Does anyone in Mobius land know what happens when Criterion re-releases a title? Is their any solace for the poor saps who bought the first iteration? Or are we just expected to bite our lips and pony-up once again?

The upcoming re-release of Fritz Lang's M has brought this up for me.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Criterion would allow those with the earlier release to upgrade their DVD by sending them (something in the area of) ten or fifteen dollars, along with the old disc. After seeing your post, I made a quick attempt to find some mention of the trade-in offer on their website, but I was unsuccessful. Perhaps someone else can steer you to the details, that is, unless I imagined the whole thing.

Criterion offered a discount program for the re-release of Charade. Of course, the discount was off the MSRP, and so the disc could be had cheaper through the usual online retail routes.

This isn't a case of unnecessary double dipping, but rather of offering something that was simply unavailable when the first release came out. The transfer and print used for the new M disc is substantially improved over the prior disc. The restoration technology and prints were probably unavailable in the first release. That first release is still excellent, btw, the mere presence of a new edition doesn't compel you to buy the new one, unless you're a Criterion collector(in which case you'd be happy to have a disc that's now OOP).

I mean, realistically, if Criterion were just trying to rip people off, they wouldn't be reissuing a black and white German film from the early 30s that appears to be public domain. They'd just put out more Michael Bay discs(notice there's no Bad Boys 2 Criterion).

I hear what you're saying. But I was extremely upset with their initial release of M -- poor quality print, next to no extras, same big price.

Before purchasing it, I had seen a beautiful restored print in NY theaters and expected that the disc would be a transfer from those elements. I was sadly disappointed.

Now I'm happy that there will be a much sharper print available on DVD, with at least a few interesting extras. But I'm still galled at having to pay double an inflated price to get it.

I can empathise with you there. Especially when you had just seen a restored version in the cinema. I picked up a new METROPOLIS on the strength of it's theatrical restoration and the fact it was bundled with the restored M.

I agree with Henry on his point that the licensor can only work with what materials they've got. Everything we have now will be improved upon and offered for sale in the future. On the issue of double dipping (and I offer this to make you feel better, not to be flippant):

Relax, and think of it like buying a new car. Anyone here who has a large collection of DVDs loathes double dipping but each time you do, you're paying another 10-20 dollars and getting a better version. The old disc can be kept or passed to someone who'd appreciate it. But, who hasn't traded up their car for a better model and paid $1000's extra for the privilege? I know it's not the same thing but if it's okay to swap cars every few years, what's wrong with swapping out a couple discs every once in a while? It's a choice you make, but I think it's because your collection is built up disc by disc and it's like building a wall that doesn't get finished: You can't look at is as a finished wall and when a new disc comes out, it's like pulling bricks out. And you want it to be perfect and neat. I guess that's how I feel...but it's late!

Victor.

I have to disagree; the old disc is an awful, muddy mess, and was thoroughly bested by the UK Eureka disc several years ago. I have owned all 3 versions now, and can report that Criterion has outdone themselves once more. The NEW Criterion is from a MUCH better source than the old one, but the transfer is way better than the Eureka (which used similar materials to work from), which suffers from nasty edge enhancement and over-done digital audio "restoration". Since the extras are different, there's every reason to hold on to the Eureka if you have it, but the clear winner is the new Criterion.

I have NO problem with Criterion revisiting a title when improvements such as these are to be had -- it's certainly better than sticking with an inferior version for ever and ever. And the film warrants the treatment.

My major problem with the new edition of M, is a selfish one to be sure, but legitimate I think.
When Criterion re-released BEAUTY & THE BEAST didn't they change the spine number? I collect these discs, like many mobians, and I have the compete collection of DVDs (not so with the LDs). If they had given a new spine number to the reissue, it wouldn't have made me feel bad about keeping the old one. In the case of CHARADE, it was less than a year later and had identical packaging; with SEVEN SAMURAI, it again had identical packaging; with 400 BLOWS, it came in a digipack box set; but with M, they've gone and done different packaging and kept the same spine# (which is how I arrange them, rather than alphabetically). For this reason, I do feel a little cheated. It forces me to confront the fact that I am a <shreik of horror> "COLLECTOR!" and have to admit that I buy a lot of their product just because it's their product, even if I don't know or like the films. They have succeeded in branding me. I turned what I thought was a corner around #54, and then again around #101, but now there are over 280 of these discs and I'm seriously cnsidering < gasp > only buying the ones that I like. I realized a long time ago that a special edition from a Hollywood studio could be purchased for under 20Euros, but a special editon from Criterion can set you back close to 50Euros, with far less impressive extras. There is no legitimate reason for charging more than 20 for anything, really, but we pay it! Back in the LD days, I drew the line at SWEET SWEETBACK, but I was unable to muster the resolve to say no to Criterion on DVD. What's wrong with me? I feel faint -somebody call a doctor!

The BEAUTY AND THE BEAST re-issue disc doesn't have a new spine number; they're both #6. As for mucking up your shelving order, I'd think you'd be thrown into a far worse trainwreck by the 400 BLOWS 2nd edition. And buying CHARADE twice would cause me far more pain than M!

In the case of 400 BLOWS, it is a part of the ADVENTURES OF ANTOINE DOINEL box set which has its own number in addition to the titles within it (much like other box sets issued by Criterion), making sequential organization easy. But I just rechecked my shelf, and you are correct: BEAUTY AND THE BEAST keeps the same number and changes the artwork as well, though when it was solicited, it was marketed as an anniversary edition. So I am now, just as mad about this as M. I don't think that M is any more or less valid than CHARADE, but would have to admit that I find CHARADE more enjoyable. If at some future occasion I am forced to repurchase 3 WOMEN, I will be upset.
Now we could start a whole new thread on which titles certain of us don't think belong in the Criterion Collection, and maybe we should.
My point is that I am happy as a clam that Criterion do the work in tracking down prints and restoring films that are of historic and cineaste value, but I'm unhappy that this collection of films has gone from the best and the brightest to whatever they can afford to license. When studios which controlled the rights had no interest in the format on which they were being issued (like LD, back when the CC established their reputation), the collection was the single best of its kind, becasue they were willing to allow a prestige release at a price structure that wouldn't interfere with any product they put on the market themselves. But at some point it became a vehicle for undeserving directors (Michael Bay?) to issue their films in a high prestige format along with those of true masters (Welles, etc.), and then a cheap way to issue PD materials at inflated prices, and now it's a venue of issuing whatever they can afford for twice as much as similar product from other imprints. Before it sounds like I'm bashing them, I feel the necessity to say (again) that I have purchased every single disc they have issued, and will likely continue to do so. When discs like SALVATORE GIULLIANO are issued, I simply jump for joy. Sometimes (REBECCA) the amount of extras are really worth the extra money, but quite often I am just paying for a brand name. Are Dolce & Gabana designer jeans really more comfortable than plain old Levis? No, not really, but they cost twice or thrice as much. When I bought GLADIATOR on DVD I think I paid the equivalent of $15, and that disc has as many extras as any disc in the Criterion Collection. When I bought SPARTACUS I think I paid the eqivalent of $60. In that measure, I am happy that they drop prices occasionally, but since I buy mine as pre-order, I never get to take advantage of this marketing plan. Likewise, as has been pointed out in this thread before, in the case of replacement titles, the offer to trade the old for the new can cost you more than buying the new one outright.
Nobody is holding a gun to my head. I choose to continue to buy these, but the repackaging, and making new box sets of left over titles is to me a little sleazy. This type of behavior is the product of greed and greed alone, and I understand that they need to make a buck to keep going, but in the past it didn't ever seem motivated by profit, It seemed to be the love of great films.
Am I alone on this? I'm sure that people have similar strong opinions about other imprints like Synapse, and Blue Underground in respect to what we expect from them based on the good work that they have done in the past. I don't want this to be a no-good-deed-goes-unpunished situation, but surely the marketing decisions at the beginning of all of these companies must attempt to "brand" the product. In the case of Synapse and BU, we're not being charged $40 for discs, though, so the only complaints would be the choice of titles after we've dedicated ourselves to buying their product blindly.
...which is, again, our choice to do or not do.

You've raised a number of disparate issues, all of which are constant, headache-inducing sources of debate on the Criterion Forums... And the answer and solution to most of them, is usually that in the end you do not have to buy Criterion titles you don't like or don't want. I can relate to rampant collector tendencies, but remember that collections should be to make yourself happy.

I still maintain that if you are replacing old editions of reissued Criterion titles, and shelving them by spine number, then removing the old 400 BLOWS and placing the DOINEL box at #185 still leaves a gap at #5.

I don't think one is more "valid" than the other, but for me a pleasant afternoon cocktail like CHARADE will never be worthy of my multiple purchase before a masterpiece like M. I also think 3 WOMEN is a key work by an important filmmaker, but realize it's an acquired taste.

Every public statement and interview with Criterion staff indicates that they choose the discs they want to work on out of love for and interest in the films. I don't care for Michael Bay's films either, but he certainly didn't elbow his way into the Collection without express company interest. The reputation of the Collection is of a Who's Who primer in world cinema... but a quick perusal of the laserdisc list shows a line-up as uneven now as it ever was. This is the company that gave you RULES OF THE GAME this year. The Bay films were added to the DVD catalog in 1999 and 2001. The gradual erosion of Criterion standards is a myth (and frankly, the young rowdies keep the air from getting stuffy). That Bay and Welles are in the same line of laserdiscs (there are no Welles films in the Criterion DVD Collection) does not equate their talents by implication or definition, and Criterion makes no such claim.

"Whatever they can afford to license" is nonsense, as is thinking the titles also available on public domain releases are "cheap." No one who has cracked open CARNIVAL OF SOULS or beautiful 39 STEPS would accuse these of being budget jobs. The love and labor in these releases is clear. Criterion saves films from public domain.

It seems the mission statement "A continuing series of classic and important films" has caused more internet debates than it has solved problems.

The "new boxed sets out of old, leftover titles" (I assume you mean "Criterion Crime Wave," "Samurai Trilogy," the Kurosawa box and "Great Adaptations") don't have spine numbers, and come in cheap cardboard sleeves. You don't need them to complete your spine number collection. They are, however, a great way for late-coming collectors, or people with an interest in specific genres to catch up with these discs. The Hitchcock box should be considered no less than a gift to consumers as a great way to grab some of CC's finest discs before they went out of print.

I understand you've prefaced your comments by saying you only collect out of choice... but you sound conflicted between being a film enthusiast and a DVD collector. Collectors are after objects, don't open packages, and LIKE printing variations and new editions. Were you seriously paying the laserdisc prices, but are complaining about DVD editions that top out around $40 for most standard-length films? If you're buying films you don't like, because they're in the Collection, you ARE paying for the brand name, dig? I'm not criticizing that, but it's hard to sympathize. For me, buying SPARTACUS is about loving SPARTACUS enough to warrant a ~$40 buy; GLADIATOR may have "as many extras," but they're of a wholly different nature, and attached to a film that I hated... $15 or no, I don't need it in my house.

Which perhaps brings up what I feel is the main flaw in your gripes: Criterion prices to keep their small, tightly-controlled boutique label in business. Your notes about the LDs price structure show insight, but you're forgetting that DreamWorks and Universal are producing the GLADIATOR disc. You're discounting that GLADIATOR will be sold at Wal-Mart. You're ignoring the limited mass-market appeal of the SPARTACUS set. I adore (and can afford far more product from!) Blue Underground and Synapse, but these companies, while issuing incredible discs, often with as much effort in the bonus features, aren't doing digital restoration work at a Criterion level. A far closer cousin to Criterion is Kino on Video, whose prices and title selection are comparable. Your blue jeans example is what is known as a False Analogy.

As a gushy Lang fan and an admirer of M, the re-issue is one of the Discs of the Year. As a Criterion collector, I feel the company waited long enough between editions, and sweated out some fine extras, different and worthy enough for a new edition.

Very well said, Chris.

Incidentally I was watching the extra features on disc 2 of the new M disc yesterday, fantastic stuff as usual. Worth a double dip for the new materials at the very least, imo.

I agree with almost everything that you said, Chris.
I apologize for responding out of order:

***As we both stated, I can chose to buy or not. My point about the DOINEL box, was that I would keep #5 where it was, and place the box set where it is, too, essentially hanging on to the earlier release because it is a free standing disc. As for M. CHARADE, & 3 WOMEN -how does the song go- you say tomato, etc. Opinions will vary as they should, I can agree to disagree. Let's not argue the insanity of me cataloging the discs by number -I freely admit, this is an ideosyncratic method bourne out of my days as a librarian.

*But, when you talk about the inclusion of Michael Bay, I can guarantee you that nobody at Criterion felt that ARMAGEDDON belonged with the collection (though an argument could be made for THE ROCK) and John Mulvaney said as much back then. Without quoting him directly, he said that nobody was going to turn away a blockbuster release that was guaranteed to sell more units for them than artsy titles like F IS FOR FAKE. Michael Bay approached them, and made them an offer they couldn't refuse (or would be financially irresponsible to refuse). Since very little remastering is required of brand new titles, the money made on a Bay release would help offset costs on whatever other release required extra production spending the following quarter. This would also open up a licensing agreement with Disney, who have many films I'm sure would be suitable for the Criterion Collection.
So, yes, it is the "A continuing series of classic and important films" tag that gets them in trouble.

**My comments about "what they can afford" relates to titles that were once on Laserdisc, but are not available from Criterion on DVD. I never intended to imply that they were releasing low quality DVDs on a par with Brentwood or any other "PD" boot... er, releasing house. The cost of doing business has gone up because of the excellent work that Criterion does. In effect, their high quality standards have worked against them, because before they took a chance on giving prestige treatment to catalog titles, nobody thought it wise and they were the only game in town. There are a lot more fish in sea, now...

*****Other companies like KINO, or NEW YORKER, or BLUE UNDERGROUND, or SYNAPSE or whoever are also bidding on titles that were previously or would seem like Criterion titles, and driving the licensing fees up. Also, some of the studios have come to realize that there is money in catalog releases, so they don't offer the licenses anymore. If the quality of the releases were more important than the commerce, then there would be a very different catalog of titles available on DVD by Criterion. I don't necessarily fault them, and I'm pretty sure that they will continue to attempt to relicense those titles and get them out on DVD when they can, if they feel that they can improve upon any subsequent other DVD releases (such as the Fox/Lorber titles).

****I have been in a Wal-Mart in America, and there were Criterion titles on their shelves. Releases like GEORGE WASHINGTON, and FAT GIRL don't require a whole bunch of remastering and therefore don't warrant the same retail price that other titles in the collection command, but there they are at $29.99. Likewise, if your not spending any money on the licensing of the film, you can put that money towards remastering, which is getting cheaper by the minute. You will see very big changes in retail pricing next year. Big chain stores don't want to spend money on single disc titles that are retailing for $29.95 anymore. Of course I'm glad that DVD has come to replace DVDs, because I spent $150 on the then new (not secondary market collectible value) LD box for BRAZIL, as opposed to the $59.95 that I spent on the (even better) DVD box, but this reflects the changes within the market. Look at stock prices - values change, and what the consumer is willing to pay has changed, as have the profit margins of content producers. Heck, some of the discs from Criterion that have gone out of print have soared in value, and I have them all! I am definitely conflicted about collecting, and this is my problem, but I know that there are others like me on this forum because I have spoken with them about it.
I understand that you didn't appreciate the SPARTACUS / GLADIATOR analogy so how about this one:
NAKED LUNCH (Criterion $39.95 srp) vs. CITZEN KANE (Warner $26.99 srp)
It surely cost a heck of a lot more to remaster CITIZEN KANE (1941) than NAKED LUNCH (1991) and the Cronenberg film still has artifacts and didn't make use of better audio elements that appeared on the Japanese DVD release. I know that CITIZEN KANE is a higher profile release, so let's compare MY FAIR LADY ($26.99 srp) to SPARTACUS ($49.95 srp). Pretty even with respect to extras and remastering, though the scales lean toward MY FAIR LADY in knowing just how much more they actually spent. SPARTACUS costs twice as much (and incidentally was not a limited interest release -It's a Kubrick film and it sold quite well).
Let's take a reverse analogy, wherein the title compared has known lesser interest than the Criterion title: M vs. SALON KITTY. M was $39.95, and SALON KITTY was $29.95. Since M is a well known film and no license fee was paid, that would allow for cheaper pricing than an x rated film about a Nazi brothel, and yet SALON KITTY (which is rumored to have cost almost $100,000 to remaster from various prints) is $10 less. Or THRILLER - another x-rated film with plenty of extras that retails for $29.95. Both discs are well balanced (to M) with respect to extras. M is in more retail chains. Shouldn't it be cheaper? I don't want to bog everybody down with comparisons, and there are arguments for and against each of these I'm sure, but let's not miss the forest for the trees; there are definitely cases where Criterion titles cost up to twice as much as competing, similar product for no other reason than the brand name. That is my point, and there is ample evidence to support it. Everybody prices to keep themselves in business, and anybody who tells you otherwise is either fibbing or won't be in business very long. There's a reason why Levis were called "honest blue jeans" to reuse my "false analogy".

******I'm glad your a fan of Fritz Lang -me, too! I think M deserves to be in the collection more than most titles, and my gripe wasn't about M. My gripe is that the only titles that Criterion are going to attempt to release twice, are titles that went out horribly wrong the first time with enough time on the license to fix them, or titles that don't require relicensing the films at all, because they are either public domain, or owned in perpetuity.

**One mistake that many laymen make about the remastering process is comparing newly remastered discs to old EP speed video tapes and assuming that the differences in some way reflect the amount of money spent on clean-up. Most of those cheap video tapes were transferred from horrible film elements, sometimes even theatrical prints. No wonder they looked so terrible. Those are from back in the day when there wasn't a standard for quality, and most consumers didn't care. Most DVD's today are transferred from inter negatives, master interpositives, camera negatives, or low contrast prints which don't require much more than a $20K telecine and remaster package, which gets cheaper ever day as the technology becomes more affordable. People who know this have a problem shelling out $50 to one company when most others charge half as much.

***Just to re-iterate what I've said before: I choose to pay it. I'm conflicted about it, but I do it.
I do consider myself a collector (in the worst sense of the word) but I would disagree with your definition in that I don't LIKE printing vatriations and collector editions that are marketed as such -and such marketing just bankrupted toy manufacturer McFarland toys. But, by and large, am I a collector? Yes. Am I a film fanatic? Yes. Am I glad that Criterion release films that as a collection stand for something more? Yes. Am I mad at myself for paying outrageous amounts of money every month for titles that sometimes stay in their wrapper for months? Yes. Is that the fault of anyone other than myself? No.
But I do wish that they were cheaper, and there is an established precedent for lower pricing, not only from big studios, but from small boutique labels.

:: I adore (and can afford far more product from!) Blue Underground and Synapse, but these companies, while issuing incredible discs, often with as much effort in the bonus features, aren't doing digital restoration work at a Criterion level.

Chris Stangl:

I can't speak for Blue Underground, but the restoration work Synapse has done is ENTIRELY on the level of the work Criterion has done, if not beyond Criterion's level.

For THE DEADLY SPAWN, Synapse actually had a brand-new 16mm interpositive made for the video transfer from the original A/B roll 16mm negatives at incredible expense, and this was before they even did their film-to-tape transfer and subsequent video restoration work!

LEMORA was a 1080P, 24-FPS High-Definition transfer from the long-thought lost 35mm negatives, which Don May dug up in a vault in LA, then spent several thousand-dollars and many hours doing additional digital restoration work after it had been transfered to HD...

For THRILLER, Don May again did a 24-FPS, 1080P transfer from long-thought-to-be-lost vault elements that he uncovered, which he then did extensive, incredibly expensive resotration work to in the HD-domain...

Etc., etc., etc...

Exactly where did you read/learn that Synapse doesn't put as much effort into their works than Criterion does re: digital restoration, if I might ask, in light of this evidence that I've set forth?

And Piotr:

"NAKED LUNCH (1991) and the Cronenberg film still has artifacts and didn't make use of better audio elements that appeared on the Japanese DVD release"

What's wrong with the image and sound of the Criterion release, both of which were approved and supervised by Cronenberg? How are the Japanese audio elements "better" exactly?

And also Piotr, re: this:

"Most DVD's today are transferred from inter negatives, master interpositives, camera negatives, or low contrast prints which don't require much more than a $20K telecine and remaster package, which gets cheaper ever day as the technology becomes more affordable."

Exactly how many film-to-tape transfers have you been involved with to be able to make a stamement such as this? Just because a negative or IP was used for a film-to-tape transfer doesn't mean that digital restoration work doesn't need to be performed. There are often all sorts of imperfections printed into the original camera negatives/interpositives that become all the more apparent with current state-of-the-art HD film-to-tape transfer techniques, and thus have to be digitally removed during/after the telecine process at great cost, regardless of the film-in-question's vintage...

Vincent

Re: Criterion's stance on Michael Bay's films in the collection; From a 2003 Salon.com interview with Peter Becker:

And personally, I'm with Becker about the importance of American summer blockbusters as a genre... until he gets to calling Bay one of "the most masterful directors of that kind." I don't have desire to further bash Bay here, but there is at least a 6 paragraph defense of ARMAGEDDON which doesn't at ALL sound like "an offer they couldn't refuse" over a genuine desire to work on the project.

Vincent: Exactly how many film-to-tape transfers have you been involved with to be able to make a stamement such as this?

Answer: Over 30 film-to-tape, and at least as many from digibeta.

Vincent: Just because a negative or IP was used for a film-to-tape transfer doesn't mean that digital restoration work doesn't need to be performed.

Response: I never said that it didn't. It is a lot less expensive when you work from better elements (such as an IP or Camera Negative) was my point. If you've ever supervised a transfer from old video masters (like the ones used for Lightning and Media in the 80s) you know from what I speak. In this business you negotiate a set number of hours of digital restoration with the same company that handles your telecine at a locked-in price, and you can do an excellent job for around $20K total -especially if you do it outside the US. In my experience, there have been very few IPs that required drastic restoration (once on an Italian film, which as a result of the condition of the materials, it was decided not to transfer).

Vincent: What's wrong with the image and sound of the Criterion release, both of which were approved and supervised by Cronenberg? How are the Japanese audio elements "better" exactly?

Answer: You must not have seen the Japanese DVD. More channels in the sound mix, and more vibrant colors. Both were tested on a Mitsubishi WD52525 monitor, Kenwood VR 5900 receiver, and a Liteon LVD 2001 dvd player, with JBL HT series speakers. Again, people often assume that everybody has access to the same materials, but this is often not the case. The Japanese licensor probably wanted a small fortune for access to the better sound elements, or Criterion were entirely unaware of them until they began or completed their own remaster. Don't automatically assume that David Cronenberg actually owns or even has access to the best elements for his own films - remember that other people paid to produce them, and aren't likely to leave the elements in his care. The extras on the Criterion DVD make it a much better over-all disc than the Japanese disc, but the transfers are different, and Criterion's is inferior. Maybe Cronenberg's never seen the Japanese disc either.

Chris: And personally, I'm with Becker about the importance of American summer blockbusters as a genre... until he gets to calling Bay one of "the most masterful directors of that kind." I don't have desire to further bash Bay here, but there is at least a 6 paragraph defense of ARMAGEDDON which doesn't at ALL sound like "an offer they couldn't refuse" over a genuine desire to work on the project.

Response: In the support of the blockbuster as an important genre I would argue more for the validity of THE ROCK, than ARMAGEDDON, but that's neither here nor there. I never referenced Becker -I referenced Mulvaney- but have you ever heard somebody bash their own product before or immediately after its release? If they did they would (or should) be fired. It would be a conflict of interest to be paid to produce and market something and then (possibly rightly) trash it. The comments from Mulvaney were in a Lasedisc newsgroup at least five years ago, and I regret that I don't have them archived; if I did, I would have included a direct quote and not paraphrased. The Salon article does go a long way toward proving that allowing Criterion access to the materials WAS a vanity project on behalf of Michael Bay who INDEED wanted his name alongside Kurosawa's, Bergman's and the rest, and in telling of the "enormous amount spent on frivilous enterprise", one could view that as an admission that the release was subsidized by "They"( ie. the producer Jerry B.) which is evidence that we-the-consumers were overcharged. Seemingly the whole project was paid for by the Hollywood studio, and yet the (DVD) price tag is still $39.99. (is that a price reduction? I remember it being $59.99 but I could be wrong).
To be fair, the Buena Vista and Hollywood Pictures discs of that era were all pretty pricey, too. I think I remember paying $29.95 for 13th WARRIOR originally (before mark down) and that disc was pretty bare; and Miramax DVD's of foreign titles were also in that price structure back then, so comparatively perhaps it wasn't ridiculously bad, but it is only ARMAGEDDON, for Pete's sake, and $60 (or $40) is too much.
And why no Milk advert on THE ROCK DVD?

Personally I would strongly disagree that "more channels in the sound mix" is a good thing, given that the original audio mix that the film was issued with was 2-channel. Certainly Criterion have, on a handful of occasions, included 5.1 remixes on certain DVDs, under circumstances when they were director-supervised and/or approved, but Cronenberg was clearly satisfied with the film being presented on DVD in the same format that was originally intended to be heard. Regarding the transfer, I'm also not convinced that "more vibrant colors" are necessarily a good thing. I've not seen the Japanese DVD, personally, but I am very happy with the Criterion. I consider it one of the best-looking, most film-like transfers in my collection and, out of 300 titles, it would be the one I would show someone if they asked to see what an excellent transfer looked like. That doesn't mean the Japanese transfer isn't even better, but if the only area in which you feel that it is superior is in terms of it being more saturated, then I am a little sceptical, given that the Criterion transfer has Cronenberg's blessing and therefore presumably conforms (more or less) to his intended colour balance.

Excellent points re: NAKED LUNCH, Michael.

Obviously, Cronenberg himself wouldn't have supplied Criterion with the elements for the transfer (a 35mm interpositive and the original mag-track LT/RT print masters), they'd have gotten them from Fox. And seeing as how Cronenberg approved the Criterion HD-transfer, obviously I'll take it on faith that it correctly represents the intended look of the film. I sincerely doubt the Japanese DVD producers flew Cronenberg to Japan to supervise their DVD release, thus if the colors are "more vibrant", I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that's an alteration of the film's intended look.

And also as Michael points out, the film was mixed in Dolby Surround and the Criterion DVD faithfully represents the film as it was originally mixed back in 1991. Just because some DVD technician somewhere was able to do a 5.1 remix using his Pro-Tools set-up in no way, shape, or form automatically makes that mix better than the original, Cronenberg-supervised mix from 1991 as faithfully represented on the Criterion DVD.

Vincent

Piotr:

If you can see in "there's an honorable place for ARMAGEDDON in our collection" an admission of selling out, more power to you. The most damning thing I can locate is a Digital Bits interview in which Becker says Bay "really wanted to see it [CC: THE ROCK] happen," and the staff had a "knock-down drag-out" fight while deciding yay or nay. But no mind; In the end we seem to agree that ARMAGEDDON, Criterion or no, is not worth either of our $40.

I may have underplayed the status symbol value in Criterion's reputation; while it may have led to Bay and Kevin Smith actively seeking association with the company, it probably also netted Wes Anderson, David Cronenberg, and active participation of Ingmar Bergman, etc.

But if the debate is "could Criterion charge substantially less and still turn a profit?," I agree they could... but they'd lose the snob appeal; Such a critical part of the fun!

Vincent:

You're right, and I had no idea the (relatively) beautiful DEADLY SPAWN & THRILLER discs involved extensive restoration beyond the stories I'd heard about laborious searches for superior elements. I think in my rush to defend Criterion, an intended compliment turned into a backhanded one; I meant Synapse, Fantoma, BU, etc. aren't issuing 6 titles a month, though my phrasing was poor to say the least. I don't know enough about retail practice to say if this has much to do with Criterion's pricing structure as opposed to Synapse's, but that was my intention.

I do not mean to sound as if I'm privvy to any company's restoration department goings-on. It is probably just that Criterion so frequently shows off with before and after demonstrations, that I was remembering horror/ adventure stories about THE LEOPARD and GRAND ILLUSION, and forgetting how long between announcement and release of DEADLY SPAWN. I don't wish to disparage Synapse's efforts, especially in a year when SPAWN, LEMORA, THRILLER and the ENTRAILS discs threaten to entirely consume the year-end top 10. Certainly LEMORA wipes the floor with Criterion's IKIRU.

Chris:

No worries. I think my own experience working with Synapse and Don in putting together the A BETTER PLACE dvd has made me especially aware and indebted to the dedication Don May puts into his DVDs, and it really is basically a one-man outfit, with Jerry Chandler supplying the funding like manna from Heaven, but Don doing about 95% of the work on his own. It was simply the greatest collaborative experience of my life, and I'm eternally grateful to Don, and eternally blown-away by what he's been able to achieve, basically all on his own without a huge* staff to back him up. As such, I guess I'm a wee bit protective of him and Synapse Films :-)

Vincent

* Or ANY, as far as I know. It's all pretty much Don supervising everything on his own.