British Film Institute (BFI) Discussion Thread

[StarDestroyer52]

DVDBeaver's review for Beat the Devil is now live.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by StarDestroyer52

DVDBeaver's review for Beat the Devil is now live.

No trailer, no sale. Will order the TT edition as I don’t need a tea advertisement or some 20 minute promotional film for nuclear power. How those rate as extras in place of the original trailer is beyond me. The booklet sounds great, but not enough to double dip.

[minister_x]

And what about the second commentary? Is that better than a stupid trailer*?

* For clarification, I don't think there's an excuse for not including a trailer with any release.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by minister_x

And what about the second commentary? Is that better than a stupid trailer*?

* For clarification, I don't think there's an excuse for not including a trailer with any release.

I didn’t mention the second commentary because Beaver said it has long gaps of silence, which I find very frustrating when trying to listen, and also he said one of the participants is a bit hard to understand. So yes, one well produced commentary is enough and I’d still rather have the “stupid trailer,” in place of the other commentary.

Frankly, I find more than a few BFI releases to have some bewildering extras or, at least to me, unappealing ones. I’m with you on your clarification point. For me, trailers are an integral part of the original film experience, etc. etc. I’ve posted so many defenses of trailers in threads I’m tired of hearing myself talk! I don’t like what may be a developing trend of leaving them off releases. New movies rarely include them and now Criterion has left them off some recent releases of catalog titles, which is irritating me, especially when some, like FAIL SAFE, are excellent.

So you can roll your eyes over my original contention, but I stand by my post and will purchase the TT. YMMV!

[minister_x]

Fair enough! Apologies for being a bit rude, I just thought you dismissed the BFI disc a bit harshly and reacted without reading the review. Sounds like that second commentary isn't as great as it could be, although I can still see it being potentially more appealing to most than a trailer. Would be great to have both though! And to be fair, BFI is usually pretty good at including trailers.

I agree that the absence on recent releases is very annoying - especially on boutique releases like Criterion. (Thankfully Arrow, Powerhouse et al are usually good at including them - as well as the BFI, for a large number of their releases.)

[mmarczi]

Before I came to this forum I had no idea people valued trailers so much. It never occurred to me to get upset if a trailer for a movie wasn't included since I already have the movie itself.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by minister_x

Fair enough! Apologies for being a bit rude, I just thought you dismissed the BFI disc a bit harshly and reacted without reading the review. Sounds like that second commentary isn't as great as it could be, although I can still see it being potentially more appealing to most than a trailer. Would be great to have both though! And to be fair, BFI is usually pretty good at including trailers.

I agree that the absence on recent releases is very annoying - especially on boutique releases like Criterion. (Thankfully Arrow, Powerhouse et al are usually good at including them - as well as the BFI, for a large number of their releases.)

You’re right, I do think my posts come off as rude quite often even though it isn’t my intention (at least most of the time!). However, this time your perception was spot on. I was indeed a bit rudely dismissive simply because I passed up buying the TT version just last week when I placed a large order during the current TT sale. If I had known the details on the BFI version then I would have included DEVIL in my TT order and saved a bit of money on their new inflated shipping costs. I felt some of the TT titles I wanted were in danger of selling out, so I decided not to wait on the BFI specs. So you were right about my being a little harsh!

We are in complete agreement on the inclusion of trailers as an extra and their recent absence. I get very frustrated at online Blu critics and forum members who consistently say “only” and “just” a trailer is included as an extra. Oh well, as I said before, I’m a broken record on this subject around here so I’ll give it a rest.

But truly, I didn’t take any offense at your rolling eye emoji, I was only being persnickety, as I thought you were! Always nice to meet a new kindred spirit.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by mmarczi

Before I came to this forum I had no idea people valued trailers so much. It never occurred to me to get upset if a trailer for a movie wasn't included since I already have the movie itself.

Trailers are a curious thing. If made well, they can be as creative as the movie they advertise. And keep in mind that the purpose of the trailer is to make you want to see the movie. A lot of modern trailers are limp dish-rags. They often over-use clips from the films in question, and make you feel like you've already seen the movie, or have seen the best parts, or maybe even spoil the movie for viewers.

A well-made trailer is like a one- to three-minute short film. And, sometimes, a trailer might even have shots in it that aren't in the finished film.

[Professor Echo]

The William Friedkin directed and edited trailer for SORCERER is a work of art in and of itself. And incredibly, not included on any Blu release.

I agree with Jayembee completely. In addition to his cogent thoughts, I would add my own personal fascination with how movies were promoted and marketed, especially back in the day when there wasn’t much more than trailers, the posters outside the theater and newspaper ads to get you to see a particular title. Trailers reveal so much about studios, filmmakers, advertising, zeitgeist, etc. They aren’t just a significant aspect of the original film experience, but of history and culture as well.

[Rutger Lundgren]

I like trailers, and not just film trailers - I've accumulated a collection of a few hundred DVDs full of video game trailers and other promo material. But I don't think I'd go as far as skipping certain releases just because they don't include trailers. They're nice to have, but in most or at least many cases YouTube or IMDb are good enough sources for me. As far as extras go, trailers are pretty low on my priority list, but I appreciate that some people might feel differently.

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

I didn’t mention the second commentary because Beaver said it has long gaps of silence, which I find very frustrating when trying to listen, and also he said one of the participants is a bit hard to understand. So yes, one well produced commentary is enough and I’d still rather have the “stupid trailer,” in place of the other commentary.

Frankly, I find more than a few BFI releases to have some bewildering extras or, at least to me, unappealing ones. I’m with you on your clarification point. For me, trailers are an integral part of the original film experience, etc. etc. I’ve posted so many defenses of trailers in threads I’m tired of hearing myself talk! I don’t like what may be a developing trend of leaving them off releases. New movies rarely include them and now Criterion has left them off some recent releases of catalog titles, which is irritating me, especially when some, like FAIL SAFE, are excellent.

So you can roll your eyes over my original contention, but I stand by my post and will purchase the TT. YMMV!

Trailers absolutely have value in understanding what aspects of a narrative are promoted, or what elements were excised from the final edit, or seeing techniques such as voiceover adopted over time. As much as I would like to say I'm only influenced by reviews, seeing a film's trailer will make it more likely to check something out - even if I'm already vaguely aware of it. There's more of a commitment to wanting to know what unveils when you've already seen 1% of the film - or seeing an actor's performance or hearing the film's soundtrack - especially as trailers can create a radically different impression to the way a narrative actually unfolds.

The BFI absolutely have some baffling inclusions, but I think for them it's a case of promoting and making accessible their vast archive (they're a Film Institute after all) in a physical form outside of purely digitally through BFI Player. Often they're tangential but for example I really enjoyed the WWII public information shorts on Eye of the Needle, or the shorts by British Asian directors on My Beautiful Laundrette. They're special features where whether they're viewed with the main feature or not is immaterial - which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing in its own right.

I suppose the reasoning for the nuclear film is the presence of uranium in the film.

[Anthony Thorne]

It’s a bit of a reach. If people have to ponder wtf an extra was included I’d prefer it if they just left it off.

[Aclea]

I like the way Joe Dante - who cut his teeth editing them for Roger Corman - describes trailers: movie haikus.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

The BFI absolutely have some baffling inclusions, but I think for them it's a case of promoting and making accessible their vast archive

Unfortunately in the past - at least up to the 90s - their attitude to trailers was horrifying. While they may have archived older trailers, anything comparatively recent that was donated would be cut up into key frames that would be added to their picture library as transparencies (even though they were always much lower quality than actual photos taken on the set). While I'd like to assume they only did this if they had two copies, I seriously doubt that was the case. And of course, those 'modern' 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s trailers they cut up are now vintage rarities in many cases.

[dr727]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Frankly, I find more than a few BFI releases to have some bewildering extras or, at least to me, unappealing ones.

So you can roll your eyes over my original contention, but I stand by my post and will purchase the TT. YMMV!

No contention here, but I actually enjoy BFI's "bewildering" extras—often times they provide context to the year/moment a film was released or a specific (possibly laser-focused) topic indirectly related to the narrative. I think it's a neat use of what I presume is a limited production budget but inexpensive access to the BBC and other archives.

I can totally see how this wouldn't appeal to everyone or might feel random compared to the often custom extras created for Criterion, Eureka, Arrow, Indicator, and the rest.

[dr727]

I also openly admit to not minding if a trailer is/isn't included. I like having the idea of having them included as a completionist but rarely watch—my usual motivation is when a film is avant-garde or un-categorizable (yet great!) and I wonder "how did the studio try to market this thing?"

[johnpaul2]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Frankly, I find more than a few BFI releases to have some bewildering extras or, at least to me, unappealing ones.

Like what ?
All labels have releases with lesser extras (lesser as in "bad" extras, not as in less interesting ones because more tengential). The BFI have always favored including archive short features, features they're the only ones to include so often, while others might favor talking heads or visual essays stuff which aren't always a seal of quality. To each its own, but I hope that's not what you're calling bewildering or unappealing.

On their recent Scandal release, the BFI have included stuff on the movie AND stuff on the real life events adapted in the movie AND a short feature unrelated to the movie but directed by Caton-Jones. And there's a trailer, probably sourced from VHS or whatever.
Not many labels do such a 360° work on their titles (actually, the ones who do can probably be counted on one hand).

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

For me, trailers are an integral part of the original film experience, etc. etc. I’ve posted so many defenses of trailers in threads I’m tired of hearing myself talk!

There is a step between being disappointed and finding it a clear-cut deal-breaker, and I'm quite certain most customers will be ponderating many other things before looking at whether or not the trailer is included.

I guess it might be easy to apply it here because it's the same restoration and most of the extras are shared anyway but, say, if the TT was the older scan Film Detective used and the BFI the new 4K restoration, would you still favor the TT because it has the trailer ?
Did you pass on the many movies only released by the BFI (for instance in their Flipside collection) because trailers were not included ?

Maybe it's just me, but it can be seen as dismissing a release on a very specific point that might be considered unfair to the overall amount of editorial curation work input.

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

I was indeed a bit rudely dismissive simply because I passed up buying the TT version just last week when I placed a large order during the current TT sale. If I had known the details on the BFI version then I would have included DEVIL in my TT order and saved a bit of money on their new inflated shipping costs.

Specs have been known since Feb 17th and the trailer was already not mentioned. If you placed that order last week, the details were thus already available.

Originally Posted by Anthony Thorne

It’s a bit of a reach. If people have to ponder wtf an extra was included I’d prefer it if they just left it off.

So they can then rant about the limited amount of extras ? Some labels just can't ever win.
Actually, I sometimes wish labels would be reaching to include whatever they can, just for the sake of including things that we would otherwise never see.

Originally Posted by dr727

I can totally see how this wouldn't appeal to everyone or might feel random compared to the often custom extras created for Criterion, Eureka, Arrow, Indicator, and the rest.

Yet, if we're to support including trailers by discussing their artistic merits and their historical importance, shouldn't people do the same for the tangential archival features included by the BFI on most of their releases ?
But I speak as someone who loves stuff like the COI collection.

[Fnord Prefect]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

No trailer, no sale. Will order the TT edition as I don’t need a tea advertisement or some 20 minute promotional film for nuclear power. How those rate as extras in place of the original trailer is beyond me. The booklet sounds great, but not enough to double dip.

I'll take as many on topic archive films as the BFI are happy to throw in over a trailer (that I'll forget to watch) any day, especially if like many of the BFI's inclusions they're either genuinely entertaining or beautiful to look at and/or a little "off" by modern sensibilities.

EDIT: That isn't to be disparaging against trailers and indeed I'm often puzzled by their non-inclusion. It's just on the whole they don't interest me.

[gZa]

Originally Posted by CrockettandTubbs

Spetters blu-ray review:

http://www.dvdcompare.net/review.php?rid=6109

"The BFI is releasing this in a Limited Edition form with the film and some extras on a Blu-ray with additional extras on a bonus DVD in the PAL format.A subsequent standard edition will drop the bonus disc and will be a single Blu-ray only."

A 36 page booklet is included for the first pressing only.

Came to post just this. The packaging made me think the DVD was copy of the Blu-Ray but it's just the special features, so don't wait if you want those.

[RICKBONDOO7]

Where is Oliver Twist (1948) ? I see it's being released in Germany. ??? No UK release ? WHY ?????