domino harvey wrote:Why should people move on? Now is exactly when to talk about this, before people spend money on a less than desirable product about to hit the market, especially if Criterion plans to redo or correct or just ignore this
For some reason the mods over at blu-ray.com don't like it when people discuss problematic releases for too long. Never understood why, unless they have commercial ties with companies that I'm not aware of.
I got banned a few years ago for discussing problems with old Arrow releases and never went back. The moderation there is way too heavy-handed.
cdnchris wrote:On a brighter note, Day for Night looks friggin' great!
Sorry to sidetrack the thread here, but Chris, may I ask what variation of the Warner logo opens Day for Night? Wondering if Warner updated the Saul Bass logo to the current redux.
Someone on the Blu-ray.com forum said they got the following email from Mulvaney
Hello there,
I hope this email finds you well.
In the course of preparing the master for Criterion’s new release of
Dressed to Kill, director Brian De Palma asked if there was anything
that could be done to correct what he felt was a distortion in the
image that caused everyone to appear slightly wide or squat. A modest
anamorphic compression was applied, and De Palma was satisfied. On
reviewing the final product, we feel the adjustment doesn’t accurately
reflect the look of the film, and we are reauthoring discs without the
squeeze and will make them available to all purchasers of our release
of Dressed to Kill free of charge. Simply write to Jon Mulvaney
([email protected]) with your name, address, and some proof of
purchase, such as a receipt, and we will send you a corrected copy. We
regret the inconvenience, but we hope that in the end all of our
customers will end up with a copy of Dressed to Kill that accurately
reflects the film as well as the director’s intentions.
The above statement has now been replaced with a revised statement:
In our haste to respond to customer concerns about the anamorphic compression on our release of Dressed to Kill, we posted incorrectly that the change had been made at the behest of the director. Brian De Palma did ask for a change to the geometry of the scan, but it was to address the distortion he saw in the image, not to apply it. Unfortunately, that change was never carried over in the final product, and the resulting discs are wrong. Therefore, we are reauthoring discs without the squeeze and will make them available to all purchasers of our release of Dressed to Kill free of charge. Simply e-mail Jon Mulvaney ([email protected]) with your name, address, and some proof of purchase, such as a receipt, and we will send you a corrected copy. We regret the inconvenience, but we hope that in the end all of our customers will end up with a copy of Dressed to Kill that accurately reflects the film as well as the director’s intentions.
It seems appropriately De Palmaesque that Criterion's mea culpa initially mis-stated the director's intent and had to be corrected in the same way that the transfer was supposed to be corrected, then wasn't, then was. The final twist will be that the replacement disc is a completely different film.
Is there anyone left who hasn't lost all faith in Criterion's QC department?
So how are we reading this rewrite? Criterion tried to throw De Palma under the bus and he said nuh-uh? Or De Palma fucked up the transfer and they're taking the bullet for him?
They wrote an explanation and weren't super careful on the semantics making it seem like De Palma was more to blame then he specifically was and thus corrected it.
ok, just to make sure I've understood at that point.
I thought that perhaps Criterion had already sent the disks for some reviews purpose (to blu-ray.com, dvdbeaver, at criterionforum...) but they still have the time to recall their first stock Blu-Ray (since the release date is August 18).
Since I live in France, I pre-ordered it at a web retailer (not amazon.com (I would have cancel my order if this was the case- although I still can easily);
From what I can remember, I had already received my "Eraserhead" blu-ray when the "altered" sequence was spotted here and at blu-ray.com forum (it hadn't been "spotted" on the test/review at blu-ray.com).
I don't think that amazon.com has already started to ship their preorders. And I'm not sure that the small retailers already got their copies of Dressed To Kill because generally they ship it as soon as they got (since a lot of their customers are outside the US)
So, if I understand, they prefer, let's say for enconomic reason (which is not sometimes the most "simple" way) to sell "Dressed To Kill" with the bad disk, and I will have to contact Jon Mulvaney to receive a copy (in a cardboard sleeve like it was the case for Eraserhead).
That means a lot of disks to exchange. Remember how Criterion was almost "satured" with the first batch of "browning" Criterion.
As someone already posted : "second pressing" appears on Eraserhead blu-ray, not on the sleeve/artwork.
I mean, they intend to sell all their first copies/including sleeve/artwork before printing a new art with second pressing mentioned on the back artwork, and with the "second pressing" blu-ray disk?
This is not so economic... I mean, if US people go to shopping, unless - as you said - Criterion put a sticker on the box, you will know you will buy the first pressing and will have to do an exchange... (and if the second pressing is very nice) you have to be a bit maso to see the first pressing while waiting for the exchange.
A lot of people who can buy the disks in some shops will certainly postpone their purchase of "Dressed To Kill"... for some time... Then forgot, and will buy F.F Coppola "Dracula" x4 restoration (we are waiting for some surprise- everything is possible now)
sorry if my post sounds stupid. I'm just trying to figure if this is the most interesting way for Criterion to handle this in a long perspective.
I think it's always best for a label to do it this way from an economical point of view, because some customers will never realise there's something wrong, so that's replacement discs you won't save.
I always take the exemple from work : I work in a detergency factory. We sell detergent powder in 2kg bags, and from time to time, you put dosing scoops in the bags. You can either put one scoop in each bag, which will cost you one scoop for each bag you're producing, or you can put a phone number on the bag, stating you need to call and request a free spoon to be sent to you for free (and the call is free too). And by using this, you're sending about 1 scoop for every 10 bags produced.
Off topic slightly, but " We sell detergent powder in 2kg bags, and from time to time, you put dosing scoops in the bags. You can either put one scoop in each bag, which will cost you one scoop for each bag you're producing, or you can put a phone number on the bag, stating you need to call and request a free spoon to be sent to you for free (and the call is free too). And by using this, you're sending about 1 scoop for every 10 bags produced." this is genuinely brilliant.
This is the same for many other domains of work : the idea is that if it's inside and free, everybody's happy, but even for something 100% free, if a consumer needs to actively do something, he simply won't take the time to do it. And that can save a lot of money.
Update, 8/6/15: Good news, everyone. The Dressed to Kill street date is moving to September 8. Thanks to the concerns of our customers and the efforts of reviewers at websites like DVDBeaver.com, who helped point out the problems with the release early, we were able to make the fix before the bulk of orders had shipped. We will, of course, replace any faulty copies that may find their way into circulation, but we are working to ensure that all customers, including those who have placed preorders, and all major retailers will have corrected product in time for the new street date. To be certain that you have the correct version, look for the words “Second printing” on the back of the package and on the disc.
