criterionforum.org

Does anyone have any idea when we might see another $10 per title sale?

If nothing else, I would guess we'll get another one for Black Friday

I know we heard stories that some films that previously had been released on pressed DVDs would make their way to the Archive. Unless I've missed some, I believe Where the Boys Are is now the first to take that dubious honor.

A damn shame too, as it's a great film. I'm never letting go of my snapper!

Feego wrote:I know we heard stories that some films that previously had been released on pressed DVDs would make their way to the Archive. Unless I've missed some, I believe Where the Boys Are is now the first to take that dubious honor.

Actually, I believe "Blue Collar" was the first to receive this 'honor' from Universal. Granted, the old pressed Anchor Bay edition had some of the original music edited out -- anyone know if this was amended in the BOD version?

He meant specifically Warners, because they've been pulling hundreds of films out of print and then turning around and offering to sell burned discs for two to three times the cost of the originals. And Warners bragged about this shitty plan too a few months ago

it's a very good business plan. it reduces recalcitrant stock that big box stores complain about never turning over, without making the films unavailable to people who want to go the extra mile to find them, plus WB gets to keep most of the money per title, rather than the retailer getting a big chunk. There's little downside for the studio.

It's a sucky plan for consumers who liked getting amazing catalog movies for $5.

Honestly, I wouldn't have a huge problem with it if Archive titles cost $10 a piece regularly, with discounts that would get it below that- I have no idea of how they justify the $15-20 price tag beyond "fuck you, where else are you going to go"

They have been putting much more effort into remastering films for release than they did initially. Whether that justifies the price, I don't know. They do have pretty regular sales, too.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Honestly, I wouldn't have a huge problem with it if Archive titles cost $10 a piece regularly, with discounts that would get it below that- I have no idea of how they justify the $15-20 price tag beyond "fuck you, where else are you going to go"

It's not meant as a fuck you. It's playing the long game, looking at minor inflation and a ten-twenty year timeline.

In ten years, there will probably be very few movies released to disc in stores. Most people will stream or digital device video content, whether that content is film, television or youtube user generated content. Theatres will still be around, because teenagers are the primary consumers, and people like it as an entertainment option that is specifically out of the house.

That means that discs will primarily be desired by legacy users with a fetish for old technology. Sort of like Vinyl afficionados.

So. Looking at the long game, WB has the opportunity to reestablish a price floor for the forseeable future. They don't want to fall into the itunes trap of having every song valued at $.99 They want movies valued higher, specifically they want a movie to be valued 20 times more than a song. They want a disc based film to be priced the same as the most expensive movie theatre ticket now and the average movie theatre ticket in ten years. Most people know that big box stores tend to sell most movies at around $20 and there are sales that drop it lower and bargain bins that drop it even lower. but the $20 price point is already there, WB is just reinforcing it, and soon we won't have any other options.

Do you work for the WB? I'm asking because your insistent defense suggests that. There could always be an incremental price increase if your theory is true. 10-20 years from now an increase of five or ten dollars probably won't seem unreasonable, but having that price today is. A lot of the films they are releasing as singles are barely an hour in length with no extras and minimal restoration. Compare that with, for example, all of the hard work Second Run puts into a disc to sell it for roughly the same price point on real discs and keeping their present MSRP does seem a tad absurd.

I don't think that sounds like studio puffery- I would guess something along those lines actually is their internal justification for such a high price point- but I don't know how that viewpoint makes it any less of a fuck you. It's not about manufacturing costs, or recouping an investment, or making sure they can keep releasing more movies, it's charging a lot because they want people to think that's what the discs are worth.

It's frustrating, because I think it's just going to lead people to download these movies instead of buying them, as happened with CDs when their prices were kept artificially high. $0.99 songs was a brilliant idea for iTunes, largely because at that rate it's easier to purchase than to steal for a lot of people, and the songs cost Apple nothing beyond the licensing fees. I would infinitely prefer if the Archive followed that example.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Honestly, I wouldn't have a huge problem with it if Archive titles cost $10 a piece regularly, with discounts that would get it below that- I have no idea of how they justify the $15-20 price tag beyond "fuck you, where else are you going to go"

Torrents! Seriously, I don't know why anyone would ultimately pay for this shit. It's not as if they add anything to your collection.

More former real titles relegated to MOD Hell: the Singing Nun, previously available as the bonus fourth DVD in one of the Holiday collections. "Available on its own by popular demand"-- "We demand to pay the same for a DVD-R as we would for the four-disc boxed set which contains this film on a real DVD!!!" And the Unsinkable Molly Brown (Which while awful still doesn't deserve this)

Oh my God, and Gaslight?! Which came with a whole other movie for like $10? FUCK WARNERS 4 EVR

That's some real bullshit. Guess I'll be sticking to my library's copy after all.

Huh, didn't even know that one was out of print. Apparently you can still get the Region 2 version, with both movies, for £5.

I read several reviews on Amazon UK saying that it only contains the Cukor, not the earlier version. Glad I bought my R1 disc when it was released. I know the Dickinson has its devotees, but in my opinion the Cukor is much superior, and interested parties shouldn't hesitate to snap up the R2 for £5.

Oh, it looks light you're right- that's a shame. Agreed that the R2 is still a good deal, but that's a pretty good inducement to hold on to my R1 copy, however much I could sell it for (particularly since the Archive release is also only the Cukor.)

domino harvey wrote:Oh my God, and Gaslight?!

Gregory wrote:I read several reviews on Amazon UK saying that it only contains the Cukor, not the earlier version. Glad I bought my R1 disc when it was released. I know the Dickinson has its devotees, but in my opinion the Cukor is much superior, and interested parties shouldn't hesitate to snap up the R2 for £5.

I think Anton Walbrook's sublime menace in the Dickinson version is reason enough to pay the extra dough for Warner's O.P. flipper edition. Watching him work outside of Powell and Ophuls only underscores to me that he is one of the all-time great film actors. Charles Boyer is also a fine actor and he offers a different--and convincing--take on the same role, but to me Walbrook really embodies the gritty spirit of the play from what I remember reading it years ago.

I'm happy to see that there's a split opinion on Gaslight as I wrote in a just finished article though I had ended it mentioning that the US DVD has both versions allowing a comparison. Looks loke I'll have to rewrite it ...
I'd say the British version is a cruel comedy, while the US version is more of a conventional star vehicle (it's MGM and Cukor, so what else could it be?), you sympathize with Bergman but necessarily with Wynyard in the original film. I don't think there's an easy ranking to be done as e.g. with Jekyll and Hyde the other "let's buy the film and bury it while we remake it" film which is clearly inferior to the original version.

lubitsch wrote:I don't think there's an easy ranking to be done as e.g. with Jekyll and Hyde the other "let's buy the film and bury it while we remake it" film which is clearly inferior to the original version.

I have to say I may be one of the few who holds both versions of Jekyll in equal esteem. Mamoulian's direction on the original is infinitely better than Fleming's, but there are some elements that don't hold up too well today (the opening POV scene). I view March's performance very much like Bette Davis' performance in Of Human Bondage. It is very mannered and theatrical, but mesmerizing at the same time. I like the fact that in the Tracy version, they allow him to play Hyde with relatively little makeup (which is more faithful to the original story). And I think Miriam Hopkins and Ingrid Bergman offer different but equally excellent depictions of the abused prostitute. Hopkins is lusty and carnal, while Bergman is convincingly pathetic and desperate (I think her performance here is superior to Gaslight). Rose Hobart and Lana Turner both achieve the same level of blandness.

The Mamoulian is not the original adaptation just for the record.

I'm aware that there were several adaptations before the Mamoulian, but the 1941 version was based directly on the screenplay for Mamoulian's version, which is what I'm referring to.

Go like Warner Archive Collection on Facebook to get 50% off one single disc WAC release. Expires 11:59AM PDT Tuesday.