This is what I'm thinking. Sure, there were exceptions to the dominant brand identity (see my earlier post), both in film selection and extras, but the Criterion brand identity was not predicated on the exceptions. "Criterion-quality" was not a by-word for "non-anamorphic bare-bones presentation of an okay transfer at top-of-the-line price point" (a description that would apply to High and Low) - or at least that certainly wasn't their intention!Andre Jurieu wrote:But maybe creating this new line will effectively mean that this practice of issuing films on DVD with little to no extras will not occur as often. In fact, I bet creating this new line will almost force Criterion to add extras to every title they choose to release in order to justify the added price (and the Wacky C).ByMarkClark.com wrote:As for diluting the brand -- sorry, I just don't see it. As others have posted already, it's not like the CC hasn't issued plenty of discs over the years that were literally or virtually bare-bones.
If the Eclipse move is all about enhancing the brand, then what Andre predicts will surely be the case, and the identity of the Eclipse sub-brand is thus likely to be something like "Criterion quality (in terms of film selection and transfers, though maybe not source quality) but bare-bones and cheap cheap cheap!" So, I expect that Matt is also right in predicting some kind of fundamental alignment with the Criterion brand. They'd be foolish not to exploit this existing asset. Wacky C -> Wacky E seems like a logical choice.
Anyway, I'm sick of talking marketing strategy: roll out those first titles!
