DVDBeaver

[schellenbergk]

If you don’t like his choice you don’t have to consider the best set of the year. But I do.

Out of curiosity, what are all the sets that you viewed this year so that they could be in contention? Or if you're only talking about Criterions, how many of their ~50 releases this year did you watch?

Well, I did a quick check of my movie database… I logged watched 230 films last year - which doesn’t included streaming or in-theater viewing. So I could I suppose paste a list of titles…

But what would be the point? So you can sneer at particular titles? The question seems like an interrogation - why not post your own pick for best set?

[schellenbergk]

I guess my point was going to be that if he's seen a great number of other contenders as well as the original versions of the films, if he's aware of all the changes and still considers this to be the boxset of the year, then I will value that opinion more even if I disagree with it

Why should I care if you value my opinion? Who are you to judge?

I’m old enough to have seen a few of the WKW in theaters.

[yoshimori]

Quick edit: Was writing the below before the last two posts came in. Please read accordingly.

Not surprisingly, as one of the couple so far who've expressed some delight with the WKW discs on the forum "awards" thread, I share schellenbergk's apparent frustration with the long series of complaints (many completely understandable, to be sure) and ad hominem attacks (unfortunate, but hey, the internet), strewn across multiple threads here. I think the points, con, have been made, and I particularly sympathize with folks' desire to have the highest quality versions of the original films. [Luckily, I have all the previous blu-rays, and I doubt the original versions will be long suppressed.]

As to swo's wondering whether someone who likes the set can possibly have sufficient experience with its films or other boxed sets, I'm not sure it matters, but I'd assure him that I, at least, have seen each of the WKW films at least half a dozen times (Fallen Angels probably more than 20 times, the new version once in a theater and twice on disc), have chatted with Mr Doyle about his work on multiple occasions (though not about this box set), have been paid to write about Wong's work, etc, and have waded through three of the other four 2021 Criterion boxes. The old Fallen Angels was, along with Chen's King of the Children, one of my two favorite Chinese-language films. The new Fallen Angels was, for me, even more thrilling. Is it a mixed bag? Yes. The coloring of specific areas of otherwise b/w shots is mostly cheesy, but other new color grading choices -- especially the bursts of contrasting LUTs in some action sequences -- improved those moments. The new aspect ratio is a major plus for me. So, I'd encourage anyone who hasn't already made up his or her mind to approach the set charitably.

[Glowingwabbit]

Criterion could've simply said they'd release the Greedo-shoots-first-versions together with the Han Solo-shoots-first-versions or not at all.

I’m not sure how I feel about a company – any company – dictating to a director how his own films should appear. If the director wanted us to see it this way we should respect that. If you don’t like his choice you don’t have to consider the best set of the year. But I do.

I was definitely upset that the originals were not included as that's just part of film preservation in my opinion (and I definitely lost respect for WKW over that), but I would have still bought the set had it not been for the awful packaging. That to me was another reason I took issue with the ranking. But really the whole poll is a bit of a joke now. I mean just look at the 4K list. There is no way anyone collecting 4K discs beyond Criterion can say with a straight face that 3 of the top 4 releases were from Criterion.

[swo17]

I guess my point was going to be that if he's seen a great number of other contenders as well as the original versions of the films, if he's aware of all the changes and still considers this to be the boxset of the year, then I will value that opinion more even if I disagree with it

Why should I care if you value my opinion? Who are you to judge?

I'm just some guy, but presumably if you are posting your opinion on a public forum it is because you hope others will value it.

Out of curiosity, what are all the sets that you viewed this year so that they could be in contention? Or if you're only talking about Criterions, how many of their ~50 releases this year did you watch?

Well, I did a quick check of my movie database… I logged watched 230 films last year - which doesn’t included streaming or in-theater viewing. So I could I suppose paste a list of titles…

But what would be the point? So you can sneer at particular titles? The question seems like an interrogation - why not post your own pick for best set?

I guess by the same token, what's the point of you declaring it the best set of the year? I don't even know what that means because I don't know what sets you're comparing against. Is it better than all of these, or are there some that you haven't seen?

All the Haunts Be Ours: A Compendium of Folk Horror (Severin)
Cinema of Discovery: Julien Duvivier in the 1920s (Flicker Alley)
Cinematic Vengeance! 8 Kung Fu Classics from Director Joseph Kuo (Eureka)
Collaborations: The Cinema of Zhang Yimou & Gong Li (Imprint)
Columbia Noir #2-4 (Indicator)
The Daimajin Trilogy (Arrow)
The Dungeon of Andy Milligan (Severin)
Early Universal Vols. 1-2 (Masters of Cinema)
The Eurocrypt of Christopher Lee Collection (Severin)
Hungarian Masters (Second Run)
Ingmar Bergman Vol. 1-2 (BFI)
Karloff at Columbia (Eureka)
Ken Jacobs Collection (Kino)
Little Fugitive: The Collected Films of Morris Engel & Ruth Orkin (Kino)
LA Plays Itself: The Fred Halsted Collection (Altered Innocence)
Melvin Van Peebles: Essential Films (Criterion)
Nobuhiko Obayashi's Anti-War Trilogy (Third Window)
Once Upon a Time in China: The Complete Films (Criterion)
Play for Today: Vol. 2 (BFI)
Roy Andersson Collection (Artificial Eye)
Shawscope Vol. 1 (Arrow)
The Signifyin' Works of Marlon Riggs (Criterion)
Silver Screams Cinema (Imprint)
Three Films by Luis Buñuel (Criterion)
Yokai Monsters Collection (Arrow)

[domino harvey]

For our all our collective dogging of the set, no one has been prevented from liking or voting for the WKW box in our year end polling. If enough people thought the Cluny Brown cover was the best artwork of the year it was released, it would have worn the crown regardless of supposed general sentiment. On this forum, thinking the WKW box is a net positive release is a minority opinion, and as such a defense will likely be necessary

[schellenbergk]

I'm just some guy, but presumably if you are posting your opinion on a public forum it is because you hope others will value it.

Don’t presume. Could not care less whether you value my opinion.

[swo17]

As to swo's wondering whether someone who likes the set can possibly have sufficient experience with its films or other boxed sets, I'm not sure it matters

My intent was not to propose a gotcha question. I am not here to prove all defenders of this set wrong. I am genuinely curious how informed the opinions are of people who hold the set in esteem. In the interest of full disclosure, I have purchased the set but not yet opened it. I own the previous editions of these films as well (after having to buy back several of them at inflated prices) and am willing to accept these as reimagined versions of the original releases. What I have seen and read from others does not give me a lot of hope for this set. But I would certainly appreciate the opinions of others who feel differently. As domino suggested, for that to be meaningful though, it would need to be backed up by more than just a high ranking on a list. The entire post of yours that I'm responding to is a good example of such a defense. The one schellenbergk just slipped in while I was writing this is not

[domino harvey]

I'm just some guy, but presumably if you are posting your opinion on a public forum it is because you hope others will value it.

Don’t presume. Could not care less that you value my opinion.

You two share a common space of discussion. Swo is a valued member with a long history of discussing and engaging others about films. You don’t have to like him or anyone else here, but you do need to respect the way this board functions, which is that you engage others with good faith to defend your arguments or tactfully pushback against those of others when there are disagreements. If your tactic here is to dismiss any pushback against your comments with “I could not care less,” you are likely posting on the wrong forum

[schellenbergk]

As domino suggested, for that to be meaningful though, it would need to be backed up by more than just a high ranking on a list. The entire post of yours that I'm responding to is a good example of such a defense. The one schellenbergk just slipped in while I was writing this is not

Why does it need to be “backed up?” It’s an opinion.

You seemed to have formed an opinion of the set without having bothered to watch it. Why should we listen to you?

[soundchaser]

Opinions are usually based on something, even if that something is as simple to articulate as "I enjoyed it." Particularly when a list is purporting to contain the best examples of something - you'd want folks voting to think it's the best for a reason.

EDIT: And to your second point, many of us are opposed to the set on principle, on screenshots representative of the final product, or on demonstrations of its cumbersome packaging. All reasons to dislike it that would not be assuaged by watching the new versions of the films contained within.

[tenia]

Chungking Express and In the Mood for Love were shot and released theatrically on 1.66:1, one of my favorite aspect ratios, but they were converted to 1.85:1 on videogram. Since most people experienced these films on videogram, it perpetuated the belief that they were shot on 1:85:1. With these restorations, you will be watching them in their original aspect ratios.

I saw a US article reusing this argument, but Criterion issued both on DVD and Blu-ray in 1.66, so in the US at least, they've been in 1.66 on video since 2008 for Chungking and 2002 for In The Mood For Love (ie forever in this case).

The ONLY reason I stirred up this hornet's nest was the withering contempt expressed for people who DARE to admire the WKW set - and think it one of the best of the year.

I don't believe it's comtempt, but rather the disappointment to see a set who's excellence can legitimately be discussed ending up quite undisputably this high in end of year tops while arguably much less debatable boxsets aren't faring anywhere close. The Marlon Riggs set isn't even mentioned ONCE is the Beaver poll, for instance.
And in my case, I'm still bothered by the fact that those aren't, technically, simple restorations but Criterion yet never mentions it on the set nor its website. It only states "New 4K digital restorations" and if it wasn't for the note they shared on social networks, you'd only discover this once you bought the set.
I'm OK with restorations being the opportunity to create alternate versions, reverting back to experimentations that couldn't be finalised at the time or making weird seemingly dumb choices regarding soundtracks or whetever, but that's, well, not restoring a movie. It's an alternative "director's version" and it should be advertised as such, even if it ends up being advertised like Michael Cimino's version of Michael Cimino's Heaven Gate by Michael Cimino.

I’m not sure how I feel about a company – any company – dictating to a director how his own films should appear. If the director wanted us to see it this way we should respect that. If you don’t like his choice you don’t have to consider the best set of the year. But I do.

And yet, Criterion had to stop Cimino (again) from keeping altering things when they restored the longer cut of Heaven's Gate, so here you go.

But what would be the point? So you can sneer at particular titles? The question seems like an interrogation - why not post your own pick for best set?

Because picking it among 20 other 2021 boxsets or 3 doesn't carry the same discrimination. Swo gave a pretty nice list of challenging contenders, including some from Criterion themselves. It's not a measuring context, but a question of sensing the sampling's size.

[domino harvey]

As domino suggested, for that to be meaningful though, it would need to be backed up by more than just a high ranking on a list. The entire post of yours that I'm responding to is a good example of such a defense. The one schellenbergk just slipped in while I was writing this is not

Why does it need to he “backed up?” It’s an opinion.

Mod here. Let me be as clear as possible: this forum is no one’s blog. All opinions expressed here are done so with the understanding that some attempt will be made by those sharing them to explain or engage with others in bringing meaning and understanding to their opinions. You don’t have to engage with every criticism or question here, but you do need to make it a general practice of posting here. This is not Reddit, we do not care about anyone’s hot take until you defend it with good faith against opposing engagement. If you are under the belief that you can, to paraphrase Jimmy James, drop piranhas in the kiddie pool and not stick around to watch the bubbles, you’re wrong

[schellenbergk]

And in my case, I'm still bothered by the fact that those aren't, technically, simple restorations but Criterion yet never mentions it on the set nor its website

Well that’s a good point. Somehow I was aware that the films were altered by the director for the set before I purchased it. I’m not sure where I first heard this - but if Criterion didn’t make this clear that certainly is a problem and as a consumer I can understand being disappointed.

That being the case, it didn’t detract from my personal enjoyment of this set at all because I knew as I watched that the transfers had been altered by the director. But I can understand how some people will be bitterly disappointed.

What I cannot understand is the disrespect people have shown the director-approved versions without having seen them.

[schellenbergk]

Mod here. Let me be as clear as possible: this forum is no one’s blog. All opinions expressed here are done so with the understanding that some attempt will be made by those sharing them to explain or engage with others in bringing meaning and understanding to their opinions. You don’t have to engage with every criticism or question here, but you do need to make it a general practice of posting here. This is not Reddit, we do not care about anyone’s hot take until you defend it with good faith against opposing engagement. If you are under the belief that you can, to paraphrase Jimmy James, drop piranhas in the kiddie pool and not stick around to watch the bubbles, you’re wrong

Well I think I have explained and engaged with others about my opinion. If you disagree I guess you haven’t made yourself clear as to what I’ve done wrong.

[domino harvey]

You said you don’t need to back up your opinions and that you do not care about the opinion of someone trying to engage with you. This isn’t hard to parse.

[schellenbergk]

You said you don’t need to back up your opinions and that you do not care about the opinion of someone trying to engage with you. This isn’t hard to parse.

Except that I have engaged - refusing to “back up” at even more length than I have already is engagement after all.

“This isn’t hard to parse” - was that necessary? It comes across as insulting.

[Nw_jahrles]

The problem with the WKW set does not only lie in the re-edits. There are issues with many of the video transfers in the set (compression artifacts, colour grading, grain removal), the packaging is generally disliked, and it isn’t special feature rich.

I think you could find box sets released this year that offer better video presentations, better packaging, better special features.

This is why myself and others find it strange to find the WKW set ranked so high. While Tooze is not considered a very technical reviewer, the purpose of his site is to high the technical presentations of discs, so you would think the rankings would weigh these aspects. Instead, the list seemed to favour getting things on disc (Kino #1, Yimou/Li and WKW #1 & 2 for boxset etc.)

[schellenbergk]

Thanks for your comments about the packaging.

Frankly I know it bothers a lot of people, but I ignore packaging and artwork generally. I know a lot of people think about the packaging and the artwork and discuss it at length, but I am known to literally toss the packaging and keep the discs (Though I do keep booklets as well). I know that’s heresy to some people, but there’s only so much space in my house. So the admittedly clunky packaging of this set is a non-issue for me. Ditto for the Kane set.

[schellenbergk]

The Marlon Riggs set isn't even mentioned ONCE is the Beaver poll, for instance.

That is a shame - that was a very interesting set of films. It certainly was a highlight of the year. Perhaps the low visual quality of the original source material bothered people? I could never talk my husband into watching them… For some reason he would veto them every time I suggested them.

[Glowingwabbit]

Thanks for your comments about the packaging.

Frankly I know it bothers a lot of people, but I ignore packaging and artwork generally. I know a lot of people think about the packaging and the artwork and discuss it at length, but I am known to literally toss the packaging and keep the discs (Though I do keep booklets as well). I know that’s heresy to some people, but there’s only so much space in my house. So the admittedly clunky packaging of this set is a non-issue for me. Ditto for the Kane set.

When I see a poll for best boxset or someone calling something the best boxset of the year, I 100% assume that the packaging is also being taken into account.

Edit: There's nothing wrong with what you do with those set. I know I've started putting anything in an amaray case into a sleeve to save space. I can't imagine paying for a boxset and then tossing the packaging, but to each their own.

[Maltic]

I don't care that much about packaging either tbh, and my votes in these Best of the Year threads can't help but reflect this.

Books, sure, you sit with those in your hands for hours and so on...

[schellenbergk]

Very large collection in a very small house.

Yes, in most cases plastic & cardboard containers are immediately tossed.

Books - I agree with Maltic. You hold them for hours and they look beautiful on a shelf. But… I have been known to buy an e-book and give away the dead tree edition of books I didn’t love

[tenia]

The Marlon Riggs set also simply is... less of a show-off boxset. It's a simpler leaner one of a much less popular filmmaker, the movies are mostly documentaries, and their subjects probably means less pollsters watched it to begin with.

It's, to me, another example of why I think the WKW set didn't ended up that high for its editorial work (at least not only) and what bothers me with the set : it just seems lazy in execution, with many "holes" and things open to debate but because it's WKW, because it has a fancy packaging, because they are 4k restorations, it peered through the more general audience as a fantastic boxset while, to me, it simply relied on WKW's quite mainstream popularity.

The Riggs set might look simpler, but it only looks so. In particular, it's packing way more new extras than the WKW set, which doesn't offer many new extras (are they any, actually ? I'm not even sure).

So as someone said above, the restorations are revisionist and digitally filtered, the gradings probably aren't great, the extras are mostly recycled and the packaging is sillier than it should. But it's WKW and 4k and fancy so it's getting more visibility than even the von Peebles set (and the Riggs one). It makes me think of those Blu-ray reviews on Amazon that are movie reviews : it's not IMDB. If you want to type a movie review, do it there instead.

[swo17]

Maybe they were literally rating based on size, as in: what's the most impressive thing to place atop a shelf? The Riggs set is no thicker than any number of single-title releases whereas the WKW set is by some margin the biggest and heaviest thing Criterion released last year. And the Zhang Yimou set, like all Imprint releases, attempts zero shelf-space efficiency. No slim cases or swing trays to accommodate more discs--just one full-sized case for every individual film. It's a lovely looking cube, but it's at least two or three times as wide as it needs to be