Criterion's Failure to Communicate

[Jun-Dai]

I don't remember when the three-month policy started (around the same time as they came out with their ASP site?), but I seem to recall a time when Criterion was more candid about what they were working on (for one thing, a lot of further-down-the-line releases would show up in their paper catalogs). I also recall a lot of bitching and complaining in a number of places (HTF, DVDFile forums) when Criterion would postpone various release (this was a constant problem for them), some of those releases having never materialized. I've always been under the impression that the fairly hard-core three-month release schedule and Mulvaney's generally much more formulaic responses were the result of these problems.

Crazy rumors spread around the Internet like crazy and the complaints soon follow. I think companies have to be more careful now about how things get leaked than they did 10 years ago. That said, if people had behaved better at the time (I remember the complaints over Grand Illusion being pulled from the release schedule being very harsh), Criterion might not have taken such a hard line on this matter.

[kekid]

Several interesting points have been raised above that I would like to comment on.

1. Predictions based on leading indicators have proven to be somewhat inaccurate. This method is used when there is no alternative. Here there is an alternative. Let Criterion tell us. Their plans may not be perfect, but they will be much more accurate than predictions based on leading indicators.

2. Criterion has had a bad experience in the past communicating longer term plans that did not materialize as communicated. Precision decreases as we try to predict farther out future. So if Criterion continue to give out firm schedules for the next 3 months, and add to that a list of films they expect to issue within approximately next 12 months (without giving specific dates), they would manage expectations as well as provide useful information.

3. Announcements farther out may damage the theatrical sales or Criterion's competitiveness. The first half of this postulate was formally challenged when Steven Soderberg opted to release DVDs of his film on the same day as the theatrical release. As to whether Criterion would suffer any harm by showing its hand a year in advance, I do not believe so, because they are the gold standard of the industry. If anything, such preview might keep customers from committing elsewhere, thus benefiting Criterion.

In summary, I think Criterion had probably legitimate reasons to limit the preview of future plans. However, with the newsletter format in place, they may want to reconsider if they can adjust their current policy in light of some of the suggestions made here. Obviously I believe that someone from Criterion keeps an eye on this forum, so these ideas will find their way to the decision-makers. What they do with them is clearly their prerogative.

[toiletduck!]

I'm with godardslave on this one(!!!) -- taking a look a 2006 so far, Criterion has been FAR more forthcoming with their future plans. Between the newsletter, the website, the myspace page, and Monsieur Lipson's e-mails, we have been given more definite answers about titles beyond the three-month schedule in the last seven months than in all of the rest of the time I've been familiar with Criterion (in the whereabouts of spine 125).

Surely positive reinforcement of this behavior would be more productive than threads devoted to "Criterion's Failure to Communicate."

-Toilet Dcuk

[Brian Oblivious]

3. Announcements farther out may damage the theatrical sales or Criterion's competitiveness. The first half of this postulate was formally challenged when Steven Soderberg opted to release DVDs of his film on the same day as the theatrical release.

Yes, and the theatrical grosses for the videofilm Bubble were pretty anemic. The DVD and HD broadcast apparently did very well, however. Though it would likely be the death knell for Rialto, it's fair to guess that a de-emphasis of the theatrical window might not seriously harm Criterion's financial situation, at least not in the short term.

But, as good as the technical quality of DVDs are, they're not the original art form. The vast majority of Criterion releases (and certainly the ones Rialto heroically distributes across the land) were made to be shown on 35mm prints in theatres. Though far fewer cities in this country have theatres regularly showing foreign art films than there were in, say, the 1960s, the Criterion brand identity still trades on nostalgia for the cinema scene of that era. Having a closely associated company like Rialto diligently fighting to keep that experience alive surely does wonders for Criterion's reputation as a company truly dedicated to film art.

Perhaps there are fewer and fewer consumers who consciously care about this mission, and more who believe the dissemination of high-quality facsimiles to a democratically wide audience of isolated DVD-o-philes is a far nobler one. Obviously the company must manage a balancing act of some sort. Personally, I think they do a pretty good job maintaining the balance as it is (if anything, I'd like MORE future Criterions to run the circuit prior to a DVD announcement), but I'm admittedly biased by living in striking distance of a few theatres that still run these films through their projectors.

[cafeman]

Through sheer novelty, Bubble did better both theatrically and on home video than it would`ve otherwise. On its own, the film has zero commercial appeal, and even recieved reviews which are mixed at best.

So, in this case, this original marketing ploy probably made much more money than a simple (limited) release.
Solo French Barely-Legal Nude German Big-Tits Sperm Wife Vegetable Chinese Tennis Cum Coed Workout Braces Shemale Cop Public Anime Pussy Bisexual Fetish Nympho Bikini Eutopia-Movies Latina Interracial Extreme Vibrator Cartoons Drilled Bukkake First-Time Pics Innocent-Teen Swallowing-Cum Snatch Tease Fireman Nipples

[miless]

Through sheer novelty, Bubble did better both theatrically and on home video than it would`ve otherwise. On its own, the film has zero commercial appeal, and even recieved reviews which are mixed at best.

So, in this case, this original marketing ploy probably made much more money than a simple (limited) release.

I will admit that Bubble does have limited commercial appeal, but of all the films I saw at the NY Film Fest. last year (I got to go to a bunch of press screenings) Bubble was, by far, my favorite film (The Squid and The Whale second)... It has about as much commercial appeal as another recent film using non-professionals, Elephant... they both have a similar style of stilted/awkward acting that takes time to get used to (and most mainstream audiences don't have the patience for).

That said, I am surprised that Hollywood used Bubble as evidence against releasing films and DVDs at the same time... no studio wants to risk the money to put out a blockbuster that way to see how it would turn out.

[kekid]

In current landscape, the total return on investment in a film production is the sum of what the producers get from theatrical and video sales. Hence a solution that reduces somewhat the theatrical revenue but increases by a larger amount the video sales is the preferred alternative. This was the rationale behind the Bubble experiment.

Sudios spend a lot of money to advertise a new release. If a DVD is issued 6 to 9 months later, the impact of that communication is all but lost. People who may not have access to theaters for particular films (certainly true of art films), or are just not inclined to go to theaters, may be more inclined to buy DVDs if they are available in the midst of an advertising campaign.

Returning to the topic of the thread, I doubt if many people who would have access to theatrical releases of films Criterion generally focuses on, would stop going to theaters just because Criterion announces they would release DVDs of those films over next year or so. To support this argument, we now expect that studios would release DVDs of all major mainstream movies within a year or so. People still go to theaters. Criterion announcement of their year-out plans would simply create an analogous environment for the art films.

[davida2]

2. Criterion has had a bad experience in the past communicating longer term plans that did not materialize as communicated. Precision decreases as we try to predict farther out future. So if Criterion continue to give out firm schedules for the next 3 months, and add to that a list of films they expect to issue within approximately next 12 months (without giving specific dates), they would manage expectations as well as provide useful information.

In summary, I think Criterion had probably legitimate reasons to limit the preview of future plans. However, with the newsletter format in place, they may want to reconsider if they can adjust their current policy in light of some of the suggestions made here. Obviously I believe that someone from Criterion keeps an eye on this forum, so these ideas will find their way to the decision-makers. What they do with them is clearly their prerogative.

As bonkers as consumers may get with postponed/cancelled releases, distributors and retail buyers really, really get nuts when it happens - I once worked for a music distro, and the retail buyers representing our biggest accounts were a real breed apart - if a date changed, they'd scream bloody murder and threaten absolutely anyone with ears to get what they wanted, when they wanted it. So from Criterion's standpoint, I'd bet the hard, fast 3-month rule knocks out a number of problems all at once.

I haven't run into the double-dipping problem; I've gone region-free, but with very limited funds I MUST be very selective in my shopping; if it will probably appear in Criterion's catalogue eventually, I typically am not going to be shelling out big bucks to get it from overseas.

[Napoleon]

Didn't they got stung over Eraserhead when they announced it prematurely?

Sorry but you know that if a film is by a 'criterion director' such as Ozu, Bresson, Visconti, then you know that film will be out on criterion sooner or later. If you can't wait then you pay your money and take your chances.

Finally they struggle to stick to the 3 month schedule, so a 12 month announcement would be pretty worthless anyhow.

[Michael Kerpan]

> Sorry but you know that if a film is by a 'criterion director' such as
> Ozu, Bresson, Visconti, then you know that film will be out on
> criterion sooner or later.

Not true as to Ozu. I seriously doubt that any of the early silent films (especially those whose source materials are in dire shape) are likely to be released by Criterion. Ditto for some of the more obscure later films (e.g. "Hen in the Wind").

[Napoleon]

> Sorry but you know that if a film is by a 'criterion director' such as
> Ozu, Bresson, Visconti, then you know that film will be out on
> criterion sooner or later.

Not true as to Ozu. I seriously doubt that any of the early silent films (especially those whose source materials are in dire shape) are likely to be released by Criterion. Ditto for some of the more obscure later films (e.g. "Hen in the Wind").

Yes, I should have put more thought into it/phrased it more clearly.

My point should have been that double guessing cc's long term releases, we know what is and what isn't likely. I think it unlikely that ALL of Visconti's or Bresson's films will eventually be cc's either.

The original poster says he's wasted a load of money on multi-region releases that subsequently were announced as cc's. If he thought when buying (I'm presuming) Pickpocket, Balthazar, Late Spring that they were not likely to be future criterions, they really should have thought twice.

It just seems like moaning about nothing.

[kekid]

1. There seems to be continued confusion about my suggestion, and how it relates to what Criterion did in the past. In the past they announced monthly projections farther out than 3 months. They were wrong in predicting the timing of the farther out issues. But they did indeed release those items eventually. Thus if they simply announced items they intend to release beyond 3 months without specifying precise month they would be providing useful information while avoiding the negatives.

2. Taking Ozu's as an example, they have said that they would issue 11 Ozu's, but they did not specify which 11. I am less interested in knowing the precise order and timing of the selected films than what they are. That way I can buy the rest from other sources. If I waited to see which Ozu's Criterion eventually issues, some of the Panoramas might no longer be available.

3. If I was the only member for whom this issue is relevant, then I should stop. But reading some of the posts on this thread, several members said they would love to have such information, but were deterred by past experiences. Therefore I have tried to give an alternative that might work.

[Matt]

In the past they announced monthly projections farther out than 3 months. They were wrong in predicting the timing of the farther out issues. But they did indeed release those items eventually.

Well, no, they didn't. It's still a major bone of contention around these parts that certain titles (Shanghai Express, Cousin, Cousine, Cocktail Molotov, Ivan's Childhood, et al) were announced in advance and then never released. And then there's Eraserhead.

I don't know if it's an option for you, but have you considered renting more often? Between Nicheflix and Netflix, you ought to be pretty well covered.