The Criterion Collection

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by xxnomad

is there anyone here who already owns the MOC of 'touch of zen' but is considering picking up the criterion disc due to extras and cover art and such?

because i am...and i never double dip. there's just something special about this movie...

I have the MOC, and I'll be getting the Criterion disc.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by ThisKid

The Director's Cut has more spit and polish. The Coens decided to trim the film by a few minutes to make it flow better. I think I heard that the trimmed scenes were scenes that didn't have too much of a impact on the story, but I haven't seen the film before, so someone else might have a detailed response on what was cut out.

Originally Posted by jayembee

That sounds about right. Like Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock, the DC is a little tighter, and there really isn't that significant a difference between the two versions. Though as the droll "Forever Young Film Preservation" intro on the extant Blu-ray puts it, "The boring parts have been cut out, and other things added". At any rate, on the "Alternate Versions" page of the IMDb entry, there's a list of the cuts made.

(I dearly hope the "Forever Young Film Preservation" intro is included on the Criterion release. I imagine it will, since it supposedly was included in theatrical screenings of the Director's Cut, and therefore might be considered a part of that version. However, on the extant Blu-ray, its running time is separate from the running time of the movie proper, which makes me wonder if it really is considered a part of the newer version.)

Anyway, I'm one of those people who feel that having a legit release version alongside a "we think this works a little better" version is a good thing. I have a copy of the original theatrical cut on laserdisc (which I haven't watched in ages; it's currently buried in my storage locker), but it's open-matte and has a music substitution, a common occurrence with MCA/Universal releases of the period.

In all honesty, if the Theatrical Cut was included, I probably wouldn't watch it in favor of the Director's Cut, but I like the idea of it being there.

Thanks. I'm in agreement, jayembee. When a director's cut is being presented, I'd always like to see the theatrical cut included if at all possible; for better or worse, it is what was originally released.

I've heard quite a bit about this film, but just never gotten around to seeing it. A possible blind-buy in the November sale.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Distributors won't touch a feature under 80 minutes long because exhibitors believe (with at least some evidence) that anything less than that and the audience will feel unsatisfied and want a refund. And if a movie can't get theatrical release in Los Angeles, it doesn't matter what the Academy rules say, they won't be able to nominate your fifty-five minute "feature film".

As baheidstu pointed out, a lot of animated features run less than 80 minutes, but that really is a special case.

Still, you're talking about current theatrical distribution. This tangent (that I started without really intending to) about short films vs. feature films isn't about current theatrical distribution. It's about looking at what was considered the difference was between short and feature over the long term, and whether a particular film included as an extra is a feature or a short.

[Reddington]

You gotta love these B&N sales. Received an unexpected 20% store-only member coupon via email, so decided to get a head-start on July's main event and picked up 3 Films by Roberto Rossellini Starring Ingrid Bergman in the 40% sale. A total blind-buy, but a set I've been eyeing since release.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Distributors won't touch a feature under 80 minutes long because exhibitors believe (with at least some evidence) that anything less than that and the audience will feel unsatisfied and want a refund. And if a movie can't get theatrical release in Los Angeles, it doesn't matter what the Academy rules say, they won't be able to nominate your fifty-five minute "feature film".

Oscar trivia: The shortest film to be nominated for Best Picture was She Done Him Wrong at 66 minutes. The shortest film to win was Marty at 90 minutes.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

This is what you have to understand... Criterion started with laser discs. And when they started, there was no such thing as "special features", and a "special edition" was a marketing term for a re-cut movie (if even that). Most laser discs didn't even have special features beyond chapter stops, though companies besides Criterion had begun to include them at times. But the big selling point of laserdisc was supposed to be higher quality picture/audio, and sometimes "proper director's cuts" [and I can think of at least three that were never released on any other format].

So then DVD came along, and for a while, distributors thought that DVD would be just as niche as laserdisc. When "Robocop" and "This Is Spinal Tap" and "Silence of the Lambs" were licensed to Criterion, it was because the studios didn't think there was any money in DVD. They were also just porting over released laserdiscs, they didn't have to do much additional work on those releases. But, for a variety of reasons, DVD really did take off after a few years. While the players were never as widespread as VCRs, I think the argument could be made that more people bought DVDs than ever bought videos... but certainly more than laser disc. So very quickly, studios decided to release their own special editions. They told Criterion the rights would not be renewed, so those discs went out-of-print, and they put their own discs out.

[snip]

It's a little more complicated than that, but that is essentially what happened. Your specific remarks about Robocop, This Is Spinal Tap, and Silence of the Lambs, though, isn't really the case. Criterion released the DVDs (which were, as you said, ports of the LDs) because they were still under license by Criterion, and so they had the rights to do them. MGM, in fact, released their own edition of Robocop while the Criterion edition was still in print (as was the case with several LDs -- Criterion's rights were never exclusive). Criterion's rights to those (and a number of other) films went away when their license was up, and the studios declined to renew.

Criterion lost the rights to a lot of their (LD) titles because of Warner taking control of the WB, MGM, and RKO catalogs that Ted Turner had acquired. Warner didn't want to share their toys with anyone else, and so Criterion's rights to a lot of films disappeared, even while Warner wasn't doing much with many of them.

[FilmFanPaul94]

Criterion should release A Clockwork Orange. That would be amazing.

[Scottie]

The re-issue of Zatôichi will retain the same case design.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by FilmFanPaul94

Criterion should release A Clockwork Orange. That would be amazing.

I never liked the film much but it certainly does need a remaster.

[dwk]

Originally Posted by Desslok

Are there any further rumors about a Criterion Lone Wolf and Cub set?

Yes. Based on some pictures Marc Walkow tweeted out back in February, I believe that he interviewed author Kazuma Nozawa about Kenji Misumi. I haven't been able to find a picture of Kazuma Nozawa to compare it to the one Marc Walkow tweeted out, so I'm not 100% certain, but I do know that a few weeks earlier he was looking for Kazuma Nozawa's contact info.

[ThisKid]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Distributors won't touch a feature under 80 minutes long because exhibitors believe (with at least some evidence) that anything less than that and the audience will feel unsatisfied and want a refund. And if a movie can't get theatrical release in Los Angeles, it doesn't matter what the Academy rules say, they won't be able to nominate your fifty-five minute "feature film".

If I were a distributor, I would make a rule that all films must past the 90 minute runtime. For me, anything less than 80 minutes is too short. They could just show it on TV because the runtime would fit perfectly on their as a TV movie. I feel that films under 80 minutes go by too quickly, and if it's a good movie, you want to see more of it. So by having the runtime pass 90 minutes, you could enjoy the film for longer.

[Reddington]

Just watched Our Man in Havana on Amazon video. What a fantastic film. I can't for the life of me think why it took me this long to get around to watching it. Especially as I am a fan of Carol Reed, his other two Graham Greene adaptations, and also of Alec Guinness. Only available on R2 DVD, which I will be ordering this evening. This film would make a perfect Criterion BD release. Especially given the superb b&w CinemaScope presentation.

[Desslok]

Originally Posted by dwk

Yes. Based on some pictures Marc Walkow tweeted out back in February, I believe that he interviewed author Kazuma Nozawa about Kenji Misumi. I haven't been able to find a picture of Kazuma Nozawa to compare it to the one Marc Walkow tweeted out, so I'm not 100% certain, but I do know that a few weeks earlier he was looking for Kazuma Nozawa's contact info.

Thanks! I very much hope they do that series.

[hoytereden]

I was watching a couple of early '30s films today on TCM and they barely hit the 60 minute running time. Something to remember about short running times was that these could easily work into theaters running double features (remember those?) and still run newsreels, shorts, cartoons, etc. with them which added up to a lot of entertainment for the price of a ticket.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by ThisKid

If I were a distributor, I would make a rule that all films must past the 90 minute runtime. For me, anything less than 80 minutes is too short. They could just show it on TV because the runtime would fit perfectly on their as a TV movie. I feel that films under 80 minutes go by too quickly, and if it's a good movie, you want to see more of it. So by having the runtime pass 90 minutes, you could enjoy the film for longer.

Running time is not a criteria I use to evaluate how much I enjoy a film. I've seen 2-hour films that seem too long, I've seen 3-hour films that seem too short. One example...

Chris Marker's La Jetée runs a little under 30 minutes, and it's a brilliant piece of filmmaking. Terry Gilliam, for all intents and purposes, took that story and expanded it into the 2-hour+ 12 Monkeys. Gilliam's film is four times as long as Marker's, but I think Marker's is four times better than Gilliam's.

[jmclick]

I just placed an order at Barnes & Noble online, taking advantage of the 40% sale and the extra 30% off coupon code. (Thank you so very much, forum member hariseldon!) I ordered nine Criterion titles (which means I will go into the July sale lacking only 30 titles to become Criterion blu-ray complete):

Bicycle Thieves (1948)
Hearts and Minds (1971)
The Kennedy Films of Robert Drew and Associates (1960-1964)
La Chienne (1931)
La Notte (1961)
Le Amiche (1955)
Only Angels Have Wings (1939)
The Palm Beach Story (1942)
Phoenix (2014)

I also purchased 6 catalog titles that I've been wanting for a while, but didn't want to pay more than $10 each to obtain; happily, with the discounts, they ended up being $8.40 each:

American Graffiti (1973)
Black Book (2006)
Dark Victory (1939)
Dodge City (1939)
Kiss Me Kate 3D (1953)
The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946)

I paid for it all via PayPal Credit, which means I won't have to pay interest until December! And just to make sure that I enter my retirement years with absolutely no savings or security whatsoever, I also applied for a Barnes & Noble Rewards MasterCard, which will earn me 5% back on all future Barnes & Noble purchases plus other goodies like gift cards, etc. I was approved for $6,500 credit, and my card should arrive just in time for the July sale. Please add my name to your prayer list.

[deepseababy]

Originally Posted by FilmFanPaul94

Criterion should release A Clockwork Orange. That would be amazing.

I would rather they spend their time on films that do not currently have Blu-ray releases.

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Running time is not a criteria I use to evaluate how much I enjoy a film. I've seen 2-hour films that seem too long, I've seen 3-hour films that seem too short. One example...

Chris Marker's La Jetée runs a little under 30 minutes, and it's a brilliant piece of filmmaking. Terry Gilliam, for all intents and purposes, took that story and expanded it into the 2-hour+ 12 Monkeys. Gilliam's film is four times as long as Marker's, but I think Marker's is four times better than Gilliam's.

Exactly. Some of my favorite films are those with short running times. Give me a early '30s Warner Bros, RKO, etc. B programmer and I'm happy as hell!

[jshaide]

Is there a 30 percent off coupon at BN right now? What's the code?

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Distributors won't touch a feature under 80 minutes long because exhibitors believe (with at least some evidence) that anything less than that and the audience will feel unsatisfied and want a refund. And if a movie can't get theatrical release in Los Angeles, it doesn't matter what the Academy rules say, they won't be able to nominate your fifty-five minute "feature film".

That's funny, because most indie distributors WANT features under 80-90 minutes because it guarantees them more viewings per day and the chance to make more money. In fact, most indie films are requested to be that length.

Originally Posted by ThisKid

If I were a distributor, I would make a rule that all films must past the 90 minute runtime. For me, anything less than 80 minutes is too short. They could just show it on TV because the runtime would fit perfectly on their as a TV movie. I feel that films under 80 minutes go by too quickly, and if it's a good movie, you want to see more of it. So by having the runtime pass 90 minutes, you could enjoy the film for longer.

Actually, if you were a distributor, you're SOLE rule would be that whatever you release makes a profit. So, you know, you could keep the business going. And shorter films means more showings = more money. Business is not art. And longer doesn't always mean better.