marty888

I'm a big Criterion fan, but there's no question in my mind that the best of the recent WB releases are pretty much equal to the best of the Criterion releases regarding their technical quality and supplemental material.

The big difference is that WB is doing great editions for titles that will sell to a large audience, while Criterion continues to primarily release titles that will have a limited audience. Singin' In The Rain and Gone With The Wind are going to sell a few more copies than Fanny & Alexander, The Leopard or Mamma Roma.

Richard Malloy

This is the perfect place to mention this: the r2/PAL (UK) release of "RAN" is quite excellent, easily superior to the Wellspring R1. And it was released by... (wait for it)

....Warner Bros!

(Seriously, check it out. A far superior transfer to the Wellspring, and the second disc includes Chris Marker's documentary on the filming.)

And a fantastic article linked to above. Criterion largely remains in a league of it's own (Kino? Please. Call me when they figure out how to make a decent transfer), but it's not just the quality of their transfers and scholarship behind their special features. I'd argue that Criterion's pre-eminence is also largely due to the fact that they have access to many of the greatest films every made in the form of the Janus Collection. So, I'm in total disagreement with Tom Miller's musings on their title selection process. The Janus Collection, which is essentially "owned" by Criterion and which films comprise the vast majority of their releases, is obviously a far greater factor in Criterion's releases than any handful of titles they've licensed from other studios.

But the point of the article, and it's one that I'm in total agreement with, is that Warner Bros. has improved so much with their special editions that they deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Criterion. DEFINITELY!

Jericho

Actually I'd argue that Criterion is the opposite of what you just said. It made a name for itself because it spent a lot of time and energy on transfers and supplements. This is dating back to the days of laserdisc when the whole idea of digital transfers and supplements were unexplored. It was also a time when Criterion could acquire the rights to many more 'mainstream' movies like some WB titles such as Casablanca and Citizen Kane.

It was only on DVD that Criterion became more of a niche company in releasing foriegn films and lesser known titles. I put forth that they did this out of necessity. No longer would the studios license major titles to them, instead deciding to release versions themselves. Criterion was left to either quit the business or get what they could and go from there. And Criterion could get the rights to do many of these obscure titles, for whatever reason.

Now, I'll grant you that Criterion didn't have to choose the path they did. There are plenty of other movies out there that Criterion could have made a buck or two on that it passed up. It actively chose to go after the films they did and not put out movies that a Kino or Anchor Bay did. But it was a choice made by necessity.

I still believe Criterion made its name in the laserdisc days, and since most early DVD owners were also laserdisc owners, carried over that great brand name to DVD. That brand name stood for great work, supplements, and and overall great movie package. And the WB has followed that exact same path.

P.S. I realize this is arguing over semantics more than anything, I'm grateful for both the work of Criterion and of the WB. But I do believe the article is accurate in its analogy of the two companies.

Richard Malloy

To continue a point from my previous post... as you say, it seems to be primarily an issue of semantics.

WB has "Gone with the Wind", "Casablanca", "Citizen Kane", and possibly the largest combined collection of well preserved films of all the major studios. But consider Criterion's main repository of films, the Janus Collection. You won't find a title as popular as those three I mentioned (for different reason, these are three of the best known, best loved movies ever), but one would be hardpressed to write them off as "obscure titles" released only "of necessity". Or, at least, I would.

I mean, in the Janus Collection we're talking about the lion's share of films (including most of the greatest ones) directed by Bergman, Renoir, Bunuel, Godard, Powell & Pressburger, Fellini, Cocteau, Dreyer, Eisenstein... just off the top of my head! These names may not comprise daily viewing from mainstream audiences, but one would be hardpressed to assemble a list of luminaries that bests this one. These films are the cornerstone of my collection, the great ones that aspire to art. And even more than the quality of the transfers and the amazing scholarship behind the supplements, it's the films themselves that to me represent the greatest thing about the Criterion Collection.

natevines

Hehe, you forgot Kurosawa in your list.
Anyhow, Criterion's films are far more esoteric and obscure. Maybe Curtiz, Fleming, Huston, Cukor (just looking at some of my recent WB discs) are not as great artistically, but their films are more popular than Crierion's (I'm NOT saying they're better). To me, they're two completely different types of films. It's impossible to say which has a better library, but I think we can all agree that both have expansive libraries with great films, albeit Warner's are more popular.

mwj

I think WB deserves a ton of credit for the way they treat their catalog releases. They care and do a great job of quality and quantity. The fact that WHV have come so far is a testament to George Feltenstein.

nightmaster

I think WB is doing good things of late and I'm not about to trash and troll them in this thread. Why complain about older releases when most studios have improved in general over their efforts at the infancy of DVD?
Criterion is like a great steak place that not everyone is willing to go to, even though they KNOW they're going to have a superb meal every time they go....they just aren't willing to pay the bill that comes with that excellence. The other companies like WB are coming up with great meals for less, but aren't likely to ever have the high regard that steak place A has, because they served inferior meals to we DVD diners in the beginning. When WB is putting out excellent transfers as well as CC, the buyer wins whether he's ordering GWTW or Seven Samurai. Let's face it, the mainstream studios don't even HAVE to put out great looking discs when they know the buying public is going to buy them regardless, but they are anyway, and I think that's great for movie lovers like us.

ShagMan

WB has definitely improved in some respects... they sure did a smokin' job on some of their basic releases as well... no extra features, but the transfer was WOW on Ice Pirates, for example... it's lucky that movie was made in '84, and is part of the MGM collection that WB owns now.