DVDs that Criterion should consider releasing..

[ElCuCuy2000]

I have (another) gripe. I love the Criterion Edition of DVDs, but lately, there haven't been any "must own" ones coming out. They have released "Armageddon" and now "The Rock", but I don't understand why "The Rock" or "Armageddon" are considered "masterpieces" when we have movies like "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" (which they released on Laserdisk by the way) out there that haven't made it to DVD yet (although I hear that it's coming!!!). I know the reason behind "Close Encounters" and "E.T." not having been released by them are because Speilberg is holding out on them until he releases them..But, there are countless other movies out there that deserve the Criterion treatment, it's only too bad they have a poor selection process...Movies I'd love to see would include: E.T., Close Encounters, Urban Cowboy, Smokey And The Bandit, Saturday Night Fever, Threads, The Day After, King Kong, Lawrence Of Arabia, and Ghandi just to name a few..These movies impact the viewer llike no others, so it only makes sense that a spectacular company such as Criterion should give them the royal treatment. I know, some of you may not agree with "Urban Cowboy" and "Smokey", but, if you were around back when these movies first came out, they literally changed the way we Americans dressed (I mean, Country Music got a kick in the butt back then!). "Smokey" made everybody go out and buy a Trans-Am!!!

------------------
"Take that damned screwdriver out of my head" ('Zombie', Return Of The Living Dead II)

[KikuchiyoCM]

No, those are the sort of films that Criterion should not be releasing, if you look at it's catalogue you'll notice that most of it is world cinema, and disagreeing with you again, the collection has many films worth keeping.

Kurosawa's Seven Samurai
Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev
Fellini's Amarcord
Cronenberg's Dead Ringers
Renoir's La Grande Illusion
etc, etc

THESE are important films, the reason they released Armageddon and The Rock is pretty straight forward.
They are obviously not going to sell as many 'art' films as they would hollywood blockbusters, and some of the stuff in there most people would be like 'eh? never heard of it' and therefore would not buy, especially at their high prices soooooooo... release a couple of hollywood smashes that guarantee getting money back and then you can continue issuing cult/art films.

>Close Encounters Of The Third Kind

I think that film goes down as THE most boring piece of trash I've ever had the misfortune to witness, as well as E.T.

>I know the reason behind "Close Encounters" and "E.T." not having been released by them are because Speilberg is holding out on them until he releases them

Why in their right mind would Criterion who herald director's like Tarkovsky, Fellini, Roeg etc want a Spielberg film (well to make money i guess)!

I'm trying not to sound rude and failing

[mahavishnu]

La Grande Illusion is a waste of space! The most overrated movie ever...

Now bring on the Criterion 'Bad Timing'!

[SolidSnakeASS]

2 words: Ed Wood.

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally posted by KikuchiyoCM:
Why in their right mind would Criterion who herald director's like Tarkovsky, Fellini, Roeg etc want a Spielberg film (well to make money i guess)!

I think the reason is because Criterion has the gall to go beyond the all-too important criteria of "did KikuchiyoCM like this movie". They choose movies that they think are "important", which I assume means they made a significant impact on people and society or were otherwise artistically or technically superior. In this way, I would argue that Seven Samurai is just as qualified as is Armageddon, Smokey, ET, Robocop, Brazil, and any other movie the Criterion committee may think is "important".

If you don't like the flick you need to look beyond that to whether it has impacted people, before you trash Criterion. I don't really dig Spielberg all that much myself, but I would feel pretty stupid in claiming that his movies haven't had a significant impact on society.

[Eye]

Two words: Food Of The Gods - SE


------------------
Eye | Moderator | ICQ: 44594001 | eye@mail.dvdfile.com | Visualize world violence.

[This message has been edited by Eye (edited 02-07-2001).]

[eltravi]

How 'bout Return of the Living Dead, the best movie EVER. Or perhaps a two disc edition of Bad Taste or Troll 3?

------------------
Cinema is everything to me. I live and breathe films -- I even eat them!" -- Lucio Fulci

MGM - I WANT MY "RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD" DVD

[Minerwerks]

I wouldn't say that Criterion has "a poor selection process." Even when they were doing laserdiscs, they often pointed out that every title they felt was worthy of the "Criterion treatment" was not available to them.


This issue is even more difficult on DVD, because many companies are keeping their titles for themselves, severely limiting the number of films for Criterion to choose from.


As far as "The Rock" and "Armageddon," it's been said that Criterion considers films that are at the forefront of their craft, and they feel that Michael Bay is one of the best action filmmakers working today.


Commercially, if Criterion puts out an "Armageddon" to subsidize lots of other titles, I'm all for it.


I just wish they were able to get more titles out there. I love my copies of "Chasing Amy" and "Rushmore."


------------------
= Derek =

[This message has been edited by Minerwerks (edited 02-07-2001).]

[manigrasso]

I saw Kurosawa's Dreams on widescreen VHS based on the rec of a friend. Last VHS tape I rented, and one of the best. This would be a great Criterion DVD, perhaps with commentary or essays from psychologists interpreting the dreams (see if there are any conflicting diagnoses).

Did they release The Bicycle Thief yet, or are there plans? Anyone know?

Norman Jewison's adaptation of A Soldier's Story would be nice.

Michael O'Donoghue cowrote a Merchant-Ivory production called Savages. If anyone can find and give this movie credit it deserves, it would be Criterion.

Maybe THEY can try licensing Soung of the South.

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life! They did such a great job with Life of Brian.

Deluxe editions of Waiting For Guffman & Best in Show (though since Best In Show was released through WB, I hold out hope that it'll be a pretty cool disc anyway).

A definitive Metropolis, perhaps? Maybe do the cheesy eighties rerelease via seamless branching.

Battleship Potemkin?

Live-television-to film comparisions of two Rod Serling classics, Patterns & Requiem for a Heavyweight.

The complete Shoah

If I think of any others I'll pop back in.

[Dehrian]

Right now, the only major studios licensing their product to Criterion are Disney and Universal. So, almost all of the titles the original poster mentioned are not even eligible. Maybe their respective studios will give them Criterion-like treatment (and from what I've heard, Columbia is doing just that with Lawrence of Arabia), but they will not be released through Criterion. Most studios prefer now to do their special editions in-house.

As for a film like Armageddon, releasing it does have advantages for Criterion:

1. It sells in mass units, unlike most of their releases.

2. It introduces more consumers to their product, and gets them to consider films they might not otherwise show interest in, which is never a bad thing.

[Chris in OC]

I follow what you're saying, Dehrian, but Criterion was never about making gobs of money. It also begs the question, why aren't they releasing more American action films? If they really want to focus on this genre (and I have no problem with that), it seems to me that there are much better titles available than Armageddon, even if they have to wait for them.

It could be, of course, that other action films are being withheld by their respective studios. But I think that releasing a lukewarm title that exists mainly to show things get blowed up real good hurts Criterion more than it helps. It may introduce the average buyer to their product, but I would bet that the price premium turns those buyers away just as quickly. Besides, Criterion discs aren't available in the mass stores like Best Buy, Suncoast, etc. I think it'd suit Criterion better to focus important or truly interesting films, or those that are ignored by the major DVD producers.

Slightly off topic, I was really happy to find their release of the original Lord of the Flies. This was the first really serious film I ever saw, and it shook me to the core.

[This message has been edited by Chris in OC (edited 02-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Chris in OC (edited 02-08-2001).]

3 words Pokemon: The Movie

------------------
"I am Jack's wasted life."
AKA:cyberjeff6
MY DVD LIST

[KikuchiyoCM]

>I think the reason is because Criterion has the gall to go beyond the all-too important criteria of "did KikuchiyoCM like this movie". They choose movies that they think are "important".

So Criterion are the law on movies are they? because if they choose what *they* like then that's what you're saying!

>I would argue that Seven Samurai is just as qualified as is Armageddon, Smokey, ET, Robocop, Brazil, and any other movie the Criterion committee may think is "important".

pwahahaha, I would *LOVE* to see that (arguing Armageddon that is, beyond making money so they continue issuing talented filmmaking)!

By the way Robocop had a very creative vision of the future, and although I'm not a Gilliam fan, I can see why Brazil would be in there. Not seen Smokey, but Armageddon and E.T, my immediate reaction would be 'you're just winding me up' but then i realise that there are actually people who like these films, in what way are they important?

Armageddon, a film about a potential end to the world using loads of CGI, bad acting, conventional camera shots, it has no relevance when compared to a Kurosawa or Fellini movie, just an amateurs way of making dull, guaranteed money spinning shite.

As for E.T, well, maybe for the kids, because as I once said 'Spielberg is a God...if you're 8 years old'.
A pathetic film that uses the hollywood depression era theory that people had no imaginations and so create this glossy tripe with happy-go-lucky storylines, melodrama as bad as 'Sunset Beach', and 'oh! it's directed by Spielberg, it's gotta be good'.

The only reason I would believe would be that it was for the kiddies but then parents probably wouldn't want to pay Criterion prices for something another company could do with the same amount of extras and excellent quality transfer!

[Taxi]

Do you guys watch college athletics? Often times, when one team is blowing another one away, and the losing team starts getting cocky because they made some fantastic dunk, or scored a long touchdown, you'll year the resounding sound of "Scoreboard!! Scoreboard!!" from the crowd.

E.T., The Extra-Terrestrial made just under $400,000,000 at the box office, and was the number one box office smash until JC's little boat movie came along.

Scoreboard! Scoreboard!



------------------
Taxi
DVDFile Forum Administrator

[mahavishnu]

Criterion clearly don't select their movies based on how much money they made, so this is irrelevent. And I DO think doing Armageddon for commercial reasons was a bad move as it makes the the high prices they charge unjustifiable.

There's too much bloody Kurosawa on Criterion as it is, though. Half of the Criterion Collection seems to be Kurosawa movies!

[Chris in OC]

Originally posted by KikuchiyoCM:
'oh! it's directed by Spielberg, it's gotta be good'.

On the contrary, I don't know any serious filmgoer who has ever said or even thought that. If anything, these people are skeptical about Spielberg films and view them with a very critical eye; let's not forget that he got no attention from the Academy until he made Schindler's List. Personally, there are a few Spielberg films I can do without, including Amistad and Saving Private Ryan.

But Spielberg has a strong talent for storytelling, pacing, and direction that comes through on ET, Raiders, Jaws, Jurassic Park and, on a different level, Schindler's List. These are all solid works of moviemaking, and if some of them lean more toward entertainment than art, who cares? They all did what they were intended to do (film- and story-wise) and they're important in that they helped to shape the process for all that followed. I'd gladly buy a Criterion or similar version of all of them.

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally posted by KikuchiyoCM:
So Criterion are the law on movies are they? because if they choose what *they* like then that's what you're saying!

I'm not saying they're the law on what's good and what's bad. Anybody who thinks they can tell somebody else what is and isn't good is called a *snob*. But is Criterion a good authority on what is an important or impactful film? Absolutely. They are sure as hell better than somebody like you. They choose their movies based on specific CRITERIA. They don't just say "Dude, Spielberg sucks" and call it a day.

I don't like every movie Criterion has chosen, but I definitely can't argue that any one of them is not important or impactful. Similarly, I would wager that there is not a single member of the Criterion staff that likes every movie Criterion has chosen. They choose the movies based on criteria that go far beyond whether one or several individual thinks "it sucks".

Originally posted by KikuchiyoCM:

pwahahaha, I would *LOVE* to see that (arguing Armageddon that is, beyond making money so they continue issuing talented filmmaking)!

OK. I would argue that Armageddon did incredible things for the art of editing and sound design. The amount of emotion that could be pulled from a scene simply from the way the film and the music was edited is amazing. It made leaps in processed visual effects shots. It was a fun and very successful movie regardless of how intelligent you think the plot was. The marketing on the film was great.

In these ways, I think Armageddon was an important film. Why did Criterion think it was an important film? Neither you nor I am qualified to guess. Was it a good film? I say yes, you say no. Is my opinion better than yours? No, but at least I allow you to have an opinion....you would shut me out because "Dude, Armageddon sucks."

[mahavishnu]

You must be joking. Armageddon only came out a year or two ago and it's already being forgotten... except as a stick to bash Criterion with.

And it certainly contains no innovations of editing or sound design!!! There is nothing important of classic about the effects either - it wasn't the first and, presumably, has since been surpassed. It's just one link in a long line of shit.

[chlngr1970]

Two points.

origionally posted by Chris in OC
Besides, Criterion discs aren't available in the mass stores like Best Buy

1)Accually, there are a few Criterion discs available at BBY. I got Armageddon and Silence of the lambs there, and saw Robocop.

2) Weather or not anyone thinks such films are important, these are still just your opinion. What I don't understand is how a movie can be so successful(like Armageddon, or Independance Day) and be so trashed by people. It seems that every movie you people hate, I accually enjoyed. I saw the two above mentioned films in the theaters three times each. I LOVED ET. I still believe in Speilberg's storytelling ability enough to go see any film he does, and will be the first in line to see Pearl Harbor, not just because of my fasination with WWI Aircraft.

It just seems that the most successful directors always get hammered here and I don't understand why.

j


------------------
Co-Moderator
Software Forum
~Rather than question the wisdom, question your own lack of understanding!~
My DVD Tracker page - Click Here to help get Say Anything on DVD!

[KikuchiyoCM]

>These are all solid works of moviemaking, and if some of them lean more toward entertainment than art, who cares?

Lean totally towards mainstream you mean, because you're saying that art is not entertainment which is not true. It works as being both entertainment and at the same time you're getting so much more from it.
You walk into a cinema and watched something like Armageddon or Spielberg and yes, you get your basic narrative stucture, but it's been proven that anyone can do that, and the reason I don't like it among many is that it just comes down to repetition, franchising what seems popular at the time.
Back in 30s hollywood where the directors had no real control over their films, they were given a script, given actors, given the kitchen sink and they had to get on with it (no bad endings aloud), at that time the actors sold a film, I watched a documentary on this and some guy said "So this guy comes into the studio and says 'we got (can't remember which famous hollywood actor it was, d'oh!) and a script about a film with an earthquake"
"Excellent" the studio replied, "we want to buy the rights", and the other guy responds, "but you don't know what it fully entails, what about the story, the directi..", "doesn't matter, as long as it has 'insert famous star', that's all that matters".

Armageddon, big explosions, big stars, simple narrative, no difference from back then really!

>They all did what they were intended to do (film- and story-wise) and they're important in that they helped to shape the process for all that followed.

They did nothing, anyone who says Spielberg is an important director in the future of filmmaking in fact has not studied film, is someone who merely likes his films. I'm interested, tell me what he changed about cinema? His direction is conventional, his storytelling only echoes 30s/40s/50s hollywood 'depression era' etc, etc, tell me what he's done that's so important?

Would it surprise you guys to know that I actually quite liked 'Duel'? The only film of his I'll give the time of day to, by far, not a masterpiece but it was conceptually better than anything else he's done.

>They are sure as hell better than somebody like you.

Subjective criticism there, nobody is a law on films, or music, or whatever, and I actually never said that Criterion should do this or that, if you read I said 'Why would Criterion want to put Spielberg in their collection?' to which you answered with more-or-less 'well they're better than you' blah, blah, you gave me no reasons why Spielberg should be in there.

It's alright, from the posts I've read here saying that he has "strong talent for storytelling, pacing, and direction that comes through on ET, Raiders, Jaws, Jurassic Park and, on a different level, Schindler's List", that's the foundations of an argument, now tell me why!

>OK. I would argue that Armageddon did incredible things for the art of editing and sound design.

I think maha answered that point, basically it didn't do anything that hasn't already been done before. Apocalypse Now did something for sound and because of this invented the 'sound designer' credit.


>Why did Criterion think it was an important film? Neither you nor I am qualified to guess.

I said before, big blockbuster gets money so they continue issuing better films, they never said anything about it's importance.

>What I don't understand is how a movie can be so successful(like Armageddon, or Independance Day) and be so trashed by people.

In that case, define succesful for me? Succesful as in makes a lot of money? Succesful as in it revolutionised cinema? Successful as in it changed your life?

If money is your answer, box office rcords, well that's the worst excuse at film argument ever, GodZilla made a lot of money but ask anyone what they really thought of it? Every critic, including the mainstream ones just about condemned it and yet it was successful?

Successful to me in terms of filmmaking is a film that can tell a narrative in any form, the film is visually beautiful, it's emotional, or it's not, it doesn't rely on flash CGI to fill in it's pathetic storyline gaps, someone who's spent a lot of time discussing and presenting their film, trying new thing out, not conforming to any system etc, etc.

Hollywood is extremely repetitive, it rehashes the same things over and over and over and over, with afew nice films breaking through here and there, sorry but i require more!

[Chris in OC]

Originally posted by chlngr1970:
What I don't understand is how a movie can be so successful(like Armageddon, or Independance Day) and be so trashed by people.

A movie's financial success is not necessarily an indicator of its value as a film. Some of Adam Sandler's films have made over $100 million; are we to assume that they're also important films?

My problem with Armageddon isn't because of its success, but because as action films go, it was very weak. It had some good FX, but the story was weak and the cast seemed embarrassed to be associated with it. It just didn't work for me.

It just seems that the most successful directors always get hammered here and I don't understand why.

When successful directors get slammed simply for being successful (like Spielberg), I don't understand it either. But I never said that Michael Bay was a poor director or that this film was weak because he was at the helm. I said only that it was a weak film and that Criterion could have made a much better choice among action films.

[Chris in OC]

Originally posted by KikuchiyoCM:
Lean totally towards mainstream you mean, because you're saying that art is not entertainment which is not true.

I said no such thing, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth or tell me what I meant.

...you get your basic narrative stucture, but it's been proven that anyone can do that...

No, it hasn't -- not by a long shot. But while we're on the subject, what's so awful about linear narrative structure? Can a movie only be deemed worthwhile if it avoids that convention? I say no. On the contrary, a lot of art films seem to be different simply for difference's sake, and that's just as lemming-like as you accuse Spielberg, et al, of being.

They did nothing, anyone who says Spielberg is an important director in the future of filmmaking in fact has not studied film, is someone who merely likes his films.

You say that like it's a bad thing. But since you brought it up, I think it's possible for involved study to cloud the mind because it makes the moviegoer focus too much on technique and not enough on the whole package. A good movie is far more than the sum of its parts, and I'd much rather watch a film that really involves me instead of a one at which I can only marvel at what the director did.

And BTW, Spielberg is recognized as an important director by many people in the industry, including other directors who have no reason do suck up to him. I'm not guided by their opinions, but I'm not averted by them, either.

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally posted by KikuchiyoCM:
>
They did nothing, anyone who says Spielberg is an important director in the future of filmmaking in fact has not studied film, is someone who merely likes his films. I'm interested, tell me what he changed about cinema? His direction is conventional, his storytelling only echoes 30s/40s/50s hollywood 'depression era' etc, etc, tell me what he's done that's so important?

Do you honestly stand by a position that Spielberg has done nothing for film? Speaking as somebody who doesn't really like Spilberg, I think that is an extremely naive position. He may not have re-invented anything, but he has, occasionally, done interesting things. More importantly his films have EFFECTED lots of PEOPLE. You may not like it, but **and I can't stress this enough** THAT'S AN OPINION!! Clearly millions of people did like his stuff and were effected by it. THAT'S why Criterion thought those films were important. And whether you like it doesn't negate the opinion of millions of other people nor does it reverse the fact that those films have effected society.

Originally posted by KikuchiyoCM:
>
Subjective criticism there, nobody is a law on films, or music, or whatever, and I actually never said that Criterion should do this or that, if you read I said 'Why would Criterion want to put Spielberg in their collection?' to which you answered with more-or-less 'well they're better than you' blah, blah, you gave me no reasons why Spielberg should be in there.

Interesting - you arguing against subjective criticism. If you would do me the honor of going back and reading the "blah, blah" part of my post, you would see the POINT. I did, in fact give you reasons, but you didn't seem to read them. Did those reasons scare you?

Originally posted by KikuchiyoCM:
>
I think maha answered that point, basically it didn't do anything that hasn't already been done before. Apocalypse Now did something for sound and because of this invented the 'sound designer' credit.

No, what Mahavishnu did was restate an opinion, after I had offered possible reasons Criterion chose the film - reasons that went beyond individual preference. Reasons that we are not qualified to criticize just because we didn't like a movie.

Originally posted by KikuchiyoCM:
>
>Why did Criterion think it was an important film? Neither you nor I am qualified to guess.

I said before, big blockbuster gets money so they continue issuing better films, they never said anything about it's importance.

And I said before, your not qualified to make that assumption. No bussiness works for free, but Criterion isn't about to ignore their whole mission statement to make a buck - no business can be successful like that. Until you can prove Criterion chose this flick for the $$, rather than its importance, your just blowing steam. And before you start, you can't prove that using your opinion of the film as an argument.


Frankly, I don't care if you like Spielberg or Armageddon. I couldn't care less about your opinion on just about anything at this point. But what you need to realize is, Criterion chooses films based on Criteria far beyond whether a single individual liked the movie. Did it effect people? Was it a technical success? Was it artistically valuable? Was it overly popular? And you saying Speilberg Sucks does not make him ineligible for "Important" status.

[manigrasso]

This is getting a bit off-topic, only because I don't think there's yet to be a Criterion release of a Spielberg movie. It's starting to sound as if we're defending actions of a company that didn't commit those actions.

As far as the Michael Bay filmography goes, I'm not a fan of his movies either. I like action, but I can't get past the cliches (why I also don't like Devlin-Emmerich flicks either). But just as maha would love to be considered the next Fassbinder some day, there are tons of film students hoping to be the next Michael Bay or Steven Spielberg. Bitch about it all you want, people have been influenced by their style, or lack thereof.

maha & kiku, if it helps you sleep at night, consider the releases of Armageddon & the Rock comparable to disc 3 of Brazil: It shows you how NOT to make a movie.

Right now you might be thinking about writing a "Brazil was a fine movie tampered by the studios, Armegeddon was always shit" reply. To that I say: Cut me some f-ing slack! For once I try to be a nice guy and you SHIT all over me like that?!?!? Get off your F-ING High Horses & watch 1941 and lighten up!!!

Well, that's what I WOULD say, if you wrote that, but you didn't, so I won't

[Eye]

You must be joking. Armageddon only came out a year or two ago and it's already being forgotten... except as a stick to bash Criterion with.

I totally agree. Why Criterion, why?

------------------
Eye | Moderator | ICQ: 44594001 | eye@mail.dvdfile.com | Visualize world violence.

[Chumley]

From the Criterion FAQ at http://www.criteriondvd.com

Q. Since Criterion is supposed to release "important films," why did Criterion release Armageddon?
A. Criterion makes every effort to represent every genre in its releases. Armageddon is considered to fulfill the "big-budget summer blockbuster" genre.