why did criterion stop print of 'silence of the lambs' and 'robocop'?

[OnWelfare]

why did they stop making these two bad boys? and while we're on the subject, what is the Criterion Collection all about? neither of these movies were in dolby digital 5.1 or dts, so why shell out so much cash when you aren't gettin anything special? or are you gettin something special that i just haven't discovered yet? is it just cuz of the cool packaging?

[Notoriousaurus]

you get the superior packagine but you also get a ton of exclusive bonus features. In addition to the X-rated cut of Robocop.

I recommend you go here

[OnWelfare]

x-rated cut, huh....i think i've heard about that. more naked chicks? more violence? either way, can't be too bad. thanks for the link.

but still, why would they discontinue it? and they had to pick the tight ass criterion movies to discontinue (ie. dead ringers, robocop, silence of the lambs, this is spinal tap).

[PorkChopXpress]

Originally Posted by OnWelfare

x-rated cut, huh....i think i've heard about that. more naked chicks? more violence? either way, can't be too bad. thanks for the link.

IMDB has the list of what was excised from the director's cut. Here's a link. It's pretty much more violence.

[MooglePorn]

They're OOP because the rights to release the movies went back to MGM after Criterion's contract ran out... or something very close to that.

As for why Criterions are worth so much money, the main reason is that Criterion gives great care and time to create a very nice special edition of films that usually would not get an SE from their original company. Films like Shizopolis, The Vanishing, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and Rushmore may not have gotten SE's from their original companies, but Criterion will do so. They charge more because less people buy these titles. I don't think anyone can really say a Criterion is better than another great SE like Fight Club or Die Hard, but a small film like Rushmore getting such treatment is the key to movie fan's love of the company.

Titles like Armageddon and The Rock being Criterions really makes no sense in this scheme though. Why they are Criterions (and cost the same as the others) I have no idea...

[OnWelfare]

i dunno, i'd buy the criterion rock just cuz it looks cooler than the other version.

thanks for the response!

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by OnWelfare

i dunno, i'd buy the criterion rock just cuz it looks cooler than the other version.

It's a great disc... well worth owning for the new transfer alone.

[Soggy Bagel's Revenge!]

To be specific, Orion Pictures liscenced a few titles to Criterion back in the Laserdisc days (Titles like "Silence of the Lambs", "Robocop", and "Unbearable Lightness of Being"). Orion Pictures eventually folded, and was acquired by MGM. When Criterion's liscence ran out, it was MGM's descision to renew it or not, and MGM as of late seems to have a firm policy on not liscencing out any films.


...and if you want some really "tight-ass" films Criterion put out on DVD, try the following:

Rebecca
The Naked Kiss
Les Diaboliques
M
Notorious
Peeping Tom
Insomnia
Shock Corridor
Winter Light
Blood of a Poet/Orpheus/Testament of Orpheus
Spellbound
Kwaidan

...and countless others that should certainly be purchased before ever considering getting "The Rock"

[OnWelfare]

some of those do look pretty rad....definitely worth checkin out. however, the rock will forever remain a badass flick.

[Dehrian]

Criterion is notable because they were the first company to do special editions, back in the laser disc days. Their release of The Red Shoes, if I remember correctly, was the first disc ever to feature a commentary track. Now special editions and commentaries are commonplace, but Criterion really pioneered and perfected the art.

Some of their titles go out of print as they lose the license to produce them. And their titles tend to cost more because they frequently have higher production costs.

[larphillips]

Plus Criterion, as a private company, takes the time and trouble to produce their own suppliments (instead of buying existing), remaster and restore their own prints, give it the best possible transfer with the tools and technology at hand. These things all cost money, and they don't have the infrastructure or resources available that a large studio has. Add to those costs, films with generally limited mass appeal, licensing fees, the time and effort involved in writing and producing great liner notes, and a smaller distribution arm. The reason of the slightly higher cost is easy to see, but you more than certainly get what you pay for, and it is worth it every time you buy a new Criterion disc. Their reputation is well earned and justified.

[pdjennings]

did he just say "pretty rad" ?

[TopHatCat64]

I believe he did...haven't heard that one since grade school...

[Soggy Bagel's Revenge!]

Originally Posted by larphillips

Plus Criterion, as a private company, takes the time and trouble to produce their own suppliments (instead of buying existing), remaster and restore their own prints, give it the best possible transfer with the tools and technology at hand. These things all cost money, and they don't have the infrastructure or resources available that a large studio has. Add to those costs, films with generally limited mass appeal, licensing fees, the time and effort involved in writing and producing great liner notes, and a smaller distribution arm. The reason of the slightly higher cost is easy to see, but you more than certainly get what you pay for, and it is worth it every time you buy a new Criterion disc. Their reputation is well earned and justified.

I disagree. Many independent companies put in the effort to produce their own supplements and remaster their films, but still don't charge $29.99 MSRP for a movie-only edition. Anchor Bay, for example. Criterion is a great company that's produced some spectacular releases over the years, and it's because of this reputation they've attained that they're able to charge so much. I wouldn't say that every Criterion disc is well worth the price. $29.99 for a movie-only edition of "Withnail and I" that has an incredibly shitty transfer isn't really justifiable. Don't get me wrong, I think Criterion puts out great films, but they're certainly not flawless. Most of their early non-anamorphic titles (which were even produced at a time when they SHOULD have been anamorphic) they have yet to reissue with anamorphic transfers, and most of their earlier releases are simply lazy ports of the LDs. The reason they charge so much for all of their releases is simple:

They're Criterion and they can get away with it.

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by Soggy Bagel's Revenge!

I disagree. Many independent companies put in the effort to produce their own supplements and remaster their films, but still don't charge $29.99 MSRP for a movie-only edition. Anchor Bay, for example. Criterion is a great company that's produced some spectacular releases over the years, and it's because of this reputation they've attained that they're able to charge so much. I wouldn't say that every Criterion disc is well worth the price. $29.99 for a movie-only edition of "Withnail and I" that has an incredibly shitty transfer isn't really justifiable. Don't get me wrong, I think Criterion puts out great films, but they're certainly not flawless. Most of their early non-anamorphic titles (which were even produced at a time when they SHOULD have been anamorphic) they have yet to reissue with anamorphic transfers, and most of their earlier releases are simply lazy ports of the LDs. The reason they charge so much for all of their releases is simple:

They're Criterion and they can get away with it.

Some good points there... but don't you think it costs a little more to license say, 400 Blows than it would Transylvania 6-5000?

And until someone consistantly does it better, and with the quality stable of films that Criterion gets, then they will continue to be a the top of the game, and at the top of the pricing structure.

[Soggy Bagel's Revenge!]

Originally Posted by larphillips

Some good points there... but don't you think it costs a little more to license say, 400 Blows than it would Transylvania 6-5000?

And until someone consistantly does it better, and with the quality stable of films that Criterion gets, then they will continue to be a the top of the game, and at the top of the pricing structure.

Well, if I were to be totally honest, I'd say that New Line Home Video is more consistent in their quality of releases than Criterion. Of course, Criterion releases better films.

[DonnachaOne]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

Titles like Armageddon and The Rock being Criterions really makes no sense in this scheme though. Why they are Criterions (and cost the same as the others) I have no idea...

Of course it makes sense. Criterion's motto is something along the lines of presenting "classic and important films". Armageddon and The Rock are both incredible technical achievements, and there's a wealth of information concerning their making that should be kept for posterity. There's barely a bit of fluff on either disc set.

As for whoever remarked about Anchor Bay - they're a fine studio. However, they can keep costs down because they use less costly-to-license titles, and constantly rerelease/repackage their flagship titles (four Halloweens, five Army Of Darkness'). In fact, their Evil Dead: Book Of The Dead Edition was a $49.95 MSRP - higher than most new Criterions!

Does it justify the cost of Criterion? Well, not really. They're an independant company with a much smaller target market than Anchor Bay or Blue Underground, and they have a much tinier selection to work with. I don't think it's fair to charge $25+ for a NON-ANAMORPHIC Withnail & I with only half the documentary, but I understand.

I wish they would do more inter-studio licensing. Chasing Amy and The Royal Tenenbaums were both Buena Vista/Criterion joint ventures; their distribution is controlled by BV, which is why you can find them for pretty cheap (they make enough money as it is). The Rock and Armageddon were Criterion discs of already-released Buena Vista films; Criterion controls their distribution. It's worth pointing out that BV has the distribution rights in other countries - which is why you can get an ANAMORPHIC Armageddon with mosts of the same features in England for twelve bucks, and The Rock in Australia for about the same!

I figure Criterion and Paramount should hook up. Do some justice to their catalogue titles.

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by DonnachaOne

Of course it makes sense. Criterion's motto is something along the lines of presenting "classic and important films". Armageddon and The Rock are both incredible technical achievements, and there's a wealth of information concerning their making that should be kept for posterity.

They're popcorn movies, which really doesn't fit in well with the rest of the catalogue...

[Marq]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

They're popcorn movies, which really doesn't fit in well with the rest of the catalogue...

They certainly are, and I don't like those movies at all and wouldn't own them, but I don't hold it against them. If they feel like documenting the making and the final product of a few very big-budgeted Hollywood action movies in order to present all moments and movements in cinema, I say go for it. Furthermore, such titles probably give them some decent profit that could go to help the company continue to produce fine DVD editions. So again, I'm not complaining.
The Blob and Fiend without a Face are extremely "popcorn-y" as well, but I rarely hear complaints.

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by Marq

They certainly are, and I don't like those movies at all and wouldn't own them, but I don't hold it against them. If they feel like documenting the making and the final product of a few very big-budgeted Hollywood action movies in order to present all moments and movements in cinema, I say go for it. Furthermore, such titles probably give them some decent profit that could go to help the company continue to produce fine DVD editions. So again, I'm not complaining.
The Blob and Fiend without a Face are extremely "popcorn-y" as well, but I rarely hear complaints.

From Criterion:

The Criterion Collection, a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films, is dedicated to gathering the greatest films from around the world and publishing them in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements. Criterion began with a mission to pull the treasures of world cinema out of the film vaults and put them in the hands of collectors. All of the films published under the Criterion banner represent cinema at its finest. In our seventeen years, we've seen a lot of things change, but one thing has remained constant: our commitment to publishing the defining moments of cinema in the world's best digital editions.

[larphillips]

I think more than anything, Criterion probably had fantastic access to a very willing Michael Bay. I wouldn't be surprised if his people made that call, and offered all the time and materials Criterion could want. Based on that theory alone, let alone giving Criterion entry into retail outlets that they may not have had a presence in before, it makes sense for Criterion to take on titles like that. Hey, if a few popcorn films can help pay the bills and allow them the financial freedom to persue some more obscure titles, then more power to them.

[Soggy Bagel's Revenge!]

Originally Posted by Marq

The Blob and Fiend without a Face are extremely "popcorn-y" as well, but I rarely hear complaints.

One could add "Sisters", "Flesh For Frankenstein", and "Blood for Dracula" to this list as well. Although I think "Flesh For Frankenstein" is truly a masterpiece of a B-movie (*sigh*, how I so desire to see it in 3-D...)

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by larphillips

I think more than anything, Criterion probably had fantastic access to a very willing Michael Bay. I wouldn't be surprised if his people made that call, and offered all the time and materials Criterion could want. Based on that theory alone, let alone giving Criterion entry into retail outlets that they may not have had a presence in before, it makes sense for Criterion to take on titles like that. Hey, if a few popcorn films can help pay the bills and allow them the financial freedom to persue some more obscure titles, then more power to them.

I don't think anyone will argue these reasons, I just think the films stand out from their message...

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

I don't think anyone will argue these reasons, I just think the films stand out from their message...

Look at it as "building towards the future." Bay never wants for work, and always gets the mega-budget green lights. They build a solid relationship with him now, and maybe one day he'll accidentially create a masterpiece. Then they are golden! As I said before though, he probably gave them access like they'd never been offered before, and no company would turn that down. He got his desired need for 'credibility' fulfilled and they got a wealth of material. Everyone wins. And I don't know, but I would imagine that one or both of those titles list among the top 5 Criterion DVDs in sales. Hell, I own both of them!

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by larphillips

Look at it as "building towards the future." Bay never wants for work, and always gets the mega-budget green lights. They build a solid relationship with him now, and maybe one day he'll accidentially create a masterpiece. Then they are golden! As I said before though, he probably gave them access like they'd never been offered before, and no company would turn that down. He got his desired need for 'credibility' fulfilled and they got a wealth of material. Everyone wins. And I don't know, but I would imagine that one or both of those titles list among the top 5 Criterion DVDs in sales. Hell, I own both of them!

I just ordered The Rock, but Armageddon's lack of 16X9 enhancement keeps me from getting it, no matter how much I want to hear that Affleck commentary...

I would also like to point out that despite being a shitty movie the Pearl Harbor Vista Series Edition is one of the best editions of a single movie of all time... and it was the one Criterion didn't do! Strange...

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by DonnachaOne

Armageddon and The Rock are both incredible technical achievements

Really? Why are these titles considered technical achievements? I've never heard this before even though I own both titles.

Peace...

[OnWelfare]

Originally Posted by pdjennings

did he just say "pretty rad" ?

Originally Posted by TopHatCat64

I believe he did...haven't heard that one since grade school...

i'm bringin it back....

[SidcupMartin]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

I just ordered The Rock, but Armageddon's lack of 16X9 enhancement keeps me from getting it, no matter how much I want to hear that Affleck commentary...
...

The commentary is great but not as funny as Billy Bob in the gag reel breaking into Sling Blade

[Hamburger3]

Originally Posted by OnWelfare

some of those do look pretty rad....definitely worth checkin out. however, the rock will forever remain a badass flick.

More like one of the most overrated films ever made.

No better than any other average action flick.

[airjosh]

I am pretty sure that we have stumbled across a new law of physics or something, I will dub it airjosh's law of thermobaycritnamics. This law states that it is impossible to start a conversation about Criterion without someone feeling the need to flame Michael Bay's films in the collection.

As has been stated over and over in numerous threads, these movies have just as much of a place as many of the other "popcorn" or "entertainment" or "cheesy" cheesy films in the collection. I still maintain that their inclusion speaks directly to their mission and while you may not like them or agree, that is not to say they are not worthy.

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Really? Why are these titles considered technical achievements? I've never heard this before even though I own both titles.

Peace...

Tom, this has been discussed in threads you have participated in...

from an old post that sums up the significance of Armageddon from way back:

"I agree with the position of Armageddon being an important film in the timeline of the blockbuster. Armageddon redefined the term in how it was created specifically to run the box office through the roof. Major characters were written in and scenes added just to eek out another demographic group. The love story angle was such a decision, because they wanted more women in the seats. Armageddon in unapologetically and admittedly a box office engineered film and the results were what they were looking for. The budget was 140M and it pulled in over 550M worldwide. 350M of that came from the rest of the world, which was nearly unprecendented for such a sugar coated rah-rah USA is great movie. A summer blockbuster this certainly was, it even outperformed the similar Deep Impact which dropped it's asteroid first. The Criterion edition is leaps and bounds above the embarassing attempt by Buena Vista."

i'm bringin it back....

He's OnWelfare guys and couldn't afford a new hip word so he dug out something from the thrift store.

You can borrow "tubular" from me if you'd like

[MooglePorn]

Airjosh, I am not asking anyone to defend movies in their collections, as I own The Rock and Pearl Harbor myself, I just think they stand out in the Criterion Collection... and you have to admit they do, at least a bit... eh?

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by airjosh

Tom, this has been discussed in threads you have participated in...

from an old post that sums up the significance of Armageddon from way back:

"I agree with the position of Armageddon being an important film in the timeline of the blockbuster. Armageddon redefined the term in how it was created specifically to run the box office through the roof. Major characters were written in and scenes added just to eek out another demographic group. The love story angle was such a decision, because they wanted more women in the seats. Armageddon in unapologetically and admittedly a box office engineered film and the results were what they were looking for. The budget was 140M and it pulled in over 550M worldwide. 350M of that came from the rest of the world, which was nearly unprecendented for such a sugar coated rah-rah USA is great movie. A summer blockbuster this certainly was, it even outperformed the similar Deep Impact which dropped it's asteroid first. The Criterion edition is leaps and bounds above the embarassing attempt by Buena Vista."

Thanks for reminding me of that. The above quote doesn't address Armageddon being considered a technical achievement. As I said previously, I've never heard of Armageddon or The Rock being considered technical achievements and I'm not sure why they would be considered as such. The Matrix "raised the bar" on special effects, to the point where you still see its influence in movies coming out today. T2 did the same or similar. What am I missing here?

Peace...

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

What am I missing here?

Peace...

Nothing, because you are 100% correct

[Doctor_Mabuse]

Their release of The Red Shoes, if I remember correctly, was the first disc ever to feature a commentary track

That is incorrect! The first LD to ever to feature a commentary track was Criterion's 1st LD of "King Kong". (I own that LD) "The Red Shoes" was released much later.

[airjosh]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

Airjosh, I am not asking anyone to defend movies in their collections, as I own The Rock and Pearl Harbor myself, I just think they stand out in the Criterion Collection... and you have to admit they do, at least a bit... eh?

I don't think they stand out any more then The Beastie Boys Anthology, The Blob, Carnival of Souls, Chasing Amy, Flesh for Frankenstein, Gimme Shelter, Robocop, The Killer, Hard Boiled, Life of Brian, The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore, Traffic, and Time Bandits

These films make up around a tenth of the catalog and all pale next to Seven Samurai, M, The 39 Steps, Ivan the Terrible, 8 1/2 and many others but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be excluded.

Originally Posted by Tomdkat

Thanks for reminding me of that. The above quote doesn't address Armageddon being considered a technical achievement. As I said previously, I've never heard of Armageddon or The Rock being considered technical achievements and I'm not sure why they would be considered as such. The Matrix "raised the bar" on special effects, to the point where you still see its influence in movies coming out today. T2 did the same or similar. What am I missing here?

Peace...

Armageddon had unprecented access to NASA which has never really been repeated, and even they even had the honor to get into the training suits which has never happened for civilians before. there were some huge breakthroughs in effects including how the atmosphere, etc. interacted with the scenes involving the ships, amongst many other things.

Another point of view is to go with a definition of technical from Webster: of or relating to a particular subject

In this case the subject is film, the achievements of Armageddon's engineered success are a technical achievement. The marketing and creation of this film was brought to a scientific level relying on data, which certainly qualifies for technical to me.

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by airjosh

I don't think they stand out any more then The Beastie Boys Anthology, The Blob, Carnival of Souls, Chasing Amy, Flesh for Frankenstein, Gimme Shelter, Robocop, The Killer, Hard Boiled, Life of Brian, The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore, Traffic, and Time Bandits

I still think Bay's are different... but... agree to disagree like they say

[airjosh]

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

I still think Bay's are different... but... agree to disagree like they say

agreed

...but, I am not sure how cheesy b-horror and HK action, not to mention Robocop are somehow more relevant then these true hollywood blockbusters

[JdW]

My fav Criterions are Silence of the Lambs(obviosuly its #1 in my ymdb top 20 list in my sig), The Royal Tennenbaums(fab job) and Rushmore

[MooglePorn]

Originally Posted by JdW

My fav Criterions are Silence of the Lambs(obviosuly its #1 in my ymdb top 20 list in my sig), The Royal Tennenbaums(fab job) and Rushmore

Anyone with Return of the Jedi above Empire Strikes Back gets a from me... but anyway, I assume you have the MGM release as well?

[SidcupMartin]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

What am I missing here?

Peace...

Well, they did have Bay's trademark shiny, wet floors which I believe were rendered in CGI... groundbreaking stuff