Kino Lorber Studio Classics

[swo17]

The Killing is absolutely one of his best films, top 3 I'd say

[Ribs]

I'm convinced now that Kino had sneakily signed a deal with MGM first, as there is no way Criterion wouldn't have at least attempted to grab the 4K rights for either title.

Yes, we all have known this? They clearly found out they were able to license all the titles from everyone in this exclusive license terms loophole and took advantage, even though it means for titles like Great Escape there will never be a HDR release because they just wanted to beat their competitor to the punch and leave scraps behind. Seeing as there’s no sign of any of the other labels acting this way, I’d say Kino comes across looking fairly unsporting for taking so many of them in one punch. (Though obviously with Robocop and presumably Carrie its clear Arrow got to some of their titles, and I’d assume Criterion’s locked up any title thats remotely feasible that isn’t in the remaining four or five MGM titles Kino has yet to announce (like, I have a hard time imagining Manchurian Candidate or 12 Angry Men as one Kino would pick out of a dozen but think Criterion would be open to doing an upgrade for either).

I am really laughing at them getting Killer’s Kiss though, even if its on the same disc, it just seems like a stupid thing to license no one would really want while they were claiming things like To Kill a Mockingbird wouldn’t sell well enough.

[yoloswegmaster]

I'm not convinced of this. First off the Kino Insider said they never get "first dibs" over Criterion. Secondly, what makes these titles a no brainer for Criterion. They probably have a list of 100 titles or so they want released on UHD. For instance, it wouldn't surprise me that many of the SC titles coming back getting UHD releases (Contempt anyone, how does that sound). Besides, surely there would be better candidates amongst Kubrick's films to get a UHD.

The insider said that they "rarely" get first dibs, not that they never had them. You can also note they didn't outright deny that they had first dibs on the 4K titles. I asked the insider if Criterion had passed on the 4K rights for 'Some Like it Hot' or if KL had quickly made a deal with MGM before any of the other labels, and they quite literally had to plead the fifth. There have been multiple instances where the insider has outright stated whether or not a different label has passed on the rights for other titles, so it's quite strange and totally unlike of the insider to not answer it.

Why wouldn't titles like Paths of Glory or The Killing be a no-brainer for Criterion to release? They are well-seen and highly respected titles coming from one cinema's biggest directors, which means that they will easily make money for whatever company decides to release them. The only head-scratcher here is releasing Killer's Kiss separately on 4K. It's not as well known or anywhere near as acclaimed as the other aforementioned titles, so it is quite befuddling that they would sell it separately instead of just bundling it with The Killing. Especially since 4Ks cost a lot and I highly doubt that this will reach the sales figures of the other 2 Kubrick 4Ks.

[FrauBlucher]

Why are you including Paths of Glory? No where did I say that. As a matter of fact that should be a strong contender for a Kubrick. The convo was about The Killing

[yoloswegmaster]

My bad, I thought you were referring to the other MGM titles that KL had taken from Criterion. Regardless, I'm still not sure how 'The Killing' is not a no-brainer release. As I've already said, it's still an highly-acclaimed title that a lot of people love and comes from one cinema's greatest director's.

[FrauBlucher]

This sounds like "why can't they release on UHD what I want." This will be the ongoing cry now with everything that gets announced by Kino or doesn't get announced by Criterion.

[yoloswegmaster]

Huh, what? Very strange comment, so I'm just going to peace out now.

[ChunkyLover]

"Killer's Kiss" is most likely a packaged deal with "The Killing" considering most international releases of "The Killing" (Arrow, Shock) have it together. Still, it is perplexing that, even with Kubrick's name, Kino are confident enough to give it a standalone release instead of making it a 2-fer with "The Killing".

[Ribs]

I don’t think it is a separate release - I imagine it will just be on the same disc as The Killing, no reason why a UHD couldn’t hold both movies without compression issues arising. They don’t say it’ll be on its own so it does kind of make sense in that it lets them put out another title without increasing direct manufacturing costs because of extra discs. But it’s still funny to put that out ahead of pretty much anything else in the MGM library both that Kino has already released and anyone else has.

Edit: I see now they have clarified it is actually a standalone release, which is hilarious, considering how often Kino complains no one would buy Irma La Douce or whatever. This title on its own is probably the first 4K title Kino’s announced for me that I can see no possible way I’d want to buy.

[Feego]

Kino’s Facebook announcement does say the films will be sold separately.

[EddieLarkin]

I'm no Kino defender but I think it's laughable to accuse them of doing something underhanded when licensing these titles. What we know for certain is that only weeks before Criterion finally announced their move into UHD, Lee Kline was still slagging off both the format and the entire concept of HDR on his podcast. So I can readily believe that all of these titles were available to Criterion for UHD licensing before Kino ever got a whiff, and they deliberately passed on them on the assumption UHD was going to be a loser. Then, when the obvious started to happen (that a competitor label would snap them up, in some instances to great excitement), they rushed into the format to ensure no further deals could be done like this, lest half their entire catalogue ended up being undermined.

[dwk]

The idea of rushing into releasing UHDs so they don't lose titles is silly. First, given the tiny UHD market, even if they never moved into UHD, "half their catalogue" wouldn't "ended up being undermined." Kino wasn't going to rush in and snag the Janus catalog out from under Criterion. (And, frankly, I doubt if half of Criterion's catalog would even be viable UHD releases) Second, rumors are that Criterion had planned to start releasing UHDs in 2020, but held off due to the pandemic (I recall George Feltenstein mentioning on the Let's Get Physical Media show that Criterion had been planning their UHD entry two years prior to the announcement of their first slate.) Third, I don't think anyone is saying Kino did anything wrong here (other than screwing up Invasion and using the wrong audio on Silence of the Lambs.) MGM, on the other hand, if they offered these to Kino without first offering them to the current licensee, that is pretty shitty. (For example, do you think Arrow is happy to have spent the money on the 4k restoration of The Apartment, only for the UHD rights to end up with Kino?)

Alternatively, it is possible that Criterion opted to pass on the UHD rights to the MGM stuff for other reasons than thinking the format was DOA. Like maybe they would rather use their resources for restorations of stuff like the Ousmane Sembène titles they have, or they find more value in their relationship with other licensors.

[EddieLarkin]

(And, frankly, I doubt if half of Criterion's catalog would even be viable UHD releases)

You'd think so, and Killer's Kiss would be a prime example, and yet here we are and it's receiving a fully 4K HDR release from a new scan. If Kino find that title viable I'd say at least half of Criterion's would in fact be game.

MGM, on the other hand, if they offered these to Kino without first offering them to the current licensee, that is pretty shitty. (For example, do you think Arrow is happy to have spent the money on the 4k restoration of The Apartment, only for the UHD rights to end up with Kino?)

But that's specifically what I'm suggesting hasn't happened, because yes it would be very shitty, and surely for that reason it's not normal practice. It makes far more sense that both Criterion and Arrow passed up on the UHD options at the time of licensing, at least in the case of titles from the last few years. When Arrow released The Apartment, I don't even think a black and white film had made it to the UHD format, and Arrow would take 2 more years to finally make the jump. So I can very easily imagine the Arrow of the time saying thanks but no thanks to MGM, UHD just isn't something on our radar right now, and certainly not for a title like this. Nothing nefarious is going on if sometime later MGM make the same offer to Kino and they're smart enough to say sure, why wouldn't we want an instantly superior release to one of our biggest competitors?

Alternatively, it is possible that Criterion opted to pass on the UHD rights to the MGM stuff for other reasons than thinking the format was DOA. Like maybe they would rather use their resources for restorations of stuff like the Ousmane Sembène titles they have, or they find more value in their relationship with other licensors.

Maybe, but I think it's far more likely they'd want some big hitters right out of the gate for the new format (hello Citizen Kane and The Red Shoes), and something like Paths of Glory and Silence of the Lambs are surely some of their very best selling titles?

[Finch]

This whole conjecture about Kino doing the dirty on Criterion, Arrow and other boutique labels is the dumbest thing I've read on this forum in some time. Good Lord.

[ryannichols7]

so where does The Last Waltz (an MGM title) factor in then

[dwk]

You'd think so, and Killer's Kiss would be a prime example, and yet here we are and it's receiving a fully 4K HDR release from a new scan. If Kino find that title viable I'd say at least half of Criterion's would in fact be game.

We will se how well that sells. But, sells potential is only one factor, available elements and masters are another.

But that's specifically what I'm suggesting hasn't happened, because yes it would be very shitty, and surely for that reason it's not normal practice. It makes far more sense that both Criterion and Arrow passed up on the UHD options at the time of licensing, at least in the case of titles from the last few years. When Arrow released The Apartment, I don't even think a black and white film had made it to the UHD format, and Arrow would take 2 more years to finally make the jump. So I can very easily imagine the Arrow of the time saying thanks but no thanks to MGM, UHD just isn't something on our radar right now, and certainly not for a title like this. Nothing nefarious is going on if sometime later MGM make the same offer to Kino and they're smart enough to say sure, why wouldn't we want an instantly superior release to one of our biggest competitors?

I'm not sure that MGM was even offering UHD rights at the time those older deals were made (or even renewed.) It seems to me Kino asked about certain titles and MGM said

Maybe, but I think it's far more likely they'd want some big hitters right out of the gate for the new format (hello Citizen Kane and The Red Shoes), and something like Paths of Glory and Silence of the Lambs are surely some of their very best selling titles?

True, and Silence of the Lambs would have been an obvious strong seller.

One other possibility, with only 5-7 releases a month, I think it is possible that Criterion didn't want to clog their schedule with UHD upgrades of studio titles. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if the overwhelming majority of UHD upgrades of previous spine numbers are Janus titles. (And frankly, I'd rather Criterion use its resources to release stuff that is off limits to other labels - Janus titles and Warner Brothers titles.)

[FrauBlucher]

One other possibility, with only 5-7 releases a month, I think it is possible that Criterion didn't want to clog their schedule with UHD upgrades of studio titles. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if the overwhelming majority of UHD upgrades of previous spine numbers are Janus titles. (And frankly, I'd rather Criterion use its resources to release stuff that is off limits to other labels - Janus titles and Warner Brothers titles.)

This is what I was suggesting earlier today upthread. CC releasing limited amount of titles each month, especially compared to Kino, will make them very judicious on titles they release on the format. People will not like it but who is really surprised by this. It's Criterions M.O. They can't release everything.

So far, 10 UHD titles released and announced. 5 are upgrades and 5 are new releases. That ratio will probably be the model going forward.

[captveg]

In regards to Killer's Kiss, Kubrick's name alone could provide a fair amount of sales to those who will just want it on their shelf with little inclination to actually watch it. I'm not one of those people myself, but they are certainly out there for certain big names like Kubrick.

[kekid]

Can someone please clarify what are the criteria used to place a label under "Boutique Labels" vs. giving it a standalone listing? For example, why is Kino lumped under "Boutique labels" while Second Run and Indicator are given standalone listings? This question occurred to me as I saw Kino named the label of the year in the DVDBeaver poll. This label has far greater output than some that are given standalone listings, it almost always provides supplemental material, and has taken an active position in 4K UHD rollout.Their business model determines the quality of individual releases. When the source is of good quality they do a good job. When the source is questionable, even Criterion (still my favorite label despite all the caveats) suffers from it. So I would hope that we have some objective criteria for lumping a label under "Boutique Labels" category than personal opinions.

[domino harvey]

Can someone please clarify what are the criteria used to place a label under "Boutique Labels" vs. giving it a standalone listing? For example, why is Kino lumped under "Boutique labels" while Second Run and Indicator are given standalone listings? This question occurred to me as I saw Kino named the label of the year in the DVDBeaver poll. This label has far greater output than some that are given standalone listings, it almost always provides supplemental material, and has taken an active position in 4K UHD rollout.Their business model determines the quality of individual releases. When the source is of good quality they do a good job. When the source is questionable, even Criterion (still my favorite label despite all the caveats) suffers from it. So I would hope that we have some objective criteria for lumping a label under "Boutique Labels" category than personal opinions.

Mod here. You're talking about dedicated subforums within the main forum. We only very, very rarely add these into the mix (the last one was Indicator, years ago), because they only exist when there is an outpouring of dedicated threads and releases that merit discussion. As you might surmise from a search of the forum, KLSC is not held in that high of esteem here, and they release many movies, lots of which are unlikely to generate much discussion here based on current levels. So, the answer is, they haven't earned it and no evidence exists that they need it. If that changes, I'm sure we'll act accordingly.

[Matt]

I think the original creation of boutique label subfora goes years back to my tenure as admin (though things have been shuffled a little since then). Masters of Cinema was first and was given a featured space since the founders all happened to be longtime members of this forum and actively used to forum to engage with fans/customers.

I think Second Run was the next to get their own subforum, for the similar reason that their creator/owner was an active forum participant.

After that, I don’t really remember who or what came next. Arrow, Indicator, and BFI all have or had multiple active forum members, robust release schedules, and similar curatorial approaches as Criterion, MoC, and Second Run. Other label reps do post here and we greatly appreciate their continued presence. Kino, however, has the rare distinction of having their label rep(s) banned from the forum. So there’s your objective criteria.

Kino is discussed with great enthusiasm elsewhere, and if they’re the #1 label in existence right now, then they don’t really need our support (and have amply proven in the past that they don’t really care about having it).

[swo17]

To be fair, there are maybe a dozen or more titles this past year that I'm very glad Kino released, though for the most part I'm just glad to have a particular film out

[captveg]

Fully back from the holidays, so...

More OOP based on previously being in the "While Supplies Last" sale and now no longer appearing on the website:

Bank Shot (1974) (BD) (DVD previously OOP)
Bad Man's River (1971) (DVD) (BD previously OOP)
The Cariboo Trail (1950) (BD) (DVD still available)

[yoloswegmaster]

KL Insider has revealed that the release for 'One False Move' has been cancelled, and that it will most likely be released by another label or the studio themselves.

[dwk]

The Sony deal is off to quite the start.