DVDBeaver

[Finch]

Should have been the title of the set.

[schellenbergk]

The set has many defenders on the Blu-ray.com forums and the Criterion subreddit. Most defenses boil down to "I never saw these before so I don't know what's been changed, so I don't care"

That’s a pretty unfair summary. How about this - “I don’t care what changes the director wants to make: the films must adhere to my memories”

[domino harvey]

I don’t care what changes a director makes so long as he doesn’t remove the original works from circulation (especially when the changes made are as drastic as these) and block their access. But thank you for the insight into the kind of people voting for the set

[schellenbergk]

The kind of people voting for the set being people who support a director-approved transfer.

The set - and Kane - were the highlights of my year.

[soundchaser]

Some of the changes made to the films in this set are far more drastic than could be done at the transfer level.

[swo17]

Everyone here, including the set's detractors, supports director-approved transfers in at least 99% of cases, but if you haven't yet learned that nothing in life is simple enough for a single rule or aphorism to universally apply, then you have a lot of growing up to do

[RitrovataBlue]

Once again wondering whether the people applauding The World of Wong Kar-Wai would also prefer to remove the 1925 version of The Gold Rush from circulation.

[Finch]

I'm also still left wondering how many of the critics who were praising the set knew the films intimately by that point because I simply can't imagine that if they were, they wouldn't have commented on the changes and the new grading. I thought Chris's review of the set for this site was very fair and at least some transfers were left wanting (surprisingly, 2046 among them), outside of the changes (and as tenia mentioned, it's not even a complete set with the absence of Ashes of Time, which like 2046, is a Sony title in the US, so why is it not there?). And screenshots from In The Mood For Love showed that detail in the image (such as in the closing sequence) actually got lost because of the hideous green tint WKW's colorist has applied. But a lot of critics never gave proper scrutiny to the revisions and whether they actually aid or harm the films. That is at least as disappointing as WKW's decision to scrub the originals out of existence.

Arrow's Shawscope Vol 1 set would have been a more sensible No 2 choice: all the transfers are consistently very good to excellent, the packaging is unique but not horrible, the design is pleasing, and the extras are comprehensive. The WKW set achieves none of these things.

[Ribs]

I’m just extremely saddened that Criterion’s actually impressive necessary set of Melvin van Peebles that rescued two of his films from being functionally out of circulation and is loaded with stuff and has the delightful bonus movie somehow doesn’t even make the ten! I guess the people who vote on polls like these just weren’t in the audience for this but it seems to me an extremely easy call that should be the Criterion set being celebrated.

That said, I do think it seems really unhelpful to think that everyone who did vote was just misinformed or didn’t understand what happened. Maybe these people just want the movies as they now exist and believe WKW’s insistence that these are dynamic works of art that can change over time? They’re, like, allowed to feel that way. I personally wouldn’t celebrate the release for other reasons of my own taste but I actually don’t take an issue with the way the films were presented in particular.

[bfaison]

So let’s get this straight - Warner Archives hits a bullseye whether they release an Oscar winning epic or a ball of lint and ends up in 7th place, while Kino hires a robot to put the barrels of files onto discs at a rate we can’t count, missing the board entirely several times, wears it as a badge of honor, and takes top prize? It’s ok with me.

[tenia]

Kino are doing quantity over quality, and it clearly works.
It's not even that surprising : when you release hundreds of titles per year, you're likely to have several excellent releases that will be remembered for End of Year polls. But when you only release 5 or 6, that's a much harder number to hit.
And Beaver's first comment below Kino 1st place is spot on this : "The sheer number of restorations they've released this year is impressive."
The other comments are quite similar in how and why they're there : ""Although none of their releases were in my top 10, Kino Lorber has been doing an amazing job of releasing catalog titles of every genre out there." "Range and number of releases - bought more from Kino than anybody." "Kino because they have released a number of titles this year which have never been on disc before and they are not afraid to release lesser known films." "Kino Lorber, for doing the LORD'S WORK releasing the bulk of classic cinema in these twilight times."

This is however quite silly and probably embodies why Beaver's poll has always been quite flawed (and not just biased because of its US-centric aspect) : many (if not most) of the pollsters aren't discrimant enough when it comes to this. This is basically my mom and dad polling their favourite labels (and of course, they don't like Criterion current "trendy and inclusive" releases, so make sure to write that down).

The WKW set polling that high follows, IMO, the same logic : it's all fluff, a shiny thing that looks good outside but not so much as soon as you look a bit closer. Except that it seems so many little do indeed know precisely what they're talking about that "shiny thing" is actually enough.

He already issued Ashes of Time Redux. This is everything else redux.

True.

[schellenbergk]

Once again wondering whether the people applauding The World of Wong Kar-Wai would also prefer to remove the 1925 version of The Gold Rush from circulation.

Are hypotheticals of any real use? Especially when one can skew the hypothetical to make a point.

If Chaplin had chosen that, it's his prerogative - but this didn't happen so I'm not sure it furthers the discussion.

“We were caught in a dilemma between restoring them to the form in which the audience had remembered them and to how I had originally envisioned them,” Wong writes. “There was so much that we could change, and I decided to take the second path, as it would represent my most vivid vision of these films.” Wong took to heart reaction to the 2008 “Ashes of Time Redux”: “Some audience members observed that the film looked different from what they had remembered. I realized that some of our audience had discovered it on pirated copies and in suboptimal exhibition venues that presented the film in a different light. Still, some preferred the versions that they had watched, because memories are hard to beat.”

[schellenbergk]

He already issued Ashes of Time Redux. This is everything else redux

Wong Kar Wai Discusses the Editing Changes He Made While Restoring His Films
Leonard Pearce○December 7, 2020

...

Chungking Express and In the Mood for Love were shot and released theatrically on 1.66:1, one of my favorite aspect ratios, but they were converted to 1.85:1 on videogram. Since most people experienced these films on videogram, it perpetuated the belief that they were shot on 1:85:1. With these restorations, you will be watching them in their original aspect ratios. With Fallen Angels, I have changed the format to cinemascope, because it was originally what I had intended to release the film in. When we were cutting the film, we accidentally turned the Steenbeck on anamorphic instead of standard. I felt that the film looked much more interesting because it enhanced the distance of the characters on top of the extreme wide angle that we shot on. Back then, it was impossible to shoot a film in standard and release it in anamorphic. With this restoration, we have successfully fulfilled this wish.

[swo17]

I was well aware of that information when I made my statement.

And Chaplin did prefer his re-edit of The Gold Rush and his estate has previously attempted to suppress the silent version. That wasn't a hypothetical.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Once again wondering whether the people applauding The World of Wong Kar-Wai would also prefer to remove the 1925 version of The Gold Rush from circulation.

Are hypotheticals of any real use? Especially when one can skew the hypothetical to make a point.

If we don’t want to use hypotheticals, it’s worth nothing that Criterion DID issue their Charlie Chaplin films in reedits annoyingly done by Chaplin later in life. The most annoying one is Modern Times, which was reedited in 1956 to cut the last verse of the song near the finale leading to a terrible jump cut. It’s included as a deleted scene instead without the context that this was cut two decades after the initial release. This isn’t as egregious as what Wong did with this set where he suppressed the known versions of these films and redid them in ways that would’ve been physically (and financially) impossible when these films were released. But I do find it annoying and worth owning older versions of these films just to have the original version.

[Maltic]

“We were caught in a dilemma between restoring them to the form in which the audience had remembered them and to how I had originally envisioned them,” Wong writes.

If only there was a way to release a film in two different versions. One where Han Solo shoots first and one where Greedo does, and so on...

[schellenbergk]

“We were caught in a dilemma between restoring them to the form in which the audience had remembered them and to how I had originally envisioned them,” Wong writes.

If only there was a way to release a film in two different versions. One where Han Solo shoots first and one where Greedo does, and so on...

I agree that would have been preferable - but Criterion yielded to the director's wishes. So your gripe should be with the director, not Criterion.

The ONLY reason I stirred up this hornet's nest was the withering contempt expressed for people who DARE to admire the WKW set - and think it one of the best of the year,

[Maltic]

Criterion could've simply said they'd release the Greedo-shoots-first-versions together with the Han Solo-shoots-first-versions or not at all.

[Roscoe]

If only there was a way to release a film in two different versions. One where Han Solo shoots first and one where Greedo does, and so on...

If Coppola can do it with all those APOCALYPSE NOWs....

[swo17]

Coppola of course did that because HE WANTS HIS FILM TO REMAIN RELEVANT

[schellenbergk]

Criterion could've simply said they'd release the Greedo-shoots-first-versions together with the Han Solo-shoots-first-versions or not at all.

I’m not sure how I feel about a company – any company – dictating to a director how his own films should appear. If the director wanted us to see it this way we should respect that. If you don’t like his choice you don’t have to consider the best set of the year. But I do.

[swo17]

If you don’t like his choice you don’t have to consider the best set of the year. But I do.

Out of curiosity, what are all the sets that you viewed this year so that they could be in contention? Or if you're only talking about Criterions, how many of their ~50 releases this year did you watch?

[Maltic]

I’m not sure how I feel about a company – any company – dictating to a director how his own films should appear. If the director wanted us to see it this way we should respect that.

They'd simply be making him an offer, not dictating. "If you want to play George Lucas then find another label."

As for respect, WKW wasn't above gaslighting his critics/admirers with that statement of his.

[knives]

If you don’t like his choice you don’t have to consider the best set of the year. But I do.

Out of curiosity, what are all the sets that you viewed this year so that they could be in contention? Or if you're only talking about Criterions, how many of their ~50 releases this year did you watch?

Honestly I don’t think this needs a measuring contest as just a one point of comparison need work. So, for example, can it be argued on the individual basis that WKW is better than the Van Peebles set without basing your arguments on if you like the films? If Schellenbergk can do that than that’s alright, but if not than that would be alright in the opposite direction. (Obviously it doesn’t have to be that set it’s just a helpful stand in)

[swo17]

I guess my point was going to be that if he's seen a great number of other contenders as well as the original versions of the films, if he's aware of all the changes and still considers this to be the boxset of the year, then I will value that opinion more even if I disagree with it