criterionforum.org

I have the strangest feeling we've had this conversation before.

Many times.

Mr Sausage wrote:I have the strangest feeling we've had this conversation before.

Many times.

*Insert Cloud Atlas trailer*

Approximately one-hundred, million years ago, when Mulvaney was still answering direct questions directly, and still seemed to be one actual person, I asked Mulvaney whether they had plans to release Seijun Suzuki's Ziqeunerweisen. Mulvaney wrote back to say definitely no plans. And I launched into one of my most impassioned diatribes ever on the internet--a gallant defense of why Zigeunerweisen was indisputably remarkable and unique in the world film canon (I still love the film as dearly as my other favorites, but I was probably 22 at the time). The response I received from Mulvaney was, "we'll look into it." And that was followed by a couple of questions about Zigeunerweisen. Later on, the rights for the film were acquired by KimStim. One of the founders told me via e-mail that they'd be porting the Japanese dvd of the film on their release, and it turned out not to be true at all. One-hundred, million years later, I am still dreaming that Criterion will somehow get the rights to Zigeunerweisen and give it the same respect they afforded Tokyo Drifter. I want Kanto Wanderer on blu-ray as well, but Big Zig would be the dream, and in Japan it actually is available on blu-ray--although I can't speak to the quality of the release.

So in terms of "why can't they release only what I want?," my main concerns now that their Wong Kar-Wai titles are out of the way and some of their Melville is why can't they release some of the less-modish, less-gangster-y Suzuki titles in high definition? The old HomeVision Suzuki discs are looking very soft these days....

Where is my Odd Man Out on Blu, Criterion? Or One of Our Aircraft is Missing? Get me excited about your release schedule again. Lately you have dropped the ball.

Odd Man Out was clearly included on one of the lists in that blurry desk photo from last year. In other words, I'd expect it at some point.

As soon as they pick up the ball.

mfunk9786 wrote:As soon as we pick up the ball.

Fixed that for you.

I can't say I understand your correction.

He's saying we as a whole just don't bitch enough about Criterion's release schedule to make the difference we want them to make. Step up your game, people! We need more whining about Criterion releasing films already released in other countries instead of worldwide home-video debuts from third-world countries.

Taketori Washizu wrote:Where is...One of Our Aircraft is Missing?

One of Our Aircraft is Missing is a Republic title in the U.S., so it is now owned by Paramount and under license to Olive Films. If there is a suitable master, I presume Olive will get to it next year.

med wrote:He's saying we as a whole just don't bitch enough about Criterion's release schedule to make the difference we want them to make. Step up your game, people! We need more whining about Criterion releasing films already released in other countries instead of worldwide home-video debuts from third-world countries.

lol

mfunk9786 wrote:I can't say I understand your correction.

Taketori Washizu's post, to which you were replying, read a lot like one of those occasional posts by someone who thinks this forum is a direct line to the Criterion gods.

Gotcha.

why there is no turkish movie in criterions radar?

To give you a little hope, there is a phantom page for Metin Erksan...

kemalettin wrote:why there is no turkish movie in criterions radar?

Because they think Turkey is a bird and not a country.

Wow, what a shitty, pointless Eclipse. Of all the titles in the world that could be given a much needed spotlight. These films have been seemingly released in every country in the world repeatedly in this format. Zzz.

When Criterion announced the rights to the Fassbinders it was dull enough, but at least we presumed Blus were coming!

TMDaines wrote:Wow, what a shitty, pointless Eclipse.

Tonight's sunset is also supposed to be pretty shitty and pointless.

swo17 wrote:

TMDaines wrote:Wow, what a shitty, pointless Eclipse.

Tonight's sunset is also supposed to be pretty shitty and pointless.

It's a pretty dull one here; still more interesting than Playtime that I'm watching though.

TMDaines has never experienced a smile.

knives wrote:TMDaines has never experienced a smile.

He also constantly insists that Criterion/MoC/etc should globally pay attention to what one another are releasing and base their releases upon that. Which is so, so silly that I'm starting to become convinced that he's just having a laugh every time he brings it up

It's the unreleased Fassbinder stuff that a lot of us would really like. That's what would make a heck of a Fassbinder Eclipse.

bamwc2 wrote:I hate to say it, but I'd trade the blu of World on a Wire for a blu of any of the films in this Eclipse set. It's just sad that we won't see these in HD unless another company releases them.

I think it's more a case of the RWF Foundation getting around to doing HD transfers of them. There's a huge number of films, and they're, completely understandably, focussed more on the ones that have never been restored / released. Which is also pertinent to TMDaines' complaint. The 'lost' films are likely to be one-at-a-time restorations, and will probably be released individually with a modicum of fanfare - which at least makes them more likely contenders for mainline release.

If Criterion isn't going to fund new HD transfers of these early films, I doubt anybody else is.

I just look on it as, "oh good, these films are back in print in R1" and "even better, Eclipse is still around."

Re: Zedz

Indeed. It still strikes me as an underwhelming set. Eclipse seems to have been pretty consistent in pushing the boat out and not just re-releasing the same stuff. The last thing this label needs to do is to start doing that. It strikes me as a step back.

I'm sure this box will sell, but once you're aware of the Arrow boxes why would you not opt for them? They're utterly essential at that price point.

As much as mfunk would like to mock me, and pretend he's the first to discover a discerning pattern in my comments, what are you really disagreeing with? Do you like it when they push the boat out and do something different? Or do you prefer the same few thousand films to stay in print all the time, at the expense of tens of thousands of others? Of course the big labels look at what the others are doing. They would't be doing their job if they didn't. Look at how MoC plugs stuff being world or English-friendly firsts, for example.

TMDaines wrote:Eclipse seems to have been pretty consistent in pushing the boat out and not just re-releasing the same stuff. The last thing this label needs to do is to start doing that. It strikes me as a step back. Sure, it will sell, but one you're aware of the Arrow boxes why would you not opt for them? They're utterly essential at that price point.

Eclipse (and Criterion) has always been full of films that have seen prior releases elsewhere, why would they suddenly change that policy? There are dozens of movies in the Eclipse line that I'd love to have in blu-ray (and in a perfect world, they would all be available that way). But let's consider a few of the options available:
1. They release the set, thereby putting relatively obscure arthouse titles back into print in Region 1. No one here buys it, many other people and institutions do.
2. They sit on the releases because they've already been in print previously and have been released in other countries. Why would this be a good thing? There is no reason we have to assume that were the Fassbinder titles not released, something else would take its place.
3. They sit on the titles in the hope that eventually they're restored, and we see them trickle out one by one over the next 25 years.

I think zedz actually put it perfectly. I'm sure very few people in this forum will be purchasing the release, but that's true of many titles.