criterionforum.org

Kino be like, I'm as reliable as Criterion.

Seems to me Criterion faces a tough and interesting business choice, given that the actual commercial release of this disc hasn't happened yet.

Meaning, they're surely at this minute trying to decide whether to do this like "Eraserhead" (sell the bad discs and let people mail in for a replacement) or tell Barnes & Noble and Amazon and others not to sell any that haven't already been mailed, and send all remaining stock back.

Personally I think the best choice is number 2, as it will earn more goodwill with customers, which is especially important since this is a key release in their new push into 4K.

An additional complicating factor is that Criterion surely knows that a lot of us -- I was one until I read these reviews -- were planning to buy this at 50% off this week from Barnes & Noble. (In my case, I'm satisfied with Blu Ray quality, so I would buy that version, not the 4K). Thus, even better would be for Criterion to pull the Tuesday release and re-release 6 weeks later (or whatever they require to do the manufacturing and packaging) and then sell it directly from their website for 50% off. That would win the company a lot of good will, I'd bet. A company that does the right thing is so rare these days that it really stands out.

Bad disc and all I’ll still buy it now and wait for them to start the replacement program. In the meantime there will be a lot to view in the set. It’s not like I or most haven’t seen the film before. And if the UHD is fine, which it seems like it is, then people who have upgraded don’t have to worry about the bluray right away.

All part of the master plan to tighten the rope and drive people to upgrade their setups to UHD faster #illuminati

I mean there's no way around it this is a huge mistake and it's comical that it would happen on a title like Kane. That said, as long as they don't respond "too fucking bad, take it or leave it" then their response will be preferable to how Kino responds.

MichaelB wrote:

tenia wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:42 amBD check discs sent to reviewers are supposed to be 1:1 identical in terms of data to the retail discs that'll be on the market. The only difference thus is the lack of final disc artwork, but everything else is supposed to be the same, otherwise, what the hell are we even reviewing ?

They aren't always; I reviewed Second Run's Hungarian box set for Sight & Sound off electronically-sent copies of the feature encodes, hence my only listing the extras rather than reviewing them (I still haven't seen them).

If I understand correctly, you thus haven't received check discs for those but instead a digital file of the movies only... which isn't really what I'm describing and is much closer to a dematerialised link, isn't it ?

MichaelB wrote:There have also been actual check discs that had problems that were subsequently fixed, although this is pretty rare as there's a hefty cost involved by this stage. Although one exception was when the BFI's Winstanley went out as a Region B check disc while the final version was region-free - I think that was down to a straightforward communication error somewhere along the line, and it was easily fixed.

I mentioned that's indeed a potential case, like it happened with Requiescant for Arrow.

But that's why I wrote check discs like those are "supposed to be" 1:1 transcription of what will be on the retail discs, ie exceptions can happen .
As an aside : it'd also mean that otherwise, somebody bothered asking for a specific "check disc" authoring (and possibly encode), which I don't think anyone would find useful costs and time wise.

I’m in favor of them leaving it, with the irony of a giant K on the box.

They'll have to re-call the Blu-Ray only release for sure but I don't know it'd be worthwhile pulling the combo since surely no one buying the UHD will be bothered about the faulty Blu-Ray and they can include the fixed BD in the second pressing of the combo. I was going to get the UHD version but only on their next flash sale which I believe isn't due until next spring or so (?).

Drucker wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:14 pmThat said, as long as they don't respond "too fucking bad, take it or leave it" then their response will be preferable to how Kino responds.

This is no doubt a brutal QC error, but I fully expect Criterion to not react like Kino.

This is the second big release recently to change the quality of transfer at the 30 minute mark— what causes this? If it’s happening more then once from more than one label, there’s surely some shared reason

Silence of the Lambs was at the 20-minute mark, but your point still stands

FrauBlucher wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:17 pm Maybe Chris could verify this

I haven't received it yet, meaning it will more than likely come on or after release date. I'll confirm when I receive it, BUT as you've linked to already since, it's been confirmed by others.

RIP Film wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:49 pm I’m in favor of them leaving it, with the irony of a giant K on the box.

The K is facing the correct direction and everything.

Finch wrote:They'll have to re-call the Blu-Ray only release for sure but I don't know it'd be worthwhile pulling the combo since surely no one buying the UHD will be bothered about the faulty Blu-Ray and they can include the fixed BD in the second pressing of the combo. I was going to get the UHD version but only on their next flash sale which I believe isn't due until next spring or so (?).

I am buying the UHD combo despite not being equipped, because it's only $5 more and that I might be equipped at some point within the next years. So here you go.

BirdLives wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:19 pm Seems to me Criterion faces a tough and interesting business choice, given that the actual commercial release of this disc hasn't happened yet.

It’s pretty painful on a number of levels.

1) At this stage, finished stock of both formats will be ready to go and already in distribution chains nationwide, not just sitting at the replication centre. Some copies have made their way out to consumers already, so replacement programs will need to be set up to remedy them.
2) A recall and date pushback for corrected stock, aside from being hugely expensive, will likely delay it until after Christmas, given how stretched replication facilities are in the run-up to the holidays.
3) Losing Christmas season sales would be pretty devastating, but it also means most people won’t be able to get it at half price once it’s reissued, as the B&N sale will be over, which will hit eventual sales for the reissued version further.

I imagine Criterion are now war-gaming their options fairly ruthlessly.

Tuppence wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:02 pm

BirdLives wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:19 pm Seems to me Criterion faces a tough and interesting business choice, given that the actual commercial release of this disc hasn't happened yet.

It’s pretty painful on a number of levels.

1) At this stage, finished stock of both formats will be ready to go and already in distribution chains nationwide, not just sitting at the replication centre. Some copies have made their way out to consumers already, so replacement programs will need to be set up to remedy them.
2) A recall and date pushback for corrected stock, aside from being hugely expensive, will likely delay it until after Christmas, given how stretched replication facilities are in the run-up to the holidays.
3) Losing Christmas season sales would be pretty devastating, but it also means most people won’t be able to get it at half price once it’s reissued, as the B&N sale will be over, which will hit eventual sales for the reissued version further.

I imagine Criterion are now war-gaming their options fairly ruthlessly.

It would be painful no doubt. Another negative, it occurs to me, of going forward with a sale now, is that it underlines the case for streaming. Criterion needs to make the case for physical media -- to the extent they think that's worth it, of course. An error like this vividly shows the advantage of streaming because fixing it would simply be a matter of swapping out a new file for download. If a lot of your customers have the notion that buying physical media will sometimes, or even often, require them to become quality monitors and also regular patrons of the post office (to send a disc back), they may just decide it's not worth it and drop physical media for streaming.

I think you guys are overstating this. Painful is a ridiculous adjective to describe this. This is not the first time they had to issue replacement discs. Yes it’s a bad mistake but not the end of the world. They will issue replacement discs. I’m sure It will be costly for them. But what are they to do? They have no choice but to deal with it and move on.

Robert Harris

I can confirm the problem, which only affects the Blu-ray. It has little to do with Criterion, and is mostly a final QC authoring error, handled by outside vendors.

I’m certain there will be replacents.

This in no way affects the 4k release.

FrauBlucher wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:21 pm I think you guys are overstating this. Painful is a ridiculous adjective to describe this. This is not the first time they had to issue replacement discs. Yes it’s a bad mistake but not the end of the world. They will issue replacement discs. I’m sure It will be costly for them. But what are they to do? They have no choice but to deal with it and move on.

I think it's a tricky calculation. The reason being the 4K by all reports is fine. I think I would come down on the side of putting the 4Ks on sale, since the people buying those probably mostly want the 4K and a good number of them might not even go to the trouble of returning the Blu Ray. There's another group that may, like me, already have the WB blu ray and be satisfied with that, but wanted to buy the Criterion Blu Ray set for the extras (personally, I want to see that BBC documentary). Then hold back the new Blu Rays from sale and say "the customer always comes first. We won't sell a defective product when we know about it." IMHO the plus for Criterion's reputation from doing that would be worth more financially than the loss from whatever sales they lose at Christmas and the cost of remanufacturing (which they have to incur anyway, plus all the mailing costs). The number of people who, like me, planned to buy only the Blu Ray edition, is probably fairly small, I would guess. But that's just me.

domino harvey wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:03 pm This is the second big release recently to change the quality of transfer at the 30 minute mark— what causes this? If it’s happening more then once from more than one label, there’s surely some shared reason

With The Silence of the Lambs, it occured at the first reel change. It's likely the entire master exists as several files that correspond to the original reel change points, rather than as one whole file. So it's straightforward how one segment can end up being transferred incorrectly, and the rest OK, or vice versa. Whether or not the same has happened with Kane, who knows, but it isn't the same base issue. TSotL was a colour space error, whilst Kane appears to be related to the transfer function (the UHD and the BD use different transfer functions, so it seems someone has got confused or mixed up along the way).

The bigger question is, why is something that is blatantly obvious to the first reviewer to receive check discs (someone who isn't even well regarded for his technical nous), not being caught in QC?

FrauBlucher wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:21 pm They will issue replacement discs.

Hopefully a lot quicker than issuing the Pierrot le fou replacement discs. It's six months and counting for me. Anyone out there having better luck? Maybe they streamed my replacement disc on their channel.

K for a swing and a miss
Amateurish
Non-professional
Embarrassment

It's terrific!

FrauBlucher wrote:Robert Harris

I can confirm the problem, which only affects the Blu-ray. It has little to do with Criterion, and is mostly a final QC authoring error, handled by outside vendors.

I’m certain there will be replacents.

This in no way affects the 4k release.

I do hope Criterion QC the finalised authored disc, since that's pretty much common practice and their responsibility (except if they contractually have Pixelogic doing it for them, which I highly doubt). Does David Mackenzie do Carlotta's QC ? I very much doubt it (at least since he'd need quite a level of French understanding I don't think is required of him).

Moreover, this argument only works if Pixelogic did the SDR conversion (instead of the restoration lab, which I believe is more usual). Otherwise, they simply encoded whatever was sent to them.

Well that confirms it. If both DVDBeaver and Blu-ray.com notice the issue then there has to be a replacement program. [-X