Criterion The Criterion Collection

[Veum]

32 minutes ago, Mad-martigan said:

Very nice starterkit you have there @pygospa!! 

 

I know is good because I also got mine very recently, (probably like you, taking opportunity of criterion sales?) and we have several matches. 😉

It was very long due, to be honest, and I finally stepped in, now that the steelbook fever is finally receding (a bit 😅) and I can diversify my collection. 

Not everything has to be 

right??

 

I havent started my "kit" yet, but I know 12 angry men is going to be the first one.

I will post a picture of my picks at some point. Enjoy your Criterion "collection"!!

 

 

 

🥤evening here @Mad-martigan here’s a couple I would recommend however do not know if you enjoy Westerns 🤠...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some nice spooky ones for ya 🧛‍♂️...

 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Veum

[Mad-martigan]

evening, @Veum! 

I do enjoy westerns. My grandfather would mostly watch 3 things on tv: bull fighting, soup operas and westerns. I know, extrange mix. He used to say: "The rush is for thieves and bad bullfighters". "I like to do things calmly, thats why I work at the cemetery". Poor thing, didnt have much of a choice. He got measles in his early twenties and as a result hemiplegia for life. Kids used to make fun of him because of the way he was walking, almost dragging one leg, which looked like, well, a zombie. He never seemed to care. He had a small countryside house with some farm animals and fruit trees. "Dont worry, boy. when Im gone, I wont come back from my grave. But you will still have to collect the figs!" 

Anyhow, fortunately I did only inherited the taste for spaguetti westerns. I did watch quite a few with him, including 

 

one of his favorites:

 

and one of mine:

god, I loved that one as a kid! and the sequel. 

 

And of course, the most famous blue-eyed native american indian of all

 

😄

 

As per the second selection you posted, Night of the living dead had to be in my early criterion collection! That movie and I have come a long way. I still have it engraved on my retina when I saw Bill Hinzman for the first time (6-7 years). Terrifying and captivating at the same time. love at first sight! 

I also have another movie that you suggested as well. And I take good note of the rest of your recomendations.

Thank you!

[Veum]

Spoiler

8 minutes ago, Mad-martigan said:

evening, @Veum! 

I do enjoy westerns. My grandfather would mostly watch 3 things on tv: bull fighting, soup operas and westerns. I know, extrange mix. He used to say: "The rush is for thieves and bad bullfighters". "I like to do things calmly, thats why I work at the cemetery". Poor thing, didnt have much of a choice. He got measles in his early twenties and as a result hemiplegia for life. Kids used to make fun of him because of the way he was walking, almost dragging one leg, which looked like, well, a zombie. He never seemed to care. He had a small countryside house with some farm animals and fruit trees. "Dont worry, boy. when Im gone, I wont come back from my grave. But you will still have to collect the figs!" 

Anyhow, fortunately I did only inherited the taste for spaguetti westerns. I did watch quite a few with him, including 

 

one of his favorites:

 

and one of mine:

god, I loved that one as a kid! and the sequel. 

 

And of course, the most famous blue-eyed native american indian of all

 

😄

 

As per the second selection you posted, Night of the living dead had to be in my early criterion collection! That movie and I have come a long way. I still have it engraved on my retina when I saw Bill Hinzman for the first time (6-7 years). Terrifying and captivating at the same time. love at first sight! 

I also have another movie that you suggested as well. And I take good note of the rest of your recomendations.

Thank you!

 

 

You’re welcome❣️

 

😉 

[Mad-martigan]

 

my starter kit 😊

[pygospa]

Beautiful picks. "Dreams", "The Sword of Doom" and "Lord of the Flies" where also in my shortlist and just didn't make it barely (due to budgetary restrictions ). Next sale, then

Edited July 17, 2020 by pygospa

[Mad-martigan]

19 minutes ago, pygospa said:

Next sale, then

 many more waiting! 

I was in the fence with The Lure. cover and synopsis seduce me and I do like musicals, but Im afraid Im more in the classic side. Nevertheless, I'll probably end up listening to the sirens songs-next sale! 😄

Edited July 17, 2020 by Mad-martigan

[pygospa]

10 hours ago, Mad-martigan said:

I was in the fence with The Lure. cover and synopsis seduce me and I do like musicals, but Im afraid Im more in the classic side. Nevertheless, I'll probably end up listening to the sirens songs-next sale! 😄

Haha, totally get that. It was also my most questionable pick, but it looked crazy enough to be a fun watch - and there must be a reason that those guys responsible at Criterion deemed it worthy to be added to the Criterion Collection, mustn't there? I feel like, even if you don't like the movie itself, in the end, it will still be a memorable time, and I was open to just risk it and try something strange and new But in the beginning, this wasn't on my radar at all

[deckard99]

17 hours ago, Mad-martigan said:

 

my starter kit 😊

Being There is one of my all time favorites. Peter Sellers is magnificent in this one 😍

[Mad-martigan]

4 hours ago, deckard99 said:

Being There is one of my all time favorites. Peter Sellers is magnificent in this one 😍

I havent watch it yet but really looking forward. Dr strangelove is superb and Sellers as always, hilarious.

My english teacher was a fan of him and we used to watch The pink panther series at school. Now that I come to think of it, probably the first movies in original version I've ever watched. I remember not understanding anything but still could not stop laughing with Peter on screen. The universal language of cinema! 

[Parzival]

Loving Marriage Story just arrived.. 

 

[hal56]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb Parzival:

Loving Marriage Story just arrived.. 

 

A beautiful edition, matching the movies quality.

[mjk]

November titles :

 

[R1s1ngs0n]

@mjk

 

Thanks for this awesome update, Ghostdog and The Irishman will definitely be mine 🙂

[mjk]

5 hours ago, R1s1ngs0n said:

@mjk

 

Thanks for this awesome update, Ghostdog and The Irishman will definitely be mine 🙂

My pleasure 😁😁 

 

Im very excited for the Irishman!😍😍 and great artwork too😍

[Parzival]

Now why would Parasite not be in 4k

Criterion stuck in the dark ages

They might as well release a VHS of this movie as well

 

[pygospa]

6 minutes ago, Parzival said:

Now why would Parasite not be in 4k

Criterion stuck in the dark ages

They might as well release a VHS of this movie as well

 

Well that's a harsh assessment, and I would argue that it is not accurate at all. VHS was a crappy and old format, that has been arround for 20-30 years. The technical advancement with the DVD was huge and therefore the adoption rate rather steep. BD has yet another high jump in the technology, regarding picture quality, but for many this different wasn't worth the switch, especially as it was not even 10 years since the DVD that one was yet again asked to change the entire technology, for a technology that not everybody is feeling has the same impact that VHS vs DVD had, and not many people got into. And with 4K it's even worse, it came even sooner and technology is rather expensive, for even less of a difference when compared to BD (I've written a rather long post about it here). Therefore the adoption rate for 4K is even lower, and instead of getting 4K releases, most people went from BD or DVD to streaming. But don't take my word for it, just take a look at the figures, e.g. if you follow @UltraHDBluray on Twitter, they regularly show graphs of sales, the last one is this:

 

So now let's think about Criterion - even though they are famous, this label is not a blockbuster label, but a label for niche films. They cater to film buffs and collectors, which is a really small part of people buying blu-rays in general (look at how many labels [worldwide] for instance produce films like Marvel films, and compare that with how many labels have done movies that Criterion does - just to see how big the market is for movies that Criterion does). Being Criterion from a financial point, an UHD release wouldn't make sense, especially considering the expensive care they put into their releases.

So, while I do understand the wish of having a 4K release, I think it's understandable that Criterion is not going for 4K and I think calling them antiquated just because they don't adopt every new technology, but considering all the other facts as well, is kind of unfair.

 

[Ryan]

I'm not a huge fan of criterion. Alot of there films are added just for the fact they were first to do something or was a different way of doing things even though other films not In there collection do it better. Only 1 PTA film no tarantino lol and the film industry's complete lack of respect for horror, it's a joke! But I used to convince myself that they did films so that they would not be lost and they were historical and needed to be brought to light but that's not the case. Alot of pretentious boring flicks with which I have respect for but by no means entertaining. Only a select few and kurasawa films belong in there collection.

[Grendel]

My friend @Ryan ;

I certainly respect your point of view but I don't think all the blame for Criterion's status in the Blu-ray industry can be lain at their door.

The fan base for Criterion is rabid with respect to devotion and that can be for both weal and woe when it comes to developing a rep.

Of course there is prejudice when it comes to selection and they are not shy in saying so.

Seeing "Personal Shopper" released, the same year the film was in cinema, was an excellent example and they stated so.

Anyway, are their releases worth purchasing? Which when it comes down to it, is all I really care about.

The answer is of course, yes.

Of course, since we do not have to, we can vote with our wallets on particular releases and they are not totally oblivious to hearing suggestions either, so...

🙂

 

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Grendel

[Parzival]

Hi buddy excellent analysis 👍, I love reading your stuff 🙂

 

Not going to argue too much as you've obviously done your research. I can't argue with the fact that adaptation of 4ks has been slow compared to DVDs and Bluray. You are spot on when you say DVDs and Blurays were a huge jump up from their predecessor formats. 

Theoretically however 4k is also quite a jump from a technology perspective. As the number suggests, should be ~4 times sharper resolution [3, 840 vs 1,080..]. I think adaptation may be slower due to a few reasons. You see, VHS and Betamax were the first true / mass home entertainment formats, so people were very happy to be able to watch films at home (and ability to record from television). Then DVD obviously blew people away with superb quality and durability. Blurays took it to another level. I think investment / upgrade fatigue does eventually set in.

 

Being a kid from the 80s, for some movies, I own all the formats. I will obviously never watch on VHS again, but keeping them still as a nostalgic and emotional attachment. But it does become a bit too much, even for the most ardent film fan, to constantly upgrade every couple of years. I also acknowledge the fact that had I not got the 4k version of those movies, there would not have been too much of a void in my life (probably due to the fact that Bluray quality is so superb anyway), so I could easily infact live without the 4k version. It's more of a comfort thing, knowing that you own the best format available 🤗

 

I also agree with your statement that Criterion collectors are a different type of collector, very niche and acquired taste shall we say (unlike most of the premium retailers now who have been hijacked by either DC or Marvel). 

 

But the fact that Criterion does not offer films in 4k, it actually goes against their own mission statement. If you see the screenshot attached,  I quote the line  "that offer the highest technical quality". So if I am being pedantic - that would be an Ultra HD 4k disc. 

 

Quite a few of their editions are 4k restorations anyway - the love, effort and time they put in for state of the art restorations and special features is truly remarkable and commendable. A gift from heaven for fans of those films.  I just wish, with the passage of time, they acknowledge and realise that the "highest technical quality" is not Bluray anymore. 

 

This will not put me off from buying their editions by the way. I have been a long supporter of Criterion, love their passion and commitment, and selection of films. I will still be purchasing Criterion Parasite, and can easily buy a 4k edition to supplement it. 

 

Many thanks 
 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Parzival

[pygospa]

Hey @Parzival,

 

I do not disagree with you that even though the perceived difference is minimal for at least most viewers (including myself because I do not have the space and screensizes to really take benefit of the larger resolution), it is a big step on the technical side. And who knows what the future will hold. 8K? 16K? 32K? Having to blow up old releases from 1K to 4K, well that's not too easy to spot, but to 8K or further you will again notice blurriness, artifacts, etc. So even though I could not benefit from 4K, I know that a 4K disc would future-proof my collection in a way that HD cannot. So in general I totally agree with you, and if you want to strive for the very best, 4K might be the way. At least for current movie releases, such as Parasite is (I do believe that regarding classics you'd probably introduce more damage the higher you go with the resolution - 35mm will have it's limit as to how much you can blow it up, and never forget that film makers of the time also knew the limitations of the medium and used it cleverly. So in the end, what looked like a really clever and unspottable illusion on 35mm film intended to be viewed in VHS quality, now looks like really bad and cheesy effect on HD or UHD, because you can spot every plastic prop and every matte painting, etc.).

 

But in general I agree with you, regarding both, the technical advancement (even if we might not even see it), as well as their mission statement. I just wanted to explain to you why I understand what Criterion is doing and why. And I believe that if it was easy for them to switch from HD to UHD they would have done it - I mean they started out with LD, and did the jump to DVD and later to BD, and as far as I know they did it rather earlier than later. And your critique, comparing HD to VHS just didn't seem too fair to me

 

1 hour ago, Parzival said:

Quite a few of their editions are 4k restorations anyway - the love, effort and time they put in for state of the art restorations and special features is truly remarkable and commendable. A gift from heaven for fans of those films.  I just wish, with the passage of time, they acknowledge and realise that the "highest technical quality" is not Bluray anymore. 

 

I do have a question regarding this, though. And maybe you or someone else knows more about the techical details and can answer it: To fully make use of UHD-BDs you would also need to make use of the wider color range available (HDR, HDR+, Dolby Vision, etc.), because if you don't then the picture would look faded if working on such large resolution with a limited color palette (see the Ara-Picture that is supposed to visualize this effect ).

Can older 4K Masters that have already be done for HD BDs be used for UHD, without needing to do anything on the picture? I was wondering this for a while now, but I couldn't find an answer yet. To my understanding, this should be an issue at the sampling step: the color on 35mm film is continuous (as is the resolution - at least in theory), but sampling discretizes it, so if the resolution of the color is lower than what is needed for these high definition color formats on UHD, this would make UHD releases from existing 4K masters that where created with the intent of using them as HD Masters not ideal candidates for UHD releases.

Any thoughts/information on this by someone with more insight to this?

If this is not the case, then again, I would say, @Parzival is totally right in wondering why Criterion does not do an additional "4K" lin, where they just take 4K copies of their already existing 4K masters, because all the work is already done, it's just the creating of discs. And even though it's a small market it is a market. Plus it's also an international market, with 4K not having this region blocks anymore. My guess is, that it's not that easy, but I don't know for sure (and maybe there is also licensing and rights problems, as it's usually the case with these matters?).
 

[pygospa]

And of course I forgot to add the picture. Here you go:

[Fortis93]

57 minutes ago, pygospa said:

So in the end, what looked like a really clever and unspottable illusion on 35mm film intended to be viewed in VHS quality, now looks like really bad and cheesy effect on HD or UHD, because you can spot every plastic prop and every matte painting, etc.)

 

I agree with this, but it can also go the other way in highlighting greater detail, richness of colour, depth of image, etc. to other films, or sometimes within the same film, which then becomes a matter of weighing one thing against the other in justifying the conversion to 4K (the 4K image may highlight the technical flaws in some scenes, but greatly improve on the image/sound quality provided by the blu-ray in other scenes).

 

With that said, there are many valid reasons why Criterion may not be pursuing 4K as a viable/profitable medium, which is fine.

 

It just means that people like me will be looking elsewhere (e.g. Studio Canal's 4K release of 'The Elephant Man' compared to Criterion's '4K scan' on blu-ray), except for cases where it may be unlikely for a particular film to arrive on 4K anytime soon (such as The Gunfighter which is coming in October), rendering a 2K or 4K scan on a blu-ray disc the next best thing.

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Fortis93

[Parzival]

@pygospa

I agree, I think the very old classics would be best left alone. Infact part of the grainy picture counts to the overall viewing pleasure lol, gives an age and timed feeling about the moment and history. Many years back, I came across colourised editions of Laurel and Hardy, and was mortified 😫. How can anyone watch Laurel and Hardy other than in Black and White? 

 

Infact, some Criterion DVD editions of old classics have been wonderfully restored and give a nice and balanced picture on DVD. For example, a beautiful film "Summertime" looks very nice, and I almost would not want a crystal clear HD or 4k image of that one - the DVD is perfect as it is, for the time and era that film depicts. Similarly, another classic "The Thief of Baghdad (1940)" is very well presented on DVD, infact I enjoyed watching Criterion's more than the European Bluray version (where I thought the sharp colours were just too ghastly and all over the place, gave me an eye sore). The DVD gave me more viewing pleasure, it was just a better and more balanced picture quality overall. 

 

But for the newer films (in particular in the Digital era, SD, HD and 4k etc), an upgrade should be viable and do-able. And would be most welcome. Hence my rant on Parasite lol, which came out last year, and 4k would be the de-facto filming format. No restorations, upgrades or additional costs required, the film would have been shot in 4k. 

 

Re: your more technical questions, they are interesting and well raised. I would not have the answers unfortunately , but there are many clever and knowledgeable members on this sight who may be able to give an insight. 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by Parzival

[Parzival]

57 minutes ago, Fortis93 said:

 

It just means that people like me will be looking elsewhere (e.g. Studio Canal's 4K release of 'The Elephant Man' compared to Criterion's '4K scan' on blu-ray), except for cases where it may be unlikely for a particular film to arrive on 4K anytime soon (such as The Gunfighter which is coming in October), rendering a 2K or 4K scan on a blu-ray disc the next best thing.

 

Totally agree buddy 

 

Typically, I would have gone for Criterion's edition, but Studio Canal blew it out of the water with their superb editions for "The Elephant Man" 

 

I purchased both editions, the 4k steelbook, and the non steelbook 4k special edition with the enhanced extras.  Both editions trump Criterion in my opinion. 

 

Point is, I may have gone for Criterion if they had released their edition in 4k. So yes, they are infact losing a market here. 

 

[Ryan]

8 hours ago, Grendel said:

My friend @Ryan ;

I certainly respect your point of view but I don't think all the blame for Criterion's status in the Blu-ray industry can be lain at their door.

The fan base for Criterion is rabid with respect to devotion and that can be for both weal and woe when it comes to developing a rep.

Of course there is prejudice when it comes to selection and they are not shy in saying so.

Seeing "Personal Shopper" released, the same year the film was in cinema, was an excellent example and they stated so.

Anyway, are their releases worth purchasing? Which when it comes down to it, is all I really care about.

The answer is of course, yes.

Of course, since we do not have to, we can vote with our wallets on particular releases and they are not totally oblivious to hearing suggestions either, so...

🙂

 

 

I agree. By no means do I slam there quality and packaging or there fan base my only gripe is with the collection. Just think that of all the greatest films out there they dont have. And of course if it's a film you like then it's worth the buy. But some of there films are just overrated.