The Criterion Collection

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

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

It's not really. We could easily reverse it. Would you avoid reading a book if it only came in ebook format, or would you possibly wait forever until there was a paper copy?

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by jcs913

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

Misread your post, my mistake.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jcs913

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.

Why would waiting have been foolish?

The movie (much like myself, as it happens) was released in 1962. People who still hadn't seen it forty-five years later were obviously in no huge rush to begin with.

So what would have been the downside to waiting a few more years?

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

It's not really. We could easily reverse it. Would you avoid reading a book if it only came in ebook format, or would you possibly wait forever until there was a paper copy?

Gotta disagree here. There's no equivalent for e-readers for 1080p, uncompressed sound and increased storage space.

Let's be honest this argument comes down to some people not liking DVD. I'm of the mind DVD had its time in the sun and it's time to move on. I don't believe in supporting the format any more.

[Kevin Holly]

A cinephile isn't the same thing as an audiophile or videophile....

[Extremis]

Must own Criterions? Anyone?

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by octagon

Why would waiting have been foolish?

The movie (much like myself, as it happens) was released in 1962. People who still hadn't seen it forty-five years later were obviously in no huge rush to begin with.

So what would have been the downside to waiting a few more years?

If you were a fan of the director just before blu-ray came out and decided that you would wait for 6 years to watch his greatest film, even though it is available for consumption through many outlets. Seems beyond OCD to me. Seems like it would make a lot more sense to view the film on dvd or even television, as many remember, cable and satellite were around before blu-ray came out. If you agree and think it is a great film, then wait for it to come out on blu-ray, but at least you experienced the film to make that judgment, no?

The initial comment the member made pages ago was whether or not he should wait to view a film on blu-ray. Again, why not make the effort and try to view it some other way and then judge whether or not its worth the wait. As far as I see, the film is not going to change its content, only its appearance...

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Gotta disagree here. There's no equivalent for e-readers for 1080p, uncompressed sound and increased storage space.

Let's be honest this argument comes down to some people not liking DVD. I'm of the mind DVD had its time in the sun and it's time to move on. I don't believe in supporting the format any more.

Shell, the inital post was about whether or not someone should wait to view a film on blu-ray, like the films content would change on that special disc... Some of us are saying, why wait when there are, in some cases, plenty of outlets to view a film. I agree that dvd is dead, it's simple technology and our 'need' for something new and better as humans, but if something you are interested in is not available on that format, why not find another to satisfy that curiosity?? Seems like basic common sense to me...

[tenia]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Montand's best work starts with this film, really, despite him being in the likes of Z and Le Cercle Rouge:

I love Montand further more in Le cercle rouge.
But it's also his character which I had trouble to relate too. In the end, I just found the 1st hour being over extended.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jcs913

If you were a fan of the director just before blu-ray came out and decided that you would wait for 6 years to watch his greatest film, even though it is available for consumption through many outlets. Seems beyond OCD to me. Seems like it would make a lot more sense to view the film on dvd or even television, as many remember, cable and satellite were around before blu-ray came out. If you agree and think it is a great film, then wait for it to come out on blu-ray, but at least you experienced the film to make that judgment, no?

You wouldn't wait. Waiting doesn't make sense to you. I get that part.

But what makes waiting foolish?

Your hypothetical David Lean fan has gone his whole life without seeing Lawrence, no? If he wants to wait a few more years I really don't see any downside.

Originally Posted by jcs913

The initial comment the member made pages ago was whether or not he should wait to view a film on blu-ray.

Maybe I'm missing some important context here. Can you point me to that post?

Originally Posted by jcs913

As far as I see, the film is not going to change its content, only its appearance...

Film is a visual medium. To at least some extent appearance is content.

Obviously a film's appearance is only one factor but it's hardly a superficial or trivial factor.

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by Kevin Holly

A cinephile isn't the same thing as an audiophile or videophile....

Nicely put.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by 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...

As a Lean fan myself, I simply don't think it's as good as Zhivago, Kwai, or even Brief Encounter. It's grand, and the first hour or so is my favorite. That last hour, though, is a bore to me, and the ending sort of peters out. But hey, I respect it's achievement and even lesser Lean is better than many filmmakers' best.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by octagon

You wouldn't wait. Waiting doesn't make sense to you. I get that part.

But what makes waiting foolish?

Your hypothetical David Lean fan has gone his whole life without seeing Lawrence, no? If he wants to wait a few more years I really don't see any downside.

Maybe I'm missing some important context here. Can you point me to that post?

Film is a visual medium. To at least some extent appearance is content.

Obviously a film's appearance is only one factor but it's hardly a superficial or trivial factor.

I don't remember stating that he was a fan forever. Anyways, I am saying that if you are interested in something and want to explore that interest further, why wait years so it comes out in HD. You can satisfy the curiosity/interest now and make a judgement whether you will purchase the film in HD when it does come out. Seems like simple human nature. You have a 'want' and need to feed the 'want', unless it is really not a want after all.

I think a lot of this discussion is that people are simply sold on a technology and not the film itself. Makes me believe that there is no real interest in the film in the first place. Seems more like a 'need' to 'fit in' or the old "Keeping up with the Joneses" mentality than actually being interested in the actual film.

A few pages ago, a poster stated this "I totally agree. I hate knowing what I'm watching is sub par. Kinda takes me out of it a bit. (it sounds as if I spoil myself too much: a glutinous HD consumer) This is what I was getting at, seems silly to me, but he sort of admits it. The presentation is one thing, but again, as this is all subjective, shouldn't the content of the film be more important? Seems silly that the disc format is more important than the actual piece of art...

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Shell, the inital post was about whether or not someone should wait to view a film on blu-ray, like the films content would change on that special disc... Some of us are saying, why wait when there are, in some cases, plenty of outlets to view a film. I agree that dvd is dead, it's simple technology and our 'need' for something new and better as humans, but if something you are interested in is not available on that format, why not find another to satisfy that curiosity?? Seems like basic common sense to me...

I think it's foolish to wait. I believe in seeing a film in the highest possible quality available, and if that means DVD or streaming, so be it. Hell, I bought a bunch of DVDs this past fall at closing blockbusters including some Criterions because they arent on blu and/or i havent seen them. I If a Blu ray is available, I'll try to get my hands on that, even if it means spending a bit more.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

LOL, thanks.



I agree with you. It's possible that literally hundreds of Criterion titles will never see Blu-ray releases. Never mind all of the great films that aren't even available on DVD. 35% of the titles on Criterion's Hulu channel do not have physical releases. It's a lot of stuff to leave on the table.

You might catch a little stick for the above quote (bolded). Surely the director in most cases intended a filmic presentation, not videotape or digital stream or people watching the film on handheld electronic devices, and home theatre HD comes closest. But I'm sure a lot of filmmakers also never imagined we would even have the technology to reproduce a theater experience so closely in our homes, so rhetorically where is the line for what the filmmaker intended?

I do believe that most makers of film are more interested in the theme/content being understood by the viewer rather than the use of surround sound or color-correction when it comes down to it. I think the theme/message of a film is what people should be more interested and yearning for, not whether it has lossy or lossless audio as a 'deal-breaker', but that's just me being old-fashioned I guess.

[returnofthemack]

why doesnt this fancypants criterion have blow up on blu ray yet? whats wrong with them?

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by jcs913

I don't remember stating that he was a fan forever. Anyways, I am saying that if you are interested in something and want to explore that interest further, why wait years so it comes out in HD. You can satisfy the curiosity/interest now and make a judgement whether you will purchase the film in HD when it does come out. Seems like simple human nature. You have a 'want' and need to feed the 'want', unless it is really not a want after all.

I think a lot of this discussion is that people are simply sold on a technology and not the film itself. Makes me believe that there is no real interest in the film in the first place. Seems more like a 'need' to 'fit in' or the old "Keeping up with the Joneses" mentality than actually being interested in the actual film.

A few pages ago, a poster stated this "I totally agree. I hate knowing what I'm watching is sub par. Kinda takes me out of it a bit. (it sounds as if I spoil myself too much: a glutinous HD consumer) This is what I was getting at, seems silly to me, but he sort of admits it. The presentation is one thing, but again, as this is all subjective, shouldn't the content of the film be more important? Seems silly that the disc format is more important than the actual piece of art...

That was me. The content is important. This may veer into a different direction but, I'll take a chance on something I know is worth the 17 bucks (recently Weekend, Last Temptation, Senso, Les Visiteurs, ) and I'll just rent things I would assume to be lesser experiences or not up my alley (the documentaries, Eating Raoul, Tiny Furniture, Life During Wartime).

But again see the films ASAP regardless of format, I just want the best one.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I think it's foolish to wait. I believe in seeing a film in the highest possible quality available, and if that means DVD or streaming, so be it. Hell, I bought a bunch of DVDs this past fall at closing blockbusters including some Criterions because they arent on blu and/or i havent seen them. I If a Blu ray is available, I'll try to get my hands on that, even if it means spending a bit more.

BTW, I was not meaning to pick on you, but what you said sums up my point to an extent. I agree with the bold 1000%, and that should be the norm now. Your tone came off as you were disappointed in the film itself, due to its presentation not being on blu-ray, which puzzles me.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by returnofthemack

why doesnt this fancypants criterion have blow up on blu ray yet? whats wrong with them?

I know right, releasing Antonioni's Films should be their top Priority! 2 is not enough

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jcs913

I don't remember stating that he was a fan forever. Anyways, I am saying that if you are interested in something and want to explore that interest further, why wait years so it comes out in HD. You can satisfy the curiosity/interest now and make a judgement whether you will purchase the film in HD when it does come out. Seems like simple human nature. You have a 'want' and need to feed the 'want', unless it is really not a want after all.

So basically the only downside to waiting is you don't get to watch it now?

Am I missing anything?