The Criterion Collection

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

wait a minute.
I'm confused.
the Hichcock films--if you're talking about the OOP ones--are mgm distributed by Fox at present.
if there is a god then some day some how those 3 MUST make it to bd.
the number of current mgm titles that would make great Criterion bds is endless.
I REALLY hope Criterion tries to get as many mgm titles as possible to release on bd in the next several years because almost every single dvd is crap.
"you're our only hope Obi-Wan Ke........er Criterion I mean"

Hitchcock films have been badly overlooked on Blu. I believe North By Northwest is his only film to be released on Blu with Psycho announced.

Hopefully they release The Birds on Blu before Michael Bay puts out his vastly inferior in every way imaginable remake.

[QuasidodoJr]

I picked up a bunch of blus in the sale, but I also grabbed a DVD set on a whim and I'm wondering, to any of you who have seen it, if you can tell me if it's worth holding onto or not - The Golden Age of Television. 'Cause if it's not, I can take it back and grab something else.

[ianungstad]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

wait a minute.
I'm confused.
the Hichcock films--if you're talking about the OOP ones--are mgm distributed by Fox at present.
if there is a god then some day some how those 3 MUST make it to bd.
the number of current mgm titles that would make great Criterion bds is endless.
I REALLY hope Criterion tries to get as many mgm titles as possible to release on bd in the next several years because almost every single dvd is crap.
"you're our only hope Obi-Wan Ke........er Criterion I mean"

MGM licensed all the films produced by David Selznick (including the Hitchcocks) and the films produced by ABC/Palomar (including Straw Dogs) from the Walt Disney Company. When MGM's distribution agreement runs out, Criterion could negotiate for these films again. (and other titles, it's a library that covers about 100 titles) Criterion can't license them from MGM because MGM doesn't own the films and it would most certainly be a violation of their agreement.

This isn't unusual. We only got Stagecoach because Warners decided not to renew the distribution on the films owned by the Caidin trust. Coppola recently took the films he owns away from Paramount and over to Lionsgate, as another recent example.

Another good chunk of MGM's library including films like The Graduate is actually owned by Studio Canal. Wouldn't be surprised if MGM lost the rights to those films soon-ish.

[kndy]

Originally Posted by QuasidodoJr

I picked up a bunch of blus in the sale, but I also grabbed a DVD set on a whim and I'm wondering, to any of you who have seen it, if you can tell me if it's worth holding onto or not - The Golden Age of Television. 'Cause if it's not, I can take it back and grab something else.

It's subjective to those who enjoy classic TV and don't. I enjoy classic television to a point. But it's never in my priority to get it. If you really want it... get it. Otherwise, there are over 500 other titles you probably can get instead.

[Beta Man]

I happen to think Seven Samurai is a great film...... I also really enjoy the Wes Anderson flicks..... a film doesn't need to be "brilliant" in order for me to enjoy it.... the characters are likable (sometimes fun to hate) I enjoy that type of humor (I really don't like most of what is currently classified as comedy....) and I realize Wes Anderson and his films are "cool to hate" but let's face it.... we're not talking about "Bad Boys" and Michael Bay...... His films all have a degree of dry-wit to them..... If you don't like them, very understandable..... but acting like they're absolute trash just screams "look at me"

**back into my bomb shelter now **

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I happen to think Seven Samurai is a great film...... I also really enjoy the Wes Anderson flicks..... a film doesn't need to be "brilliant" in order for me to enjoy it.... the characters are likable (sometimes fun to hate) I enjoy that type of humor (I really don't like most of what is currently classified as comedy....) and I realize Wes Anderson and his films are "cool to hate" but let's face it.... we're not talking about "Bad Boys" and Michael Bay...... His films all have a degree of dry-wit to them..... If you don't like them, very understandable..... but acting like they're absolute trash just screams "look at me"

**back into my bomb shelter now **

I'm not dismissing the fact that those are films to enjoy. It's just the fact that if I ask a large number of people on facebook "what do you want Criterion to release?" there will be a ratio 1,000 to 1 for Wes Anderson to let's say Murnau.

So you can say he is "cool to hate" but I say he is "good because he is popular". That 1,000 to 1 would know Anderson because he is the one who's films are made today, is pushed in the media (even though it doesn't work it seems), and has actors like Bill Murray in them.

Chris Nolan is more popular than Louis Malle, and that = greatness in people's eyes. Millions have seen his films and then says he is the best director around. That is because of the subject (comic book heroes) that attracts them, or because they have limited themselves to mainstream films.


So I'm not saying "Look at me", but more against "More Wes Anderson on blu, because I know nothing else!".

[ianungstad]

Originally Posted by kndy

It's subjective to those who enjoy classic TV and don't. I enjoy classic television to a point. But it's never in my priority to get it. If you really want it... get it. Otherwise, there are over 500 other titles you probably can get instead.

The Golden Age of Television set is fantastic. I wouldn't compare them to classic television shows at all. I was actually surprised how cinematic and complex the camera work was, especially on the two plays directed by John Frankenheimer. Considering this is a blu ray forum, I'm sure most posters here would balk at the image quality but I think Criterion did a wonderful job handling the kinescopes.

I would rank Bang the Drum Slowly and Requiem for a Heavyweight as two of the better films criterion released last year.

Great set!

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

I'm not dismissing the fact that those are films to enjoy. It's just the fact that if I ask a large number of people on facebook "what do you want Criterion to release?" there will be a ratio 1,000 to 1 for Wes Anderson to let's say Murnau.

So you can say he is "cool to hate" but I say he is "good because he is popular". That 1,000 to 1 would know Anderson because he is the one who's films are made today, is pushed in the media (even though it doesn't work it seems), and has actors like Bill Murray in them.

Chris Nolan is more popular than Louis Malle, and that = greatness in people's eyes. Millions have seen his films and then says he is the best director around. That is because of the subject (comic book heroes) that attracts them, or because they have limited themselves to mainstream films.


So I'm not saying "Look at me", but more against "More Wes Anderson on blu, because I know nothing else!".

I think the solution is to do away with facebooks. I mean isn't that site due for its demise any time now?

[QuasidodoJr]

Originally Posted by ianungstad

The Golden Age of Television set is fantastic. I wouldn't compare them to classic television shows at all. I was actually surprised how cinematic and complex the camera work was, especially on the two plays directed by John Frankenheimer. Considering this is a blu ray forum, I'm sure most posters here would balk at the image quality but I think Criterion did a wonderful job handling the kinescopes.

I would rank Bang the Drum Slowly and Requiem for a Heavyweight as two of the better films criterion released last year.

Great set!

Thanks! I grabbed it because of the people involved that are mentioned on the back of the box. Sounds like I'll be happy with it. I'll give it a go some night this week.

As for tonight, I think I'm going to start with Vivre sa vie.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I think the solution is to do away with facebooks. I mean isn't that site due for its demise any time now?

I do wonder when those social networks (Facebooks, Twits, etc.) will end. Hopefully along with the 3D movie crap.

[jcs913]

FYI: I just saw this in the trading forum, the coupon codes to lower the price further on CC purchases have all been deactivated. Thankfully, I got my orders in yesterday, but I hope all got what they needed and saved a couple dollars before they turned off the cotton candy machine....

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by jcs913

FYI: I just saw this in the trading forum, the coupon codes to lower the price further on CC purchases have all been deactivated. Thankfully, I got my orders in yesterday, but I hope all got what they needed and saved a couple dollars before they turned off the cotton candy machine....

Thanks. I love cotton candy.

[tyrone_slothrop]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

I'm not dismissing the fact that those are films to enjoy. It's just the fact that if I ask a large number of people on facebook "what do you want Criterion to release?" there will be a ratio 1,000 to 1 for Wes Anderson to let's say Murnau.

And if you asked a large number of people that same question on, let's say, criterionforum.org, they may very well ask for some Murnau (or, perhaps more likely, Rivette). Facebook skews young and popular, they have a "typical" user just like this place or any other social site on the web, so it shouldn't be surprising that Anderson has traction among that crowd. Criterion has always cast a pretty wide net with the films they release, so I never understand why it's surprising or problematic to people when a certain type of title is announced. Wes Anderson always brings up these heated discussions about merit and the direction of the collection. The fact is he is one of the most critically acclaimed popular filmmakers of his generation. If that's not sufficient reason for Criterion brass to want his films in the collection, I don't know what is.

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

I do wonder when those social networks (Facebooks, Twits, etc.) will end. Hopefully along with the 3D movie crap.

I don't mind Twitter but I've always hated Facebook/MySpace. Everyone I know who got involved with that nonsense had nothing but bad things come from it.

I never have and never will have a Facebook page. And yes, I actually DO have friends. And no, not all of them are imaginary. Unless I'm drunk or high.

As for 3D I don't think that will ever really take off until you no longer need 3-D glasses.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

I don't mind Twitter but I've always hated Facebook/MySpace. Everyone I know who got involved with that nonsense had nothing but bad things come from it.

I never have and never will have a Facebook page. And yes, I actually DO have friends. And no, not all of them are imaginary. Unless I'm drunk or high.

As for 3D I don't think that will ever really take off until you no longer need 3-D glasses.

Wouldn't that be like.........real life?

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by tyrone_slothrop

And if you asked a large number of people that same question on, let's say, criterionforum.org, they may very well ask for some Murnau (or, perhaps more likely, Rivette). Facebook skews young and popular, they have a "typical" user just like this place or any other social site on the web, so it shouldn't be surprising that Anderson has traction among that crowd. Criterion has always cast a pretty wide net with the films they release, so I never understand why it's surprising or problematic to people when a certain type of title is announced. Wes Anderson always brings up these heated discussions about merit and the direction of the collection. The fact is he is one of the most critically acclaimed popular filmmakers of his generation. If that's not sufficient reason for Criterion brass to want his films in the collection, I don't know what is.

Someone got me.

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

Wouldn't that be like.........real life?

Well yes, for us old-timers over the age of 25 I suppose. But the younger crowd probably aren't familiar with this whole "real life" thing you speak of.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

Well yes, for us old-timers over the age of 25 I suppose. But the younger crowd probably aren't familiar with this whole "real life" thing you speak of.

Hey, hey, hey. I'm 22 next month.

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

Someone got me.

Ya, and it's really not like his titles coming to Criterion are blocking titles from other Directors from coming out. I mean how many films has the guy even done? Like 6 or 7? And I believe all except for Darjeeling are already out on Criterion. Ironically his best film IMO is the one that can't come out on Criterion - Fantastic Mr. Fox.

I enjoy most Anderson films, but by no means take him as serious as some people do. I consider his films "fun" for the most part, but by no means daring or all that unique in any sense.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

Ya, and it's really not like his titles coming to Criterion are blocking titles from other Directors from coming out. I mean how many films has the guy even done? Like 6 or 7? And I believe all except for Darjeeling are already out on Criterion. Ironically his best film IMO is the one that can't come out on Criterion - Fantastic Mr. Fox.

I enjoy most Anderson films, but by no means take him as serious as some people do. I consider his films "fun" for the most part, but by no means daring or all that unique in any sense.

Yeah, there far from being unique, but they are "fun". I do come across that I hate them, but it's just I have to put forward my opinion against alot of pro-Anderson, and it comes out 100% dislike. It's just that I would choose a BUNCH of stuff to be released new into the collection first.