DVDBeaver

[bfaison]

So let’s get this straight - Warner Archives hits a bullseye whether they release an Oscar winning epic or a ball of lint and ends up in 7th place, while Kino hires a robot to put the barrels of files onto discs at a rate we can’t count, missing the board entirely several times, wears it as a badge of honor, and takes top prize? It’s ok with me.

[tenia]

Kino are doing quantity over quality, and it clearly works.
It's not even that surprising : when you release hundreds of titles per year, you're likely to have several excellent releases that will be remembered for End of Year polls. But when you only release 5 or 6, that's a much harder number to hit.
And Beaver's first comment below Kino 1st place is spot on this : "The sheer number of restorations they've released this year is impressive."
The other comments are quite similar in how and why they're there : ""Although none of their releases were in my top 10, Kino Lorber has been doing an amazing job of releasing catalog titles of every genre out there." "Range and number of releases - bought more from Kino than anybody." "Kino because they have released a number of titles this year which have never been on disc before and they are not afraid to release lesser known films." "Kino Lorber, for doing the LORD'S WORK releasing the bulk of classic cinema in these twilight times."

This is however quite silly and probably embodies why Beaver's poll has always been quite flawed (and not just biased because of its US-centric aspect) : many (if not most) of the pollsters aren't discrimant enough when it comes to this. This is basically my mom and dad polling their favourite labels (and of course, they don't like Criterion current "trendy and inclusive" releases, so make sure to write that down).

The WKW set polling that high follows, IMO, the same logic : it's all fluff, a shiny thing that looks good outside but not so much as soon as you look a bit closer. Except that it seems so many little do indeed know precisely what they're talking about that "shiny thing" is actually enough.

He already issued Ashes of Time Redux. This is everything else redux.

True.

[schellenbergk]

Once again wondering whether the people applauding The World of Wong Kar-Wai would also prefer to remove the 1925 version of The Gold Rush from circulation.

Are hypotheticals of any real use? Especially when one can skew the hypothetical to make a point.

If Chaplin had chosen that, it's his prerogative - but this didn't happen so I'm not sure it furthers the discussion.

“We were caught in a dilemma between restoring them to the form in which the audience had remembered them and to how I had originally envisioned them,” Wong writes. “There was so much that we could change, and I decided to take the second path, as it would represent my most vivid vision of these films.” Wong took to heart reaction to the 2008 “Ashes of Time Redux”: “Some audience members observed that the film looked different from what they had remembered. I realized that some of our audience had discovered it on pirated copies and in suboptimal exhibition venues that presented the film in a different light. Still, some preferred the versions that they had watched, because memories are hard to beat.”

[schellenbergk]

He already issued Ashes of Time Redux. This is everything else redux

Wong Kar Wai Discusses the Editing Changes He Made While Restoring His Films
Leonard Pearce○December 7, 2020

...

Chungking Express and In the Mood for Love were shot and released theatrically on 1.66:1, one of my favorite aspect ratios, but they were converted to 1.85:1 on videogram. Since most people experienced these films on videogram, it perpetuated the belief that they were shot on 1:85:1. With these restorations, you will be watching them in their original aspect ratios. With Fallen Angels, I have changed the format to cinemascope, because it was originally what I had intended to release the film in. When we were cutting the film, we accidentally turned the Steenbeck on anamorphic instead of standard. I felt that the film looked much more interesting because it enhanced the distance of the characters on top of the extreme wide angle that we shot on. Back then, it was impossible to shoot a film in standard and release it in anamorphic. With this restoration, we have successfully fulfilled this wish.

[swo17]

I was well aware of that information when I made my statement.

And Chaplin did prefer his re-edit of The Gold Rush and his estate has previously attempted to suppress the silent version. That wasn't a hypothetical.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Once again wondering whether the people applauding The World of Wong Kar-Wai would also prefer to remove the 1925 version of The Gold Rush from circulation.

Are hypotheticals of any real use? Especially when one can skew the hypothetical to make a point.

If we don’t want to use hypotheticals, it’s worth nothing that Criterion DID issue their Charlie Chaplin films in reedits annoyingly done by Chaplin later in life. The most annoying one is Modern Times, which was reedited in 1956 to cut the last verse of the song near the finale leading to a terrible jump cut. It’s included as a deleted scene instead without the context that this was cut two decades after the initial release. This isn’t as egregious as what Wong did with this set where he suppressed the known versions of these films and redid them in ways that would’ve been physically (and financially) impossible when these films were released. But I do find it annoying and worth owning older versions of these films just to have the original version.

[Maltic]

“We were caught in a dilemma between restoring them to the form in which the audience had remembered them and to how I had originally envisioned them,” Wong writes.

If only there was a way to release a film in two different versions. One where Han Solo shoots first and one where Greedo does, and so on...

[schellenbergk]

“We were caught in a dilemma between restoring them to the form in which the audience had remembered them and to how I had originally envisioned them,” Wong writes.

If only there was a way to release a film in two different versions. One where Han Solo shoots first and one where Greedo does, and so on...

I agree that would have been preferable - but Criterion yielded to the director's wishes. So your gripe should be with the director, not Criterion.

The ONLY reason I stirred up this hornet's nest was the withering contempt expressed for people who DARE to admire the WKW set - and think it one of the best of the year,

[Maltic]

Criterion could've simply said they'd release the Greedo-shoots-first-versions together with the Han Solo-shoots-first-versions or not at all.

[Roscoe]

If only there was a way to release a film in two different versions. One where Han Solo shoots first and one where Greedo does, and so on...

If Coppola can do it with all those APOCALYPSE NOWs....

[swo17]

Coppola of course did that because HE WANTS HIS FILM TO REMAIN RELEVANT

[schellenbergk]

Criterion could've simply said they'd release the Greedo-shoots-first-versions together with the Han Solo-shoots-first-versions or not at all.

I’m not sure how I feel about a company – any company – dictating to a director how his own films should appear. If the director wanted us to see it this way we should respect that. If you don’t like his choice you don’t have to consider the best set of the year. But I do.

[swo17]

If you don’t like his choice you don’t have to consider the best set of the year. But I do.

Out of curiosity, what are all the sets that you viewed this year so that they could be in contention? Or if you're only talking about Criterions, how many of their ~50 releases this year did you watch?

[Maltic]

I’m not sure how I feel about a company – any company – dictating to a director how his own films should appear. If the director wanted us to see it this way we should respect that.

They'd simply be making him an offer, not dictating. "If you want to play George Lucas then find another label."

As for respect, WKW wasn't above gaslighting his critics/admirers with that statement of his.

[knives]

If you don’t like his choice you don’t have to consider the best set of the year. But I do.

Out of curiosity, what are all the sets that you viewed this year so that they could be in contention? Or if you're only talking about Criterions, how many of their ~50 releases this year did you watch?

Honestly I don’t think this needs a measuring contest as just a one point of comparison need work. So, for example, can it be argued on the individual basis that WKW is better than the Van Peebles set without basing your arguments on if you like the films? If Schellenbergk can do that than that’s alright, but if not than that would be alright in the opposite direction. (Obviously it doesn’t have to be that set it’s just a helpful stand in)

[swo17]

I guess my point was going to be that if he's seen a great number of other contenders as well as the original versions of the films, if he's aware of all the changes and still considers this to be the boxset of the year, then I will value that opinion more even if I disagree with it

[schellenbergk]

If you don’t like his choice you don’t have to consider the best set of the year. But I do.

Out of curiosity, what are all the sets that you viewed this year so that they could be in contention? Or if you're only talking about Criterions, how many of their ~50 releases this year did you watch?

Well, I did a quick check of my movie database… I logged watched 230 films last year - which doesn’t included streaming or in-theater viewing. So I could I suppose paste a list of titles…

But what would be the point? So you can sneer at particular titles? The question seems like an interrogation - why not post your own pick for best set?

[schellenbergk]

I guess my point was going to be that if he's seen a great number of other contenders as well as the original versions of the films, if he's aware of all the changes and still considers this to be the boxset of the year, then I will value that opinion more even if I disagree with it

Why should I care if you value my opinion? Who are you to judge?

I’m old enough to have seen a few of the WKW in theaters.

[yoshimori]

Quick edit: Was writing the below before the last two posts came in. Please read accordingly.

Not surprisingly, as one of the couple so far who've expressed some delight with the WKW discs on the forum "awards" thread, I share schellenbergk's apparent frustration with the long series of complaints (many completely understandable, to be sure) and ad hominem attacks (unfortunate, but hey, the internet), strewn across multiple threads here. I think the points, con, have been made, and I particularly sympathize with folks' desire to have the highest quality versions of the original films. [Luckily, I have all the previous blu-rays, and I doubt the original versions will be long suppressed.]

As to swo's wondering whether someone who likes the set can possibly have sufficient experience with its films or other boxed sets, I'm not sure it matters, but I'd assure him that I, at least, have seen each of the WKW films at least half a dozen times (Fallen Angels probably more than 20 times, the new version once in a theater and twice on disc), have chatted with Mr Doyle about his work on multiple occasions (though not about this box set), have been paid to write about Wong's work, etc, and have waded through three of the other four 2021 Criterion boxes. The old Fallen Angels was, along with Chen's King of the Children, one of my two favorite Chinese-language films. The new Fallen Angels was, for me, even more thrilling. Is it a mixed bag? Yes. The coloring of specific areas of otherwise b/w shots is mostly cheesy, but other new color grading choices -- especially the bursts of contrasting LUTs in some action sequences -- improved those moments. The new aspect ratio is a major plus for me. So, I'd encourage anyone who hasn't already made up his or her mind to approach the set charitably.

[Glowingwabbit]

Criterion could've simply said they'd release the Greedo-shoots-first-versions together with the Han Solo-shoots-first-versions or not at all.

I’m not sure how I feel about a company – any company – dictating to a director how his own films should appear. If the director wanted us to see it this way we should respect that. If you don’t like his choice you don’t have to consider the best set of the year. But I do.

I was definitely upset that the originals were not included as that's just part of film preservation in my opinion (and I definitely lost respect for WKW over that), but I would have still bought the set had it not been for the awful packaging. That to me was another reason I took issue with the ranking. But really the whole poll is a bit of a joke now. I mean just look at the 4K list. There is no way anyone collecting 4K discs beyond Criterion can say with a straight face that 3 of the top 4 releases were from Criterion.

[swo17]

I guess my point was going to be that if he's seen a great number of other contenders as well as the original versions of the films, if he's aware of all the changes and still considers this to be the boxset of the year, then I will value that opinion more even if I disagree with it

Why should I care if you value my opinion? Who are you to judge?

I'm just some guy, but presumably if you are posting your opinion on a public forum it is because you hope others will value it.

Out of curiosity, what are all the sets that you viewed this year so that they could be in contention? Or if you're only talking about Criterions, how many of their ~50 releases this year did you watch?

Well, I did a quick check of my movie database… I logged watched 230 films last year - which doesn’t included streaming or in-theater viewing. So I could I suppose paste a list of titles…

But what would be the point? So you can sneer at particular titles? The question seems like an interrogation - why not post your own pick for best set?

I guess by the same token, what's the point of you declaring it the best set of the year? I don't even know what that means because I don't know what sets you're comparing against. Is it better than all of these, or are there some that you haven't seen?

All the Haunts Be Ours: A Compendium of Folk Horror (Severin)
Cinema of Discovery: Julien Duvivier in the 1920s (Flicker Alley)
Cinematic Vengeance! 8 Kung Fu Classics from Director Joseph Kuo (Eureka)
Collaborations: The Cinema of Zhang Yimou & Gong Li (Imprint)
Columbia Noir #2-4 (Indicator)
The Daimajin Trilogy (Arrow)
The Dungeon of Andy Milligan (Severin)
Early Universal Vols. 1-2 (Masters of Cinema)
The Eurocrypt of Christopher Lee Collection (Severin)
Hungarian Masters (Second Run)
Ingmar Bergman Vol. 1-2 (BFI)
Karloff at Columbia (Eureka)
Ken Jacobs Collection (Kino)
Little Fugitive: The Collected Films of Morris Engel & Ruth Orkin (Kino)
LA Plays Itself: The Fred Halsted Collection (Altered Innocence)
Melvin Van Peebles: Essential Films (Criterion)
Nobuhiko Obayashi's Anti-War Trilogy (Third Window)
Once Upon a Time in China: The Complete Films (Criterion)
Play for Today: Vol. 2 (BFI)
Roy Andersson Collection (Artificial Eye)
Shawscope Vol. 1 (Arrow)
The Signifyin' Works of Marlon Riggs (Criterion)
Silver Screams Cinema (Imprint)
Three Films by Luis Buñuel (Criterion)
Yokai Monsters Collection (Arrow)

[domino harvey]

For our all our collective dogging of the set, no one has been prevented from liking or voting for the WKW box in our year end polling. If enough people thought the Cluny Brown cover was the best artwork of the year it was released, it would have worn the crown regardless of supposed general sentiment. On this forum, thinking the WKW box is a net positive release is a minority opinion, and as such a defense will likely be necessary

[schellenbergk]

I'm just some guy, but presumably if you are posting your opinion on a public forum it is because you hope others will value it.

Don’t presume. Could not care less whether you value my opinion.

[swo17]

As to swo's wondering whether someone who likes the set can possibly have sufficient experience with its films or other boxed sets, I'm not sure it matters

My intent was not to propose a gotcha question. I am not here to prove all defenders of this set wrong. I am genuinely curious how informed the opinions are of people who hold the set in esteem. In the interest of full disclosure, I have purchased the set but not yet opened it. I own the previous editions of these films as well (after having to buy back several of them at inflated prices) and am willing to accept these as reimagined versions of the original releases. What I have seen and read from others does not give me a lot of hope for this set. But I would certainly appreciate the opinions of others who feel differently. As domino suggested, for that to be meaningful though, it would need to be backed up by more than just a high ranking on a list. The entire post of yours that I'm responding to is a good example of such a defense. The one schellenbergk just slipped in while I was writing this is not

[domino harvey]

I'm just some guy, but presumably if you are posting your opinion on a public forum it is because you hope others will value it.

Don’t presume. Could not care less that you value my opinion.

You two share a common space of discussion. Swo is a valued member with a long history of discussing and engaging others about films. You don’t have to like him or anyone else here, but you do need to respect the way this board functions, which is that you engage others with good faith to defend your arguments or tactfully pushback against those of others when there are disagreements. If your tactic here is to dismiss any pushback against your comments with “I could not care less,” you are likely posting on the wrong forum