Criterion on Social Media

[TMDaines]

I'm one of the people "quoted" from facebook about not buying The Rosellini "War" set on standard dvd. I said that I no longer buy standard dvds. This is true. I spent a lot of money (which I worked extra night jobs for over a year to earn) to buy a 54" HD tv and blu-ray player. In my opinion, once Criterion began releasing blu-rays, they made an implicit commitment to fans/movielovers/blu-ray buyers like me that they would release their new titles in both formats.

You're definitely in the minority if you felt they made any sort of commitment, implict or otherwise. Why would they? It makes no sense to do dual-releases and increase their workload where the benefits are minor. For a release like the Rossellini's a Blu-ray release would be unnecessary, as the difference in picture quality based on this source material between an upscaled DVD and a Blu-ray even if noticeable, would likely be negligible at best and wouldn't contribute to any greater experience it watching the films. I'm astonished that people refuse to buy this set simply because it isn't on Blu-ray, especially when you take into account how superior this release is to other previous releases of these films.

In addition, I refuse to pay over 70 dollars for a standard dvd set in 2009.

Same here, especially when I'll get to shipped to the UK for no more than $35 in the next B&N sale.

[jwomaha]

For a release like the Rossellini's a Blu-ray release would be unnecessary, as the difference in picture quality based on this source material between an upscaled DVD and a Blu-ray even if noticeable, would likely be negligible at best and wouldn't contribute to any greater experience it watching the films

While I respect your opinion, I must admit I don't know how you can say this off the cuff; Criterion has already announced plans to issue Lang's "M" on blu; and look at the stunning quality of Kino's "The General" blu-ray. If you have a bias against blu-ray, just admit it, but don't try to act like an expert on picture quality without being qualified to do so.

[TMDaines]

While I respect your opinion, I must admit I don't know how you can say this off the cuff; Criterion has already announced plans to issue Lang's "M" on blu; and look at the stunning quality of Kino's "The General" blu-ray. If you have a bias against blu-ray, just admit it, but don't try to act like an expert on picture quality without being qualified to do so.

I have Blu-ray and I'll likely be picking up MoC's M Blu-ray next month so no reason to be biased. I'm not doubting there would be some benefit to having it in Blu-ray form in terms of picture and audio quality but you make it sound like this is Avatar or the like - and not films that have been in terrible condition for decades - not being released on Blu.

[knives]

A. Some films, particularly from pre-HD teevee, can't be upgraded with Blu, and in the case of something like the War Trilogy an upgrade to Blu would only make the releases flaws more obvious. In these rare cases a film actually looks better, because of the condition of the film not the movie itself, on SD. So refusing to buy any and all SD is silly if some of these films will never getting anything better.
B. I wouldn't call the lack of Blu releases a blunder for reasons previously stated. Even MOC who are going only Blu when they can are doing SD releases, such as the recent announcement for L'atalante, when there is no other option. In most of these cases, especially the older films, there's too much damage for a Blu release to be taken seriously.
C. If you can't find these sets for less than sixty dollars during the pre-order month or even after release I don't know what to tell you.
D. If you really want to see a company overcharge for releases go look at the Warner archive. At least Criterion restores their films before charging an arm.
E. What Amazon decides on is no bodies business but Amazon. They think they'll get more sales by reducing the usually higher than SD prices on Blus than let them. Criterion is an oddity in having Blu prices match SD.
F. Look at C and D
G. Look at A and B
H. Wanting high quality and refusing to watch/buy films in the only format they'll be on possibly decades, if not ever are not the same thing. Even the resident Blu wank, AOX, purchases SD if there is a clear sign that we won't be seeing them on Blu anytime soon.
I. See C and D
J. Fair enough, rent away, most people do. But if you do rent the movies and have an AOX situation, wouldn't you rather be able to pop in the discs whenever rather than hoping no one else has rented them. Or if on the fly you want to introduce a friend to one of these films, it will be harder to go out and rent them rather than taking them off a shelf.
K. I doubt anyone here is suggesting that companies aren't going to milk Blu for what its worth before updating.
L. Criterion have said before that to update their entire catalog, remember this time they're keeping the old numbers, would take at least another decade. They're not going to phase out of SD entirely for a long time. Even than as points A and B point out some releases, the recent golden age of television for example, will never be updated.

Edit: this is in reference to his first post.

[Tribe]

>>keep your vhs tapes and wait for that.<<
I'm sticking with my 8mm library until I'm sure they're never going to invent anything else.

I'm sticking to my flicker books.

[aox]

To be fair, I have been slowly persuaded on 480p still having some value to the extent that if I really want something, I will buy the DVD (my policy was never that I wouldn't watch something before that silly accusation gets made).

I bought the Human Condition box this year (the only SD I bought) along with 10 Criterion Blu's. It is something I really wanted on my shelf, and even if it does eventually get a Blu release, it won't be for at least another 5-10 years. I want to enjoy it in the meantime, and Crit's hold their value that I can sell it to upgrade as I have been doing (I haven't paid more than $10 for a Blu upgrade on Crit.). I am sure I will purchase this War box for the same reasons.

But it is frustrating since some of the argument isn't verifiable to me. Sticking with The Human Condition example, I can't help but notice the missing information on each frame when I am sitting watching it. I may have Superman eyes, but it is distracting at times. I especially notice it in closeups and landscape shots (any shot with the sky looks like a snowy TV with missing pixels). The argument goes, as its already been made in this thread, that the source material is in such bad shape that HD will merely bring out more flaws. I guess I believe that... but with something like The Human Condition, the print looks fine to me, and it looks fine in 480p, but it could look even better (to me). I really don't understand the flaws that are being covered by having less information on the screen.

EDIT: also, Criterion themselves lamented to me that they thought The Human Condition was a perfect candidate for blu and that they wish they could have done it.

This means one of two things to me:

1. The source material is fine and they just didn't have the money/time/resources to do it even though they really want to.
2. The source material is terrible and they were lamenting about them not being able to do blu and the comment was based on the scope of the film itself (or course a 11 hour film is an ideal candidate for the capacity of Blu)

[swo17]

Sticking with the Human Condition example, as a matter of practicality, it probably would have taken, let's say, 20% more restoration work to bring the transfer up to Blu standards. Given how long the whole series is, that's a lot of time and money involved. Couple this with the added cost of producing two separate versions of the three films, and compare it to the perceived demand for an $80 MSRP boxset of films from a Japanese director who is not Akira Kurosawa. Not to mention the fact that the longterm viability of the Blu format, and especially Criterion's foray into it, is still very much uncertain (and was even more so six months ago), and it's not hard to see how Criterion could have determined that it was just not marketable to release the set on BD.

As for me, if I like/love a film enough to buy it, I buy it on the best format currently available, be that DVD or BD. Anyone who does otherwise is, without question, completely insane.

[perkizitore]

Not to mention the fact that the longterm viability of the Blu format, and especially Criterion's foray into it, is still very much uncertain (and was even more so six months ago), and it's not hard to see how Criterion could have determined that it was just not marketable to release the set on BD.

You are joking, right? The target audience for Criterion, will ALWAYS be after the best format available (forgotten the LD days?). I think they should wait a couple of years until all their customers will own a blu-ray player to release such huge projects like 'Human Condition', when a blu-ray edition is viable elements-wise. Otherwise, i consider the double-dipping deliberate on their part. If they waited 10 years to acquire the rights and spent 2 years restoring it, they surely can wait another couple before releasing it.

[swo17]

The target audience for Criterion, will ALWAYS be after the best format available

Maybe, but the best format available may not always be Blu-ray. What if Criterion had spent all that extra effort getting Human Condition up to BD standards, only to have this outdated in a few years by some new 4K ultra-HD standard? And then all the ultra-HD heads would refuse to buy it because it was just a sub-ultra-HD catalogue BD title. I mean, are companies still putting out sub-ultra-HD movies on Blu-ray? It's 2010, people!

[captveg]

Why are blu-rays cheaper than the standard dvds on Amazon? (and does that have something to do with it NOT being released on blu? Why not milk the dvd market for a year or so more? Who knows? )

As MSRP is the same,you'd have to ask amazon.com that question.

[Tribe]

What if Criterion had spent all that extra effort getting Human Condition up to BD standards, only to have this outdated in a few years by some new 4K ultra-HD standard?

Yeah...can you imagine The Human Condition in 3-D!

[perkizitore]

The target audience for Criterion, will ALWAYS be after the best format available

I mean, are companies still putting out sub-ultra-HD movies on Blu-ray? It's 2010, people!

You are clearly being ironic here, i don't think my post deserves to be connected with that futile Facebook rhetoric.

[jwomaha]

I think using "The Human Condition" as a justification of not releasing a new releases on blu-ray is an exception - I mean, come on...how many somewhat obscure 11 hour Asian movies are there? A more pertinent example might be the two recent Godard titles: "Made in U.S.A" and "Two or Three Things I Know About Her." I'm sure both titles' elements were in good-great shape and would've sold on blu-ray, but we weren't given that option, so I didn't buy them (I have the import region 2 restored dvds, but I would've gotten the blurays if they had been available). My point is that Criterion should give us blu-ray customers the option/chance to buy new releases on HD. And, you have to admit, that the new upcoming titles announced today, it's a little odd that one will be able to buy Ang Lee's disasterious (and god-awful) "Ride The Devil" on bluray, but not the Lumet/Brando movie.
Finally, Criterion owes it to her customers to craft a policy on how they will restore/release their movies on blu-ray and post that on their website; otherwise, everything is too vague. If they post that "We will never release "The War Trilogy" on blu-ray" then I'll know where I stand.

[swo17]

You are clearly being ironic here, i don't think my post deserves to be connected with that futile Facebook rhetoric.

Ironic, no. Sarcastic, yes. And yes, you probably deserved better. My apologies.

Now hopefully this will settle the matter once and for all: At this point, enough of each month's releases are coming out on Blu that it's probably fair to say that if something isn't announced on Blu, it's not going to come out on Blu for a while, if ever. Your only chance of convincing Criterion otherwise is to show them just how marketable the title is by buying the DVD. Surely, if the worst thing in your life is that you have to own Rossellini's War Trilogy on DVD, then, well, I'd say you have a pretty good life.

[aox]

Plus, it's still not confirmed whether my weekly threatening letter to the company is making any impact on the release schedule one way or another.

[Tribe]

Finally, Criterion owes it to her customers to craft a policy on how they will restore/release their movies on blu-ray and post that on their website; otherwise, everything is too vague.

"Vagueness," like "consistency," is only of import to politicians.

And lawyers.

[Caged Horse]

What are Criterion's plans for the next big thing, Blu-ray 3-D?! I think we should be told.

[Arrow]

Do we have some entitlement issues here? It's one thing to not buy a product you don't want, but all this "Criterion should do this", "Criterion owes us this" etc, is a little strange.

I'd prefer all releases to be in blu ray too, but I'll kiss their feet every time they release something like the War Trilogy regardless of format and thank God I don't live in a time where the only way to see these films was to find a cinema that happened to be playing it.

[Jeff]

In my opinion, once Criterion began releasing blu-rays, they made an implicit commitment to fans/movielovers/blu-ray buyers like me that they would release their new titles in both formats...I don't want to hear any excuses about costs etc...let's face it, Criterion has been "overcharging" for their standard dvds for years and getting away with it (again, no excuses about it being a small company/titles that only appeal to a few people.)

The fact that you don't want to hear about "costs etc.," Criterion's size, and their business model doesn't invalidate those factors. The fact is that it costs a lot more to manufacture a Blu-ray than a DVD. They are often taking a loss on those right now. Criterion's pricing and business model has served them well for over 25 years in all sorts of economies, while hundreds of competing boutique labels have fallen by the wayside. Of course they are going to continue charging what the market for their product will bear. They'd be idiots not to. I'd love to be able to buy everything on Blu too, but that's not remotely plausible or realistic. I certainly never felt that Criterion "made an implicit commitment...that they would release their new titles in both formats." Besides the extraordinary costs, licensing rights and the condition extant elements will often make Blu-ray issues unlikely or impossible.

Criterion's Blu-ray output will increase over time, but there will always be some titles left out. That's just the way it is. You can certainly choose not buy the standard DVDs of the War Trilogy, but that's not going to speed their Blu-ray release. You'll simply miss out on those great films.

Do we have some entitlement issues here? It's one thing to not buy a product you don't want, but all this "Criterion should do this", "Criterion owes us this" etc, is a little strange.

I'd prefer all releases to be in blu ray too, but I'll kiss their feet every time they release something like the War Trilogy regardless of format and thank God I don't live in a time where the only way to see these films was to find a cinema that happened to be playing it.

We have a winner!

[HistoryProf]

Do we have some entitlement issues here? It's one thing to not buy a product you don't want, but all this "Criterion should do this", "Criterion owes us this" etc, is a little strange.

I'd prefer all releases to be in blu ray too, but I'll kiss their feet every time they release something like the War Trilogy regardless of format and thank God I don't live in a time where the only way to see these films was to find a cinema that happened to be playing it.

=D> =D>

I think this is the best response to my original salvo....it's all about perception, and some people seem to think Criterion OWES them blu-rays of every film they own the rights to. they don't owe their customers a damned thing...and certainly they NEVER claimed that they would have the resources to release EVERYTHING on blu. Frankly, this exact debate is probably what made them reticent to make the jump.

As for the War Trilogy, knowing that the source material is not good precludes any demands for blu rays. I would hazard a guess that trying to put it on blu would look WORSE as the flaws would be more noticeable. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. the elements to put every film ever made on blu just don't exist...and when you are getting into WWII era european stuff, it's an even dicier proposition. Just be glad their releasing this in the tremendous package they are....there's a reason this is #500 - and that many are proclaiming the greatest achievement in Criterion's distinguished catalog....to pass it by because it isn't on blu reeks of Veruca Salt-level foot stamping. Enjoy it for god's sake!

[HistoryProf]

For a release like the Rossellini's a Blu-ray release would be unnecessary, as the difference in picture quality based on this source material between an upscaled DVD and a Blu-ray even if noticeable, would likely be negligible at best and wouldn't contribute to any greater experience it watching the films

While I respect your opinion, I must admit I don't know how you can say this off the cuff; Criterion has already announced plans to issue Lang's "M" on blu; and look at the stunning quality of Kino's "The General" blu-ray. If you have a bias against blu-ray, just admit it, but don't try to act like an expert on picture quality without being qualified to do so.

which makes the elements of the War Trilogy just as well preserved as The General and M? This is specious reasoning - the hallmark of this argument.

[TMDaines]

Just be glad their releasing this in the tremendous package they are....there's a reason this is #500 - and that many are proclaiming the greatest achievement in Criterion's distinguished catalog....to pass it by because it isn't on blu reeks of Veruca Salt-level foot stamping. Enjoy it for god's sake!

Indeed. The War Trilogy package could be more of a shoe-in for Release of the Year than MoC's Sunrise Blu was last year.

[jwomaha]

I hate to tell you this, but without us customers (esp. blu-ray buyers), there would be NO Criterion. They exist as a service to us, so we don't need to "kiss their feet" to thank them for allowing us to spend our hard earned cash on their products; it is also not unreasonable to ask that they come up with/state a policy on reissuing titles on blu-ray. In addition, I have never read anything from the Criterion company that has stated that the elements for "The War Trilogy" were so bad there is no possible way they could ever be released on bluray. If that were to happen, then that would end the argument. Until then, one can assume they could put it out on blu-ray if they so desired.

[cysiam]

I hate to tell you this, but without us customers (esp. blu-ray buyers), there would be NO Criterion.

Yes, because those 40 or so blu-titles are certainly how criterion afford to keep the lights on. You seem to have quite the inflated sense of self-importance.

[jwomaha]

Check the amazon.com criterion best-sellers for yourself...you'll see most of the top sellers are on blu...multiply that by the thousands of people who have gotten blu-ray players in the last year... Cheers!