criterionforum.org

Umbrella is giving Caligula the Super Mario Brothers movie treatment

Wield absolute power! CALIGULA has arrived with FIVE cuts including THE ULTIMATE CUT in 4K HDR, several hours of NEW and archival extras, TWO 200+ page books with NEW and archival content, and a Caligula edition of Penthouse.

They are also releasing Alejandro Amenábar's Tesis on UHD

Boutique labels have finally done it-- over $100 US for one fucking movie

From where I'm sitting it's cheaper than Second Sight's Dawn of the Dead blowout, if only marginally.

Diabolik said they are not carrying Caligula or Tesis because they are getting US releases soon and the US rightsholders asked them not to.

Since they make it sound like more than one label is asking them to not stock the releases, it is safe to say that Drafthouse is one of the labels since they are releasing Caligula. I would guess that Vinegar Syndrome is the other label that is shamelessly asking them to not stock Tesis, especially when they have a history of doing this for other releases.

Sorry, I meant to post rightsholder or rightsholders, since they didn't make it clear (at least on twitter) if they were asked by the same company or two different companies.

dwk wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:57 am Umbrella is giving Caligula the Super Mario Brothers movie treatment

Wield absolute power! CALIGULA has arrived with FIVE cuts including THE ULTIMATE CUT in 4K HDR, several hours of NEW and archival extras, TWO 200+ page books with NEW and archival content, and a Caligula edition of Penthouse.

They are also releasing Alejandro Amenábar's Tesis on UHD

It's not clear from the listing but does this release include the alternative cut of Caligula which played at Cannes last year?

Altair wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 5:19 pm

dwk wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 6:57 am Umbrella is giving Caligula the Super Mario Brothers movie treatment

Wield absolute power! CALIGULA has arrived with FIVE cuts including THE ULTIMATE CUT in 4K HDR, several hours of NEW and archival extras, TWO 200+ page books with NEW and archival content, and a Caligula edition of Penthouse.

They are also releasing Alejandro Amenábar's Tesis on UHD

It's not clear from the listing but does this release include the alternative cut of Caligula which played at Cannes last year?

Yep. The restoration producer is prominently featured in the extras. An easy buy for me

Oh fantastic - that is enormously tempting then.

rrenault wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 10:28 pm How many people are seriously going to buy L’Amour Fou or Cairo Station on UHD? I’m even skeptical of there being a UHd market for M & H for what it’s worth.

I'll buy both, and I'm guessing many others will as well. The real question is how many people are buying Albert Brooks's Mother in 4K?

justeleblanc wrote: Sat Oct 19, 2024 11:26 pm

rrenault wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 10:28 pm How many people are seriously going to buy L’Amour Fou or Cairo Station on UHD? I’m even skeptical of there being a UHd market for M & H for what it’s worth.

I'll buy both, and I'm guessing many others will as well. The real question is how many people are buying Albert Brooks's Mother in 4K?

Criterion deserves a lot of credit for steadily broadening what we used to consider UHD-worthy and all the mentioned titles enrich the format. That they went the UHD route for the Brooks films and didn’t dump them in a poorly encoded BD set is notable. They probably realized that by now, if people really want to pay for Mother, they might as well spend the extra $5 and get the UHD. (I’d also buy L’amour fou in 4K in a heartbeat and also Cairo Station in a 4K WCP set).

But we’ve seen with certain films like Rules of the Game and, frankly, even Werckmeister Harmonies that a well-encoded Blu-ray from FiM can do the film justice within a home viewing context. So I just find it hard to justify flooding the market with needlessly decadent and expensive UHD releases of films that don’t really need it, especially when they don’t even have HDR. And to rub salt in the wound, there are also the QC issues at the Mexican plant. L’amour Fou also has a FiM-encoded Blu-ray, and a Criterion UHD would be almost guaranteed to not have HDR.

Should the UHD catalog be expanded. Of course. But due to the expense of the format, mileage will in the long run be limited. Releasing all those Tanaka and Naruse titles, which are unlikely to make it to 4K, should be just as big a priority for preservation purposes.

I’ll admit the QC issues really put a damper on the excitement one can feel over Criterion 4K releases.

Is there any proof that all 4K releases need to have HDR implemented? I've seen a few people make this claim ad-nauseum (on here and elsewhere), but I haven't actually seen any proof to back this claim up.

I think it’s more the fact 4K SDR discs won’t offer much discernible improvement over well-done blu rays from the same source, although mileage varies depending on the film. McCabe and Mrs. Miller seems to be an exception for example.

pistolwink wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2024 9:54 pm I do wonder what the economics are such that labels like Vinegar Syndrome and Indicator can put out lavish box sets devoted to terminally obscure filmmakers, laden with copious (maybe even over-copious) extras, and still somehow eke out a profit margin, while Criterion seems to only be able (or willing) to put out stuff like this—individual films with scanty bonus features—even when centered around one of the most critically-acclaimed art films of the 1970s. I know that in France and some other countries, the big projects often have a bit of state support (via the CNC in France's case), but that isn't the case in the US or UK, so what's the deal?

I suspect part of the problem is Criterion's commitment to keeping stuff in print indefinitely, whereas labels that operate on far lower budgets have very little choice but to go down the limited-edition route, as it's the only proven method of persuading people to pay close to the RRP close to the release date (which is when a label will be at its most financially vulnerable). And Criterion also pays their contributors a lot more than the going rate elsewhere.

I also imagine Criterion's office costs are way ahead of the norm for a British label, many of which don't have office costs at all as their staff work from home.

rrenault wrote:I think it’s more the fact 4K SDR discs won’t offer much discernible improvement over well-done blu rays from the same source, although mileage varies depending on the film.

This is indeed the rationale. It's not so much that HDR "has to be" implemented, but rather that with hindsight, BT2020 and HDR usually bring a bigger added technical value than the uptick in resolution, so that's what tech-minded consumers are now looking for.

Especially when Criterion are based in NYC, amongst the cities with the highest renting and living costs in the entire US.

tenia wrote: Sun Oct 20, 2024 5:13 pm

rrenault wrote:I think it’s more the fact 4K SDR discs won’t offer much discernible improvement over well-done blu rays from the same source, although mileage varies depending on the film.

This is indeed the rationale. It's not so much that HDR "has to be" implemented, but rather that with hindsight, BT2020 and HDR usually bring a bigger added technical value than the uptick in resolution, so that's what tech-minded consumers are now looking for.

(This paragraph is more an answer to rrenault’s posts). To be fair, Criterion didn’t really cater to that demographic and are only now warming up. Pixel-peepers still have to look elsewhere for utterly flawless encodes although I really must say their authoring house NexSpec got their shit together over the course of this year and I don’t think they’re putting in that much more effort than before - they’ve just optimized their tools significantly better. It seems they’ve been listening to the justified criticism (as did other labels) and were willing to improve at the right time right before becoming more adventurous 4K-wise. I think they realized that a larger audience transitioned to the Criterion Channel as on-demand access to their editions is just too good an offer to pass on for cinephiles with a less deep pocket than still buying DVDs and BDs, let alone UHDs during the Barnes and Noble sales. And those that still buy are happily spending a few quid more for UHDs. I wouldn’t have nearly been as excited about the coming Richard Pryor edition had they not offered a 4K version alongside the BD as this is the chance to buy this film once and for all.

Regarding the SDR thing. Of course we’d all love for all 4Ks to have proper HDR and there are some incredibly persistent members at the other forum that insist any HDR’s better than SDR and that SDR UHDs should be boycotted but what I think is much more damaging are gross, light cannon 10.000 nits HDR grades and improperly done fake HDR that solely exist to advertise it as a “world exclusive” etc which labels like Turbine and Capelight love to do. Criterion’s “conservative” way of doing this is most respectful towards the masters they’re getting and the creators that signed off on them. Triangle of Sadness is such a case - the Criterion SDR 4K is much better than the poor German one with fake HDR but I’m 100% sure that BFI’s Seven Samurai will look glorious in HDR as that’s most likely a gentle enhancement of the BT.2020 source master as was The Seventh Seal, which was even in BT.709 SDR. Criterion’s “leave it alone” approach is just as valid though and I’m infinitely more happy with a properly done SDR grade than terrible HDR. HDR is also very much TV and tone-mapping dependent which makes bad HDR stand out even more if TV’s are poorly configured and built.

I was also going to add that the $40 MSRP for Criterion’s Blu-ray editions just isn’t good value in today’s market. That probably partly explains the larger 4K commitment, as the premium format is the only way to get consumers to justify the high price tag. That said, there should still be space for Blu-ray only releases of titles with more questionable market potential. The 4K or nothing attitude will inevitably cause too many worthy films to fall by the wayside.

And I do still think it’s a valid concern that they shouldn’t be focusing so heavily on 4K upgrades of titles that already have solid Blu-ray editions. This is becoming a common criticism of Criterion in recent months.

Either way, becoming a « collector’s market » is probably not great for the long term health and survival of physical media, which is what we should all ideally want.

That said, labels like BFI, Indicator, Carlotta, Radiance, et al are still committed to releasing a plethora of titles on the Blu-ray format so why should there be market pressure for Criterion specifically to be « all in » on UHD at the expense of all the more obscure titles they’re sitting on that would be tough sells on UHD.

rrenault wrote: Sun Oct 20, 2024 6:35 pm And I do still think it’s a valid concern that they shouldn’t be focusing so heavily on 4K upgrades of titles that already have solid Blu-ray editions. This is becoming a common criticism of Criterion in recent months.

That criticism could equally be pointed at Shout/Scream or Arrow. But, you know when you have a newer format that shows any growth for a boutique, they'd be foolish not to focus on re-releasing their heavy hitters ASAP on that new format.

rrenault wrote: Sun Oct 20, 2024 6:35 pm I was also going to add that the $40 MSRP for Criterion’s Blu-ray editions just isn’t good value in today’s market. That probably partly explains the larger 4K commitment, as the premium format is the only way to get consumers to justify the high price tag. That said, there should still be space for Blu-ray only releases of titles with more questionable market potential. The 4K or nothing attitude will inevitably cause too many worthy films to fall by the wayside.

And I do still think it’s a valid concern that they shouldn’t be focusing so heavily on 4K upgrades of titles that already have solid Blu-ray editions. This is becoming a common criticism of Criterion in recent months.

Either way, becoming a « collector’s market » is probably not great for the long term health and survival of physical media, which is what we should all ideally want.

That said, labels like BFI, Indicator, Carlotta, Radiance, et al are still committed to releasing a plethora of titles on the Blu-ray format so why should there be market pressure for Criterion specifically to be « all in » on UHD at the expense of all the more obscure titles they’re sitting on that would be tough sells on UHD.

“Common criticism” = your recurring criticism?
I don’t think it’s a general sentiment you’re talking about. From reading the forums at BR and even Twitter comments, people do appear to be pleased with where Criterion’s heading right now when it comes to their title selections, format choices and overall quality, bonus features aside.

There is definitely market pressure to put out 4K restorations natively in 4K UHD. Frank Tarzi of KL mentioned that when he’s putting out a UHD side-by-side with a BD, the UHDs frequently (or even always?) outsell the BD. This is all obviously within the niche of the niche but that’s how the market’s developed.

It makes total sense for Criterion for going that route right now for reasons we discussed (huge library, NYC, huge staff, more expensive licenses for higher profile titles etc.) and to make them more attractive to the UHD or bust crowd again. Their library is an obstacle but we’re now getting long-awaited titles (Paper Moon, Winchester 73, After Hours,…) in definitive UHD editions whereas they’d all been BDs and stuck there had they come earlier and the loudest voices would’ve moaned again and again.

I mean common criticism in online film circles that are a bit more « cinephile than videophile » in their orientation and where the general sentiment is along the lines of « get out all those Kinuyo Tanaka and Monteiro films by any means necessary goddamnit ».

But in any case, my problem is precisely with much of the UHD or bust crowd. Catering exclusively to that crowd will inevitably limit the kinds of films a company like Criterion can release on disc. This is where 4K zealotry can be bad for cinephilia I think. Now maybe there are general differences between the physical media market in the U.S. and in Europe that allow companies like Radiance and Carlotta to stick to Blu-ray as their « main format » with the occasional UHd release being an « event » for a heavy hitter like Paris, Texas. Perhaps the market pressures are different in the U.S.

Also, perhaps a Janus Classics line is in order for Criterion with releases that would be more economically priced than their $40 blu-rays while they continuing with the heavy hitters on UHD. I’m not sure.

I suspect the Eclipse line was phased out because of the push towards Blu-ray, which is a real shame because they constituted some of Criterion's strongest releases - and they were the kind of films that, by and large, didn't have HD masters.

The biggest problem with UHD from a boutique label perspective is that per-unit manufacturing costs are still far too high, and of course there's the core issue of whether a 4K release is actually merited; quite a few 4K masters don't look much better than (and sometimes they look more or less identical to) a good Blu-ray. So there's no point in going down the UHD route for titles like this; it costs the label a lot more, it costs the consumer a fair bit more, and for what?

Now to play devil’s advocate with myself, it is true that even without adjusting for inflation Laserdisc releases were more expensive in the nineties than UHDs are today, not to mention the prices of VHS for much of the eighties.

However, it’s frustrating that everything seems to be a $50 LE or a limited SteelBook. This isn’t always the case of course. Second Sight releases standard and LE versions concurrently. But even so, Arrow were initially asking ~$50 for the standard edition of The Warriors, which just seems crazy to me. And then there’s the Steelbook nonsense with titles like Taxi Driver and Lawrence of Arabia. I think Dr. Strangelove is so far the only title from any of those Columbia sets to get a standard standalone release from Sony.

That said, BFI, Carlotta, and the UK wing of Arrow still seem relatively fair with their pricing. The U.S. Arrow editions are far more expensive for some reason.

MichaelB wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2024 8:54 am I suspect the Eclipse line was phased out because of the push towards Blu-ray, which is a real shame because they constituted some of Criterion's strongest releases - and they were the kind of films that, by and large, didn't have HD masters.

The biggest problem with UHD from a boutique label perspective is that per-unit manufacturing costs are still far too high, and of course there's the core issue of whether a 4K release is actually merited; quite a few 4K masters don't look much better than (and sometimes they look more or less identical to) a good Blu-ray. So there's no point in going down the UHD route for titles like this; it costs the label a lot more, it costs the consumer a fair bit more, and for what?

I wonder if part of the issue is Criterion feels the need to go the decadent 4K route even when it’s of questionable necessity because otherwise collectors won’t physically buy it but will rather just go « eh, I’ll check it out on the Channel first ». So yes, on one level, they are admittedly exploiting the spending habits of the hardcore collector demographic. Maybe this would be less of an issue if their 1080p disc encodés were up to a higher standard though. Radiance and Indicator using FiM for all their Blu-ray releases perhaps still gives those editions a certain gravitas in the current market.

In either case, at this point I try to avoid buying non-red tier 4K discs unless the film is in my top 20-25 of all time and/or if it’s of extreme sentimental value to me due to say my having encountered it at a pivotal juncture in my development as a cinephile. So Breathless on Criterion 4K goes in the collection, but for Chinatown I’ll manage with the iTunes 4K version.

By the way, I’m not faulting Criterion for « unnecessarily » doing 4Ks of After Hours, Paper Moon, and Winchester ‘73 as none of them even had North American blu-rays before Criterion announced the 4Ks. Mildred Pierce would be a better example of a head scratching UHD upgrade, but I reckon it was intended as a tie-in with Casablanca, which was released on UHD by WB at around the same time.

Mind you, I’m not anti-4K. I’m simply anti-« 4K or bust » and anti-the « collectors market » state of physical media today. There are even some titles for which I’m actively waiting for a 4K release with bated breath (I.e. Eyes Wide Shut).