Why Won't They Release Only What I Want?

[colinr0380]

We just have to look at the laserdisc catalogue to see Criterion having released editions of Ghostbusters, The Prince of Tides, Dead Presidents, Evita etc, so there has always been that side to them.

And I agree with What A Disgrace - Blow Out, Robocop, The Royal Tenenbaums, Topsy Turvy, Traffic, Mishima. All are great examples of modern cinema. Where do we draw the line? A particular year (would Straw Dogs count and not Love In The Afternoon?), a particular type of film (what about the great releases of Carnival of Souls, The Blob, Fiend Without A Face etc). Should we ban any cinema under ten or fifteen years old from inclusion, therefore excluding Yi Yi?

There will be films I'm interested and not interested in but as long as Criterion is doing a good job in treating them well by providing context to their releases and imaginitively using the opportunities that a particular film presents in order to explore different areas (which is why I worry more about the paring down of extras and the moving of a lot of the more interesting and 'risky' films to the bare bones Eclipse line), I think anything can have a place.

And while they might seem strange The Rock and Armageddon work nicely as representatives of 1990s blockbuster cinema, without which the Criterion Collection would be a less representative place. I don't like Armageddon much but the Criterion edition is worthwhile due to the commentaries and the features about the special effects, which take Criterion into different territory than they would have otherwise tackled (plus you wouldn't get the wonderful features on the history of Alcatraz or the "Dos and Don'ts of Hollywood gunplay" without their release of The Rock!)

[rrenault]

Okay:

I guess I just didn't care for Blow Out much.

[Calvin]

I'll admit now that I don't know much on the technical side but I don't see why Criterion couldn't have run Daisies (or Valerie and Her Week of Wonders & The Cremator which are rumoured to be on upcoming sets) through Phoenix.

P.S. - I really liked Blow Out.

--

I'll be picking up The Gold Rush and The Samurai Trilogy (along with Harold and Maude). June's probably the best month since August (when we got Vigo, The Killing and an upgrade of Battle of Algiers).

[rrenault]

What's Phoenix

[HerrSchreck]

I think we can all agree that there has been a change in output -- not an arguable point even within the company itself I have no doubt ( whatsoever).. The only question is where you stand regarding the shift. I think that for some people, regardless whether they reduced their output of 'arty' or 'challenging' or what have you titles to one or two a year, Criterion would never cease being Criterion for them as long as the same amount of care and time went into extras-rich releases, no matter what the actual titles.

Which is fair enough I guess. . . It's good to be flexible and open to changes. I think some of it may have a bit to do with whether or not one is region locked, and how long one has been buying global releases of certain canonical titles. Despite my intense love for Vigo, for example, I have so many editions of these films it's very difficult for me to get excited over their release of the 4 films. It's just not a very high priority for me to shell out once again for titles I own in magnificent editions already. Whereas for somebody region locked, the criterion set is a godsend, but for me it's a little bit too late for me to place the set over other priorities.

Therefore, in a certain sense, I think in some cases it will depend on how much time and effort has already been invested in acquiring fine global editions of some of these titles. it's just a very strange and almost surreal situation, to have once upon a time spent so much money every single month on a certain companys output, then suddenly going way way down to just a title or two every 4 or 5 months.
But guys, leets keep this discussion grown up. With all of the shrill wheedling every month over stuff like cover art, there is nothing wrong or OT or offensive about expressing an opinion about what one perceives to be a drift in the overall philosophy of the cc line. One thing that most baffles me about this forum is the heated reaction this receives, with a needling "Oh god here we go again with Why don't they release only what I want?..

That kind of sentiment hasn't, thankfully, been unloaded much so far... But just a reminder--

This is a forum to openly appreciate, discuss, debate The CC. There is absolutely nothing wrong with commenting on the changes in the line which nobody could deny. I think its healthy, and certainly helpful for such points of view to get out into the ether. . . "Don't worry, you can release whatever you'd like and 100% of your longterm base will be forever happy," is not a message that.s useful to any company adapting to a terrible ecpnomy. . Particularly when the sentiment is nowhere near true!

[Calvin]

What's Phoenix

Criterion's restoration...thing that they used on Kes, The Music Room and The Killing. I'll admit now to not knowing the state of the Czech materials (presumably not very good) but I'm sure if Criterion wanted to, they could have give them an HD release.

[rrenault]

In any case, do people think there's any likelihood that in say 20 years or so many of the Eastern European filmmakers whose films are available on labels like Second Run will be heralded alongside the current members of the Janus canon as more people hopefully discover their work?

[domino harvey]

This is a forum to openly appreciate, discuss, debate The CC. There is absolutely nothing wrong with commenting on the changes in the line which nobody could deny.

Well, that's debatable, but at the very least we already have thirty pages worth of these arguments

[HerrSchreck]

This coming from coverart screamer numero uno lol. . .

Whats (not) debatable, however?

...and the sad tone of those pages is just what I meant. (didn't click on that but I assume its the WHY DONT THEY thread).

[rrenault]

I guess the current economy can't support 'cinematic chloroform'.

[Tommaso]

There will be films I'm interested and not interested in but as long as Criterion is doing a good job in treating them well by providing context to their releases and imaginitively using the opportunities that a particular film presents in order to explore different areas (which is why I worry more about the paring down of extras and the moving of a lot of the more interesting and 'risky' films to the bare bones Eclipse line), I think anything can have a place.

This is exactly why I mentioned the Czech New Wave set. The lack of elements good enough for blu unfortunately now leads to great films not getting the contextualization, extras, booklets etc. that they deserve and perhaps even need in this particular case, because CC don't want to release dvd only editions in the mainline anymore. There have always been films for which the elements were less than ideal and nevertheless got released by CC 'in the old days': think of "Port of Shadows" as a prime example, or the early Clairs. Would anyone really like to see these wonderful films dumped into Eclipse? But I'm sure that's where they would end up today.

[rrenault]

I wonder what would have happened to Dillinger Is Dead and Pedro Costa today. In any case, I think MOC has pretty much done away with DVD-only releases as well with the exception of Colossal Youth.

[knives]

We're really railing on this again? Criterion's always been eclectic and the present release schedule has nothing on the laserdisc days when they'd release stuff like Evita. Even in the DVD era most of the titles were either super cannon releases like The 400 Blows or the sort of modern studio product that people are getting so fussy about. Outside the quantity of releases I really see nothing different in a 2012 release and a 2003 release. I don't think anybody would argue that the Samurai trilogy desperately needed a rerelease, but back just a few years ago that would be the whole month. That we get that plus The 39 Steps upgrade plus the Chaplin should be enough to fill the stomach of those who seemingly hate all cinema after 1979.

It's actually hilarious because I remember around the time that MOC released Mad Detective everyone here it seemed was whinning about how Criterion would not take any chances with modern films and risk upsetting the base to allow for a few untested classics like that. Now that they are doing exactly what everyone wanted them to do of going outside their super cannon comfort zone all the previous complainers seemed to have switched over to the other side. It's absurd and obnoxious that we've already had more premiers to DVD than 'the good old days' would have along with an exciting variety of good to great films and yet people still complain as if Criterion kicked their dog. It just comes off as overly self absorbed and petty.

This is exactly why I mentioned the Czech New Wave set. The lack of elements good enough for blu unfortunately now leads to great films not getting the contextualization, extras, booklets etc. that they deserve and perhaps even need in this particular case, because CC don't want to release dvd only editions in the mainline anymore. There have always been films for which the elements were less than ideal and nevertheless got released by CC 'in the old days': think of "Port of Shadows" as a prime example, or the early Clairs. Would anyone really like to see these wonderful films dumped into Eclipse? But I'm sure that's where they would end up today.

Port of Shadows is just as barebones as any eclipse set so I really don't see the need to bring it up. I'd be fine with a Carne eclipse featuring the title if the materials weren't up to snuff. It's certainly cheaper than a barebones mainline release.

[Tommaso]

"Port of Shadows" includes a 32-page booklet, and an Eclipse release has exactly one page of text for each film. Nobody ever said about many an MoC release which only has a booklet and no on-disc extras that it was 'barebones'.

[knives]

I didn't find the booklet for Port of Shadows particularly enlightening in the way that say the book for the Naruse set was. I'd actually argue that several MOC titles are barebones with regards to the booklet. That said there is usually a higher quality of writing to an MOC booklet than to a Criterion one though neither is as thorough as a Second Run booklet.

[Calvin]

I think the Czech titles being relegated to Eclipse is upsetting because it's unlikely they'll get better treatment anywhere else - Criterion are the only one with the funds to do it. From the rumoured upcoming sets it feels like Criterion are downgrading potential mainline titles like Daisies, Valerie and The Cremator in order to sell the Eclipse. I hope it's just due to materials because I'd like to think Criterion would exhaust all avenues to try and give them an HD release before deciding otherwise.

I have noticed recently that they seem to be catering more for the "Facebook crowd" than cinephiles and, in trying to achieve a balance, please few, but they seem to have succeeded in the June line-up which will hopefully continue.

[Max von Mayerling]

My two cents into flogging what is probably a pretty dead horse.

Personally, I haven't been excited about that many titles since late 2010. For example, looking forward, I'm excited about Frampton, the Gold Rush, and the Czech films, but not much else (except a couple of reissues). So I guess in terms of my interests and purchasing, I probably lean on the critical side.

But I guess whenever this kind of issue gets raised, I'm always curious about the economics of all this. I'm not trying to be a smart ass in saying this, but it seems like those of us who are at all concerned about this are a subgroup of what is already a pretty small population of people who buy Criterion titles in the first place. Frampton and Lonesome are very exciting to me ... but my assumption is that these things are a very hard sell. I personally don't care about Malkovich, but it seems like the Facebook crowd does, and if that helps finance Frampton, so be it.

Certainly it seems like the marketplace has changed a lot since 2009 - and it is still changing. Netflix's turn away from physical media (see Milestone's recent comments on that re: On the Bowery); Warner's shift from a business model that seems to have been generally adored around here to the just as intensely despised MOD and fairly rare trinket-laded deluxe blu editions. Similarly, the fact that Lionsgate appears to be just sitting on the U.S rights to the Studio Canal properties suggests that they think their capital is better used on something other than releasing those titles on dvd and blu ray. (Maybe they are wrong, but I can't personally demonstrate that they are.) And I think the Twilight Time business model - and their willingness to talk about the realities of that business - has been somewhat eye opening for me. It seems like when your daydream is moving 3,000 units, you probably have to run a pretty tight ship. In that sense, what I'd love is to hear/read a discussion between various folk at Criterion, MOC, Kino, Twilight Time, Warner, etc. about these issues - but that will, of course, never happen.

It seems to me like Criterion knows more about their business than any of us do (with the exception of a few, like Nick) - and I assume that part of the reason they are handling releases the way that they do is because they believe it is a more viable business strategy than, say, what I might personally want to see from them. In saying this, I don't mean to be saying - "they know best so shut up" - I just feel like the cold hard truths of the marketplace are sometimes not given enough consideration in these discussions. I mean, the reality may be that there aren't enough people who care about this stuff and are willing to pay what it costs (say, per unit) to support the kind of business model that is being called for by some voices on this forum. I find that a somewhat depressing thought, but I also think it is likely to be true.

Honestly, these days I feel like I'm mostly hoping that this business model (and MOC's and Twilight Time's) can continue to survive in their present shape. I fear a bigger move toward streaming, escalating prices for physical media, more of focus on reissuing big titles (see Casablanca), some company we adore going under, etc. Again, I don't mean to say that people are being unreasonable in bringing up these issues or to suggest that I'm generally thrilled with the recent releases. But I think it is hard to grapple with that issue without trying to consider it in the context of the market for these films in general and their presentation on physical media in particular.

[TMDaines]

That said there is usually a higher quality of writing to an MOC booklet than to a Criterion one though neither is as thorough as a Second Run booklet.

I find this an astounding comment when several of the MoC booklets are comparable to a BFI Film Classics in terms of content.

[rrenault]

Well maybe films like Close-Up, Red Desert, and The Phantom Carriage were tough sells they took a risk on, and maybe they have no realized they need to be more careful with their finances. Who knows? Sure, Red Desert and Close-up are probably more well-known than Daisies or Les Rendez-Vous d'Anna, but they're not Being John Malkovich, Harold and Maude, or even Night of the Hunter and The Seventh Seal either. But then again, you have to give them credit for The Moment of Truth, since the blu-ray does cost $30, and has what, 126 ratings on imdb.

[Calvin]

Whatever is more well known, I find it hard to believe that it would be more difficult to sell Daisies than Frampton.

[rrenault]

It's true though. Daisies is probably more well known amongst cinephiles than a lot of films that do happen to be on the main line.

IMDB Rating count:
Daisies:1,948
Moment of Truth:126
Letter Never Sent:296
Dillinger Is Dead: 800
L'Enfance Nue:564
Jeanne Dielman: 1,360
La Commare Secca: 835
Colossal Youth:456

Just to throw out a few.

[HerrSchreck]

It's absurd and obnoxious that we've already had more premiers to DVD than 'the good old days' would have along with an exciting variety of good to great films and yet people still complain as if Criterion kicked their dog. It just comes off as overly self absorbed and petty.

DING DING DING DING**

Dude, seriously. . . Chill. We're talking about dee vee fricking dees, furchrissakes. FURY is just a little bit of an um, noticeably unusual conversational ingredient here.

Not withstanding the rest of your post is completely divorced from reality, and would probably bring a chuckle from folks at CC themselves.

[Max von Mayerling]

I have absolutely zero inside knowledge on this, and so of course I may well be 100% wrong, but my guess would be that Criterion thought long and hard about what they believe is the best way to sell the Czech titles. Swo mentioned elements, and I assume that was part of the equation. And others have pointed out that they may be using Daisies to help move the other titles in the package (which maybe they think would give them greater overall revenue on a per title basis, helping pay for whatever costs are associated with the licensing of the distribution rights and the prints they used). I could easily be wrong, but my guess is that if they thought they could get better overall margins by putting Daisies out on blu, then they would do that. I bet the fact that they got all these films as part of one overall deal may have something to do with how they are packaging them - maybe they believe they need to try and get them to market asap in order to see a return on the licensing investment in the whole package.

Again, not trying to suggest everybody should be happy with this or shut up or anything like that.

Of course, they are clearly motivated by more than just profit - otherwise, why even bother with Frampton? They may make $ on it, but I assume they could get a higher return on capital with other titles. But return on capital has to be part of their decision-making process (unless they have an endowment (which would be awesome)). (And you can see how return on capital plainly looms much larger in the minds of Warner management vs. Criterion management.)

[Calvin]

And others have pointed out that they may be using Daisies to help move the other titles in the package (which maybe they think would give them greater overall revenue on a per title basis, helping pay for whatever costs are associated with the licensing of the distribution rights and the prints they used).

I think that's likely, Second Run's release of Daisies didn't look bad and DVDBeaver said "it almost looks hi-def". Criterion is, of course, a business but it's still slightly disappointing. I don't think we should just bottle up our frustrations, this isn't like the monotonous rants re: Twilight Time.

[Mr Sausage]

As someone who remembers that this is the company that put out Ghostbusters, Evita, Supercop, The Princess Bride, The Big Chill, The Bonds, Tootsie, Boyz in the Hood, Menace II Society, Prince of Tides, Trainspotting, Shine, and Sling Blade on Laserdisc, I can only reflect that this is how Criterion's ever been. With access to more films, perhaps they now resemble more the old days than the more restrictive days when DVD was in its boom. Or perhaps not.

Either way, this old argument is as tedious now as it was the first time someone brought it up.