WB - The New Criterion
03-01-05, 09:19 AM
#1
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 25,295
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes
on
38 Posts
WB - The New Criterion
One of my favorite sites has a great article today worth a read:
http://slate.com/id/2114143/
WB on DVD
Warner Bros. is the new Criterion Collection. How the DVD label cleaned up its act (and its digital transfers).
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Feb. 28, 2005, at 3:02 PM PT
Here's looking at a great new picture on DVDs
People don't pay much attention to the name of the studio on a DVD. (Nobody I know says, for instance, "Let's go rent a Paramount movie tonight.") The single exception, of course, is the Criterion Collection, which has marketed itself as a boutique brand, touted—and deservedly so—for its classic catalog, fastidious transfers, and superb commentaries, booklets, and other "special features."
Now it's time to take note of another logo that almost guarantees high quality—Warner Home Video. At least since 2002, the video division of Warner Bros. has released one great-looking DVD after another. I know of no other label, in fact, whose output has been more consistently spectacular.
Last year, its two-disc DVD of Casablanca was a revelation—more luminous than any print probably since the film's 1941 première. More recently, its box sets of film noir and gangster movies (including The Asphalt Jungle; Murder, My Sweet; Out of the Past, White Heat; and The Public Enemy) have been marvels of clarity. Its restorations of Technicolor classics—Singin' in the Rain, Meet Me in St. Louis, The Band Wagon, and Gone With the Wind—are breathtakingly lush and detailed: Look at the texture of clothing, the ripples of a curtain, the glistening steel of a railroad car—they're practically 3D. I saw The Band Wagon in a restored 35mm print not long ago, at Film Forum in New York, and this DVD suffers hardly at all by comparison. Modern films as well, like Warner's new two-disc "special edition" of Scorsese's Goodfellas, are saturated with rich, natural colors. (If you disagree, you need to calibrate your television or buy a new one.)
Nearly a decade into the DVD era, most studios have figured out how to do at least decent digital mastering. Few major-label DVDs these days look bad. What puts Warner Home Video a notch or two (or three) above the rest? I talked with George Feltenstein, senior vice president for Warner's classic catalog, and Ned Price, VP for technical mastering, as well as a few outside industry specialists. Here's what I found out.
First, the condition of Warner's film library is in relatively good shape. As a result of media meltdowns and mergers over the past half-century, Warner Bros. owns not only all the films made under its own studio logo but also all RKO titles and all MGM films made before 1986. (For details, click here.) In the 1960s, long before film preservation became a popular cause, MGM was one of two Hollywood studios—the other was Disney—that decided to preserve all its films. They spent millions of dollars to repair, properly store, and in some cases meticulously restore original negatives, black-and-white nitrates, or duplicate copies. As for Warner Bros.' own black-and-white classics, original nitrates were long ago donated to the Library of Congress or UCLA, which stored them in temperature-controlled rooms and left them, ever since, untouched. To the extent possible, Warner DVDs have been mastered from the original negatives, preventing degradation in detail, sharpness, color, and contrast.
Then there's Warner's work with Technicolor. Even with careful preservation, color negatives fade over time. But Technicolor negatives can look as good as new after decades. This is because Technicolor films consisted of three black-and-white negatives, which ran simultaneously through a special camera. Light hit each film strip through a prism filter. Afterward, each film strip was coated with a dye, and the three strips were then aligned, on top of one another, to form a coherent color image. It was a complex, costly process, which lasted only from 1935-54. (For a succinct detailed elaboration, click here.) The point is that black-and-white negatives don't fade. If the Technicolor black-and-white negatives have been stored well, and if some lab can replicate the Technicolor dye-processing, it should be possible to create a fresh print with perfect color.
This is why the DVDs of Gone With the Wind, The Band Wagon, Meet Me in St. Louis, and so forth look so stunning. They've been mastered from the original Technicolor three-strip negatives. In some ways, these DVDs have finer color and detail than even the original film prints. In the old days, it was difficult to align those three strips perfectly. The task became still harder years later, when the films were reissued (or turned into earlier DVD transfers), because the negatives had stretched or shrunk over time. If you need all three strips to get the right color, and you can't line the strips up precisely, then the colors and the sharpness are going to be a bit off. However, with digital technology, the three strips can be aligned with absolute precision. This process isn't unique to Warner—other studios made Technicolor films, too—but Warners is the first to go back to the three-strip negatives and realign them precisely as a systematic policy.
Another thing that makes the recent batch of Warner DVDs look so good: high-speed digital scanning. When a film is turned into a DVD, the first step is to scan each frame digitally and to store the data on a hard drive. The more times a frame is scanned, the more coherent is the resulting picture. Many DVD studios now scan films at "high-definition"—or 1,080 lines. Warners is one of just a few that scan at 2,000 lines (or, in the parlance, "2K scanning"). Soon, beginning with a Wizard of Oz reissue later this year, it will start releasing Technicolor DVDs scanned at 4,000 lines ("4K scanning"). This is a significant number. Engineers estimate that if you digitally reproduced all the information on a frame of 35mm film, you'd need about 4,000 lines of data. In other words, at least theoretically (and for more on this caveat, click here), 4K scanning captures everything that's on a film.
Finally, the new Warner DVDs tend to come in the form of two-disc sets—one disc for the movie, a second disc for the special features. (Gone With the Wind has four discs: two for the movie, two for special features.) This isn't just a packaging gimmick. Digital video, like digital audio, consists of a series of 0's and 1's, run through complex compressors, processors, and converters. You can only fit so many 0's and 1's—so many bytes and bits—on an optical disc. The more you load the disc with special features, the less space you have for the movie—or, more to the point, the fewer bits you can devote to each frame of a movie. The higher number of bits that go into an image, the better the image looks. So, the best way to present the movie is to put nothing on the disc except the movie. (Columbia TriStar started this practice with its SuperBit DVDs. A few other studios, not just Warners, have picked up on the idea.) A Web site called dvdbeaver.com has measured that the latest multi-disc Gone With the Wind has 55 percent more bits per second than a single-disc DVD that Warner released a few years ago.
But the true measure—besides whether the movie is good—is how good the movie looks. You can see the difference in the new Warner DVDs, and it isn't subtle.
Fred Kaplan, Slate's "War Stories" columnist, also writes about DVDs for the Perfect Vision and other publications.
http://slate.com/id/2114143/
WB on DVD
Warner Bros. is the new Criterion Collection. How the DVD label cleaned up its act (and its digital transfers).
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Feb. 28, 2005, at 3:02 PM PT
Here's looking at a great new picture on DVDs
People don't pay much attention to the name of the studio on a DVD. (Nobody I know says, for instance, "Let's go rent a Paramount movie tonight.") The single exception, of course, is the Criterion Collection, which has marketed itself as a boutique brand, touted—and deservedly so—for its classic catalog, fastidious transfers, and superb commentaries, booklets, and other "special features."
Now it's time to take note of another logo that almost guarantees high quality—Warner Home Video. At least since 2002, the video division of Warner Bros. has released one great-looking DVD after another. I know of no other label, in fact, whose output has been more consistently spectacular.
Last year, its two-disc DVD of Casablanca was a revelation—more luminous than any print probably since the film's 1941 première. More recently, its box sets of film noir and gangster movies (including The Asphalt Jungle; Murder, My Sweet; Out of the Past, White Heat; and The Public Enemy) have been marvels of clarity. Its restorations of Technicolor classics—Singin' in the Rain, Meet Me in St. Louis, The Band Wagon, and Gone With the Wind—are breathtakingly lush and detailed: Look at the texture of clothing, the ripples of a curtain, the glistening steel of a railroad car—they're practically 3D. I saw The Band Wagon in a restored 35mm print not long ago, at Film Forum in New York, and this DVD suffers hardly at all by comparison. Modern films as well, like Warner's new two-disc "special edition" of Scorsese's Goodfellas, are saturated with rich, natural colors. (If you disagree, you need to calibrate your television or buy a new one.)
Nearly a decade into the DVD era, most studios have figured out how to do at least decent digital mastering. Few major-label DVDs these days look bad. What puts Warner Home Video a notch or two (or three) above the rest? I talked with George Feltenstein, senior vice president for Warner's classic catalog, and Ned Price, VP for technical mastering, as well as a few outside industry specialists. Here's what I found out.
First, the condition of Warner's film library is in relatively good shape. As a result of media meltdowns and mergers over the past half-century, Warner Bros. owns not only all the films made under its own studio logo but also all RKO titles and all MGM films made before 1986. (For details, click here.) In the 1960s, long before film preservation became a popular cause, MGM was one of two Hollywood studios—the other was Disney—that decided to preserve all its films. They spent millions of dollars to repair, properly store, and in some cases meticulously restore original negatives, black-and-white nitrates, or duplicate copies. As for Warner Bros.' own black-and-white classics, original nitrates were long ago donated to the Library of Congress or UCLA, which stored them in temperature-controlled rooms and left them, ever since, untouched. To the extent possible, Warner DVDs have been mastered from the original negatives, preventing degradation in detail, sharpness, color, and contrast.
Then there's Warner's work with Technicolor. Even with careful preservation, color negatives fade over time. But Technicolor negatives can look as good as new after decades. This is because Technicolor films consisted of three black-and-white negatives, which ran simultaneously through a special camera. Light hit each film strip through a prism filter. Afterward, each film strip was coated with a dye, and the three strips were then aligned, on top of one another, to form a coherent color image. It was a complex, costly process, which lasted only from 1935-54. (For a succinct detailed elaboration, click here.) The point is that black-and-white negatives don't fade. If the Technicolor black-and-white negatives have been stored well, and if some lab can replicate the Technicolor dye-processing, it should be possible to create a fresh print with perfect color.
This is why the DVDs of Gone With the Wind, The Band Wagon, Meet Me in St. Louis, and so forth look so stunning. They've been mastered from the original Technicolor three-strip negatives. In some ways, these DVDs have finer color and detail than even the original film prints. In the old days, it was difficult to align those three strips perfectly. The task became still harder years later, when the films were reissued (or turned into earlier DVD transfers), because the negatives had stretched or shrunk over time. If you need all three strips to get the right color, and you can't line the strips up precisely, then the colors and the sharpness are going to be a bit off. However, with digital technology, the three strips can be aligned with absolute precision. This process isn't unique to Warner—other studios made Technicolor films, too—but Warners is the first to go back to the three-strip negatives and realign them precisely as a systematic policy.
Another thing that makes the recent batch of Warner DVDs look so good: high-speed digital scanning. When a film is turned into a DVD, the first step is to scan each frame digitally and to store the data on a hard drive. The more times a frame is scanned, the more coherent is the resulting picture. Many DVD studios now scan films at "high-definition"—or 1,080 lines. Warners is one of just a few that scan at 2,000 lines (or, in the parlance, "2K scanning"). Soon, beginning with a Wizard of Oz reissue later this year, it will start releasing Technicolor DVDs scanned at 4,000 lines ("4K scanning"). This is a significant number. Engineers estimate that if you digitally reproduced all the information on a frame of 35mm film, you'd need about 4,000 lines of data. In other words, at least theoretically (and for more on this caveat, click here), 4K scanning captures everything that's on a film.
Finally, the new Warner DVDs tend to come in the form of two-disc sets—one disc for the movie, a second disc for the special features. (Gone With the Wind has four discs: two for the movie, two for special features.) This isn't just a packaging gimmick. Digital video, like digital audio, consists of a series of 0's and 1's, run through complex compressors, processors, and converters. You can only fit so many 0's and 1's—so many bytes and bits—on an optical disc. The more you load the disc with special features, the less space you have for the movie—or, more to the point, the fewer bits you can devote to each frame of a movie. The higher number of bits that go into an image, the better the image looks. So, the best way to present the movie is to put nothing on the disc except the movie. (Columbia TriStar started this practice with its SuperBit DVDs. A few other studios, not just Warners, have picked up on the idea.) A Web site called dvdbeaver.com has measured that the latest multi-disc Gone With the Wind has 55 percent more bits per second than a single-disc DVD that Warner released a few years ago.
But the true measure—besides whether the movie is good—is how good the movie looks. You can see the difference in the new Warner DVDs, and it isn't subtle.
Fred Kaplan, Slate's "War Stories" columnist, also writes about DVDs for the Perfect Vision and other publications.
03-01-05, 09:23 AM
#2
Moderator
Right, the "new" Criterion. 
If so, where are the WB releases of M, Rules of the Game and Rashomon?
If so, where are the WB releases of M, Rules of the Game and Rashomon?
03-01-05, 09:28 AM
#3
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 15,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WB has a ton of snappers, full screen and single layer releases. That's not quality in my opinion. But I will say that the 2 disc editions are definitely a step in the right direction. And at least most of their discs are anamorphic. I have 3 that aren't.
03-01-05, 10:04 AM
#6
Moderator
Warner's will only be like Criterion to me when they get over the stink they have with Ken Russell's "The Devils" and release a two disc complete with commentaries, the BBC documentary "Hell on Earth" and every sort of film-related material.
03-01-05, 10:19 AM
#8
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by digitalfreaknyc
WB has a ton of snappers, full screen and single layer releases. That's not quality in my opinion. But I will say that the 2 disc editions are definitely a step in the right direction. And at least most of their discs are anamorphic. I have 3 that aren't.
I do have to agree with 'the new criterion' to some extent. The price to quality ratio is much better with Warner. Sure, their DVDs generally aren't as high quality as Criterion, but they're a lot cheaper.
03-01-05, 10:59 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wendersfan
Right, the "new" Criterion.
If so, where are the WB releases of M, Rules of the Game and Rashomon?
If so, where are the WB releases of M, Rules of the Game and Rashomon?
I ain't frontin', I'm just curious.
Last edited by The Ferret; 03-01-05 at 11:03 AM.
03-01-05, 11:09 AM
#10
Moderator
Originally Posted by The Ferret
Are you saying movies like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and Robin Hood don't match up in movie quality? Or do you mean transfer-wise there are no Warner dvds that compare to the three you listed?
I ain't frontin', I'm just curious.
I ain't frontin', I'm just curious.
The two companies release the same product in a purely material sense, but otherwise they are worlds apart. You might as well compare John Ford and Robert Bresson - one a great commercial artist, the other an equally great, but decidedly non-commercial artist.
03-01-05, 11:15 AM
#11
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 1,310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Giles
Warner's will only be like Criterion to me when they get over the stink they have with Ken Russell's "The Devils" and release a two disc complete with commentaries, the BBC documentary "Hell on Earth" and every sort of film-related material.
03-01-05, 11:27 AM
#12
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: In a small pocket universe hoping to someday become a Moderator Emeritus at DVDTalk.com!
Posts: 9,380
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by wendersfan
Right, the "new" Criterion.
If so, where are the WB releases of M, Rules of the Game and Rashomon?
If so, where are the WB releases of M, Rules of the Game and Rashomon?
03-01-05, 11:43 AM
#13
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where are the Criterion releases of Singin in the Rain, Adventures of Robin Hood, Citizen Kane, and Out of the Past?
Eh. The Criterion Treatment isn't membership in some elite club. Yeah, they do choose their movies, but it isn't just because the films might otherwise slip through the cracks. Kurosawa would have gotten ignored otherwise? I don't think so. Armageddon, The Rock, and Silence of the Lambs were screaming for attention?
Additionally, Criterion has their share of non-anamorophic prints. I recall several years ago that this was a chronic complaint on this forum.
Rather, Criterion publishes what they can get the rights to. In practice, this tends to be independent films that don't have easy access to a studio DVD distribution system. They (now) do a great job with the transfers. They have found a market niche. Power to them. But it looks to me that this was more borne of necessity than some desire to be an exclusive line, given the presence of some big budget Hollywood schlock in Criterion's catalog.
But I don't see how any of this takes away what Warner's has done lately. Warners is giving great treatment to the jewels for which they have the rights. When Kaplan says "they are the new Criterion" he is clearly talking about the quality of the transfers. And in that he is right. Rather than knocking Warners, I think it makes more sense to praise them, and encourage other studios to follow suit.
Overall, however, I think studios are getting a clue. When I watch older releases in my collection, the number of non-anamorphic releases squeezed onto a single-layer disc with lots of extras, with poor transfers marred by edge enhancement, seems very common. For newer releases, I am surprised when I see any of those things to a significant extent.
What sets Warner's apart from many of the other studios seems mostly to be the quality of the prints on their classics. These things are incredibly pristine - in that respect they exceed Criterion, which tends to rely on restoration done by others. Not to knock Criterion - they sometimes don't have access to great prints. Warners has simply taken better care of an archive that it owns. Criterion, in contrast, is constrained by the quality of the prints available - I don't believe they do major restoration efforts themselves.
Eh. The Criterion Treatment isn't membership in some elite club. Yeah, they do choose their movies, but it isn't just because the films might otherwise slip through the cracks. Kurosawa would have gotten ignored otherwise? I don't think so. Armageddon, The Rock, and Silence of the Lambs were screaming for attention?
Additionally, Criterion has their share of non-anamorophic prints. I recall several years ago that this was a chronic complaint on this forum.
Rather, Criterion publishes what they can get the rights to. In practice, this tends to be independent films that don't have easy access to a studio DVD distribution system. They (now) do a great job with the transfers. They have found a market niche. Power to them. But it looks to me that this was more borne of necessity than some desire to be an exclusive line, given the presence of some big budget Hollywood schlock in Criterion's catalog.
But I don't see how any of this takes away what Warner's has done lately. Warners is giving great treatment to the jewels for which they have the rights. When Kaplan says "they are the new Criterion" he is clearly talking about the quality of the transfers. And in that he is right. Rather than knocking Warners, I think it makes more sense to praise them, and encourage other studios to follow suit.
Overall, however, I think studios are getting a clue. When I watch older releases in my collection, the number of non-anamorphic releases squeezed onto a single-layer disc with lots of extras, with poor transfers marred by edge enhancement, seems very common. For newer releases, I am surprised when I see any of those things to a significant extent.
What sets Warner's apart from many of the other studios seems mostly to be the quality of the prints on their classics. These things are incredibly pristine - in that respect they exceed Criterion, which tends to rely on restoration done by others. Not to knock Criterion - they sometimes don't have access to great prints. Warners has simply taken better care of an archive that it owns. Criterion, in contrast, is constrained by the quality of the prints available - I don't believe they do major restoration efforts themselves.
03-01-05, 11:55 AM
#16
Moderator
Originally Posted by TomMiller
Where are the Criterion releases of Singin in the Rain, Adventures of Robin Hood, Citizen Kane, and Out of the Past?
Eh. The Criterion Treatment isn't membership in some elite club. Yeah, they do choose their movies, but it isn't just because the films might otherwise slip through the cracks. Kurosawa would have gotten ignored otherwise? I don't think so.
Additionally, Criterion has their share of non-anamorophic prints. I recall several years ago that this was a chronic complaint on this forum.
Rather, Criterion publishes what they can get the rights to. In practice, this tends to be independent films that don't have easy access to a studio DVD distribution system. They (now) do a great job with the transfers. They have found a market niche. Power to them. But it looks to me that this was more borne of necessity than some desire to be an exclusive line, given the presence of some big budget Hollywood schlock in Criterion's catalog.
03-01-05, 12:13 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wendersfan speaks the truth, criterion is a league of its own. Even IF another company released criterions movies (which wouldn't happen for 70% of them) they would not be as consistant in the quality department (most likely).
You can very easily match up a Warner dvd to a Criterion dvd and give a worthy argument for each. It's just in their own respective practice, Criterion's system of dvd releases and what they do for film fans stands apart from anyone.
You can very easily match up a Warner dvd to a Criterion dvd and give a worthy argument for each. It's just in their own respective practice, Criterion's system of dvd releases and what they do for film fans stands apart from anyone.
03-01-05, 12:28 PM
#18
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 25,295
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes
on
38 Posts
Originally Posted by digitalfreaknyc
WB has a ton of snappers, full screen and single layer releases. That's not quality in my opinion. But I will say that the 2 disc editions are definitely a step in the right direction. And at least most of their discs are anamorphic. I have 3 that aren't.
On top of that, you get a quality, loaded release for under $20. Even the 4D GWTW streeted at under $28.
Criterion will always have it's well-deserved place as a top DVD maker, but WB is on par and in my mind, has plenty of reasons to make it the best overall.
03-01-05, 12:43 PM
#19
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Criterion isn't unique. Kino, Anchor Bay, etc.
The studios publish their own catalogues, and are occasional distributers for smaller studios. Independently owned films don't have access to that system, so they go to one of many distributers who specialize in independent releases. There is no generalization about film selection you can make about Criterion that wouldn't also apply to a studio like Kino. Quality of releases? check. More obscure titles, that would otherwise be ignored by the majors? check.
Yes, I am sure if Warner's wasn't around, some other studio would have released Singin in the Rain and Gone with the Wind. But I am also sure some other studio would have released Seven Samurai and Third Man. Would another studio, other than Criterion, have released L'Eclisse? Don't know. But I also don't know if a studio other than Warner's would have released Gun Crazy or Little Caesar. Whether one set of films is better than another is a matter of taste. My hunch is that your tastes simply run more toward Criterion's catalog, so you regard the service they provide as more important.
That isn't the case with me. What sets Criterion apart for me is the quality of the discs for high quality films. In that respect, Criterion and Warner have a lot in common.
The studios publish their own catalogues, and are occasional distributers for smaller studios. Independently owned films don't have access to that system, so they go to one of many distributers who specialize in independent releases. There is no generalization about film selection you can make about Criterion that wouldn't also apply to a studio like Kino. Quality of releases? check. More obscure titles, that would otherwise be ignored by the majors? check.
Yes, I am sure if Warner's wasn't around, some other studio would have released Singin in the Rain and Gone with the Wind. But I am also sure some other studio would have released Seven Samurai and Third Man. Would another studio, other than Criterion, have released L'Eclisse? Don't know. But I also don't know if a studio other than Warner's would have released Gun Crazy or Little Caesar. Whether one set of films is better than another is a matter of taste. My hunch is that your tastes simply run more toward Criterion's catalog, so you regard the service they provide as more important.
That isn't the case with me. What sets Criterion apart for me is the quality of the discs for high quality films. In that respect, Criterion and Warner have a lot in common.
03-01-05, 12:51 PM
#20
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more I think about it, the more it seems a matter of taste. If you like independent or foreign cinema, you are going to love what Criterion does. If you like classic Hollywood, you are going to love what Warners does. Me, I like both, but when it comes to more obscure titles, I do prefer Warner's films noir and gangster pictures to Criterion's arty and cult films. I would sadly miss my film noir collection, but I doubt I would shed a tear if every Antonioni film disappeared from the face of the earth.
03-01-05, 12:57 PM
#21
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Seven Samurai and Rashomon would have gotten released, sure, but maybe not Ikiru or Red Beard. And look at the "great" releases we have of non-Criterion Kurosawa - Ran anyone? "
This is partially a fair point. My Ran "masterworks edition" was very disappointing. But given that studios like Kino has distributed Dersu Uzala, a film far more obscure than Ikiru or Red Beard, I doubt either of those Criterion worthies would have been ignored.
I wonder if you asked Anchor Bay and Kino, whether they would complain that Criterio is monopolizing their market, and shutting them out from a lot of films they would otherwise love to distribute.
This is partially a fair point. My Ran "masterworks edition" was very disappointing. But given that studios like Kino has distributed Dersu Uzala, a film far more obscure than Ikiru or Red Beard, I doubt either of those Criterion worthies would have been ignored.
I wonder if you asked Anchor Bay and Kino, whether they would complain that Criterio is monopolizing their market, and shutting them out from a lot of films they would otherwise love to distribute.
03-01-05, 01:00 PM
#22
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Kingston, TN
Posts: 2,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be perfectly honest, I see not one special thing about a CC anymore. Other than it costs a great deal too much, the quality is nothing special - Warner for example can do just as good. Yeah, they release a bunch of stuff that no other studio is releasing. If they were not doing it though, someone else would (maybe not to the same quality level.) If they would get off this high pricing maybe more people would buy CC disc. I stopped along time ago and try to rent or borrow what I want to see that they release.
While CC is good, I really do not see them as the gold standard anymore. WB and everyone else though not consistently ahs figured out how to make quality DVD releases. Debating the merits of the film released was not the subject of this thread so don't start ripping on what gets released. Warner has a huge library so the will release what they own, why go looking for more stuff.
While CC is good, I really do not see them as the gold standard anymore. WB and everyone else though not consistently ahs figured out how to make quality DVD releases. Debating the merits of the film released was not the subject of this thread so don't start ripping on what gets released. Warner has a huge library so the will release what they own, why go looking for more stuff.
03-01-05, 01:01 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just thinking in terms of quantity, personally there's probably about the same number of releases from both companies that I love. Criterions done it a couple hundred times, Warner's done it maybe 30 times. I guess if we're taking output as of now, Warner can equal Criterion. They serve different purposes though. Either way, both great companies, and congrats to Warner's constant improvements.
03-01-05, 01:02 PM
#24
Moderator
Originally Posted by TomMiller
Criterion isn't unique. Kino, Anchor Bay, etc.
The studios publish their own catalogues, and are occasional distributers for smaller studios. Independently owned films don't have access to that system, so they go to one of many distributers who specialize in independent releases. There is no generalization about film selection you can make about Criterion that wouldn't also apply to a studio like Kino. Quality of releases? check. More obscure titles, that would otherwise be ignored by the majors? check.
Yes, I am sure if Warner's wasn't around, some other studio would have released Singin in the Rain and Gone with the Wind. But I am also sure some other studio would have released Seven Samurai and Third Man. Would another studio, other than Criterion, have released L'Eclisse? Don't know. But I also don't know if a studio other than Warner's would have released Gun Crazy or Little Caesar. Whether one set of films is better than another is a matter of taste. My hunch is that your tastes simply run more toward Criterion's catalog, so you regard the service they provide as more important.
That isn't the case with me. What sets Criterion apart for me is the quality of the discs for high quality films. In that respect, Criterion and Warner have a lot in common.
The studios publish their own catalogues, and are occasional distributers for smaller studios. Independently owned films don't have access to that system, so they go to one of many distributers who specialize in independent releases. There is no generalization about film selection you can make about Criterion that wouldn't also apply to a studio like Kino. Quality of releases? check. More obscure titles, that would otherwise be ignored by the majors? check.
Yes, I am sure if Warner's wasn't around, some other studio would have released Singin in the Rain and Gone with the Wind. But I am also sure some other studio would have released Seven Samurai and Third Man. Would another studio, other than Criterion, have released L'Eclisse? Don't know. But I also don't know if a studio other than Warner's would have released Gun Crazy or Little Caesar. Whether one set of films is better than another is a matter of taste. My hunch is that your tastes simply run more toward Criterion's catalog, so you regard the service they provide as more important.
That isn't the case with me. What sets Criterion apart for me is the quality of the discs for high quality films. In that respect, Criterion and Warner have a lot in common.
You'd be right to assume my tastes run more towards Criterion's catalogue, but in reality they don't. In fact, the DVD with the "highest rotation" in my player right now is Howard Hawks' Rio Bravo, a barebones release by none other than...WB! (And it's a snapper, too!) I admit that my DVD purchases trend heavily towards Criterion, along with non-R1 companies like Artificial Eye. But this is a conscious decision on my part to buy those movies that might otherwise be hard to find, and also, at least in a small part, to reward with my dollars the effort that companies like Criterion and Anchor Bay make to provide me with those choices.
03-01-05, 01:32 PM
#25
Now if only WB would have no problem releasing Unrated or NC-17 films that would be a plus. That is why we still do not have Friedkin's "Cruising" and Russell's "The Devils".