|
On the other hand they're still doing that totally inexcusable bullshit thing where English dialogue in a foreign-language film goes unsubtitled.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:On the other hand they're still doing that totally inexcusable bullshit thing where English dialogue in a foreign-language film goes unsubtitled. It'd be nice if you could pick the color of your subtitles too. White is usually good for most things, but sometimes with black and white films it can be all but impossible to read during certain scenes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:On the other hand they're still doing that totally inexcusable bullshit thing where English dialogue in a foreign-language film goes unsubtitled. I do wish my foreign-language films also came with the foreign subtitles and not just English.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
So I watched Videodrome (long live the new flesh) I liked it on the whole. It's totally very, very Cronenberg. I read through the essays that came with the leaflet in the packaging, those were pretty neat, too. I think part of me is still sort of digesting the film on the whole, though. If any part felt weak, I think the very end was a bit abrupt and not quite satisfying. It's a little vague on if Max killing himself actually caused him to transcend to something different, or if "the signal" was just tying up loose ends by having him off himself. Also, I've got the Armageddon criterion DVD set as well as Armageddon on blu-ray, I kind of wish there was an appealing way to combine the two sets so I could have the bonus features/commentaries of the Criterion discs with the picture quality of the blu-ray. Is Criterion planning on "upgrading" all of their DVD releases to blu-ray at some point? If so I could just wait for an Armageddon blu-ray release, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:It's a little vague on if Max killing himself actually caused him to transcend to something different, or if "the signal" was just tying up loose ends by having him off himself. Ambiguity, thy name is Videodrome. In it's sister film, EXistenZ, Cronenberg puts the levels of unreality in nested boxes - what you and the characters are left pondering at the end is if you've pulled all the way out and are now in the "real" - or if such a distinction is important anymore. In Videodrome, Max's subjective reality bleeds so much into "objective" reality that the boundary is obliterated and there is no distinction between the two, for Max or the audience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:They don't sit on films because they can't sell 50,000 copies or claim there's no budget available. This is simply not true. Every streaming Korda or Shochiku film they haven't released on home video is literally exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Also, I've got the Armageddon criterion DVD set as well as Armageddon on blu-ray, I kind of wish there was an appealing way to combine the two sets so I could have the bonus features/commentaries of the Criterion discs with the picture quality of the blu-ray. They tend to pretend those Michael Bay films aren't in the collection, but I hope they do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:They tend to pretend those Michael Bay films aren't in the collection
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it was just a matter of distribution rights expiring or being transferred, not some kind of snobby regret.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Criterion made a special distribution deal with Disney for Armageddon, The Rock, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Life Aquatic. All five titles were distributed on DVD by Disney, but with Criterion packaging and production. Sort of like what they did later for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The DVD editions are fully handled by Disney now, which is why all five show up on criterion.com with links to Amazon for purchasing. However, they have direct distribution rights to the three Wes Anderson films on Blu-Ray (which is why The Life Aquatic isn't dual format). I highly doubt Criterion is going to handle any special editions of Armageddon and The Rock. Most likely, Disney will buy the rights to the supplements and release their own special editions. MGM traded a few movie licenses for some laserdisc commentaries (Raging Bull and This is Spinal Tap, I think). They handled the DVDs because Disney was still releasing only bare-bones editions at the time, plus the income helped pay for less profitable films. STEVIE B 4EVA posted:This is simply not true. Every streaming Korda or Shochiku film they haven't released on home video is literally exactly that. It seems like a lot of the films either don't have acceptable masters for Blu-Ray yet or there's not much to be done with supplements. The Eclipse series sort of served this purpose initially, but it makes a lot more sense to have stuff meant for that line to just be put on Hulu for streaming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:It seems like a lot of the films either don't have acceptable masters for Blu-Ray yet or there's not much to be done with supplements. The Eclipse series sort of served this purpose initially, but it makes a lot more sense to have stuff meant for that line to just be put on Hulu for streaming. I mean, sure, and there were some Essential Art House DVDs before that, but you're moving the goalposts. Criterion has had these rights for decades. How is this not "sitting on" films?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
STEVIE B 4EVA posted:I mean, sure, and there were some Essential Art House DVDs before that, but you're moving the goalposts. Criterion has had these rights for decades. How is this not "sitting on" films? Ran isn't on bluray yet, is it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Ran isn't on bluray yet, is it? Not (and presumably never) from Criterion, but StudioCanal did put out a garbage version a couple years ago after they took back a bunch of titles to uselessly squat over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
STEVIE B 4EVA posted:I mean, sure, and there were some Essential Art House DVDs before that, but you're moving the goalposts. Criterion has had these rights for decades. How is this not "sitting on" films? They are putting stuff on Hulu so you don't have to wait for a disc. Better than $20 for a DVDR made from a laserdisc transfer. I don't think anything is getting squatted on. They held back Grand Illusion for three years so it would have a transfer from the restoration. It took almost 30 years for them to get Warner Bros to license a film to them. Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:
Ran is a bad example because even though Criterion doesn't have the rights anymore it literally had a release date before all the licensing mess made them pull it. I do think Criterion does have some things that they are taking longer to release than what seems normal, I don't know if it's a matter of not having enough resources to release all the films or if they are holding them on purpose. Either way I think the work they do is good and important and worth paying more for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:They are putting stuff on Hulu so you don't have to wait for a disc. Better than $20 for a DVDR made from a laserdisc transfer. Okay, then who are the prime offenders of this crime of "squatting"? Presumably Lionsgate? Criterion is on pace/on par with Warner's in this, with the sole exception of The Devils.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Is what they've done/are doing with the Chaplin films also just waiting for a good transfer/extras? Criterion absolutely toys with release dates, and sits on films for profit margin reasons. Sure they're a business and I suppose if its the best way for them to make money off things and keep releasing the occasional rare gem then so be it. But let's not pretend Criterion is just some altruistic company whose only goal is to release films no one else will. They found a niche and that niche is high quality transfers of indie films and classic films and they can charge a premium because of the brand cachet they've built. I don't fault them for it, and if the alternative is Kino or Facets then I'm glad Criterion exists, but it's fair to be annoyed by their pricing and release schedule.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
They probably want to release a limited number at a time so they don't overwhelm purchasers with the newest titles. It's like how when there's a sale a ton of people are picking up the new hotness - if Criterion dumped all of the legacy releases and movies they have the rights to but aren't on disc (Eraserhead! ) at once they'd have lower sales on them but releasing a few at a time ensures that people are buying them in healthy numbers.Probably a balance between that and their standards and I'd like to imagine that it's more about standards although it's definitely a business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
STEVIE B 4EVA posted:Okay, then who are the prime offenders of this crime of "squatting"? Presumably Lionsgate? Criterion is on pace/on par with Warner's in this, with the sole exception of The Devils. Anything involving the Weinsteins.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Also there are only so many people that work at Criterion and can do the restorations. I imagine that's a huge constraint in how many they can produce a year. edit: Lol, while searching for any info on jobs or how many people Criterion employs I found this gem on their contact us page: quote:To report a technical problem with your DVD or Blu-ray disc; for television, public performance, and nontheatrical sales; mod sassinator fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Right, there are economic constraints, because it's a business. That's what I'm saying. Og's initial praise is apparently based in a world in which that's not true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm sure part of Criterion's model is that they do have a legitimate love for film and care for creating an excellent product. But they're a business and money is the most important part of any business. It's commendable that they'll often take gambles on lesser known films, but they've created a great brand loyalty for themselves among their fanbase and know that no matter what they put out it's going to shift a few units. Putting out sure-things like The Big Chill and A Hard Day's Night helps as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Yeah, but that's like the difference between Jimmy Stewart's saving and loan and the old man's bank in It's A Wonderful Life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
I don't think anyone can beat Lionsgate's habitual squatting. Warner does a great job with films, but they desperately need to license out their silents and animation.Peaceful Anarchy posted:Is what they've done/are doing with the Chaplin films also just waiting for a good transfer/extras? Criterion absolutely toys with release dates, and sits on films for profit margin reasons. Sure they're a business and I suppose if its the best way for them to make money off things and keep releasing the occasional rare gem then so be it. But let's not pretend Criterion is just some altruistic company whose only goal is to release films no one else will. They found a niche and that niche is high quality transfers of indie films and classic films and they can charge a premium because of the brand cachet they've built. I don't fault them for it, and if the alternative is Kino or Facets then I'm glad Criterion exists, but it's fair to be annoyed by their pricing and release schedule. As for the Chaplin releases, I think it's a mix of his estate having a lot of involvement/say and needing new masters. Modern Times and The Great Dictator seemed to use the same transfers utilized for the overseas Blu-Rays (which look terrific), but Criterion did have to re-do The Gold Rush and City Lights from scratch because the existing masters were not very good (wrong framing/aspect ratios). Harold Lloyd's estate is similarly picky, but in a good way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I don't think anyone can beat Lionsgate's habitual squatting. Warner does a great job with films, but they desperately need to license out their silents and animation. Are there adequate source prints for the silents and animation you're alluding to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
I guess what I'm getting at is that unless you talk exclusively about Janus titles, it's near-meaningless to laud Criterion for not sitting on films. They license individually or in small bits from the actual rightsholders. That's why I mentioned Lionsgate, to offer you a counterexample to run with. But maybe my point would be better made with Olive, which by this standard you're sticking to is way more praiseworthy than Criterion. They are cranking through the Republic library!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:edit: Lol, while searching for any info on jobs or how many people Criterion employs I found this gem on their contact us page: I dealt with Jon Mulvaney when I requested a new case for my busted Night of the Hunter Blu-ray. He was awesome and sent me a brand new case for free, and then sent me the inner digipack for free as well when I asked. No matter what complains may be directed toward Criterion, they're just about the best company on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
They are definitely fans of cinema and I'm sure they'd release everything they have if they didn't care about keeping the business solvent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
I'd kinda like to see a Criterion release of 'Night of the Living Dead', the movie is even public domain so they wouldn't have to deal with licensing shenanigans! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I'd kinda like to see a Criterion release of 'Night of the Living Dead', the movie is even public domain so they wouldn't have to deal with licensing shenanigans! Me too, they could add in some other public domain horror titles and make a cute lil boxset.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
STEVIE B 4EVA posted:Are there adequate source prints for the silents and animation you're alluding to? For the most part. Most of the MGM and Warner silents have materials that would allow for at the minimum a Kino quality Blu-Ray. The animation is scattershot since the MGM cartoons made before 1952 (most of the library) has few surviving camera negatives, but they have plenty of other elements. The Big Parade was restored in 2003, but only had a video release (besides the prior tape and laserdisc) last year. From what I've read, the main problem is that no one wants to pay for new transfers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Safe Driver posted:Me too, they could add in some other public domain horror titles and make a cute lil boxset. Isn't Carnival of Souls public domain? It was one of the first Criterion discs I purchased.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:For the most part. Most of the MGM and Warner silents have materials that would allow for at the minimum a Kino quality Blu-Ray. The animation is scattershot since the MGM cartoons made before 1952 (most of the library) has few surviving camera negatives, but they have plenty of other elements. The Big Parade was restored in 2003, but only had a video release (besides the prior tape and laserdisc) last year. From what I've read, the main problem is that no one wants to pay for new transfers. Oh, so you're advocating for Warner's to lower their Blu-Ray standards to Kino's! I didn't realize that was where you were coming from.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Edit: Not going to continue the derail.
Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Please continue the derail, it's about as interesting as this thread has gotten in a long time. I'd prefer to read this back and forth over lists of what people bought in a loving sale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
I mean, this is where preservation and home video distribution directly intersect. To an extent MOD discs have become more common not because the cost of pressing discs is that much higher than burning them but because every little cost-cutting measure helps in the face of how loving expensive LTO is. Of course, since a 35mm print or other analog master remains the most reliable storage format, it seems odd to fault the studios for postponing e.g. 4K scans until they can be more certain that the DCP won't become corrupted or lost. To an extent, sure, I'm giving you a hard time, Og, for the inconsistency of your complaints—why are you happy with a Hulu stream of, say, Being Two Isn't Easy, but insistent on Blu-Rays of MGM silents?—but that's just because I'm trying to emphasize the extent of the intersection of preservation and home video. I'm not even necessarily implying that your complaint is as blindly selfish as "Why don't they release only every Blu-Ray I want?" (though sometimes it sure sounds like that). Beyond your own preferences, the "canon" is in constant flux. Think of all the silent films that were destroyed in the early sound era, when executives assumed no one would ever want (to pay) to see them again! Or think how unsurprising it would have been to learn that any number of films noir and other b-movies and programmers were lost simply because at the time no one cared about Anthony Mann or Edward Dmytryk or whoever. Thank God they weren't, but it just goes to show you can never know what will be important to future generations. I, for one, would rather have a digital backup and corresponding DVD-R of the entire Warner's catalog than a Blu-Ray of the Big Parade and countless other films lost. (As long as we're being speculative.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Nobody has anything to ask/add/challenge? I guess I should have closed with **drops mic**
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
So if I like NASA stuff, 'For All Mankind' is probably a pretty good blind purchase, right?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:So if I like NASA stuff, 'For All Mankind' is probably a pretty good blind purchase, right? 100% yes. It's amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypMh1pW1RdE
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:41
|
|