Criterion on Social Media

[MyNameCriterionForum]

нравиться

[Perkins Cobb]

Everything's okay now: another Facebook poster has noted that far from being boringz, "OZU = Da Bomb!"

Welcome to Facebook. Population: Douche Bags

The CC must be snickering up their collective sleeves at having embraced these wienies while shutting us out.

[Caged Horse]

I love both An Autumn Afternoon and The Terminator, but I'd rather Arnie break as many sake bottles over my head as Ozu used to get through than have watch Tarkovsky again.

[hidaniel]

I love both An Autumn Afternoon and The Terminator, but I'd rather Arnie break as many sake bottles over my head as Ozu used to get through than have watch Tarkovsky again.

Now that's crazy talk.

[Caged Horse]

As crazy as, say, the co-screenwriter of Andrei Rublev* going on to direct Tango & Cash?

* The one Tarkovsky I'd still like to watch, I admit.

[hidaniel]

I don't really follow, Konchalovsky isn't Tarkovsky but whatever.

If I was 50 and had worked in the USSR then had someone come by with a suitcase full of money I'd direct 2 Girls, 1 cup if that's what it took to get paid.

[Caged Horse]

Gerry Anderson was offered $750,000 simply to sit at home and write a few words of endorsement for the live-action Thunderbirds remake. Not only did he turn the money down, he called it "the biggest load of crap I have ever seen in my entire life." (Perhaps he hasn't seen Tango & Cash yet.)

[hidaniel]

You're missing the point.

What do you think Gerry Anderson's net worth in 2003 was? I'm guessing several orders of magnitude greater to what Konchalovsky's was in 1988. Anderson is nearing the end of his life and is financially secure. 'Artistic' integrity is something he can easily afford.

[swo17]

We are still commenting, of course, but due to the volume of correspondence on this page, we're going to try and condense questions regarding upcoming titles into Q&A sessions. We hope to announce the first of these sessions soon...

[hidaniel]

You're missing the point.

What do you think Gerry Anderson's net worth in 2003 was? I'm guessing several orders of magnitude greater to what Konchalovsky's was in 1988. Anderson is nearing the end of his life and is financially secure. 'Artistic' integrity is something he can easily afford.

This is all pedantic and it's not like we're going to agree on anything. I'm cool with people cashing out -- really for whatever reason, capitalism won, people can do whatever they want for money and in my opinion it doesn't hurt their legacy nor does it debase their artistic merit. You disagree and so do others, I'm fine with that. I've just never seen anyone be so dismissive of Tarkovsky when they have more than a passing interest in cinema. It was just a tad, surprising.

[HarryLong]

You're missing the point.

What do you think Gerry Anderson's net worth in 2003 was? I'm guessing several orders of magnitude greater to what Konchalovsky's was in 1988. Anderson is nearing the end of his life and is financially secure. 'Artistic' integrity is something he can easily afford.

It's not every day you see Gerry Anderson and Artistic Integrity in the same post...

[HistoryProf]

in response to their post about the glowing beaver review of the War Trilogy:

Jean-Michel Decombe
Amazing, but I will be waiting for Blu-Ray.

Jim Fields
please release this on blu-ray soon! I don't buy regular dvds anymore...it's so 1999 ha ha.

Don't these people realize that if it was going to be on blu, it would be now? I just don't understand this mentality...films from the 1940s can of course show some appreciable benefit, but are hardly going to be revelations on blu...indeed, it would probably be so cost prohibitive to do the kind of restoration necessary to make it possible it would have to cost 2 or 3 times as much. Just get the DVDs and ENJOY THEM!

[onedimension]

Re: the War Trilogy etc.- Am I the only person holding off on blu-ray in anticipation of discs/tvs advancing to 'QuadHD' sometime in the next 10-15 years?

[James]

Re: the War Trilogy etc.- Am I the only person holding off on blu-ray in anticipation of discs/tvs advancing to 'QuadHD' sometime in the next 10-15 years?

Umm, yeah... probably...

[movielocke]

in response to their post about the glowing beaver review of the War Trilogy:

Jean-Michel Decombe
Amazing, but I will be waiting for Blu-Ray.

Jim Fields
please release this on blu-ray soon! I don't buy regular dvds anymore...it's so 1999 ha ha.

Don't these people realize that if it was going to be on blu, it would be now? I just don't understand this mentality...films from the 1940s can of course show some appreciable benefit, but are hardly going to be revelations on blu...indeed, it would probably be so cost prohibitive to do the kind of restoration necessary to make it possible it would have to cost 2 or 3 times as much. Just get the DVDs and ENJOY THEM!

they do all their restoration work in 1080p so it's a matter of mastering and check-discing bluray discs as well and they don't have enough time and personnel to do big sets on bluray, yet, it sounds like.

I want them on bluray because I don't want fucking windowboxed SD DVDs at least the blurays wouldn't have their resolution downgraded to sub-DVD standard to please a bunch of 4x3 owning people who are worried about overscan on their TVs and can't be arsed to find out how to fix it themselves with a service menu.

[swo17]

Criterion has said not to hold your breath for the War Trilogy on Blu-ray. It could be many, many years, if ever, before this happens. I would also rather Criterion not picturebox, but boycotting a landmark release like this solely because of this practice is just silly. And even with the pictureboxing, calling most any Criterion release from the last several years "sub-DVD" quality is pretty unfair. Especially in this case, considering how much of an improvement these new transfers constitute over the previously available versions of the films.

[fdm]

I want them on bluray because I don't want fucking windowboxed SD DVDs at least the blurays wouldn't have their resolution downgraded to sub-DVD standard to please a bunch of 4x3 owning people who are worried about overscan on their TVs and can't be arsed to find out how to fix it themselves with a service menu.

Not all TVs, 4x3 or otherwise, can eliminate overscan (service menu or not).

(Not that I give a shit whether my TV overscans, someday I will have one that does not and I'll still be stuck with picture boxed DVDs. (Some of which apparently just removed the content rather than actually shrank the image just a teeny bit (as I recall from beaver scans)).)

But don't think everyone should suffer because of the few who would even notice.

(Edit: For the technophobe backlash that follows, to clarify, I go for the blu-ray when I can get it, but that doesn't stop me from getting the DVD if it's the only thing available; similarly given the choice between picture box or nothing, I go with picture box. Best viewing experience is my goal, that includes content and presentation.)

[HistoryProf]

I want them on bluray because I don't want fucking windowboxed SD DVDs at least the blurays wouldn't have their resolution downgraded to sub-DVD standard to please a bunch of 4x3 owning people who are worried about overscan on their TVs and can't be arsed to find out how to fix it themselves with a service menu.

This is a bit melodramatic...a few pixels hardly makes THAT big a difference. I'm all for principled stances, but this railing against picture boxing is really quite overdone here...and grossly exaggerated. Not to say I agree with it, in fact I find it hard to understand why a company like criterion would bother with catering to the kind of people who aren't likely to buy much of their product beyond Benjamin Button. But, as with the War Trilogy set, ultimately i'm so damned excited to see the films in a presentation that is light years beyond previous offerings that I don't really care about a <1% drop in resolution or whatever it is and some tiny black lines i don't even notice because i'm watching the damned movie.


There really does need to be a support group for the technophiles who have deluded themselves into believing they are cinephiles - or is it cinephiles who have lost the meaning and purpose of the films in favor of an obsession over their presentation? Either way, when it comes to those people who will only buy things available in a certain format - refusing to buy perfectly good products in a different one with absolutely no guarantee that it will ever exist in the favored one - are certifiably insane. I hope they all feel very special staring at the synchronized blu cases on their shelf while I enjoy Human Condition and Paisan et al in their hypothetically inferior presentations.

[Caged Horse]

Re: the War Trilogy etc.- Am I the only person holding off on blu-ray in anticipation of discs/tvs advancing to 'QuadHD' sometime in the next 10-15 years?

Hollywood will start selling us a 4000p home video format before the end of this decade (such 'Super Hi-Vision' monitors are already going on sale in Japan), and you can quote me on that.

there really does need to be a support group for the technophiles who have deluded themselves into believing they are cinephiles - or is it cinephiles who have lost the meaning and purpose of the films in favor of an obsession over their presentation?

What he said.

[TMDaines]

in response to their post about the glowing beaver review of the War Trilogy:

Jean-Michel Decombe
Amazing, but I will be waiting for Blu-Ray.

Jim Fields
please release this on blu-ray soon! I don't buy regular dvds anymore...it's so 1999 ha ha.

Don't these people realize that if it was going to be on blu, it would be now? I just don't understand this mentality...films from the 1940s can of course show some appreciable benefit, but are hardly going to be revelations on blu...indeed, it would probably be so cost prohibitive to do the kind of restoration necessary to make it possible it would have to cost 2 or 3 times as much. Just get the DVDs and ENJOY THEM!

It sounds like the person on the Blu-ray.com forum who posted this in response to Eureka making their advance pre-orders available there:

Ya but those aren't Blu-ray releases. I can't see many here on Blu-ray.com getting extremely excited for DVD releases...

I mean who wants quality cinema when you can watch Twilight in HD!

[Amazing Goose]

Re: the War Trilogy etc.- Am I the only person holding off on blu-ray in anticipation of discs/tvs advancing to 'QuadHD' sometime in the next 10-15 years?

Hollywood will start selling us a 4000p home video format before the end of this decade (such 'Super Hi-Vision' monitors are already going on sale in Japan), and you can quote me on that.

don't waste your money to upgrade. they'll just come out with an 8K format in another 7 years and you'll have to rebuy everything all over again. keep your vhs tapes and wait for that.

[stereo]

and in the meantime, waiting patiently for the upgrades, for films that may or may not ever be released on those formats if and when they arrive, the best years of your movie-watching lives flutter by...

[aox]

don't waste your money to upgrade. they'll just come out with an 8K format in another 7 years and you'll have to rebuy everything all over again. keep your vhs tapes and wait for that.

I don't even like movies.

[HarryLong]

>>keep your vhs tapes and wait for that.<<
I'm sticking with my 8mm library until I'm sure they're never going to invent anything else.

[jwomaha]

I'm one of the people "quoted" from facebook about not buying The Rosellini "War" set on standard dvd. I said that I no longer buy standard dvds. This is true. I spent a lot of money (which I worked extra night jobs for over a year to earn) to buy a 54" HD tv and blu-ray player. In my opinion, once Criterion began releasing blu-rays, they made an implicit commitment to fans/movielovers/blu-ray buyers like me that they would release their new titles in both formats. Their failure to do that (and I don't want to hear any excuses about costs etc.) is a major blunder that I think will hurt the company in the long run. In addition, I refuse to pay over 70 dollars for a standard dvd set in 2009. I'm sure the title will sell well, esp. to libraries and those Criterion "completests" who have an obsession about having every spine number, but let's face it, Criterion has been "overcharging" for their standard dvds for years and getting away with it (again, no excuses about it being a small company/titles that only appeal to a few people.) Why are blu-rays cheaper than the standard dvds on Amazon? (and does that have something to do with it NOT being released on blu? Why not milk the dvd market for a year or so more? Who knows? )Also, if it wasn't for blu-ray, how would the Criterion company's sales have been over the last 10 months? I seriously doubt people are buying catalog dvd titles at $39.99 a pop.
From an aesthetic point of view, I find it disturbing that Criterion could put so much time and effort into a major restoration and NOT want to release it in 1080p. I just received my "8 1/2" bluray yesterday and it simply looks stunning - there's something about black and white films in HD that's captivating; if you can't appreciate HD or haven't seen a blu-ray on a large HD setup, then you should refrain from making fun of people like me who are cinephiles and want a high quality presentation. Yes, I have a lot of standard dvds - and even laserdiscs and a view VHS titles of older/obscure films....but that doesn't mean I'll buy a new title on those formats today. Finally, to those posters who think I'm somehow "missing out" by not being a loyal "Criterionite" and buying all of their SD new titles...remember...I can RENT them on Netflix or from my local library.
Yes, there may be other formats in the future, but with the stunning sales figures from this past Xmas for both blu-ray players and software titles, I think it's pretty obvious the format is here to stay for the next decade. And, I predict, Criterion will eventually release all of their new releases on blu ----just like the switch from laserdisc to dvd happened.
In the meantime, I can wait.
Jim