Yes, IF they know that Walter Matthau ever made a spy comedy.
Why would a cheaper release from a different company (like a major studio, thus making it more widely distributed) make it any less accessible? What would keep people from seeing it on a shelf and buying/renting it?
$30 is the normal price for Criterion DVDs, and if they sold Hopscotch at a lower price, wouldn't that say something about how they regard the film?
I was talking about another possible scenario: a company other than Criterion releasing it at a lower price point.
Celebrated filmmakers don't make good films all the time, and non-celebrated filmmakers don't make lousy films all the time.
Granted, I never said otherwise. I'm just recalling that year, when Criterion went awhile without putting out many established masterpieces, and instead released 2-3 mostly non-canonical titles per month, a lot of people got pretty cranky and impatient. Juding from this forums, now that people have had more of their fill of Bergman etc. there seems to be more tolerance for more unexpected titles. That was my explanation for why Hopscotch provoked some anger when it was announced. Personally, I don't think it's worth getting too angry or disappointed over, but I'd still much rather have Rivette, Mizoguchi, Ophuls, Pabst, Clement, Sirk, von Sternberg, Ozu, etc. than Hopscotch. And, really, Criterion can only devote their attention to a limited number of releases at one time.
Nope, Hopscotch is not mediocre. In your opinion, it might be. But not in mine.
Hats off to you for holding your ground. Usually, your disagreement would be the prologue to a critical defense of the film, explaining in a detailed and specific way why this widely-underappreciated film is actually far better than the majority of people think/assume. On my end, it's difficult to explain why a film struck me as mediocre, because the film's very lack of distinguishing features which makes it mediocre also leaves it hard to say much about.