Why Won't They Release Only What I Want?

[HistoryProf]

First, anyone debating about going region-free should take the plunge. For me, it turned out to be as essential as getting my first Blu-ray. My conclusions were: why didn't I do this sooner, and how have I spent so much money.
Second, I tend to agree with TMDaines on his main arguments: the film is the thing, whether it is a work I have been yearning to see or an intriguing new discovery. Something unseen or unforeseen, especially when no legitimate version is available anywhere else. Many Eclipses have fulfilled this criterion. I would have loved a release such as a set of the early films of Howard Hawks. (Let me add that I have no idea what the rights isssues might be). And I have been waiting for History is Made at Night for years.
From this perspective, the Fassbinder release is a disappointment. I have the Wellsprings and the Arrow sets exist as an inexpensive alternative. On the other hand, I recognize that for whatever reason, many people are excited about the Eclipse, including budding cinephiles who have never seen any Fassbinder film. I am glad for them, because they will experience some films by a great director.

There are really two different, erm, discussions going on here. The original point was TMDaines' continual resorting to "oh look a pointless shitty release of x film(s) that I already bought from Germany" and so on - which is tiresome. This is a Criterion forum - Criterion is an American company releasing films for American consumers - the VAST majority of which don't know a damned thing about what's available in various parts of Europe, Asia, and elsewhere. So complaining as though Criterion is somehow doing something pointless or wrong by releasing films in the U.S. that aren't currently available in the U.S. is nothing more than trolling holier-than-thou condescension. And incredibly annoying. Portuguese releases of Costa films don't detract from Criterion's box set for American consumers. Many posters here are simply tired of the constant complaining about "worthless" releases every month simply because a film has previously been made available in another region.

I have never begrudged the merits of being region free - I fully understand each and every advantage it provides and agree whole heartedly that if it's possible it's the way to go. For me personally, however, I have chosen not to do it for a number of reasons - the biggest being finances. I resent the implication that I'm somehow a lesser filmgoer because of this. And I don't think it has anything at all to do with what Criterion does or does not release.

[HistoryProf]

You are outright trolling and I'm getting tired of it. Knock it off, right now.

So even though many are people with agreeing wih points that I've made, I'm trolling?

I respectfully disagree Tivoli, it's not worth it for EVERYONE, especially if you live in R1/A, or have less interest in foreign language titles. I don't think you can make it such a blanket statement though it's certainly going to be something many people here are interested in doing.

From one who was region free and didn't find it of much use, YMMV.

Why would it not be worth it if you lived in the US? Most people here who are touting its merits are North Americans.

It's not as if it ever has to cost anything extra to be region-free either. You just have to choose your equipment sagely. I was region-free from my first £50 Blu-ray player and ditto on my PC with an external drive.

why is it so difficult to understand that the player you buy is the very least of the expenses involved in this habit? once you go region free you are open to every regional Amazon and dozens of other etailers and wishlists that expand exponentially and therefore make it all the harder to keep spending on media reasonable. If I can barely keep it under control while limited to R1, how on earth would I be able to without that limitation?

This is not a difficult concept. Some choose to forego access to the maximum number of films it is possible to acquire from across the globe in favor of managing a hobby within the limits of what is available in North America. yes, that means they won't be able to see lots of movies. Personally, there's so much out there I can't find time to watch as it is I'm just not that worried about it. And when something does become available down the line I get to be all kinds of excited about it rather than whining that I already own the Polish release.

[TMDaines]

There are really two different, erm, discussions going on here. The original point was TMDaines' continual resorting to "oh look a pointless shitty release of x film(s) that I already bought from Germany" and so on - which is tiresome.

You still haven't read and comprehended any of the discussion on the Fassbinders. We can all create straw men.

I have never begrudged the merits of being region free - I fully understand each and every advantage it provides and agree whole heartedly that if it's possible it's the way to go. For me personally, however, I have chosen not to do it for a number of reasons - the biggest being finances. I resent the implication that I'm somehow a lesser filmgoer because of this.

No, but I'd argue that people who expand their horizons will be enriched by it. In the same way if I lived in a small town, I wouldn't want to let one art gallery dictate the art I browse, or one cinema decide what films I'll attend, or one small DVD shop ccontrol what I buy, I wouldn't expect the minds behind a few labels to plan my home viewing. I'd want to get out there and see what the whole world has to offer.

I'm curious, do you not ever watch something or read an article that mentions a certain film, and it sounds great and suddenly have an urge to see this film... only to find there's a release abroad at a good price? What happens next? Never watch it, because no-one ever releases it on your doorstep?

why is it so difficult to understand that the player you buy is the very least of the expenses involved in this habit? once you go region free you are open to every regional Amazon and dozens of other etailers and wishlists that expand exponentially and therefore make it all the harder to keep spending on media reasonable. If I can barely keep it under control while limited to R1, how on earth would I be able to without that limitation?

This is not a difficult concept.

Just because you've bought one disc from a site that happens not to reside in your nation, you do not suddenly become a lunatic who has to have everything in the world. Have you ever visited a supermarket? You don't have to spend any more money being region free than region locked.As Tommaso said, it's not having more, it's having more choice.

[A man stayed-put]

I wouldn't expect the minds behind a few labels to plan my home viewing.

I don't really have a horse in this race, but does this not take some validity from your initial argument that it is an affront for Criterion to release something already available in Region 2? These multitude options open to you/us surely mean that it becomes even less neccessary to express such concern when a label in Region 1 release something already available elsewhere.

I can only see it being a problem for those who are in the business of collecting spine numbers, for the rest of us it's one less thing to buy.

[MichaelB]

I wouldn't expect the minds behind a few labels to plan my home viewing.

I don't really have a horse in this race, but does this not take some validity from your initial argument that it is an affront for Criterion to release something already available in Region 2? These multitude options open to you/us surely mean that it becomes even less neccessary to express such concern when a label in Region 1 release something already available elsewhere.

I can only see it being a problem for those who are in the business of collecting spine numbers, for the rest of us it's one less thing to buy.

Absolutely. And, realistically, I can probably only afford a couple of Eclipse boxes per year (let's face it, they're not cheap), so I'd have a rather bigger problem if every single one was a must-own. It doesn't bother me at all.

But then again, I'm so not bothered by spine numbers that I even turned down a kind offer from Second Run to plug all the gaps in my collection - gaps which existed in the first place because I had superior alternative editions (Nighthawks on BD, that kind of thing).

[TMDaines]

That wasn't the brunt of what most of us were initially commenting on...I'm not sure whether people are strawmanning on purpose or not. The Fassbinders came across as a disappointing Eclipse because these have been released virtually everywhere, including the US, multiple times. The Eclipse line has been about highlighting less well known works - and hasn't just been a dumping ground for films lacking HD availability. Remember, the Eclipse line is not particularly cheap when you look at the price of other cheap director-based boxsets from other labels. The Arrows are demonstrative of that. As Zedz said elsewhere, at least it shows that the Eclipse line isn't totally dead, but that's about it.

[A man stayed-put]

That wasn't the brunt of what most of us were initially commenting on...I'm not sure whether people are strawmanning on purpose or not. The Fassbinders came across as a disappointing Eclipse because these have been released virtually everywhere, including the US, multiple times. The Eclipse line has been about highlighting less well known works - and hasn't just been a dumping ground for films lacking HD availability. Remember, the Eclipse line is not particularly cheap when you look at the price of other cheap director-based boxsets from other labels. The Arrows are demonstrative of that. As Zedz said elsewhere, at least it shows that the Eclipse line isn't totally dead, but that's about it.

Not to speak for anybody else but, rather than 'strawmanning', I think it's more an effort to work out why you're so angry about it. It's been established that many on this board are happy the Fassbinder's are being (re)released on Eclipse and they will purchase the set, is that not reason enough for them to release it? That you are not happy with the release, for whatever reason, is very much an individual opinion/preference and I can understand why people get annoyed with you making out this represents some failing on their (or Criterion's) part, which is how it comes across.

[jindianajonz]

The Fassbinder set costs $42 for me through Amazon.co.uk, vs $35 for the Eclipse if I wait a couple months after release for a B&N sale. I will be getting less films, but the fact that I don't have to deal with getting a region free setup, have the ability to share these films with my friends, and will have a much easier time reselling these DVDs if I ever tire of them more than makes up for this in my eyes. I am very happy that Criterion is releasing this.

And TMDaines: As somebody who is so vociferiously extolling the virtues of being region free, shouldn't you be welcoming the idea of multiple releases? You keep repeating that going region free gives you more choice; well, this Eclipse set is really just another choice for you to consider. If Criterion really did heed your word and stop releasing things that are already available elsewhere, you'd be stuck with "the minds behind a few labels planning your home viewing."

[johnnysnatchclub7]

Boom, roasted.

[TMDaines]

Not to speak for anybody else but, rather than 'strawmanning', I think it's more an effort to work out why you're so angry about it.

I wasn't and I'm not particuarly angry about it. We've been mainly talking about beig region-free and whatnot, then going back to the Eclipse when people are misrepresenting what I said.

And TMDaines: As somebody who is so vociferiously extolling the virtues of being region free, shouldn't you be welcoming the idea of multiple releases? You keep repeating that going region free gives you more choice; well, this Eclipse set is really just another choice for you to consider. If Criterion really did heed your word and stop releasing things that are already available elsewhere, you'd be stuck with "the minds behind a few labels planning your home viewing."

How does this give you any more choice, when the alternative would be man-hours spent on releasing something else, something different? More choice is only of any value when it is a better alternative. Criterion could have easily done something contextualise these films; they didn't. All we've got here is a more expensive Arrow set with less films, but it'll sell anyway because it has funky e, people are too lazy to import or people aren't aware of the alternative. I've never called for them to never release any stuff that is available elsewhere, as although it would be fanatstic, I'm not moronic. I've got no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean.

[jindianajonz]

All we've got here is a more expensive Arrow set with less films, but it'll sell anyway because it has funky e, people are too lazy to import or people aren't aware of the alternative.

I don't like to resort to petty accusations, but this here is the only instance of strawmanning I've seen in this thread. I've clearly laid out my reasons for why I'm buying this set, yet you ignore them (as well as the reasons others have provided) and continue to insist that this is the "real" reason people will buy the set. When you ignore what others are saying and instead imply that they are lazy, ignorant criterion fanboys, you can't be surprised that some in this thread are labeling you a troll.

So your real problem, from what I understand, is that this product isn't worth the price? I personally think the price (especially with the B&N sale factored in) is quite reasonable, and since Criterion has a lot more Fassbinder in the works, I'm not too disappointed by the lack of extras- there's only so many materials on his films available, and I have enough confidence in Criterion that once all of their releases are out, there will be more extras spread across the various releases than I will ever be inclined to watch.

But if that is your overall argument is that this is overpriced, then I really don't see any way or reason to try and convince you otherwise. As with countless other products, I (and many others) will buy this, and you (and many others) won't. We have our reasons for buying the product just the same as you have your reasons for not buying it; I don't see why you can't accept that and instead dismiss my group as lazy and ignorant.

[vsski]

The more I read this thread, the more I feel we are really having at least 3 different discussions here:

1) The merits of being region-free – I think this has been heavily discussed here and elsewhere on this forum

2) The issue whether CC should issue DVDs in Region 1 that are readily available and sometimes in better editions in other regions – the answer is simple, CC only officially services the Region 1 market and doesn’t care what anyone else has out in another region, so no matter what anyone feels they should or shouldn’t do, they don’t care; however, if you are region-free and not a CC collector, I agree with TMDaines that I see little reason not to pick up the Arrow sets which are cheaper even when importing and provide a lot more movies and extras.

3) The issue whether CC should re-issue DVDs that were already available in Region 1, but are now OOP in an edition that doesn’t seem to offer noticeable improvement over what was available, and this is where I think I see multiple opinions (whether region free or not)

a) Obviously it’s common practice by the main studios to reissue their properties and often with no change whatsoever other than another cover

b) It’s also clear why CC did it, the old discs are OOP, the director has a large enough name recognition among cinephiles and it’s a CC release appealing to the brand aware as well as the spine collector, so they feel they can sell enough of them and the positive feedback from many on this forum clearly indicates they are correct

My personal opinion is geared towards primarily point 3. Yes if you don’t already have the titles go ahead and buy them, they are worth owning if you are interested in exploring Fassbinder. For those that already own the Wellsprings, I would wait to see what the PQ reviews look like, as I’m doubtful that there is a significant improvement.

However, I clearly see it as a missed opportunity for CC not to either upgrade the PQ to BD on these releases and/or add some contextualizing extras and publish them in the mainline – I believe it would have significantly increased the number of purchases from all different directions.

Furthermore and again, purely my personal opinion, I would hate to see the Eclipse line which I liked for releasing interesting movies, not already available in Region 1, to become a re-release label of OOP discs without any significant additions warranting a second purchase. There are so many interesting films not released that CC has the rights to, that I would prefer them to dedicate their time towards. But that’s why this comment is under the “Why don’t they release only what I want column” – if I’m the minority here than of course they won’t care (not that I'm convinced they really “care” what anyone on a forum like this says anyhow).

[Cinosyrc]

I just want to throw in for anyone considering the Arrow sets that they're regularly $23 on Zavvi.

[triodelover]

I hope I'm still around in a decade or so when I'll be able to see how Mr Daines, long freed from the cozy insularity of his college dormitory room, copes with the same life choices the rest of us have to make on the finite income on which we subsist. Might a touch of humility be introduced? [-o<

[TMDaines]

All we've got here is a more expensive Arrow set with less films, but it'll sell anyway because it has funky e, people are too lazy to import or people aren't aware of the alternative.

When you ignore what others are saying and instead imply that they are lazy, ignorant criterion fanboys, you can't be surprised that some in this thread are labeling you a troll.

I haven't called anyone that. There's an "or" in that sentence above, not an "and". Moreover, people can collect Criterions, be completists, without being "fanboys", I'd suggest. I didn't use that word.

The price comparison you did above is so ludicrously biased that it wasn't worthy of taking seriously. You talk about ordering now, when the price for the Arrow set is very high, and buying the Criterion when it's at its lowest usual sale point! The Arrows have regularly been at £18, or indeed lower. I don't even have to address the added postage which is only pertinent to any single individual.

---

Anyway, vsski did a comprehensive round up of this thread so I think nearly everything is covered.

[TMDaines]

I hope I'm still around in a decade or so when I'll be able to see how Mr Daines, long freed from the cozy insularity of his college dormitory room, copes with the same life choices the rest of us have to make on the finite income on which we subsist. Might a touch of humility be introduced? [-o<

Erm, sorry?! Don't fucking dare patronise me. I've been working and saving my way through the last three years of my university to help pay for my wedding this summer, all the while taking flights across the continent every few weeks to keep a long-distance relationship going. If you think I don't have to make difficult decisions when it comes to money, then you're very much mistaken.

[Jobla]

I'm personally in the camp that believes Criterion needs to release more horror films. I think it's one of the more neglected genres in the collection, especially those from more recent decades.

I wish Criterion would release Roger Vadim's BLOOD AND ROSES, but there seems to be a rights issue, or perhaps a film elements issue. I too would like to see some more horror titles released by Criterion. SECONDS and THE UNINVITED, along with the Blu upgrade of EYES WITHOUT A FACE, are a step in the right direction.

[matrixschmatrix]

And also The Blob Antichrist Cronos Devil's Backbone Diabolique Kuroneko Repulsion Rosemary's Baby House The Island of Lost Souls and Videodrome plus the Shochiku Eclipse set, what an underrepresented genre

[zedz]

. . . Sisters, Monsters and Madmen, Fiend without a Face, Blood for Dracula, Flesh for Frankenstein . . .

[domino harvey]

...Border Radio...






























and SCENE

[sorrysomehow]

And also The Blob Antichrist Cronos Devil's Backbone Diabolique Kuroneko Repulsion Rosemary's Baby House The Island of Lost Souls and Videodrome plus the Shochiku Eclipse set, what an underrepresented genre

Well let's just say you've named all of the horror films in the collection, and we'll go ahead and round it up to the number 20. So there's 20 horror films out of the 678 spine numbers. That's .029%, which I would say is a bit of an underrepresentation.

Not complaining about it though, as I love the films that they have released, I just think it would be great to see some more.

[matrixschmatrix]

I named all (well, most) of the ones that have been released or rereleased in the blu era- so, less than five years. I'm not sure there are any genres (in the noir/sci fi/musicals sense of the term) better represented than that over that period, since Criterion isn't generally huge on genre movies. Certainly horror beats westerns hollow- none before The Furies, and still sitting at something like five total.

[Brian C]

Well let's just say you've named all of the horror films in the collection, and we'll go ahead and round it up to the number 20. So there's 20 horror films out of the 678 spine numbers. That's .029%, which I would say is a bit of an underrepresentation.

Not to be pedantic, but that's actually 2.9%. So cheer up, horror films are better represented than what you thought, by literally a couple of orders of magnitude.

[Dylan]

I wish Criterion would release Roger Vadim's BLOOD AND ROSES.

Seconded! According to David Del Valle several major labels have passed on it without providing a reason as to why - in the case of Olive Films it was initial interest followed by a quiet dismissal once they "looked into it." Unless I'm mistaken I recall him writing that Criterion did express interest in his presence or through a message but that was years ago. From what I can gather about the production, both the American version (available in a very clean albeit cropped version on Amazon.com) and the French & Spanish versions (both of which were bootlegged from TV broadcasts) compromise Vadim's initial cut, which was the Italian version that hasn't seen the light of day in over 50 years (it isn't known to anybody if this version even made it to television at any point in time). I'm thinking, too, that it may be a Last Summer situation where the available/known materials are just so scant at this time (i.e. an LD master, a French TV edit, a 16mm print) that nobody believes a release is worth it until certain materials surface, and it seems nobody has the money or time or interest in this particular project to really go digging. And the situation may be so convoluted that it does scare the labels away. We're talking about a Technicolor movie that went through various edits/incarnations/dubs/changes in its initial European and international distribution and of which a dramatically re-edited and re-constructed version was prepared for American audiences. Who knows what became of the original materials, and in what condition the 35mm and 16mm prints are in (a friend of mine ran a 16mm print of Blood and Roses in Ann Arbor in the 1980s and recalls it looking beautiful, but that was almost 30 years ago). Or perhaps somebody owns the film and isn't giving it up until a lot of money is handed over. Who knows? Either way, it seems like a puzzle that nobody affluent really wants to put together. I wish it would come out, though, it's a favorite of mine (and though cropped and dubbed to all hell, the American cut on Amazon is the way to go if you can't wait for a release that may never happen).

[swo17]

Well let's just say you've named all of the horror films in the collection, and we'll go ahead and round it up to the number 20.

How about rounding it up to 33