'Forthcoming' Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol.2

[SSF]

Most of the stuff mentioned above already had good releases anyway. Although the Blus were welcome re-releases.

Maybe if you're region free, but for the rest of us only Wings of Desire had a decent R1 release.

Should Criterion really be only catering to the complaints of the region-free market? Does that make any business sense at all?

[Gregory]

Can you understand at all why some of us have feelings of urgency for good releases of many pre-1970s films where none are available, especially when it's looking less and less likely that they will be released? I feel like the clock is running out for most of this stuff, with the economy being what it is (the fundamental problems of which are not going away anytime soon) and the shift to Blu-Ray, which seems to place B&W academy-ratio films at an even greater disadvantage than before -- not to even mention silents. And of course Blu-Ray means massively more resources being devoted to releasing things that were already on DVD (not that I'm against this per se, but it does have a big downside).
Of course I'm happy they released the Buñuels and Human Condition, but let's look at the bigger picture.

[Wu.Qinghua]

Hi all ...

Just to test this forum for the first time ... As a newbie i can't really comment on this, though i'd say, that it would be nice seeing them publishing more "weird" things at least in the eclipse line ... i mean, naruse? well, but what about a 60s wakamatsu boxset ... or at least: united red army, which actually is a new movie, in the main line? that would be great, wouldnt it?

By the way, for those of you being able to read german - though there is a link to an english text - there's been an interesting short comment on the general tendency of all those publishers to concentrate on newer movies in a german blog today: http://dvdbiblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/ ... -classics/ (hope this works ...

[Cinetwist]

But it's not really a bunch of new stuff is it? These are films that already have good releases and that received recent theatrical runs after having been lauded on the festival circuit. These are not films that we wouldn't have seen if it were not for Criterion...

I don't really know how to respond to the latter half of your argument (I mean, why not Criterion? You folks who always bring up the mission statement do remember the part about contemporary films, right?). But in response to the first part, you have to remember that most of Criterion's customers are not multi-region-capable. A good number of the people on this forum are not multi-region-capable. This argument comes up a lot (especially in the context of shared MoC and Criterion titles), but I think it's a specious argument. If Criterion (or MoC or whoever) didn't make money releasing DVDs "that already have good releases," then they wouldn't do it, right? Clearly somebody is buying these DVDs, even if it isn't you.

Why was it good news for you when Eureka announced that they were releasing Bad Boy Bubby in the UK when it was already coming out on Blue Underground in the US? Shouldn't you have been railing against Eureka for releasing something that already existed?

Bad Boy Bubby came out on the same day through both labels. Neither released it first. Gomorrah already had a US release. And A Christmas Tale would have got picked up for distribution.

[Flike]

I mean, why not Criterion?

Agreed. Really surprised to see the backlash as this month's contemporary releases are the type they should be releasing. I've been pretty down on the line this year, and I was disappointed that none of the promised 2009 releases we thought were coming were announced and I would have liked to seen an older picture, but damn. A Christmas Tale and Gomorrah were both on the Sight & Sound shortlist last year. Gomorrah, in my opinion, is one of the best films of the decade. Not what I wanted released, but comparing this month to other months with Monsoon Wedding, Benjamin Button, Koko, etc. is just silly.

[Tribe]

I mean, why not Criterion?

Agreed. Really surprised to see the backlash as this month's contemporary releases are the type they should be releasing. I've been pretty down on the line this year, and I was disappointed that none of the promised 2009 releases we thought were coming were announced and I would have liked to seen an older picture, but damn. A Christmas Tale and Gomorrah were both on the Sight & Sound shortlist last year. Gomorrah, in my opinion, is one of the best films of the decade. Not what I wanted released, but comparing this month to other months with Monsoon Wedding, Benjamin Button, Koko, etc. is just silly.

The "backlash," if we're gonna call it that, in this forum has been getting louder and more over the top for a few years now, but this year the crowd has often gotten as illogical as a group of birthers at an Obama-care town hall meeting. While a lot of folks tend to present some logic behind their arguments regarding their dislike for a particular release, there's an increasingly boisterous element that tends to rail against anything for any reason, no matter how absurd...as in the most recent argument this month that a Criterion release is redundant because something was released in Europe.

[Cinetwist]

Yes, God forbid you buy a multi-region dvd player for $30. Or use AVC for free.

But that is not the point. Am I mistaken, that Gomorra already had a US release? And that A Christmas Tale had a theatrical release? And that even if they had not, the European releases could be picked up for cheaper (and with the same extras) than the price of what the Criterions will eventually cost.

Maybe I am, as I am drunk. But your last remark 'that a Criterion release is redundant because something was released in Europe.' sounds hideously jingoistic.

[cdnchris]

I guess I shouldn't be shocked about the negative reaction to the titles being released but I am. I've always had little interest in the Redford one despite liking The Candidate but the other titles actually have me looking forward to a month. I haven't seen Gomorrah or Christmas Tale yet but considering the critical response to both (and the opinions of many members on this board) they both seem in line with what they would usually release and are not like Monsoon Wedding, Ride With the Devil (ugh) and Benjamin Button (which they technically didn't even do.) Did you guys almost slit your wrists in the later days of their laserdisc catalogue?

I still don't get the bitching about this year in all honesty. I think you guys are still in shock over Benjamin Button.

[cdnchris]

Yes, God forbid you buy a multi-region dvd player for $30. Or use AVC for free.

...

Maybe I am, as I am drunk...

Did you just pull the "I'm drunk on the internet" excuse?

Most people here don't have a problem getting a multi-region player but we're (the forum) not their only market. Criterion's an American company selling to a North American market, a majority of whom do not have multi region capabilities. What don't you understand?

[StevenJ0001]

there's an increasingly boisterous element that tends to rail against anything for any reason, no matter how absurd...

Unfortunately that tendency (or epidemic) is not unique to this forum; it's now the M.O. of masses of hotheaded internet users, overly comfortable in their anonymity, who snipe and gripe and whine about anything and everything, whether from a knowledgable persepective or not.

[Matt]

Bad Boy Bubby came out on the same day through both labels. Neither released it first.

Ah, I see. It's all about timing. If one had released it before the other, then it would have been a problem. What's the time limit on this, a week? A month? You know it when you see it?

Gomorrah already had a US release.

Are you referring to this? That's the Canadian release.

And A Christmas Tale would have got picked up for distribution.

By whom? MPI, with whom we would have been lucky if they merely tacked on the trailer? The Weinstein Company, who have let most of the other Desplechin films they own languish out of print?

But that is not the point. Am I mistaken... that A Christmas Tale had a theatrical release?

Yes, why, in this country of 304 million people and 40,000 movie theaters, did everyone not take the time to see this film on one of the 52 screens it played for one week in December? Sir, if you're going to play this card, then shouldn't you decry every DVD release since nearly everything on DVD has already had a good release--on 35mm film? How much further are you willing to spin this silly, tenuous argument?

[Derek Estes]

I'm beyond excited about the November schedule. All of the announcements were a surprise. And though I'd love to see a few older films introduced or reissued into the collection (Shock Corridor & Naked Kiss), I'm thrilled that Criterion is finally able to mix in some newer titles. An area that for years the collection has been lacking. The Collection could easily turn out a never ending flood of pre-1960 classics, but that would surely marginalize their market even more. I for one have been very pleased with the level of variety this years releases have had. I feel there have been the steady flow of art house classics and plenty of pleasant surprises.

Though I guess some people need to bitch regardless.

[Doctor Sunshine]

Gomorrah already had a US release.

Are you referring to this? That's the Canadian release.

Also, they have the same MSRP, with no listed extras on the Canadian release.

Can you understand at all why some of us have feelings of urgency for good releases of many pre-1970s films where none are available, especially when it's looking less and less likely that they will be released? I feel like the clock is running out for most of this stuff, with the economy being what it is (the fundamental problems of which are not going away anytime soon) and the shift to Blu-Ray, which seems to place B&W academy-ratio films at an even greater disadvantage than before -- not to even mention silents. And of course Blu-Ray means massively more resources being devoted to releasing things that were already on DVD (not that I'm against this per se, but it does have a big downside).
Of course I'm happy they released the Buñuels and Human Condition, but let's look at the bigger picture.

That's a good point overall, especially with Wu.Qinghua's link (though I would have linked directly to the Maclean's article rather than the German blog), but I don't think Criterion are in any danger of forgetting their roots. To apply the GringoTex formula, the average year of release for November is 1966, versus the 1976 of January to October.

I agree with Matt about the pool party. Criterion does its part to keep the relationship interesting and they're met with drunk ramblings. Sometimes I don't know what they saw in us in the first place. We'll make it up to you, Baby! I promise!

[Gregory]

Despite my concerns above, I do feel fortunate that financial hardship has not yet forced Criterion to slow down its release schedule. I recall the year they released several Neame films, Man Bites Dog, etc. and I think a large part of the discontentment on the forum over all that was because this was part of a relative trickle of titles. We're much better off now, getting significantly more films in the main line, and Eclipse besides. The complaints that they haven't met the stated goal of one Eclipse set per month are not something I've agreed with. We're fortunate to have as many sets as we've had, I think.

[GringoTex]

The "backlash," if we're gonna call it that, in this forum has been getting louder and more over the top for a few years now, but this year the crowd has often gotten as illogical as a group of birthers at an Obama-care town hall meeting. While a lot of folks tend to present some logic behind their arguments regarding their dislike for a particular release, there's an increasingly boisterous element that tends to rail against anything for any reason, no matter how absurd...as in the most recent argument this month that a Criterion release is redundant because something was released in Europe.

The two contemporary releases would have been released by other companies had not Criterion outbid them. We don't love Criterion and name a forum after them because they do this. For you to compare this to birthers is idiocy. We love Criterion because they do what others won't. To the degree they get away from that, we're going to protest.

[justeleblanc]

Anything think there's a chance Criterion might release Let it Be on DVD, with a shitload of bonus footage from their Get Back / Let it Be recording sessions?

[MoonlitKnight]

Anything think there's a chance Criterion might release Let it Be on DVD, with a shitload of bonus footage from their Get Back / Let it Be recording sessions?

I've been DYING for "Let It Be" to be released on DVD (it's the only one of the 5 Beatles movies that still hasn't)...but I'm sure Apple Corps. is going to want to do it themselves. But the question is, when????

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

In the 33 1/3 book on "Let It Be" (published August 2004), they mention that a new print was just created and getting ready for a DVD release that Christmas. Apparently, George Harrison tried to suppress the release as much as possible for years and that they were finally able to put it out on DVD.

Apple tends to release their things toward the end of the year and with the new remasters and Rock Band, I see on release for "Let It Be" anytime soon. Hopefully we get it next year with a Blu-Ray version with uncompressed audio.

[knives]

When Greed comes out.

[Cinetwist]

The "backlash," if we're gonna call it that, in this forum has been getting louder and more over the top for a few years now, but this year the crowd has often gotten as illogical as a group of birthers at an Obama-care town hall meeting. While a lot of folks tend to present some logic behind their arguments regarding their dislike for a particular release, there's an increasingly boisterous element that tends to rail against anything for any reason, no matter how absurd...as in the most recent argument this month that a Criterion release is redundant because something was released in Europe.

The two contemporary releases would have been released by other companies had not Criterion outbid them. We don't love Criterion and name a forum after them because they do this. For you to compare this to birthers is idiocy. We love Criterion because they do what others won't. To the degree they get away from that, we're going to protest.

Exactly. This is all I was saying.

These films would not have gone undistributed (in the US) if it were not for Criterion. And because they are new films, it's not like Criterion will even be able to give them significantly superior transfers.

[Doctor Sunshine]

The two contemporary releases would have been released by other companies had not Criterion outbid them. We don't love Criterion and name a forum after them because they do this. For you to compare this to birthers is idiocy. We love Criterion because they do what others won't. To the degree they get away from that, we're going to protest.

I think Tribe was merely engaging in a bit of hyperbole. There's no need to impugn anyone's facilities here.

With Warner's “most of the studios have pretty much said ‘Screw it, we’re out of here, we’re not going to do this.’ ” quote from the Maclean's article it's clear classic films aren't doing so well at the moment. Two films from 2008 in one month does stand out but it's not a lot really. And it could be much worse. So they up the recent and English language quotient for the next while but they also gain access to major stuff that the majors are screwing off on. A Che-Stage Coach era. And of course they're not going to forget all the guys in their mission statement. I understand where the protest is coming from, and that's probably good to keep them honest, but I think what they're doing is understandable, not that bad, really, and most of all temporary.

[Tommaso]

These films would not have gone undistributed (in the US) if it were not for Criterion. And because they are new films, it's not like Criterion will even be able to give them significantly superior transfers.

This is one of the most significant observations made in this discussion, I think. There's only so much money CC can invest in securing the dvd rights for films, and if we're talking about the mission statement: it not only says "classic and contemporary films" but also "important" films. Now, how do you judge the importance of a contemporary film, if importance is a construct that is normally based on some years or decades of critical and audience reception? There's little doubt that "Vampyr" or "L'Eclisse" can be seen as important films, as there is a whole tradition of discussion and influence concerning them. This is obviously not possible with "Button" or "Gomorrah"; we simply don't know yet how these films will be regarded in ten years or so, but they didn't cause a scandal or were highlighted by critics as particularly inventive or 'out of the normal' in a more general sense. The question then is: can an entry in the collection be justified any other way? I'd say yes, and one of the ways - apart from the assumption that a particular film makes money - for me would be something like 'originality', a quite distinct style on the part of the director. That's why I'm always clamouring for Rivette and Greenaway, for instance, although as far as 'acceptance' or 'importance' are concerned, these are not the best examples because - like them or not - they are sure to have a quite prominent part in film history already. The same goes for von Trier, for example, if "Antichrist" is a possibility, though I haven't even seen that particular film yet. I would be the first to congratulate them if they blind-bought Malick's "Tree of Life", too.

I'm not at all against the inclusion of newer films in the collection, MoC are doing it with their release schedule as well. But as I said before: it's a question of balancing the release schedule between important and unavailable old films (say, before 1960) and trying out something new. And that balance is off with CC at the moment, and please don't bring up the Eclipse line here. While I'm more than happy with Shimizu and Makavejev being released at all, these are precisely the films that would need the sort of contextualizing that CC and MoC are so good at, and which makes these labels so different from most other dvd companies worldwide.

but I think what they're doing is understandable, not that bad, really, and most of all temporary.

That's what I'm not so sure about, either (the temporary thing). And I wonder whether the sales of a relatively recent film (unless they accidentily hit on an instant classic) will not also be temporary. I'd assume that any Renoir, Oshima or Antonioni would go on selling for many years, even if in smaller quantities than "Button" will sell in its first few months. But "Button" may be completely without interest in three or four years.

[jwomaha]

I haven't posted here before, but I read the forums everyday. My complaint against Criterion is that they aren't releasing every new spine number/title on blu-ray as well as on standard dvd. If am particularly miffed that the upcoming "A Christmas Tale," which by the way was perhaps the best reviewed film of 2008 by many notable film critics (see the Cinema-scope chart in the winter 2009 issue), is not getting a blu-ray release; there's no excuse for that. Likewise, I would've bought "Z" and the two recent Godard reissues had they been released on blu, but now will skip them. This Xmas we will probably see a huge surge in blu-ray player/disc sales; yet Criterion doesn't seem to have a logical approach to how they'll support the format - Imagine "Che" or the upcoming Rosselini War Trilogy not coming out on blu-ray - it could happen. Likewise, why did Criterion bother to create a new HD transfer for "The Last Days of Disco," only to not release it simultaniously on blu-ray? If nothing else, why can't Criterion be like Disney and let buyers buy a double disc set that has both the blu-ray and the standard dvd? Wouldn't that please everyone?

[domino harvey]

If nothing else, why can't Criterion be like Disney and let buyers buy a double disc set that has both the blu-ray and the standard dvd? Wouldn't that please everyone?

I agree that this makes the most sense, but brother, no one else thinks so

[eerik]

If nothing else, why can't Criterion be like Disney and let buyers buy a double disc set that has both the blu-ray and the standard dvd? Wouldn't that please everyone?

Now that is a very bad example. What Disney does is they force Blu-ray buyer also buy the DVD (and Digital Copy) and they add 5 or 10 dollars to the price. Look at the MSRP prices of their upcoming Blu-ray releases:
Aventureland - $44.99
Monsters, Inc. - $40.99
Up - $45.99