criterionforum.org

Nice that the GG Blu includes the second film, but interesting that this is the first Blu only upgrade since the switch to dual format.

Moe Dickstein wrote:Nice that the GG Blu includes the second film, but interesting that this is the first Blu only upgrade since the switch to dual format.

The DVDs are probably selling well enough on their own, either that, or all the planning for this was done before they decided to go the dual route.

Or the DVDs aren't close to the end of their print run, and if they put this out as a dual format, few of the remaining DVDs would ever sell.

They mentioned doing blu-only upgrades in their note.

We’ll still release straight Blu-ray upgrades from time to time, but you can expect all of our new Criterion releases to be dual-format for the foreseeable future. Occasionally, we’ll retire existing DVD and Blu-ray editions and replace both with a single dual-format edition.

swo17 wrote:Or the DVDs aren't close to the end of their print run, and if they put this out as a dual format, few of the remaining DVDs would ever sell.

If this is the case, it seems like a dual format for this is unlikely to ever arrive, unless the Blu-ray and DVD just happen to sell out at the same time. After such a long delay on this, I wonder why they didn't just wait until their DVD stock was depleted a bit more.

jindianajonz wrote:If this is the case, it seems like a dual format for this is unlikely to ever arrive, unless the Blu-ray and DVD just happen to sell out at the same time.

Of if one format runs out and the other one is reasonably close, they might take them both OOP and then come back with a dual format after several months.

I suspect that this was in the production line before they decided to switch, but too late in to switch.

As albucat quoted from the official explanation, I think this will definitely keep happening from time to time, as long as the blu-ray is simply a format upgrade instead of a re-issue with new transfer and everything. What's the point of releasing dual-format editions of The Exterminating Angel, Z, Made in U.S.A., Make Way for Tomorrow, etc.?

Certainly impressive month. I haven't seen any of the films announced, yet they all sound great. I actually think I'll be blind buying all of these (well, maybe I'll rent Grey Gardens beforehand).

Although, there are some elephants in the room that need to be talked about, most notably:

The Brood
Eraserhead
It's a Mad x4 World
Scanners

Mad World was only hinted at recently, and I'm assuming it's going to be a big release that will likely turn up next year. Although, I don't see why the Cronenbergs and the Lynch would have been delayed... Unless, as someone pointed out earlier, that Cronenberg now being busy with the development of his latest film would cause The Brood and Scanners to enter a purgatory much akin to Y Tu Mama Tambien.

I know it's not the first time that releases have been hinted at and then pushed back indefinitely; it just seems odd with titles as well known as these, especially considering the obvious holiday month that December is.

criterion10 wrote:I know it's not the first time that releases have been hinted at and then pushed back indefinitely; it just seems odd with titles as well known as these, especially considering the obvious holiday month that December is.

True and the wacky drawings don't necessarily mean the titles are around the corner. All you have to do is look at Grey Gardens. It was a wacky drawing January of 2012.

Sometimes there are production delays with titles, and they err on the side of caution when announcing them later than first planned...

Why is Criterion being so stingy with giving away spine numbers these days (Zatoichi and WCF each only getting one)? Remember when Monsters and Madmen got five? THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.

Agreed - I feel better making a big purchase when there's lots of spine numbers in the offing.

I don't know that I ever fully comprehended the old spine numbering system. Usually the box got a number and then each title got a number, and sometimes the extras did and sometimes they didn't. Personally - and maybe I'm thinking of this too much from a retail perspective - it makes sense to me to assign a separate spine number if a title is sold as either part of a box or individually, but if only available in a box, assigning solely one number to the whole box is fine by me.
If the rationale would be to assign a number per key film, then the box itself shouldn't get a number (and possibly some of the extras neither unless they are feature length films in itself).

I believe the only extras that have received their own spine numbers have been substantial documentaries such as Ingmar Bergman Makes a Movie.

The sets are also inconsistent as the BBS set itself didn't receive a number. The only other sets that didn't get numbers usually were the later packagings of already released titles (the Olivier/Shakespeare set, the Hitchcock set, Bergman set, etc.)

My theory is that earlier on they planned more on breaking out individual titles from box sets later on more often than they ended up actually doing so, so that by now they know if they're never going to split up the box it just gets one spine. This seems to be a more recent change, and I'd love to know the reason behind BBS not getting a box #

I'm still holding out hope that they'll eventually break up the BBS set, as this would provide a loophole around my household ban on Easy Rider.

jindianajonz wrote:

swo17 wrote:Or the DVDs aren't close to the end of their print run, and if they put this out as a dual format, few of the remaining DVDs would ever sell.

If this is the case, it seems like a dual format for this is unlikely to ever arrive, unless the Blu-ray and DVD just happen to sell out at the same time. After such a long delay on this, I wonder why they didn't just wait until their DVD stock was depleted a bit more.

I imagine that Grey Gardens is one of Criterion's rock-solid consistent sellers. Having a new BluRay for sale for Christmas would thus be a no-brainer (particularly in a month that features the comparatively high-risk WCF box), and if they still had a lot of stock of the DVD(s) it would be silly to make them obsolete just for the sake of consistency.

swo17 wrote:I believe the only extras that have received their own spine numbers have been substantial documentaries such as Ingmar Bergman Makes a Movie.

And they weren't presented as extras, but as major films in their own right, with their own discs, own cover art etc. and billing alongside the other films in the set. They're analogous (in Criterion's presentation of them) to Burden of Dreams, which also has its own spine number.

If they could kindly get around to Persona and add some Mulholland Dr. into the mix, all aspects of my admittedly idiotic personality would be quite happy heading into the New Year.

swo17 wrote:Why is Criterion being so stingy with giving away spine numbers these days (Zatoichi and WCF each only getting one)? Remember when Monsters and Madmen got five? THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.

Immediately followed in spine number terms (369-373 following M&Ms 364-368) by the Paul Robeson: Portraits of the Artist set!

In terms of 'spine numbers for your buck', both of those releases are trounced by the I Am Curious set: three spine numbers for the price of a single upper tier release!

zedz wrote:In terms of 'spine numbers for your buck', both of those releases are trounced by the I Am Curious set: three spine numbers for the price of a single upper tier release!

Same with that Ozu twofer.

Just some wishful thinking:

Apparently Warner Brothers let the rights lapse to Watership Down in 2011 and they returned to director/producer Martin Rosen. His other film The Plague Dogs is also out of print. Both of these films are masterpieces. If Criterion wanted to dip their toes into animation; they should scoop the rights up. I posted on the Warner Archive facebook page; hoping that they will confirm that the studio no longer has the rights to Watership Down.