criterionforum.org

Ah yes. I forgot several. Thanks.

Tourneur double bill! Yes!

the 90s cult train continues, but similar to Happiness it's a movie I like that's long been out of legitimate circulation. two Octobers in a row with a long awaited Warner horror title set that seems to be as comprehensive as we get from this label these days, very pleased about that.

and Demon Pond on 4K?? might we actually get the new Pale Flower restoration on UHD?

I was just thinking about Demon Pond earlier this morning. Nest month I'll try to think of Profound Desire of the Gods.

What A Disgrace wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:58 pm I was just thinking about Demon Pond earlier this morning. Nest month I'll try to think of Profound Desire of the Gods.

Pigs and Battleships I desperately need on Bluray. Imamura has gotten some love on disc so I will hold out hope it happens

Finch wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:46 pm Tourneur double bill! Yes!

Only one of the films was directed by Tourneur

I meant to say Lewton, honest.

Four releases, three with only one newly created in-house on disc extra and the fourth is an upgrade carrying over the previous extras. They are cost-cutting themselves to fast approaching irrelevancy

I too keep forgetting they are a streaming service that lets slip physical releases on the side.

But I am grateful for some of those that do!

domino harvey wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:47 pm Four releases, three with only one newly created in-house on disc extra and the fourth is an upgrade carrying over the previous extras. They are cost-cutting themselves to fast approaching irrelevancy

glad to have you on board the team. it's getting really bad truthfully - the amount of newly created extras just continues to dwindle. MOC's Pandora's Box may be an imperfect release, but they recorded a new commentary and have three video essays on there. Criterion can't even supply one new piece? I'm trying to be optimistic and not keep hammering this topic home, but with each passing month it gets more and more disappointing. whenever they upgrade an absolutely loaded edition like Fear and Loathing or The Last Emperor over, does it make them wonder why they aren't still bringing out editions of that level of depth (for two not-great films, mind you!) nowadays? even just seeing the larger booklets on the upgrades of older titles makes you wonder.

brundlefly wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 5:53 pm I too keep forgetting they are a streaming service that lets slip physical releases on the side.

But I am grateful for some of those that do!

genuinely what it can feel like sometimes. they promote the channel on their social media arguably more than the disc releases. and I do kinda get it - a lot of people I talk to in real life about movies tend to reference the channel more than they do buying discs. but on the flipside you clearly have a large, loyal disc buying community still. they sell out of releases at B&N and whatnot pretty regularly. I feel like they could throw on more "binge"-y scholarly stuff - Bordwell and Thompson's stuff on the channel did just fine for a lot - their Vagabond piece comes to mind as one I was thrilled Criterion stuck on the disc.

I will wrap this on a positive note - as I noted in another thread, I do appreciate Criterion's dedication to UHD. they have been trucking out so many of the new spine numbers on the format, and this has lead to a lot of longtime holdout titles like Werckmeister Harmonies, I Am Cuba, The Trial, Happiness, Gummo, The Roaring Twenties, the Lewtons, and more go straight from poor quality DVDs to 4K and looking rather stunning (for those released already, of course). it's a shame they hadn't made the 4K leap before The Magnificent Ambersons as that probably would've gotten a similar treatment. also appreciate older OOP return upgrades like The Long Good Friday and Peeping Tom going 4K too. shame Summertime didn't get that love, but I hope to see Grand Illusion get it at some point!

this current B&N sale, I talked myself into picking up quite a few more 4K upgrades than I expected (Apu Trilogy, Fear and Loathing, Peeping Tom, The Princess Bride, and may grab Dreams and La Haine) and I think part of it is fomat dedication, and the other being the relative quality of their 4K releases. so I hope they keep bringing out long awaited titles on this top format, while also bringing older titles too. Seven Samurai's announcement is one I look forward to in November*, and I dream of Criterion bringing the long awaited Petulia to 4K, as well as Winchester '73 and several others I'm sure I could list off. I just wish they'd create extras..

(*-though I must admit my extreme curiosity of what the BFI will probably do with the same title. I had no idea I would need a version of Ikiru from them, but I absolutely want to hear Adrian Martin talk about that film)

I wonder if this is all just a reflection of the changes in the physical media market itself. I don’t strictly mean that physical media’s market share of the entire home media market has shrunk, which it has, but that during the DVD era and even the very early Blu-ray era Criterion were catering to a different clientele with their physical releases than they are today. A/V enthusiasts seem to be the target demographic for physical releases these days rather than libraries and less tech-savvy “cultured arthouse crowd” types (I’d imagine much of this demographic has gravitated to the Channel). Occasionally, they’ll throw a bone to the old school clientele, such as the Pandora’s Box upgrade.

I think part of it is also how Criterion sees itself as a curator now. They’ve made it clear for awhile that they’re not interested in kitchen sink releases, but sees their role as preservationists, with a tightly focused set of thematically-related supplements that people are actually going to watch. (And if they already have a great set of supplements, they’re not interested in being redundant.)

And it’s a probably a better long-term survival strategy for a boutique label that likes to keep their titles in print as long as possible.

Now I love a packed SE. But if the tradeoff is something like, we’re gonna put our efforts into a 4k set of the Ranown westerns that will look as good as they ever will - well, it’s a good debate, a healthy debate, and I don’t think anyone is wrong for disagreeing. But I can get behind that strategy.

It was already been confirmed by MichaelB and James Steffen last year that Criterion pay their contributors much higher rates compared to the other labels. In fact, I recall Michael saying that the wages that the other labels paid would amount to being paid less than minimum wage when factoring in the time and effort it takes to produce said extras (though obviously no one here made a stink about that for very clear reasons and those reasons are why we see the same caustic comments being posted by the same users over and over again). It's not even like they dislike extras since they produce articles for their website, like this piece from Danz CM on the The Evolution of Synth Soundtracks or this article from Farran Smith Nehme talking about Yasuzo Masumura

It's more likely that they can't afford to pay contributors those fair wages while facing high production costs (which I'm assuming is still increasing) and having to keep everything in-print.

These are really excellent points.

I really do think that the “in print” factor is more important than people really understand. Unlike a lot of other boutique labels, Criterion sees itself as an ongoing concern, a living library. It tries to secure licenses for the long haul, that titles they release today (ideally) will be around 10 years from now, 15 years, more. It’s a vastly different business model than, you know, this film is at Kino for three years, oh wait, now it’s at Arrow, oh wait, it was a limited edition. It has to be a monumentally different expenditure.

this is a company with an office that overlooks Union Square in New York. the constant need to come to their defense every time incredibly valid points are made about them is laughable

if you'd like to do an expose on the British labels not paying their contributors enough, be my guest. but considering their constant returns, I can't imagine the work environment is that toxic or whatever is being attempted to be argued there

You do realize Criterion's overhead is considerably larger than any of the other companies, yes? You do understand that the company in recent years had to layoff a ton of staff, many of whom worked there for years, yes? You do understand that they were forced to sell the company too, yes? I mean, I get where you're coming from, we would all like Criterion to return to putting out stacked releases, the company itself would like to, but we'd also like for Criterion to continue to exist, correct? Yes, they made some mistakes, the streaming channel being one of them but, I can't imagine working at Criterion, doing everything possible to keep the company afloat, then logging on here to read the kind of obnoxious, rude, completely ignorant screeds bashing what you've dedicated your life to.

The need to always dismiss information that acknowledges different business plans and approaches is also laughable.

I'm so tired into everything turning into team battles. Criterion does wonderful stuff in their own way. So does Arrow. So does Kino. No one at any of these companies is thinking, "Gee golly, I wonder how we can disappoint people? Let's try this!"

Black Hat wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:37 pm You do realize Criterion's overhead is considerably larger than any of the other companies, yes? You do understand that the company in recent years had to layoff a ton of staff, many of whom worked there for years, yes? You do understand that they were forced to sell the company too, yes? I mean, I get where you're coming from, we would all like Criterion to return to putting out stacked releases, the company itself would like to, but we'd also like for Criterion to continue to exist, correct? Yes, they made some mistakes, the streaming channel being one of them but, I can't imagine working at Criterion, doing everything possible to keep the company afloat, then logging on here to read the kind of obnoxious, rude, completely ignorant screeds bashing what you've dedicated your life to.

Spare the moralizing about the perilous work life of Tamara’s decedents, this forum has always lobbed criticisms at this label and it’s becoming harder and harder to not continue to do so with these meager releases made concurrently while they squat on and withhold countless films that other labels could do justice to. If Criterion can no longer succeed at what they once did best, why should I mourn their demise?

And cool it on the “obnoxious, rude” etc rhetoric directed at members you disagree with

ryannichols7 wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:09 pm this is a company with an office that overlooks Union Square in New York. the constant need to come to their defense every time incredibly valid points are made about them is laughable

if you'd like to do an expose on the British labels not paying their contributors enough, be my guest. but considering their constant returns, I can't imagine the work environment is that toxic or whatever is being attempted to be argued there

There is a whole thread dedicated to the economics of bonus features, where MchaelB said he does commentaries because he likes doing them "but if I had enough commissions to fill full-time hours it wouldn't be economically sustainable, either in terms of supporting myself or in terms of contributing an agreed minimum income to household funds. But I do completely acknowledge the economics that labels are wrestling with." I suspect that is the case with all the people doing this work, they like doing it but the money isn't fair for the amount of work.

Dimitri: Precisely. This industry is fucked like it's never been fucked before and despite that fact a lot of incredibly clever people have worked really hard to keep doing it, while turning over enough of a profit to keep doing it. This forum is notorious for being home to the most ornery posters on the internet, at least film wise but it also, in it's own way, sets the tone for cinephile culture. I wish some members of our community would be more mindful of the responsibility that comes with the territory of being a member of this community.

DH: You and I are never going to see eye to eye on this and that's fine but, there should be room here to push back on your sentiments. People, to my eternal surprise, I've learned over the years actually read this forum and while I'd never advocate not trashing the label when they deserve to get knocked, I criticized their decision making in my own post. What I'm suggesting is to be mindful of our role. You're a teacher, right? Your job, in part, is to lead and you're such a knowledgeable, smart guy who in my view can be even more great. Lastly, give it a rest with the passive aggressive threats when you're faced with a bit of, I wouldn't even call it criticism, an accurate description of the forum's culture. We've had many, far more contentious battles over the years, frightening that we're closing in on 15 of them, for you to get bent out of shape over pointing out what's been said many times before. You know every time I chime in here I receive private messages from forum members saying it's nice that I'm back, wishing I would post more so, you know, not everyone here hates me as much as you do. Have a great rest of your summer, Chicago's great this time of year!

dwk wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:59 pm There is a whole thread dedicated to the economics of bonus features, where MchaelB said he does commentaries because he likes doing them "but if I had enough commissions to fill full-time hours it wouldn't be economically sustainable, either in terms of supporting myself or in terms of contributing an agreed minimum income to household funds. But I do completely acknowledge the economics that labels are wrestling with." I suspect that is the case with all the people doing this work, they like doing it but the money isn't fair for the amount of work.

It could also be that they don't want to lose any job that comes their way since I doubt there is a large market for film criticism work (though I could be wrong about that). It's probably the reason why we don't see as many new faces doing commentaries or visual essays, though I know Indicator and some other labels are trying to rectify that.

As for the rest of comment from the user you replied to that's aimed at me, I'm just going to ignore that since it's so laughably dumb and arrogant (what a shock) and it reads as if it comes from a 12 year-old redditor who's lashing out since they can't actually formulate a meaningful response to anything that I've said.

DimitriL wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:39 pm The need to always dismiss information that acknowledges different business plans and approaches is also laughable.

I'm so tired into everything turning into team battles. Criterion does wonderful stuff in their own way. So does Arrow. So does Kino. No one at any of these companies is thinking, "Gee golly, I wonder how we can disappoint people? Let's try this!"

Yep, you're correct that every label has its strengths and weaknesses and each one is trying hard to serve the people to the best of their abilities. No sane label that is trying to stay in business for a long time is going to try and disappoint people on purpose (which just sounds like a terrible conspiracy theory tbh).

Personally I liked a lot of their output this year and sure there’s work that needs to be done (partially why I hope this new ownership helps fund more packed releases) but I still respect that they still help preserve this films and help introduce them to audiences that might not have heard of them before. They’re not perfect but they’re still sticking true to their goal of properly presenting this films which is really what people should be focusing on imo. Anyways back to the quiet corner for me.

yoloswegmaster wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2024 5:37 pm As for the rest of comment from the user you replied to that's aimed at me, I'm just going to ignore that since it's so laughably dumb and arrogant (what a shock) and it reads as if it comes from a 12 year-old redditor who's lashing out since they can't actually formulate a meaningful response to anything that I've said.

Put them on your foe list so you don't have to read their comments anymore. Problem fixed.

I've been generally happy with the extras has been including on their newer releases. The quality has consistently been very excellent. There are instances when I'm scratching my head thinking, "why didn't they talk about this aspect of the film or historical context?". But overall I've still been fairly happy. I do prefer the curated approach versus including everything with duplication, as I have limited time.

I've been following Criterion releases for a long time. Many, many, many of the DVD releases had little to no extra features. Of course the releases with no extras aren't the major releases everyone buys and talks about. We still get many releases loaded with extras such as Mudbound or The Others. I wonder if we have selective memory about this, associating the copious extras of Seven Samurai, Videodrome, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, or Citizen Kane with the brand and what to expect of the label from every release. But historically, this has not even been the case.

This has probably been mentioned, but is it possible they're putting all resources into the 4K format which is known to be more expensive, since that will guarantee more returns as a business than, say, adding in a newly-commissioned commentary that'll be the selling point for far fewer eyes? It's a huge bummer, but I get it