CRM114

Kubrick's masterpiece, Barry Lyndon, in HD is not good enough for you?

CRM114

Actually, this is a good point I was thinking about this morning. At one point, Stanley Kubrick was considered the crown jewel of WB. Where was the decision made to release his limited number of films in bargain basement form? Each of his films should be packaged similar to the Dr. Strangelove BD packaging at the minimum. WB really seemed to whore (to use your term) the Kubrick films.

Doctorossi

I agree. I think WB really blew an opportunity to go special with these. Release them as cheap and bare-bones and that's how they'll come to be perceived by those who know no better. Release them all fancy-like and expectations will rise to the presentation.

I really can't figure out this release. Since they're not doing new transfers/content, the only motivation that really appears left for WB is to raise the MSRP on these titles back out of the cheapie bin they've fallen into. And yet, here they are, releasing these at cheapie prices again, already. What are they doing/thinking?

Guru Askew

Snobbery is pretty much a given in a Kubrick thread but I love how people are basically complaining that Warner Bros. is offering affordable HD versions of these movies as opposed to the "good old days" when they would have charged like $100 for the same thing in SD, split up among sides of a cumbersome and hard-to-find software format.

Furthermore, it's not like Kubrick loaded these things with extras (newsflash: Kubrick was even alive in the DVD era) and Warner Bros. stripped all the extras off to make them cheaper. Kubrick was the one who never bothered with anything but bare-bones releases with 4x3 transfers. Kubrick is the one who made Criterion recall their release to remove a screenplay.

I think this box set is a big waste (especially with "Barry Lyndon" and "Lolita" now coming out as seperate releases) and the decision to proceed with the "Clockwork Orange" release months before the restoration is available is ridiculous but aside from that they've done more with Kubrick's films on video than he was ever willing to do (which is definitely a good thing unless you're some kind of "Kubrick didn't approve it!" nut and people are complaining about it. Priceless.

Doctorossi

I don't think anyone's complaining about these movies being made available so inexpensively. There are a couple of folks who balked at the pricing, considering it still too high and a few of us had a laugh about that. I don't see any complaining at all, let alone complaining about the prices being too low.

Travis McClain

In fairness, Kubrick died in 1999, by which point the DVD format had just really taken off. Sure, he was aware of the potential for the format, but one wonders whether he had a fully-informed perception of the value of bonus content to film students and fans alike. The closest like-minded filmmaker I can think of in that regard is Spielberg, who initially resisted DVD altogether and even now refuses to offer a commentary track on his films. Still, we have seen an evolution from bare bones releases to fully loaded special editions of (most of) his films.

In any event, I believe that the only absolute control a director should have over a home video release is the right to approve a director's cut; a studio should never be permitted to market a cut of a film as such when it isn't. Beyond that, so far as I'm concerned, the studio owns the footage and it should be up to film historians and critics to evaluate such content as it relates to understanding and appreciating the film at hand, and the craft of film-making in general. Surely, no one concerns himself with what D.W. Griffith wanted his audience to see; if a reel of alternate takes from Birth of a Nation was unearthed tomorrow, we'd expect to see it, right?

Solid Snake

well if you go to Best Buy they probably can do that for ya.

Not when SOOOOOOOO much can be said about it. It's a masterpiece (that can be argued of course but still...). When all of his WB films have shit on them, good shit too. And BL doesn't? Yeah, I'm going to wait a bit. Is there really nobody out there wanting to know more about BL? I sure as hell would a bunch of features about it.

CRM114

I could care less about extras. If I am buying a movie, I want decent packaging especially for films considered important. I mean, who comes up with this cover art? Not even a single page of information inside the case? Lame WB.



There are SO many books written on Kubrick and his films, dumb vignettes on DVDs seem rather silly.

Doctorossi

It all depends on the individual filmmaker's deal with the particular studio. Kubrick had a deal with Warner that afforded him control over a lot of elements that most filmmakers don't get much of a say in.

Doctorossi

If you're waiting for a healthy batch of extras on a Barry Lyndon release, I think the odds are very strong you're waiting in vain.

Solid Snake

What? Why do you want a little page telling you something? Chapters for the film? Settings?

Travis McClain

True, but that's an instance of a director having exceptional control. It's a shame that Kubrick was never persuaded about the value of bonus content. In the grander scheme of things, few directors have that kind of contractual power--and I personally feel they shouldn't. They're not making movies singlehandedly, even the self-righteous auteurs. Why shouldn't a costume designer have a chance to elaborate on her work for a film, or a cinematographer the opportunity to comment on his craft? Whether these remarks are shared in a documentary, or a commentary track, I still feel those people should have their story heard (provided they desire to share it). This nonsense of behaving as though "The Di-rec-tor" is the Alpha and the Omega of a film is absurd...even when discussing the admittedly brilliant and meticulous Kubrick.

CRM114

Check out a Criterion blu-ray sometime. That's what each Kubrick film should be packaged like. Not like Weekend at Bernies.

Travis McClain

On Tuesday, I happened upon 8 1/2 Criterion Blu at Half Price Books and picked it up. I immediately took note of the heft of the package, which is a double-thick case. Imagine my surprise when I discovered it's only one disc...the heft came from the booklet! Surely there are film critics and historians willing to contribute to such a booklet for a Kubrick release. I can't imagine that kind of inclusion violating the terms of Kubrick's contractual power.

PopcornTreeCt

Exactly. Watch how Criterion releases The Killing later this year and then compare that to Warner's effort.

Doctorossi

In the particular case of Kubrick, I don't think it was ego/hubris, but an interest in letting the art speak for itself. In the same way that a painting is not usually accompanied by 'behind-the-scenes' materials, neither are these films. You have only the piece of art itself from which to derive its meaning.

Solid Snake

a page and a booklet are two different things. I know Criterion. If it gets a booklet...you can be damn sure it could some features about itself...which is also something they did for it.

also:
Man, I love Criterion...I'm not ready for this next sale at B&N. Fuck.

naitram

Finally Barry Lyndon! Can't wait to get this, just hope they don't screw up the picture.

And I don't care about extras, I have Kubrick books.

davidh777

It's an endless argument about presentation vs. cost. I love Criterions but I don't buy a ton of them because of the price. I just don't devour bonus features like I used to, and while I love the heft of the booklets, I haven't actually read that many of them. Granted I wouldn't consider myself a film scholar by any stretch, but I am a movie fan and pretty heavy collector.

Now it's Eastwood.

Travis McClain

Ah, careful. Film is a collaborative medium, whereas paint may not be (depending on whether the subject matter involves cooperating people). If Monet sits down and paints haystacks and water lilies, whom else would you consult about the work other than Monet?

And we should be careful about a particular point you raise: even an on-the-record declaration of storytelling intent from the artist does not negate the search for interpretation on the part of the beholder. Monet may have gotten drunk one night at a salon and carried on about what the water lily meant to him, but once the art exists even its artist does not have an exclusive claim on understanding its meaning.

musick

I did ... it's call "Paths Of Glory"
I'd rather have these releases at 14.99 or less than to pay a premium to get the fluff we got with that

PopcornTreeCt

Well said.

On another note, The Thin Red Line had a fantastic commentary and other great features with zero participation from Malick.

jrsl76

Pre-ordered.

CRM114

There are plenty of Weekend at Bernies for the bargain bins.

I remember in the eighties, David Bowie pulled his catalog from RCA because they stuck it in the bargain bin. They were all released on Ryko which at the time was a high quality CD manufacturer. Some artists deserve more respect.

Paths of Glory is a glorious release. Even without the BD, it's worlds above that pathetic snapper case with horrible cover art that preceded it.

slowcloud

I remember the loss of the RCA Bowie catalog to be replaced by the Ryko editions. Though they were respectful to his catalog with bonus tracks, fancier art, audiophiles still prefer the RCA editions for the purer sound of analog sourcing.

How does that relate to the Kubrick reissues on blu-ray. I just hope, Warner does not mess up the transfers of the PQ. As I said earlier, many older releases "up-graded" to blu look annoying (examples: the night scene in Deliverance and even the Night of the Hunter lost some of the film grain to be replaced by the "smoothness" of HD creating odd, unnatural shadows). I have yet to watch my Paths on blu, though.