The Criterion Collection

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

It's a luxury to be able to say, "this looks good, I'll shut it off and buy it instead". A luxury you're welcome to, but one that a lot of people don't have, and frankly I don't think need. Yes, streaming quality can be shitty at times but I don't think there's ever been an occasion where I've not liked a film because the quality of the transfer/transferal wasn't pristine. In my experience, most of the time streaming quality is very good.

I believe the quote is actually in reference to what I wrote. Just to say (without being defensive ) I'm on the same page as you, I think. I have great luck with streaming. My "stop and buy" comment was in reference to the very rare case where some ineffable quality of what I was streaming made me realize this is something that I'd like to own and would rather wait. In the two cases I cited, it was awhile before I could get the titles at a reasonable price at a time my budget allowed. I could have watched on streaming, but I could wait, and deferring a pleasure can make one appreciate and savor an experience more. ([George Takei]Oh my![/George Takei])

This is a luxury, and as such it is never my top priority. Much as I love Blu quality and as much discretionary budget I allot to this indulgence, content is always king and delivery systems are -- to me -- just that. A wise old ornery a**hole I used to work for was fond of saying, "the great is the enemy of the good". I find that that statement is too often used as an excuse for mediocrity, nevertheless there is a kernel of truth to it and it can apply here. Being an enthusiast is a tricky thing.

Like octagon writes above, funny how luxuries are! We are startlingly lucky.

The lamest transfers are still better than the black and white photos from dog-eared film books I used to rely on, let alone squished or cropped and edited TV broadcasts with snowy reception. To this day, whenever I see a Giacometti sculpture I immediately associate it with Clint Eastwood westerns since he was squeezed spaghetti-thin during those credit sequences! In my other post I mentioned Manhattan, so this time: For years my primary access to Star Wars was a Maxell 120 minute audio cassette I recorded by putting a tape recorder by the TV speaker and pausing during commercials on its broadcast debut. I also walked to school barefoot in the snow... uphill both ways, so...

[ShellOilJunior]

I've opened this one up a bit because choosing only 3 would be very difficult this year. You may choose 5 for best new Spine...

Vote for Best New Criterion Collection Spine of 2012. Plus, vote for "What were they thinking"?

http://goo.gl/aV0bQ

[Nielsb90]

Does Seven Samurai still come in a digipack?

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by Nielsb90

Does Seven Samurai still come in a digipack?

Yes

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

I can't relate to this at all.

In fact, in a lot of ways I find the clarity of Blu-ray distracting. Perhaps its because of years of bad TV, VHS and DVD transfers, but I find myself scrutinizing Blu-ray transfers much more than I ever did before Blu-ray. Before Blu-ray (and still with DVD and streaming), I just watched the movie. Too much emphasis is now put on the technical aspects of the disc and whether or not they "got it right," because moreso than previous formats Blu-ray has the power to look really great or really bad depending on the technical execution. The film itself gets a bit lost in there. What happens if you get the disc and the transfer is a dud?

It's a luxury to be able to say, "this looks good, I'll shut it off and buy it instead". A luxury you're welcome to, but one that a lot of people don't have, and frankly I don't think need. Yes, streaming quality can be shitty at times but I don't think there's ever been an occasion where I've not liked a film because the quality of the transfer/transferal wasn't pristine. In my experience, most of the time streaming quality is very good.

Moreover having all of these options has made so much more available to us. You're knowingly limiting the breadth of what you can see and experience to appease an aesthetic preference that is limited by what the marketplace makes available to you. I'm actually kind of shocked that the chorus so far has been echoing you on this, but I guess that's naïve of me.

You've obviously never seen The Quiet Man on DVD.

I speak for myself when I say I've never turned a movie off midstream to buy the Blu. Nevertheless, I can't empathise with your notions on Video quality. Please tell me Last Year at Marienbad, Red Desert, Playtime, The Leopard, The Red Shoes, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line and countless others are best viewed in SD. I saw some of these on DVD before Blu and you know what, I was robbed of some pretty singular experiences. It certainly doesn't apply to all of CC's films like, for example, Eating Raoul (however much I liked it) or Gray's Anatomy; but for many other films, it's the only way.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I've opened this one up a bit because choosing only 3 would be very difficult this year. You may choose 5 for best new Spine...

Vote for Best New Criterion Collection Spine of 2012. Plus, vote for "What were they thinking"?

http://goo.gl/aV0bQ

Best New Spines:
Rosemarys Baby
Being John Malkovich
World on a Wire
Lonesome
Quadrophenia

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by Nielsb90

Does Seven Samurai still come in a digipack?

Given the size of the booklets, this one and Battle of Algiers are unlikely to have a plastic case packaging.

[Zen_Amako]

I really enjoyed Cul-de-sac, but it is quite different from Repulsion. Repulsion is kind of a dry run for Rosemary's Baby, whereas Cul-de-sac is a quirky black comedy: a cult film. How you feel about Cul-de-sac will depend on how you respond to its brand of humor. I was surprised by how funny Cul-de-sac was. It's interesting that one stars Catherine Deneuve and the other features her sister, though.

[jayputter]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

I can't relate to this at all.

In fact, in a lot of ways I find the clarity of Blu-ray distracting. Perhaps its because of years of bad TV, VHS and DVD transfers, but I find myself scrutinizing Blu-ray transfers much more than I ever did before Blu-ray. Before Blu-ray (and still with DVD and streaming), I just watched the movie. Too much emphasis is now put on the technical aspects of the disc and whether or not they "got it right," because moreso than previous formats Blu-ray has the power to look really great or really bad depending on the technical execution. The film itself gets a bit lost in there. What happens if you get the disc and the transfer is a dud?

It's a luxury to be able to say, "this looks good, I'll shut it off and buy it instead". A luxury you're welcome to, but one that a lot of people don't have, and frankly I don't think need. Yes, streaming quality can be shitty at times but I don't think there's ever been an occasion where I've not liked a film because the quality of the transfer/transferal wasn't pristine. In my experience, most of the time streaming quality is very good.

Moreover having all of these options has made so much more available to us. You're knowingly limiting the breadth of what you can see and experience to appease an aesthetic preference that is limited by what the marketplace makes available to you. I'm actually kind of shocked that the chorus so far has been echoing you on this, but I guess that's naïve of me.

You can count me among your semi-silent minority. I first saw most if the great movies i love on a 13" b&w television. While I'm clearly impressed with the picture quality of HD, i don't really need it to enjoy a movie. I just don't have the funds to buy everything I'd like to see, and once i was able to get out of that habit, i realized i enjoyed movies just as much when watching then on a rather small screen in sd. It turns out it's the movies themselves i fell in love with all those years ago, not the presentation. Id love to buy everything i want, but it's just not feasible these days, and I'd rather not limit my viewing options. I know that's just me, though.

[joie]

Wasn't Catherine Deneuve's sister also in Repulsion? As the roommate who wasn't seen much, because she went away on holiday?

Edit: The roommates played sisters, but were unrelated in real-life. Yvonne Furneaux played the sister in Repulsion and Francoise Dorleac (Deneuve's real-life older sister) was in Cul-de-Sac.

P.S. The real-life sisters are together in Les Demoiselles de Rochefort.

[Nielsb90]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Yes

Originally Posted by ravenus

Given the size of the booklets, this one and Battle of Algiers are unlikely to have a plastic case packaging.

Thanks. I would have preferred a regular case but I still wan't to see the movie. The price is pretty good right now but I will probably have to wait.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

I can't relate to this at all.

In fact, in a lot of ways I find the clarity of Blu-ray distracting. Perhaps its because of years of bad TV, VHS and DVD transfers, but I find myself scrutinizing Blu-ray transfers much more than I ever did before Blu-ray. Before Blu-ray (and still with DVD and streaming), I just watched the movie.

Joe, I agree with your mini rant 100% and the bold line really should say it all. It's nice to have this technology, no doubt about it, but to actually limit yourself to a viewing because a film is not available on blu-ray is beyond silly and naive. There are countless times over the years on this forum/thread I have read members saying they will not watch it or buy the dvd until it comes out on blu. Many are slaves or simply obsessed to the technology, and that's too bad. Next will be people asking if the movie is going to come out on 4K, so they will wait...
Folks, if your interested in a film/director, buy or rent it, regardless of what format its on. The experience should be what the writer/director intended, not if the audio is in Master Audio.. Frankly, for the last time too, as I have seen this asked 50+ times; NO, Berlin Alexanderplatz is not coming out on blu-ray anytime soon, so buy the dvd set. Another must have, and possibly my favorite release ever from Criterion, Roberto Rossellini’s War Trilogy is a must have and its on dvd too.... Sorry, those are my recommendations and my mini rant..

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Joe, I agree with your mini rant 100% and the bold line really should say it all. It's nice to have this technology, no doubt about it, but to actually limit yourself to a viewing because a film is not available on blu-ray is beyond silly and naive. There are countless times over the years on this forum/thread I have read members saying they will not watch it or buy the dvd until it comes out on blu. Many are slaves or simply obsessed to the technology, and that's too bad. Next will be people asking if the movie is going to come out on 4K, so they will wait...
Folks, if your interested in a film/director, buy or rent it, regardless of what format its on. The experience should be what the writer/director intended, not if the audio is in Master Audio.. Frankly, for the last time too, as I have seen this asked 50+ times; NO, Berlin Alexanderplatz is not coming out on blu-ray anytime soon, so buy the dvd set. Another must have, and possibly my favorite release ever from Criterion, Roberto Rossellini’s War Trilogy is a must have and its on dvd too.... Sorry, those are my recommendations and my mini rant..

THIS. I like some films better in HD, but there are many that I own that will probably never see a BD release. There is somewhat of a limit on PQ (i.e. if It's like oil on a windshield, forget it), but the film itself is more important than how pretty it looks.

[ShellOilJunior]

I can counter all this talk with the fact many of these classics weren't intended to be viewed in 480p/i. I recall Robert Harris once saying on HTF that Lawrence of Arabia "doesn't really work on DVD".

The best way to watch a film is obviously on the big screen. An actual print. If I can't do that then blu-ray is a good substitute. If it's not on blu-ray then I go to TCM HD. If it's not on any of the above I bide my time. There's plenty of blu-rays to get to!

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I can counter all this talk with the fact many of these classics weren't intended to be viewed in 480p/i. I recall Robert Harris once saying on HTF that Lawrence of Arabia "doesn't really work on DVD".

The best way to watch a film is obviously on the big screen. An actual print. If I can't do that then blu-ray is a good substitute. If it's not on blu-ray then I go to TCM HD. If it's not on any of the above I bide my time. There's plenty of blu-rays to get to!

Shell, I think the point was that people are not even watching the film because it was not released on blu. Why not see one of the greatest films ever made? I think, back in 2006-07 when blu-ray came out that if you waited 6 years to even see Lawrence, because it wasn't on blu then, you did a foolish thing, as it was available through several outlets.

BG, would you not read a book, because it was not available on an e-reader and you actually had to turn pages??? I assume not.. Sort of the same point Shell.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Shell, I think the point was that people are not even watching the film because it was not released on blu. Why not see one of the greatest films ever made? I think, back in 2006-07 when blu-ray came out that if you waited 6 years to even see Lawrence, because it wasn't on blu then, you did a foolish thing, as it was available through several outlets.

BG, would you not read a book, because it was not available on an e-reader and you actually had to turn pages??? I assume not.. Sort of the same point Shell.

Hell no. I still buy tons of books, because many of them will never become ebooks. People have tried to make their own, but scribes as you know can make several errors.

I was actually agreeing with you, as I'm not as fussy as PQ as others. it is a bit of a factor, but I'm definitely more of a substances over forms kind of gal.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Hell no. I still buy tons of books, because many of them will never become ebooks. People have tried to make their own, but scribes as you know can make several errors.

I was actually agreeing with you, as I'm not as fussy as PQ as others. it is a bit of a factor, but I'm definitely more of a substances over forms kind of gal.

I know you were agreeing with me, just using your vocation and passion as another example of the original point.

[GenPion]

I still haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia and David Lean is a favorite filmmaker of mine... I can easily recognize that it doesn't make a lot of sense that I haven't seen the film yet.

I don't understand the idea of skipping a movie because a Blu-ray edition doesn't exist. There are plenty of brilliant films that won't arrive on Blu-ray in High Definition. It's so unfortunate but it's also true. However, I can understand waiting with certain films. I didn't "wait" for Lawrence of Arabia to hit Blu-ray to watch it... but a film like that is virtually guaranteed to be transferred to the format. So if people would rather see a classic like that on Blu-ray then I don't seen an issue with someone waiting.

I do wonder why I haven't seen it yet though. I should make an effort to see it soon...

[IronWaffle]

Lots of snips...

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Not sarcasm. My statements aren't meant as anti-BD or anti-HD. Of course I prefer to own BD. But moreso than previous formats I think we have an expectation of perfection from BD.

I chalk it up to being raised on TV/VHS. In a few years from now I'll probably be less awed (distracted) by or expectant of BD/HD quality.

I agree that buying a BD basically trumps most moviehouse experiences these days for value. But if you live in America and want to see "Marketa Lazarova", your options are basically YouTube or torrenting because it's not on Blu-ray or even R1 DVD, and a theatrical screening is rare. Or, just never see "Marketa Lazarova" ever. Those are your choices.

I was just saying that I can't do that. If I want to see something and its available to me (especially inaffordably), I will make due. It's not about being a cheapskate, even though I am.

Probably...there were a lot of messages but I just grabbed a couple to quote, sorry.

Again, I'm not really taking shots at blind-buyers. We can go back-and-forth about blind-buying until we're blue ... And I spend more than I should on BD and DVD, so it's not a shot at what people spend their money on. It's more about limiting your options.

I would prefer everything to be in pristine HD, sure. But realistically that won't happen. We're probably more likely to have catalog saturation on adequate HD streaming before we have a saturation of BD catalog titles.

That's not what I said. I simply won't wait for an HD option to see a film.

Similar to my experience. And regardless of whether people have the luxury to purchase whatever they want to see, there are always going to be titles worth seeing unavailable to them if they refuse SD formats. Why do that?

Just to say, I took no offense... but no refunds on your apology! (I, like you and many others in these parts, qualify as a cheapskate)

Also, I didn't take any of your posts as anti- pretty much anything or sarcastic, and doubt I'm alone in that. In fact, I liked the tone of your posts and those that responded, whichever "side" they took. It's refreshing and will carry me through the inevitable "Tiny Furniture" is the worst spine of the year posts to come! Or in another thread where someone crudely uttered at another "cheapskate" that "I guess I have more money than you". Ugh!

Fact is, this site is named for a technology so I have come to accept that specs get more discussion. It's also easier to talk about those levels than to put oneself on the line, as it were, by talking about a film itself (though I'm thankful for this, the movies thread, and some random others).

I completely agree about not limiting options. I think everyone should pursue their passions as best they can within their limitations. Still, I understand ShellOil's point re: LoA -- which I first viewed on a 20" CRT! When I visited Wadi Rum in Jordan a few years ago I realized how even a 70mm print at the AFI didn't do that landscape justice. In real life that desert has no pixelation or banding, but a LOT of graininess!

And, boy, thank god for crappy YouTube video. Recently I remembered "Special Bulletin," a TV movie from when I was a kid. Turns out Warner briefly released it in the Archive, but now it's on the collectors' market. Rather than pay through the nose on the secondary market, I got to watch it in its pasty VHS glory online

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Shell, I think the point was that people are not even watching the film because it was not released on blu. Why not see one of the greatest films ever made? I think, back in 2006-07 when blu-ray came out that if you waited 6 years to even see Lawrence, because it wasn't on blu then, you did a foolish thing, as it was available through several outlets.

BG, would you not read a book, because it was not available on an e-reader and you actually had to turn pages??? I assume not.. Sort of the same point Shell.

The book/e-reader analogy is lost on me. I prefer books, btw.