The Criterion Collection

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Bates: You seem to be under the impression that I'm defending Tarantino, I'm not. Fincher is good but he does not have a singular style. Neither does Aronofsky. Aronofsky is a polystylist. Moreoever, they can't all be trying new things but have a singular style at the same time. Which is it? Wes Anderson does have a singular style, I'll give you that and so does Jarmusch, but neither of them have had the success or the reach of QT.

A filmmaker can very well have a singular style AND try new things. It's not about changing the style, it's about adapting variety and bringing THEIR style to it. All of Fincher's films have the same style when it comes to mood and dark photography; that's his thing. Yet his films var, even though The Social Network was about Facebook, it still had his signature "style" and you could tell. it was a Fincher film if you know his work.

Not that it has anything to do with Criterion, but singular style doesn't mean "making the same film over and over." Tarantino's problem is that he's actually a terrible writer. Every character in every film sounds like exactly the same person. There's no variety in his writing, yet people misinterpret overblown banter as "great dialogue" just because it bounces back and forth unrealistically. And aren't half of his films variations on the revenge plot? That's not singular style, that's just not having great ideas or the ability to tell a story outside your one main influence.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

A filmmaker can very well have a singular style AND try new things. It's not about changing the style, it's about adapting variety and bringing THEIR style to it. All of Fincher's films have the same style when it comes to mood and dark photography; that's his thing. Yet his films var, even though The Social Network was about Facebook, it still had his signature "style" and you could tell. it was a Fincher film if you know his work.

I know his work well and disagree. His dark looking films share some common aesthetic traits, but are his lighting and framing techniques really the same in all of his films? I'm open to being proven wrong but you will have to post stills to convince me. Fincher has a style but it isn't singular.

And yes thats what a singular style is. It is a style repeated over and over with small variations. Wes Anderson is a good example. It isn't about content, it's about form.

I agree that Tarantino's characters often sound like the same person.

[20th Century Boy]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Tarantino's problem is that he's actually a terrible writer. Every character in every film sounds like exactly the same person. There's no variety in his writing, yet people misinterpret overblown banter as "great dialogue" just because it bounces back and forth unrealistically. And aren't half of his films variations on the revenge plot? That's not singular style, that's just not having great ideas or the ability to tell a story outside your one main influence.

Daaaaaaaaaaaayum. ( )

[20th Century Boy]

Originally Posted by jw007

Tarantino on the other hand still has major financial success because he's always been provocative with his genre-bending films.

Hmm, I won't argue artistic merit because it's subjective but insofar as we're talking "success" I'd say QT's comes from the fact that his powerful producers actually back his projects and stump for them whereas the other artists in question (and pretty much almost any filmmaker in general) get a lot less support, if they haven't be ignored altogether.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, impractical or otherwise but success in that way rides a lot on what producers do with your work (including interfering with final cut/editing).

QT's producers went to bat for his expensive Hateful Eight endeavors but I can think a few other filmmakers who could've actually took those assets a lot further and gave audiences a more unique experience (Terry Gilliam for one), instead we got the same ol' shooty, shooty foul mouth bang, bang.

[Hoke Moseley]

I like QT (though not as much as I did when I was 16) but there's a reason Jackie Brown is his best movie... he was adapting a master. The mixture of his own voice with Leonard's worked incredibly well. That's why I've been hoping for years that he'd adapt another Leonard novel (he's talked about Forty Lashes Less One, and still has the rights to a few others I think).

[20th Century Boy]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

I like QT (though not as much as I did when I was 16) but there's a reason Jackie Brown is his best movie... he was adapting a master. The mixture of his own voice with Leonard's worked incredibly well. That's why I've been hoping for years that he'd adapt another Leonard novel (he's talked about Forty Lashes Less One, and still has the rights to a few others I think).

He's EXTREMELY critical of people saying JB is his best film. I'm not sure what that says about his catalog or his view of people's assessment of his work.

I don't completely dislike him, he's got some fun stuff but I think he's running on fumes at this point and if it came to it, I'd rather pop in a Jack Hill flick than Jackie Brown.

But is something like True Romance up for grabs? Is it a Morgan Creek film up for the CC treatment? If so:

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

I like QT (though not as much as I did when I was 16) but there's a reason Jackie Brown is his best movie... he was adapting a master. The mixture of his own voice with Leonard's worked incredibly well. That's why I've been hoping for years that he'd adapt another Leonard novel (he's talked about Forty Lashes Less One, and still has the rights to a few others I think).

Given he's made the big deal about only having a few movies left, it's unlikely now imo. He'll stick to his own material.

[Hoke Moseley]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

Given he's made the big deal about only having a few movies left, it's unlikely now imo. He'll stick to his own material.

I'm pretty sure he talked about wanting to adapt Forty Lashes Less One for TV around the time he was promoting The Hateful Eight, so I wouldn't rule it out.

[Lutz]

QT has also managed his career by still making relatively low budget movies for his high profile. His high budget movies are still very cheap at $50 million and when they make three times their budget back and win/nominated for prestige awards then financing them is a no brainer.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

Hmm, I won't argue artistic merit because it's subjective but insofar as we're talking "success" I'd say QT's comes from the fact that his powerful producers actually back his projects and stump for them whereas the other artists in question (and pretty much almost any filmmaker in general) get a lot less support, if they haven't be ignored altogether.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, impractical or otherwise but success in that way rides a lot on what producers do with your work (including interfering with final cut/editing).

QT's producers went to bat for his expensive Hateful Eight endeavors but I can think a few other filmmakers who could've actually took those assets a lot further and gave audiences a more unique experience (Terry Gilliam for one), instead we got the same ol' shooty, shooty foul mouth bang, bang.

He got support because he played ball and was a proven commodity. Producers were not banging down his door in 1993 to make Pulp Fiction. Gilliam lacked support because his film's generally bomb and he is a pain in the ass from a producer's standpoint.

Jarmusch had his chance to blow up but he made films that had little to no crossover appeal. Broken Flowers was his only real 'hit'. The support was there though, he just wanted to do things his way.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Aye. Financial success and cultural influence. J.J was of course extremely influential on the American 'indie' movement though, if it can even be classified as a 'movement'.

As for your comment about not judging films by ticket sales, c'mon, most of us here know that! Just look at my top ten films since 2010 list. There isn't a box office success among them! :-)

A lot of people say there were 2 major independent film rebirths: One in the late 60s and one in the early 90s. I can get behind history.

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Does that mean you can tell me if I should buy the 6 film UK blu-ray set or the 12 film German blu-ray set?

Neither. Save your money until the 16k release comes out in 35 years.

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

Hmm, I won't argue artistic merit because it's subjective but insofar as we're talking "success" I'd say QT's comes from the fact that his powerful producers actually back his projects and stump for them whereas the other artists in question (and pretty much almost any filmmaker in general) get a lot less support, if they haven't be ignored altogether.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, impractical or otherwise but success in that way rides a lot on what producers do with your work (including interfering with final cut/editing).

QT's producers went to bat for his expensive Hateful Eight endeavors but I can think a few other filmmakers who could've actually took those assets a lot further and gave audiences a more unique experience (Terry Gilliam for one), instead we got the same ol' shooty, shooty foul mouth bang, bang.

QT struck gold with his executive producer team, there's no doubt about that. I've still yet to watch The Hateful Eight, and I'm more and more less interested in seeing this film after all that bad feedback I've gotten over the years. I used to love Tarantino, but that was 15-20 years ago when I was a lot more immature and naive about movies.

[BLuFanboy]

Who has the rights to Buffalo Soldiers (2001)? Any rumblings about CC release for that one?

[jordan-r]

I suspect some folks in here will be a bit excited about this post from the Criterion subreddit. Mulvaney re: Le Samourai:

I don't think your copy is a bootleg. It's true, we updated the DVD edition with the new branding and the booklet turned into an insert. The Cat/ISBN numbers all stayed the same. This version was only out for a bit and has now gone out of print temporarily while we prepare for a newer edition.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by jordan-r

I suspect some folks in here will be a bit excited about this post from the Criterion subreddit. Mulvaney re: Le Samourai:

Ray needs to post a story and/or .gif in response to this news. Only he can capture this moment in time.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Ray needs to post a story and/or .gif in response to this news. Only he can capture this moment in time.

He did in the wishlist thread for the news

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i94ldGNNSQ0

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by jordan-r

I suspect some folks in here will be a bit excited about this post from the Criterion subreddit. Mulvaney re: Le Samourai:

Not to be a killjoy, but he didn't actually say anything about a blu-ray release.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Not to be a killjoy, but he didn't actually say anything about a blu-ray release.

I'm trying not to get my hopes up. The wording could certainly be misinterpreted, though prepping a newer edition would seemingly imply a BD release. They wouldn't do a new edition for DVD only. Only if "newer edition" refers solely to further packaging changes can we assume this is nothing to get excited over.

Logically, I don't see why they would update the release with new logos and packaging, only to quickly discontinue it, if not for the anticipation of a much bigger release.

[Scottie]

Common sense says a Blu-ray release, but I won't believe it until I see it.

I'm constantly seeing DVDs being re-released on Amazon, so it could very well be different DVD packaging.

[Gacivory]

Maybe they'll revive LaserDisc and this will be their first return!

[MifuneFan]

If there truly is a BD in the works, I wonder if it'll be from a new scan/restoration, or whether they'll just do a digital restoration from the same master used for the DVD. This is mainly an issue because of Pathe's poor restoration job years back, which no doubt has held back a CC release since then.