Criterion Blu-ray

[Flike]

Wait, how is Criterion "a little behind the times"? Compared to who? I don't know of any other label that has such a broad slice of the canon on BD. I know the BFI doesn't, though they're allowed to be more experimental with their releases as they operate under a completely different business model, in a unique market that has also allowed for such things as the continued existence of high-end, niche enthusiast press.

I don't know why anyone would realistically expect a War Trilogy BD within the next five years considering Peter Becker has said that they have most likely restored, and will release, the DVDs at a loss.

[perkizitore]

Wait, how is Criterion "a little behind the times"? Compared to who? I don't know of any other label that has such a broad slice of the canon on BD. I know the BFI doesn't, though they're allowed to be more experimental with their releases as they operate under a completely different business model, in a unique market that has also allowed for such things as the continued existence of high-end, niche enthusiast press.

I don't know why anyone would realistically expect a War Trilogy BD within the next five years considering Peter Becker has said that they have most likely restored, and will release, the DVDs at a loss.

There is no company in the arthouse world that can release blu-ray trilogies at the moment.

[Tribe]

I can't believe people that love film are this resistant to seeing film in the clearest, cleanest, and most presentable way available. Not resistant per se..... but outright antagonistic. It's really unnerving.

Aox, I haven't made the switch (and I don't intend to any time soon), nothing against the format at all...I'm just being lazy and uninterested. For the time being, the movies all look pretty damn good to me...real good, in fact.

[Tribe]

and the whole pictureboxing thing was a bad joke from the day they arbitrarily decided to start doing that.

It wasn't arbitrary...they thought they had good reasons for doing it. The fact their reasoning was faulty doesn't make it arbitrary.

[Ben Cheshire]

I haven't made the switch (and I don't intend to any time soon)... For the time being, the movies all look pretty damn good to me...real good, in fact.

It was like the first time I put on glasses. I had no idea I was watching blurry trees.

[ShellOilJunior]

how about the girl I am really into that is better than the girl was into? Should we talk in terms of Antonioni or Lean here?

I guess metaphors need a Blu-ray release before you get them?

no, just quality... or at the very least, principle.

aox, I admire your love for blu-ray. Every since switching completely to Blu-ray in Fall of 2008 I haven't purchased a DVD.

I don't think one can fully appreciate how great blu-ray is if they haven't seen it. Screen captures don't show the whole story. Also, I'm not saying those who are upset by aox, myself and others calling for BR releases have NOT seen a film a blu-ray.

I'm just encouraging the DVD stalwarts--- if at all possible-- view some of these films on blu-ray:

-The Searchers
-Pierrot Le Fou
-Last Year at Marienbad
-The Seventh Seal
-Casablanca
-Dr. Strangelove

These are quite a treat on Blu-ray and offer different experiences then the DVD versions offer.

Moreover, Blu-ray's market share will only increase. I read a story a week ago or so which showed how at this point in BR's life cycle it's ahead of where DVD was in terms of penetration.

I think most of us can agree that we'd like to see our favorite films in the best presentation possible. Outside of theatres and cinematheques Blu-ray currently offers this--- so why resist?

[GringoTex]

I think most of us can agree that we'd like to see our favorite films in the best presentation possible. Outside of theatres and cinematheques Blu-ray currently offers this--- so why resist?

Who's resisting Blu Ray? The only resistance I see is people refusing to buy sd dvds on principle. Criterion has made it very clear they won't be releasing the War Trilogy on Blu Ray. So if you want the trilogy in your collection, and you're refusing to buy it because it's not BR- that smacks of fetishism.

[aox]

aox, I believe you like the film Stalker, yes? Say hypothetically that Criterion were to put this out in a lavish set (including the miraculously recovered original version) but that, given the cost of doing this, they were only able to offer the set in SD. Are you seriously telling us that you would not buy this, but would instead wait for some magical Blu-ray release date that might not ever even happen?

That would be a really hard call for me, even without the recovered 'fuzzy' (нечеткий) cut. I won't deny you that or lie. I would have hope that if Criterion got the rights, this would also come to Blu. But for the sake of argument, I concede that this would present an issue for me.

I mean, I'm all for having everything presented in the best possible way, but, as I believe you've had success with in the past, if/when these films do eventually get upgraded to Blu-ray, you can often sell the SD version for as much or even more than the cost of a Blu-ray. So why deprive yourself of a great quality DVD of a film that you love for who knows how many years, just because it could look maybe 10% better on Blu-ray?

You have a good point about 'selling' the SD's. I have broke completely even on selling (trading) my SD's on the Amazon Marketplace, and then buying the exact same Blu's (Play Time, 400 Blows, Third Man, Wages of Fear, etc...).

But, I do take issue with the 10% reductionist assessment; I would honestly place it closer to 40%.

I think my general point is that if people would make the switch (which costs essentially nothing at this point), Blu releases would not be 'years away'...or, they would at least be closer, or in the pipeline.

Well, despite the 'tude, I'm sort of with aox. I don't buy many titles these days; mostly I rent, which is exactly what I'll most likely do with the War Trilogy. Were it on Blu-ray, however, I would most likely pick it up.

This has nothing to do with my respect for Criterion. I understand getting titles out on Blu-ray is time-consuming and expensive and that they have to weigh all kinds of things when making decisions about it. It's just that on the other end of the producer-consumer relationship I'm making a similar decision about priorities, and I don't see myself taking up valuable shelf space for the standard DVDs when I can rent them and re-rent them. For context, I've gotten rid of all but a couple dozen titles, and I'd like to keep it around that number.

This isn't so much a rule as just a factor in my decision-making. I picked up the Painlevé set because those films are particularly well-suited to pulling out and watching casually, as opposed to knowing ahead of time that I'll want to watch them. Top-notch children's films I'm more inclined to pick up on DVD as I'm more inclined to bring those with me when I go to people's houses.

Thank you for your sage diplomacy and your calm use of words. I apologize for being somewhat antagonistic (Read: 'excited' about the prospects of the next step in home viewing). This is nothing against Criterion; they are doing the best they can. It's the revolutionary in me that just wants to push the populace forward. Especially since every member here is unquestionably as in love with film as I am, and more. Society can move slow sometimes.

Listen, Blu (HD) is inevitable. Of course I am resisting DVD. I will continue to rent and view DVDs just as I still continue to watch films on VHS that have still not made the switchover. But purchasing is different. I do this fully acknowledging that the Facets catalog won't be making the switchover anytime soon.

[Jeff]

Every since switching completely to Blu-ray in Fall of 2008 I haven't purchased a DVD.

You've missed out on several great releases.

I'm just encouraging the DVD stalwarts--- if at all possible-- view some of these films on blu-ray:

-The Searchers
-Pierrot Le Fou
-Last Year at Marienbad
-The Seventh Seal
-Casablanca
-Dr. Strangelove

I have, and enjoy, the Blu-rays of each and every one of those films. I've bought an average of ten Blu-ray discs a month since I bought a player. They look great, but that didn't keep me from buying the great SD releases of Wagon Master, Husbands, My Dinner With Andre, Homicide, and dozens of others that won't be going Blu any time soon.

Blu-ray's market share will only increase. I read a story a week ago or so which showed how at this point in BR's life cycle it's ahead of where DVD was in terms of penetration.

That's wonderful. It's doing remarkably well for a format that will currently only work on 53% of American televisions. I hope that Blu-ray takes over the SD market and everything is available in Blu as soon as possible. But I also realize that such a thing occurring is a long way off and may never happen. Laserdisc owners had a product that was vastly superior to VHS, and it remained a competing niche market for 20 years.

The problem is, that even if every American goes to buy an HDTV and a Blu-ray player today, the discs will still be enormously expensive to master and replicate, and profit margins will be much smaller than they are with SD. That will improve over time, but it's a ways off. Unless a company feels they can sell a title in substantial volume, they're not going to bother, and I don't blame them.

I don't think anyone is trying to do away with Blu-ray releases or is resisting them in any way. I certainly don't want Blu-ray going anywhere. We're just being realistic and pragmatic. I don't have any problem with aox or his love of Blu-ray, I just find his constant declarations of (and I'm paraphrasing here), "aw come on man, it's the 21st century, why is anybody still making DVDs? That's crazy! Blu-ray is the best and people should only manufacture and purchase the best, financial realities be damned" to be a little hyperbolic and silly.

[Ben Cheshire]

I think a great feature of Blu Ray players is backwards compatability, and not only that, but retrograde improvement; so DVDs actually look better when played on thi new technology. Remember the VHS to DVD changeover? It was brutal. Extinction.

[Tribe]

I haven't made the switch (and I don't intend to any time soon)... For the time being, the movies all look pretty damn good to me...real good, in fact.

It was like the first time I put on glasses. I had no idea I was watching blurry trees.

I have seen some (admittedly few) discs on Blu Ray. While there is indeed a difference in the quality of the picture (for the better, of course), I didn't find the difference to be as dramatic as corrected/uncorrected vision. I'm not knocking the medium at all...eventually I will buy the equipment (especially if they remain capable of playing non-Blu Ray DVDs and more so, as you note later, if the technology does improve the quality of a regular DVD), I just see no pressing need for myself to do so at the moment. I also have well over a 1000 titles in my collection, so I'm hardly a casual movie viewer...I just find that in my current set-up, my movies look very, very good to me.

[aox]

Good post, Jeff. I just have one nitpick.

You've missed out on several great releases.

This^, for me, leads to this:

I just find his constant declarations of (and I'm paraphrasing here), "aw come on man, it's the 21st century, why is anybody still making DVDs? That's crazy! Blu-ray is the best and people should only manufacture and purchase the best, financial realities be damned" to be a little hyperbolic and silly.

It's actually more annoying when people suggest this. I doubt that ShellOilJunior has 'missed' out on any new releases. I am sure he has 'settled' and seen many great films making their first run on DVD this year. The problem, which leads to your simplification of my argument, is that people on this board are generally conflating 'buying' and 'renting' (or even viewing) which leads to my admittedly militant reaction. That's my main qualm. No one is missing anything. No one is superficial enough to oppose viewing the Rossellini films simply because they aren't Blu (and if they are, they have other issues, and 99% of us aren't psych. doctors). I know I am bumping them to the top of my queue. It's buying them that is a problem.

[denti alligator]

Wait, how is Criterion "a little behind the times"? Compared to who? I don't know of any other label that has such a broad slice of the canon on BD. I know the BFI doesn't, though they're allowed to be more experimental with their releases as they operate under a completely different business model, in a unique market that has also allowed for such things as the continued existence of high-end, niche enthusiast press.

I don't know why anyone would realistically expect a War Trilogy BD within the next five years considering Peter Becker has said that they have most likely restored, and will release, the DVDs at a loss.

There is no company in the arthouse world that can release blu-ray trilogies at the moment.

BFI released Pasolini's Trilogy of Life on Blu-ray, and not even together (at a cheaper price), but as separate titles, making them ever tougher to sell.

[Michael Kerpan]

aox --

You have made your point -- repeatedly.

With each new Criterion SD release of a film that interests you -- you make your point -- repeatedly.

This is getting old. Very old. And stale. And boring.

Very boring.

[perkizitore]

Wait, how is Criterion "a little behind the times"? Compared to who? I don't know of any other label that has such a broad slice of the canon on BD. I know the BFI doesn't, though they're allowed to be more experimental with their releases as they operate under a completely different business model, in a unique market that has also allowed for such things as the continued existence of high-end, niche enthusiast press.

I don't know why anyone would realistically expect a War Trilogy BD within the next five years considering Peter Becker has said that they have most likely restored, and will release, the DVDs at a loss.

There is no company in the arthouse world that can release blu-ray trilogies at the moment.

BFI released Pasolini's Trilogy of Life on Blu-ray, and not even together (at a cheaper price), but as separate titles, making them ever tougher to sell.

I should have said blu-ray only boxsets.

[Jun-Dai]

If I (and aox) wanted to buy a lot of movies last year and this year, and I was limiting myself to Blu-ray, then they would be pretty shitty years, and much more so without Criterion's involvement in Blu-ray. Furthermore, it would be a bit silly under those circumstances to restrict myself to Blu-ray, as that would greatly decrease the quality of movies I was buying.

But for someone that only wants to buy a few films, and has a pretty good setup for watching Blu-ray titles, the fact that a title is out on Blu-ray is going to be a pretty big factor in deciding which few titles to buy. This is further affected by Netflix's rather annoying Blu-ray surcharge policy, or lack of flexibility around it. I currently have two NF accounts: one with three DVDs and another with 1 Blu-ray. If The War Trilogy were put out on Blu-ray, I would have been likely to buy them less out of a desire to own them and more because of the hassle of renting them.

But make no mistake—Criterion's level of commitment to Blu-ray is pretty solid relative to the rest of the industry. There's no point in comparing this to their Laserdisc times, as Laserdisc was a dying, niche format and DVD had already been well-established as being on the path to a mainstream format. Criterion has put out Blu-ray transfers that put most others to shame, and if I look at the US Blu-ray catalog as a whole, Criterion has a pretty huge percentage of the titles I'm interested in (which is not a very long list, by the way).

And really, Blu-ray is just a stop-over format anyhow. I expect that by 2017 or whenever we'll all be looking for 4K transfers, which seems to me to be much more likely to be a longer-lasting format. If Red has their way with the industry, it'll be much sooner than that, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.

[aox]

I currently have two NF accounts: one with three DVDs and another with 1 Blu-ray.

Is this saving you any money in any way? I have Three at a time + Blu. It's about $23/month.

But make no mistake—Criterion's level of commitment to Blu-ray is pretty solid relative to the rest of the industry. There's no point in comparing this to their Laserdisc times, as Laserdisc was a dying, niche format and DVD had already been well-established as being on the path to a mainstream format. Criterion has put out Blu-ray transfers that put most others to shame, and if I look at the US Blu-ray catalog as a whole, Criterion has a pretty huge percentage of the titles I'm interested in (which is not a very long list, by the way).

I am certainly not trying to disparage Criterion in any way. This company is completely solid and their commitment to Blu is incredible. I also like how they take their time with each release producing nothing less than a 4.0/5 transfer (keep in mind, Criterion has released some terrible DVDs technically).

[fdm]

BD market share is currently around 10%.

Maybe even higher than that ... seems I've recently seen 14% being thrown around, although a quick Google search failed to yield up-to-date numbers.

Yup, I just pulled that figure from digitalbits. Many particular titles are running much higher (e.g., "Criterion's simultaneous Blu-ray releases have made up 30-50% of the titles' total sales vs. the less than 10% typical for big studio films." from early this year (Home Theater magazine); or "Watchmen Breaks BD Share Record with 36% Ratio" (blu-ray.com)). And with Snow White thrown in the picture last week, "Blu-ray accounted for 17.3% of total packaged-media sales revenue" (blu-ray.com again).

[Jun-Dai]

I currently have two NF accounts: one with three DVDs and another with 1 Blu-ray.

Is this saving you any money in any way? I have Three at a time + Blu. It's about $23/month.

Just a little bit. Four DVDs w/ Blu would be $24 + $5 = $29. Three DVDs is $17 and One w/ Blu unlimited is $11 (totalling $28), but the real win is if I only get two Blus a month, knocking it down to $6 (and really, there aren't that many I want to watch yet).

I am certainly not trying to disparage Criterion in any way. This company is completely solid and their commitment to Blu is incredible. I also like how they take their time with each release producing nothing less than a 4.0/5 transfer (keep in mind, Criterion has released some terrible DVDs technically).

Yeah, it definitely seems like Criterion is limiting their Blu-ray releases to those titles for which they can deliver a top-notch Blu-ray disc. Shitty DVD transfers wasn't something they were too afraid of back in the bad old days (an acceptable policy, I guess, if the alternative is not releasing the titles altogether), but I'm guessing they'd like their Blu-ray line to have the reputation of being the best of the best. Chungking Express and The Third Man make me wish that Planet Earth were a better-looking title.

It makes sense, too. I mean, if you can settle for a poor-quality Blu-ray transfer, why can't you settle for a DVD? It's not like there's anyone out there that can play Blu-ray but can't play DVD.

[Brian C]

and the whole pictureboxing thing was a bad joke from the day they arbitrarily decided to start doing that.

It wasn't arbitrary...they thought they had good reasons for doing it. The fact their reasoning was faulty doesn't make it arbitrary.

Well, without splitting semantic hairs, I think at the very least the timing was arbitrary. I mean, they go how many years without pictureboxing. Then, just as HDTVs were just becoming mainstream consumer items, and the overscan issue had disappeared as a long-term concern ... THAT is when they decide they're worried about overscan?

[ShellOilJunior]

Yep. I'm not missing any Criterion SD releases.

I'm very fortunate to have access to a library system in which I may request practically anything Criterion.

Just a week ago I borrowed Made in the USA from the library.

I've just curbed buying DVD's altogether --- even though I still own quite a few Criterion DVD's.


Cliff-notes- I borrow DVD's, Buy Blu-rays.

[Jun-Dai]

and the whole pictureboxing thing was a bad joke from the day they arbitrarily decided to start doing that.

It wasn't arbitrary...they thought they had good reasons for doing it. The fact their reasoning was faulty doesn't make it arbitrary.

Well, without splitting semantic hairs, I think at the very least the timing was arbitrary. I mean, they go how many years without pictureboxing. Then, just as HDTVs were just becoming mainstream consumer items, and the overscan issue had disappeared as a long-term concern ... THAT is when they decide they're worried about overscan?

I think it was timed in response to a rise in complaints about them cropping the image when in fact they weren't. I remember reading a whole bunch of complaints on Amazon about the Playtime disc, all of which were focused on Criterion's cropping of the film, and specifically referencing things that had been cropped out (the melting plane gag, etc.), and the when I watched the DVD I noticed that every single one of those gags was visible on the disc.

[swo17]

You people not buying DVDs of the films you want on Blu-ray do realize that by doing so, you're hurting the chances of them ever eventually coming out on Blu-ray, right?

I'll admit, if Criterion puts something out on Blu, I'm more likely to buy it either sooner or at all than if it were SD-only, because it feels like a more permanent investment, and I want to support their Blu program. But if it's only being offered in SD, I like to think I follow this basic tenet of all sane people: if you like a movie enough to consider owning it, then buy it in the best version currently available, even if this means (shudder) buying it on DVD.

[mfunk9786]

Criterion DVDs are the most risk-free investment to make, too.

If you purchased, say, the 2-disc DVD edition of There Will Be Blood like I did when it came out, it cost $22.99 or whatever, but seemed like a worthwhile purchase because it's a film I wanted to own. However, when I got my Blu-Ray player and wanted to upgrade it, I could only manage less than $3 for my DVD copy on Amazon Marketplace, and the Blu-Ray cost me $15.99 on sale. I ended up spending a total of almost $40.00 on that film.

However, I spent $24.99 on the Criterion DVD of Bottle Rocket, was able to sell it for about $21.99, and buy the Blu-Ray for $24.99. Criterions don't go down in price by too much, ever - and it makes it a lot less painful to upgrade them if a Blu-Ray does eventually come along. I'm sure I'll find the same to be true with Z, War Trilogy, whatever. Criterion DVDs are a much better investment than a standard new release - so if you want to bitch about something, bitch about actual new releases that don't come out right away with a simultaneous Blu-Ray edition.

[Blood Pie]

Hello everyone. First post!

When I first started collecting HD DVDS and Blu Rays I would sometimes buy DVDs if a title wasn't released in HD but currently I only buy Blu Rays.

For me it has little to do with supporting Criterion or taking a hardline stance on one format over another. Its simple. Blu Rays look and sound better so I decided to exclusively purchase and collect them. It doesnt mean I hate DVDs or that I'm not supporting Criterion.

I see both sides of the argument I just don't think it needs to be dogmatic on either side. I don't think buying Criterion DVDs in addition to buying available BDs shows any more or less support than someone who only buys one over the other. Its personal preference.