The Criterion Collection

[mrjohnnyb]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Saw Kiss Me Deadly last night. Even putting the preposterous Macguffin aside, it's a rather loosely plotted movie but the script and Bob Aldrich solidly deliver in terms of intensity and badassery. And Ralph Meeker, what a performance.
There's a very interesting extra which contrasts the differing opinions of the script writer and novelist Mickey Spillane, each calling the other's effort lousy and unbearable .

That preposterous Macguffin was deliberately stolen and used by Tarantino for Pulp Fiction.

[DarkRyder]

Originally Posted by ZooTv

We are excruciatingly overdue for a Mulholland Drive Criterion. Here's hoping 2013 delivers!

It's region free, so we're not exactly in dire need for Mulholland Drive

http://www.amazon.de/David-Lynch-Box...6550980&sr=8-1

[jrmac2000]

Originally Posted by robi1

Peter Becker, President of the Criterion Collection, is joined by Technical Director Lee Kline for an in-depth discussion of Criterion's mission and method. Selected clips, drawn from the Criterion vault.

Is there a link to this discussion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ZooTv]

Originally Posted by DarkRyder

It's region free, so we're not exactly in dire need for Mulholland Drive

http://www.amazon.de/David-Lynch-Box...6550980&sr=8-1

I own the set as well, leaves much to be desired in terms of special features (PAL encoded) and artwork.

[kndy]

For those looking forward to "The Tin Drum" in January, I just wanted to add that if you own the original 2004 Criterion Collection DVD, you may not want to sell or give away that DVD.

While the 2013 release features the longer version, the 2004 Criterion Collection DVD release has audio commentary and special features including the "Banned in Oklahoma" documentary" that are not included on the Blu-ray release.

[Archedamian]

Originally Posted by Beard Esquire

The Yakuza(1974) and The Mosquito Coast(1986) would be my picks for a Criterion restoration and blu-ray release.

The Mosquito Coast would be so awesome. Day one purchase.

[Norbie]

Originally Posted by tonylopez

I got to finally get my Criterions from the B&N sale. I had to sit on them till Christmas. I can not wait to dive into these!

Still waiting for four of mine buys.

Half of them arrived on 24th Dec at 21:30, so the postman did try.

And with the CC awards - Children of Paradise gotta raw deal, it could have looked a lot better but.....

[*PREACHER*]

My New Year resolution will definitely be to save more toward B&N sales!

My 2013 Criterion blu upgrade wishes so far: Vampyr, The Devil and Daniel Webster

[CusackstheMan]

Anybody have any insight/opinion on why It's a Wonderful Life hasn't received the Blu-ray treatment? Is the DVD version so good that an upgrade is not necessary?

[*PREACHER*]

Originally Posted by CusackstheMan

Anybody have any insight/opinion on why It's a Wonderful Life hasn't received the Blu-ray treatment? Is the DVD version so good that an upgrade is not necessary?

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Its-a...-Blu-ray/6097/

Probably hands down my all time favorite movie...followed really closely by Casablanca!!!

[CusackstheMan]

Originally Posted by *PREACHER*

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Its-a...-Blu-ray/6097/

Probably hands down my all time favorite movie...followed really closely by Casablanca!!!

Thanks, don't I feel like a dummy. I had no idea it was out in 2009. Just hadn't seen it in stores.

[starman15317]

I don't care what Criterion releases in 2013 (they could release Transformers if they wanted to) because they're releasing The Blob!!

But seriously, some Lynch films would be nice.

[*PREACHER*]

Originally Posted by CusackstheMan

Thanks, don't I feel like a dummy. I had no idea it was out in 2009. Just hadn't seen it in stores.

No biggie...happens to the best of us!!!

Enjoy!!!

[solarrdad]

Originally Posted by CusackstheMan

Anybody have any insight/opinion on why It's a Wonderful Life hasn't received the Blu-ray treatment? Is the DVD version so good that an upgrade is not necessary?

Criterion blu upgrade wishes so far.

[Normans Rare Guitars]

Originally Posted by CusackstheMan

I don't understand how you can say this. If you're right, then why does a movie, say, made in 1973 have to undergo countless hours of restoration to be up to snuff to high quality 2012 Blu-Ray releases? And even if the restoration is done perfectly, often you can still tell it's not a new release?

The basic point is correct. 35mm film contains more clarity than 1080p can reproduce. Older films often need restoration because the basic elements are treated badly. Negatives have been left in vaults to deteriorate for years and need to be cleaned before new transfers are created. The clarity of the original 35mm film however, still exceeds HD when properly preserved.

As to why older films look differerent, there are a number of reasons. Modern films take advantage of digital media, steadycams and computer-aided post production tools. Older films (shot on actual film) often have more grain as a result of the lighting and expsosure requirements, and typically had limited camera motion. If you wanted a steady shot in 1973, you needed a fixed camera angle. Now a sweeping, moving camera shot can be accomplished with no perceivable camera shake.

I think television gave us a false impression of what older films looked like. We all grew up watching older films TV. Those TV stations were broadcasting horrible tape transfers to our standard-def TV's. It's only in the blu-ray era that we have a chance to see what Fantasia or Ben-Hur might have looked like on day one. It's hard to believe the actual clarity would be even greater if we saw a 70mm print directly from the negative.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Normans Rare Guitars

[Show spoiler]The basic point is correct. 35mm film contains more clarity than 1080p can reproduce. Older films often need restoration because the basic elements are treated badly. Negatives have been left in vaults to deteriorate for years and need to be cleaned before new transfers are created. The clarity of the original 35mm film however, still exceeds HD when properly preserved.

As to why older films look differerent, there are a number of reasons. Modern films take advantage of digital media, steadycams and computer-aided post production tools. Older films (shot on actual film) often have more grain as a result of the lighting and expsosure requirements, and typically had limited camera motion. If you wanted a steady shot in 1973, you needed a fixed camera angle. Now a sweeping, moving camera shot can be accomplished with no perceivable camera shake.

I think television gave us a false impression of what older films looked like.

[Show spoiler]We all grew up watching older films TV. Those TV stations were broadcasting horrible tape transfers to our standard-def TV's. It's only in the blu-ray era that we have a chance to see what Fantasia or Ben-Hur might have looked like on day one. It's hard to believe the actual clarity would be even greater if we saw a 70mm print directly from the negative.

Not only a "false" impression, but sometimes too "forgiving". Blu-ray is a brutal lens...photo-chemical imperfections that were once less noticeable on DVD, VHS, or via TV Broadcast can often become glaring in 1080p. So most older films require some kind of clean-up work for HD...eliminating random dust, scratches, specs and flecks. If you look closely at older home video releases, you can often see traces of these imperfections - they were always there - they just weren't as noticeable at a lower resolution, along with other more important shot details.

I realize it's heresy on these boards, but I know many less discriminating movie fans and collectors who actually still prefer DVD over Blu-ray, simply because it is more inherently "forgiving"...they can live with less exacting detail as long as the image is superficially "cleaner". Personally, I want more faithful reproduction, warts and all, but there is something to be said for the persistence of vision...up to a certain display scale, your mind will tend to fill in any missing details when viewing an image in motion anyway.

[Normans Rare Guitars]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

I realize it's heresy on these boards, but I know many less discriminating movie fans and collectors who actually still prefer DVD over Blu-ray, simply because it is more inherently "forgiving"...

I understand what you mean. My hope, with any release, is to get a reproduction that is a close as possible to the first screening of the film. Imperfections are a part of the process for reasons intended and unintended. More than anything, I just want to see the art the way it was originally produced. If that's not possible, I'd like to get close. My mother is old enough to have seen Snow White in it's original theatrical release. Recently I showed her the blu ray on a 50" plasma TV. She almost cried because she had completly forgotten how amazing it looked. In the last 70 years, she's never been able to see it the way she saw it in the theatre. Seeing it on blu-ray took her all the way back to her childhood. As much as possible, I want that experience preserved for future generations.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

Rosemary's Baby was w-a-y overrepresented in every category. I mean, yeeeesh.

What does that mean, exactly? That w-a-y too many people voted for it?

What would have been a more appropriate number of votes?

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by octagon

What does that mean, exactly? That w-a-y too many people voted for it?

What would have been a more appropriate number of votes?

Well...uhm...that's just my opinion??? Rosemary's Baby was a good movie. A better than average thriller. Even memorable in measure. The Blu-ray was also very nice, and mostly faithful to the source. No serious complaints about it being in the collection either.

I'm just somewhat surprised by its formidable showing for both "Best New Spine" and "Release of the Year". For example, I thought World on a Wire and the Lean/Coward Set were not only more interesting and important, but also more thoughtfully mounted...as was Lonesome, a very ambitious triple film restoration project...ditto for Les Visiteurs du Soir and The Gold Rush...heck, I could probably name at least a half dozen other titles I'd place ahead of Rosemary's Baby. But that just happened to be the one more folks chose in the privacy of their polling Javascript. At least it wasn't The Game.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Normans Rare Guitars

I understand what you mean. My hope, with any release, is to get a reproduction that is a close as possible to the first screening of the film. Imperfections are a part of the process for reasons intended and unintended. More than anything, I just want to see the art the way it was originally produced. If that's not possible, I'd like to get close.

[Show spoiler]My mother is old enough to have seen Snow White in it's original theatrical release. Recently I showed her the blu ray on a 50" plasma TV. She almost cried because she had completly forgotten how amazing it looked. In the last 70 years, she's never been able to see it the way she saw it in the theatre. Seeing it on blu-ray took her all the way back to her childhood. As much as possible, I want that experience preserved for future generations.

With most full scale restorations we're actually doing better that that now. If they go back to the original camera negative and rescan, then we are technically zero photo-chemical generations away from the source. Even the best prints projected in the best venues of the time never looked quite that good.*

* Except for Technicolor in its vintage 3-strip IB print form...a visual world unto itself which rarely translates with 100% fidelity to home video. This is perhaps what your grandmother remembers from the day.