Criterion Blu-ray

[swo17]

Is taking a few pages out of the booklets really taking that much of a chunk out of the amount of paper used for elaborate fold-out digipaks with thick companion books and protective sleeves? (Not that I'm complaining--I think they're beautiful.)

I want something I can read on the can, dammit!

[domino harvey]

I automatically value something more if it's actually printed rather than available online and I doubt I'm alone

[ellipsis7]

A decode? - Blu Ray buyers can't/don't read because they're too important, ponsy etc. - whereas average guys and gals do/did appreciate the books/booklets on the SDDVD releases ... Maybe not as simple as that - the rerelease of SHORT CUTS minus the book of original stories previously included perhaps portends the new policy... Treasure that VAMPYR book - it's the last one. apparently... Everytthing's going Eclipse!...

[domino harvey]

This explains Criterion's new slogan: "We don't want readers"

[fdm]

I won't miss the novels...

[Darth Lavender]

I've said before, and I'll say again. I'm fine with no books (although I do have an especial fondness for my "Vampyr" set. Probably the single most beautiful package in my collection.

What I am definitely NOT fine with is the loss of those extras entirely.
Wether it's PDF or even web-accessible content, both are fine with me. (Actually, I do most of my reading online, anyway (HTPC, so it's set up to be as comfy as possible. I can even read pdfs in bed if I want (much the same way I watch movies in bed.) And I'm reluctant to just take a Criterion book anywere for fear of damaging it.

But, darn, it "The Man Who Fell to Earth" just won't be complete without the novel. And specifically removing a single essay from each blu-ray release sounds almost malicious.

I'm impressed & grateful as all heck about Criteron's blu-ray pricing policy, and that's the only reason I still plan on buying 4 of their 5 first blu-rays (maybe all five, if I can find a place to rent 'Bottle Rocket' first)

(Underlining added to emphasis that Criterion, despite my complaints, are still taking an excellent & consumer-friendly approach to blu-ray)

Although, having said all that, the email you received does bode very well for some last minute changes. I really don't see, after all that talk about just wanting save on printing & help the environment, Criterion can still refuse to include PDFs or web-links for the essays & Man Who Fell to Earth novel.

An interesting thought occurred to me, also, I was reading up on Criterion's "Bicycle Thieves" the other day, and it seems the 80 page novel is basically "the" big draw, extras wise. Creates interesting issues for a possible Blu-Ray release. (And that actually seemed like a good contender, too.)

[hammock]

If I want to read something I buy a book. If I want to watch a movie I buy a DVD. Including books with DVD's is not a good idea if you ask me. I guess there are many like me who have never read any of the included books and wished for more DVD space instead. Including the book material on the DVD in digital format seems like a fair solution for everyone.

[kaujot]

If I want to read something I buy a book. If I want to watch a movie I buy a DVD. Including books with DVD's is not a good idea if you ask me. I guess there are many like me who have never read any of the included books and wished for more DVD space instead. Including the book material on the DVD in digital format seems like a fair solution for everyone.

What else would you add to The Man Who Fell to Earth?

[domino harvey]

I think he meant shelf space, not space on the DVD. I would however like to reiterate that anyone rallying against more extras such as a thicker booklet or a reprint of a novel in favor of fewer bonus materials is. Just. Wrong.

[Darth Lavender]

If I want to read something I buy a book. If I want to watch a movie I buy a DVD. Including books with DVD's is not a good idea if you ask me. I guess there are many like me who have never read any of the included books and wished for more DVD space instead. Including the book material on the DVD in digital format seems like a fair solution for everyone.

Absolutely. IF Criterion does precisely that.
Difficult to say at the moment. The specs are all indicating that "The Man Who Fell to Earth" won't have the book in any format (and the other Blu-Ray's will all miss at least one essay)

But, now we have this interesting email from Mulvaney which has me a lot more optimistic that either those specs are wrong, or they'll be changing in the next few weeks.

My only real issue with actual books, is that the Criterion packages are supposed to look nice, and I don't want to get my "Mr Arkadin" spine all messed by actually reading the thing.
That's one of the numerous things that makes Vampyr's pretty screenplay so wonderful. It's not the type of thing one actually reads, it more suited for just an occasional browse (with the large print, etc.) and as such, it's a wonderful addition (but I'm fine with Criterion saving on paper costs, and I'm damned supportive of Criterion looking out for the environment. So, if 'Vampyr' has to be their last package of that kind, then so be it. At least they went out with a bang.

But just to add, yet again, I am positively, positively NOT fine with missing out on these extras all together. (And sincerely hope that Criterion's final decisions on the Blu-Ray prove to be consistant with Mr. Mulvaney's comments )

[fdm]

I think he meant shelf space, not space on the DVD. I would however like to reiterate that anyone rallying against more extras such as a thicker booklet or a reprint of a novel in favor of fewer bonus materials is. Just. Wrong.

I agree, except for the novel part.

Recently went through many of my books, and among them is a copy of The Man Who Fell To Earth that I probably got and read after seeing the film when it first came out.

If I want a book I'll go out and buy it. Or go to the library or whatever. (Although don't have much time for that kind of thing what with my internet time, movie time, work time (and commute time), running around time, figuring out how am I ever going to keep my job and/or retire time, etc., so it's rare that I do that much any more.)

Love visual bonus materials, have little/no time for audio commentaries (unless something really goes over my head and I am motivated enough to pursue it), love most of the other printed supplements. (Don't have days/weeks to spend on novels any more -- perhaps I should do something about that -- an article or two's worth of time is about all the luxury I have any more.)

Don't need no stinking novels. Get rid of them I say. (Also don't have any more shelf space (and I've got a lot!), so, all the more reason...)

[Darth Lavender]

Just out of curiosity, what do the people really rallying against Criterion's novels, etc. think of "Masters of Cinema"?

[domino harvey]

I would wager that since their booklets fit in the same sized case as non-booklet releases, they don't care

[Gregory]

Presenting this decision as an act of conscience seems to me like a weird thing for them to do. Nearly all of the most environmentally conscious publishers have continued to publish their books, newsletters etc. on paper in the digital age in spite of the resources consumed. They do this because they believe it's to the greater good to get their publications out there as much as possible. Online publishing is a fine supplement, but I personally don't think it will ever replace print.
There are also numerous options for the conscientious publisher. For example, one imprint that I worked with closely when I did book distribution recently published a title on 100% post-consumer waste, acid- and chlorine-free paper, and they included an "environmental impact statement" on the copyright page. Using a site called PaperCalculator.org the publisher found that using this paper for the relatively tiny print run of this particular book saved 32 full-grown trees, 11,682 gallons of water, 22 million BTUs of energy, 1500 lb. solid waste, and 2814 lb. carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases. A lot of people who recycle paper aren't really aware of the importance of completing the cycle by buying recycled paper products with high post-consumer content.
I'd rather see Criterion reduce their office paper (and energy) consumption, and eliminate the catalogs and postcards (which I know are nice) if it would mean being able to put more good essays into print. I don't think they always need to include the source novel or even a large booklet, but at their best these booklets are one of the things that make Criterion releases
special.

[fdm]

Presenting this decision as an act of conscience seems to me like a weird thing for them to do.

Curious as to where they did this... I missed that they've made some kind of formal decision. Are they getting rid of booklets too? [I like the booklets.]

[ellipsis7]

Environmental logic would point to losing the t-shirts too - lots and lots of water used in their production... But the main point is that encouraging people to buy Blu-Ray versions of what they already own on SDDVD is actually doubling the environmental footprint unnecesarily, and would be a far bigger issue than losing the books and booklets second time round, if you get me!...

[Gregory]

Curious as to where they did this...

In the Mulvaney email in Matt's post above, they said "For a combination of reasons, some economical, some environmental, we're trying to use a little less paper going forward." and, in Wilford Brimlian fashion, "We think it's the right thing to do."
I applaud these sentiments, but they're a little weird to me just because when a publisher publishes something it's usually implicit that they think it's well worth the use of paper. I'm both a staunch environmentalist and a lover of the print medium, and I think most publishers don't do as well as they could in choosing the most environmentally friendly paper even if it means a higher cost. But I really don't know exactly what type of paper Criterion uses or how much of their printed matter they indeed intend to eliminate.

[fdm]

Ah, I see. Too bad they're not considering scrapping their "beautifully designed packages" instead (or even as well). Talk about waste...

[psufootball07]

So just looking at the November releases on Amazon, and I was thoroughly disappointed to see the Blu Rays are priced cheaper than the SD. This pissed me off, the people buying Blu-Ray Criterions should pay more than the SD purchasers, or lower the prices on the SD.

[swo17]

Um, no. Multi-tiered pricing of consumer products does not depend on perceived notions of fairness, but on what the seller wants to achieve. Obviously Amazon would rather you buy BD than SD. They are trying to push the technology. If you go along with their strategy, then you see the discount. If you wish to protest, you may do so by not giving them your money, and looking elsewhere for a retailer that has not taken this same pricing strategy. So you see, the free market works! (Except, of course, on Wall Street. 8-[ )

[brendanjc]

So just looking at the November releases on Amazon, and I was thoroughly disappointed to see the Blu Rays are priced cheaper than the SD. This pissed me off, the people buying Blu-Ray Criterions should pay more than the SD purchasers, or lower the prices on the SD.

Amazon has a flat 30% discount on all blu-rays. Since the MSRP is the same for both versions, and Amazon doesn't put much of a discount on regular Criterion discs, it just happens to work out nicely for people buying blu. I don't think this is anything to be angry about - the SD versions are the same price as any other Criterion disc. Why does it matter how much someone else is paying for something different than what you want?

[Antoine Doinel]

So just looking at the November releases on Amazon, and I was thoroughly disappointed to see the Blu Rays are priced cheaper than the SD. This pissed me off, the people buying Blu-Ray Criterions should pay more than the SD purchasers, or lower the prices on the SD.

Generally, it's a considered a good (and rare) thing when newer media is cheaper than the current standard.

[psufootball07]

It would be nice if they set it up to where the SD would be priced at the lower tier or half way there and price the Blu Ray at the higher tier for the films that are being released in both formats. I have yet to make a transition even though I own a 45 inch HD Samsung because in part I am unsure if Blu-Ray even has the staying power and it itself wont be replaced in the next 5 years. Who knows.

[Antoine Doinel]

Obviously, the lower BR prices are, the better the chances it has of sticking around. Criterion is already a niche player, and it would plain stupid of them to price the BR discs higher than the SD. Then they might as well not release them at all.

[swo17]

It would be nice if they set it up to where the SD would be priced at the lower tier or half way there and price the Blu Ray at the higher tier for the films that are being released in both formats.

Again, it has nothing to do with what would be "nice" for particular customers. The Blu-rays are on sale because that's what Amazon wants you to buy. It's in their interest to push the new media and get people to change over so they will repurchase titles they already own in the new format.

Is it "fair" when a theater charges a fraction of the price for someone to see the same movie as everyone else in a much less crowded auditorium during the matinee hours? It doesn't matter what's fair. The theaters want to entice people to come at these less busy hours (which are less busy because many people are unavailable at these times). There's a similar principle at work here.

The way you can voice your opinion that "this isn't fair," if you are so inclined, is to go on over to DVD Planet and pay the same low price for SD or BD.