I see what you are saying, but I think the whole "things could always be worse" argument is pretty weak. It isn't like we are asking for anything radical here. If that sticker says director approved, I think I have a right to be upset if something like that slips in under the radar.

If I have said it once, I will say it again. "Director-approved" means absolutely nothing, it's a marketing buzzword concocted by press agents to plaster over the cover. It is absolutely meaningless but if fans want to feel better about a disc because the director nebulously approves it, more power to you.

I wouldn't say it means nothing but if you want to argue that it doesn't mean you're going to get a perfect release, then you would be correct.

Yeah, I think Soderbergh is one of the only directors who will go through his film meticulously for a "director approved" label to mean anything. In pretty much every other case, it's just the director giving their okay, or at best, their okay to use a specific print for the transfer. Rarely, or ever, does the director actually go through it and inspect it for flaws.

The point was about that those thay claim to be an expert on the movie, but still miss things. Lots of those out there. Often going on for paragraphs about their history with the movie over different formats.

It's annoying when things slip under the radar but it shouldn't be something to be upset about if Criterion admitted the mistake and will actually do something about it. This anger should be reserved for companies, like Universal with their Conan the Barbarian blu ray, that have releases riddled with mistakes but don't acknowledge it or attempt to fix it.

ITA. It's funny how many DVD's I have kept despite having also purchased the BD. Some of them are for unique extras. But far more, like Conan, are because the BD has issues.

But FTR, I don't think people are upset with Criterion. More like disappointed.

I know for a fact from a director who spoke off the record that not all "director approved" stickers mean the director was involved.

It sound to me like Criterion simply made a minor mistake. I'm sure they wish they hadn't, but they aren't infallible. Doesn't sound like a huge deal .

While that may be true, David Lynch is very protective of Eraserhead. He and Criterion had a huge falling out when Criterion was supposed to release the movie on DVD around 1999. He eventually released it on DVD himself through his own Absurda label, sold on his personal web site. It took 15 years for Lynch and Criterion to mend fences and work together again.

The Criterion transfer is a new 4k film scan from the original negative, despite the fact that Lynch had already signed off on a previous high-def master used on foreign Blu-ray editions just two years ago. He also remixed the soundtrack freshly for this disc, in his own personal mixing studio at his house.

The Criterion disc is full of Lynch's idiosyncrasies, such as a complete lack of chapter stops because Lynch hates the idea of viewers not watching the entire film in full every time. (No other Criterion disc is like this.) The confusingly labeled menu options for the supplements also scream David Lynch's doing to me.

I have absolutely no doubt that Lynch was heavily involved with this disc's production, and rode Criterion's ass at every step to make sure they delivered a product he was happy with.

Nevertheless, a small error slipped past everyone's attention. Shit happens. No one is perfect. Now that it's been caught, they're working to correct it. I honestly have no idea what more we could ask of them.

Still waiting for those examples, Mickey.

Don't you get it, Josh? It's FIVE WHOLE SECONDS! That's a massive 120 frames! Out of only 128,160. How can Lynch, Criterion's staff, and every professional reviewer on the planet not notice a whopping 0.0009% of the film being different?

Who's being ridiculous now?

David Lynch, the so called expert on Eraserhead.

You can't say this and not name names and the exact circumstance. Otherwise this is just conjecture.

People have careers and lives to protect. Only an idiot would name names on a public forum. His point has been made without betraying confidential sources of information. Some directors have basically signed off on home video releases for some kind of personal gain. Many of them let interns or their assistants handle the process, which isn't that rigorous in most cases. I'm not saying this Eraserhead situation is that way, this seems to be a brief slip that might get easily missed.

I agree but if you're not going to divulge who said this then what's the point of bringing it up? Like I said, it's conjecture. By the way, we all know you're talking about Wes Anderson

What he said. I'm protecting a source who volunteered this information in confidence. I didn't have to share this, but I felt it fair to bring some perspective to this discussion. Because, indeed, these stickers are a marketing tool, as someone else noted.

Hey, if Criterion is fixing those five seconds I'm fine with waiting to make my purchase, and good for them for doing so.

I think someone here asked, and I can't recall if it was answered, but the Hulu version of the film has the 5 seconds play out exactly as intended, unlike the Blu-ray.

Is it from the same remastered video transfer as the Blu-ray, or the older video master?

I don't know, sorry. I don't have the Blu-ray yet to compare. That said, I only checked Hulu briefly, and skipped ahead to that scene. The image appeared pretty soft overall, but otherwise... I'm guessing it's the older video master, but can't say for certain.

1 mississippi - 2 mississippi - 3 mississippi - 4 mississippi - 5 mississippi

that's long...

I'll keep rolling along
Deep in my heart is a song
Here on the range I belong
Drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds...

Replacement info shown here.

http://welcometotwinpeaks.com/news/c...c-replacement/

kinda like Shout/Anchor Bay on the so called sync issue on Halloween 4