as the real "obscure" or "meat and potatoes" gets released in the same proportion. This didn't happened in 2012. I also have a problem with Criterion sitting on some precious rights. If they will not release them on a 3-year-frame then they should let them go. Who knows, maybe someone else will release them maybe not but with Criterion just sitting on them for ages the later will not happen so there isn't even possibility. How can we justify them pushing releases they have been owning for years in favor of titles they get months before releasing? Also, money shouldn't be an issue here. Criterion did their best from spines of late 300s to early 500s, they kept releasing amazing stuff each month and they "survived" doing so. I am SURE companies will eventually get to stuff like Badlands but I wonder who will release a BD for Limite? A release for Out 1?

This is just my opinion after all. I am not saying Criterion is completely lost as I have praised some of their recent announcements and championed months for their perfect balance. Take April for example. Without taking into consideration that Harold and Maude was later pushed two months it was easily the best balanced and most welcomed month this year. Here is how I break it down:

Popular Upgrade All Want: Late Spring by Ozu
Popular "mainstream" New Title: Harold and Maude by Ashby
Obscure New Title: A Hollis Frampton Odyssey
Surprise Title: Alambrista! by Young
Interesting Eclipse: Eclipse Series 32: Pearls of the Czech New Wave

If every month was like this one then most of us wouldn't be complaining. It has something for everyone. I just don't think we should treat Criterion as something else than a company that has highs and lows. I don't always say Criterion is horrible but it should be possible to disagree with their choices. Why should I champion everything they do? I like and dislike stuff independently of Criterion. If I liked the film before then I will like it when it is released. If I don't then Criterion releasing such title will not change anything.

[Joe Dalek]

Originally Posted by jeloid

Can anyone explain to me why Criterion does not offer digital copies with their releases. I would love to have my Criterion collection available on my mobile devices. At Criterions price point it seems ludicrous at this point in time that they offer no digital copies.

The short answer is that they'd have to license the right to distribute digital files in addition to the DVD and Blu-ray rights. Most likely, they would only consistently be able to offer digital copies of Janus-distributed films, and not things like Rosemary's Baby or Anatomy of a Murder (would they charge less for titles without digital copies then?). It's a can of worms because they don't own the films outright.

People have made the same complaint in the past about Criterion not releasing dual-format editions.

[jeremycarrier]

I just want a re-print of The Third Man, alright? That's it. You can release as many obscure, impenetrable French movies you want, just let buy The Third Man for under a hundred bucks.

[greekak229]

Ooh, man. A Diving Bell Criterion release would be amazing.

[Joe Dalek]

Originally Posted by Darkcritic

+1 to all of this. I don't really have any problem with Criterion releasing mainstream stuff as long as the real "obscure" or "meat and potatoes" gets released in the same proportion.

While I am firmly in the "I liked them better back when..." camp, I understand that no company can really survive selling only art films. Criterion has always struck a balance between European and Japanese art house favorites, "important" contemporary works, and Hollywood classics, with a toe in independent and experimental cinema. I give them credit for having probably the most diverse, interesting catalog in home video, and not fooling around with gimmicks like Steelbooks.

This year's releases seem almost like a "Fake Criterion Cover" designer's wet dream to me. Some of the releases just seem too...obvious. Pandering to the fanboys, almost. I mean, we were really just a Tarantino announcement away from achieving Criterion/AICN synergy toward the end of the 2012 release schedule (and I like Tarantino, I like Nolan's Bat-movies, I like a couple of Fincher's films). But then there's Letter Never Sent and the Czech stuff and Lonesome. So it balances out.

I've really lost interest in the announcements, though. It used to be fun anticipating them and now it just seems like anti-climax upon anti-climax. There's usually at least one thing a month I'm interested in, though. I really have too many discs at this point, so something has to really be on my wishlist in order to stir interest. I'll be excited for the Apu Trilogy and the apocryphal Wenders set if it ever materializes.

[Darkcritic]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

While I am firmly in the "I liked them better back when..." camp, I understand that no company can really survive selling only art films. Criterion has always struck a balance between European and Japanese art house favorites, "important" contemporary works, and Hollywood classics, with a toe in independent and experimental cinema. I give them credit for having probably the most diverse, interesting catalog in home video, and not fooling around with gimmicks like Steelbooks.

This year's releases seem almost like a "Fake Criterion Cover" designer's wet dream to me. Some of the releases just seem too...obvious. Pandering to the fanboys, almost. I mean, we were really just a Tarantino announcement away from achieving Criterion/AICN synergy toward the end of the 2012 release schedule (and I like Tarantino, I like Nolan's Bat-movies, I like a couple of Fincher's films). But then there's Letter Never Sent and the Czech stuff and Lonesome. So it balances out.

I've really lost interest in the announcements, though. It used to be fun anticipating them and now it just seems like anti-climax upon anti-climax. There's usually at least one thing a month I'm interested in, though. I really have too many discs at this point, so something has to really be on my wishlist in order to stir interest. I'll be excited for the Apu Trilogy and the apocryphal Wenders set if it ever materializes.

Yeah, I don't have any real problem with their "mainstream" selection but the other stuff seems to be pushed back more and more. I know a company needs to adapt to the times in order to survive but Criterion is drifting away with each month passing . The announcements are no longer as exciting because of the poor and unbalanced selection. Just look at that horrible December slate, I don't mind these films being in the Collection but it seemed like they couldn't care less about the rest of us who aren't into that stuff. Definitely the worst month of the year but I am hopeful for a good January.

[jeloid]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

The short answer is that they'd have to license the right to distribute digital files in addition to the DVD and Blu-ray rights. Most likely, they would only consistently be able to offer digital copies of Janus-distributed films, and not things like Rosemary's Baby or Anatomy of a Murder (would they charge less for titles without digital copies then?). It's a can of worms because they don't own the films outright.

People have made the same complaint in the past about Criterion not releasing dual-format editions.

Thanks Joe Dalek, I understand your point, well taken. Just the same I would really enjoy having my Criterion library available for viewing on my mobile devices. Guess I'll have to take the laborious road and convert them myself.

[deepbreathsanddeath]

Originally Posted by jeremycarrier

I just want a re-print of The Third Man, alright? That's it. You can release as many obscure, impenetrable French movies you want, just let buy The Third Man for under a hundred bucks.

Me too

[Sinthetic]