The Criterion Collection

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

"Slugger's Wife" might be as bad. "Lookin' To Get Out" is similar in the way that they both feel as if the script got thrown out with no thought given to what should replace it, but Jon Voight and Burt Young keep it... I don't want to say "watchable" without qualification, but compared to the other two anyway. "8 Million Ways to Die" is generic, not particularly awful.

Hey, thanks for the hours spent to compile that late era Ashby overview. I guess I'll just revisit Shampoo or watch The Landlord for the first time if I want to appreciate the "other Ashby" stuff (unless I'm feeling especially adventurous).

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Well...sh*t.

I swung by B&N today, but Le Samourai was nowhere to be seen.

I did the same thing - thought I'd struck out, but found one of three in a box on a cart in the corner of the media section. Sorry yours didn't work out yet, but you'll get there! Also, high five on the Rick & Morty comics! I need to look into those.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

"Slugger's Wife" might be as bad. "Lookin' To Get Out" is similar in the way that they both feel as if the script got thrown out with no thought given to what should replace it, but Jon Voight and Burt Young keep it... I don't want to say "watchable" without qualification, but compared to the other two anyway. "8 Million Ways to Die" is generic, not particularly awful.

I watched "8 Million Ways to Die" recently and it's actively bad IMO. It reminds me of Cimino's "Desperate Hours". Both should have probably been directed by someone like Walter Hill or even Tony Scott. Cimino and Ashby clearly were not comfortable with directing films that were basically pulpy genre pieces and tried to do way too much. Both are similar in that the performances are pitched at a level that becomes increasingly absurd, so the last 20-30 minutes of both are very unintentionally funny.

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I think the thing that hurts Coppola's legacy is that his movies don't have a characteristic style, unlike for example Kubrick.

There's also the fact that Coppola would do practically anything for money. Do you imagine Kubrick even considering to do something like Jack, for instance?

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Kubrick movie's are more stylistically defined, but the greatness of Coppola cannot be denied. Kubrick himself said that The Godfather was possibly the greatest movie ever made.

Kubrick is my very favorite. Sometimes it makes me an even bigger fan of someone by reading or listening to their praise of others (and what it is that they praise). Scorsese, Woody Allen and Elvis Costello are other good examples of that for me.

[Martin_31]

I’m loving this conversation! I have to say though, can the 2000’s and 10’s bring forth a director as Coppola, Scorsese, Kubrick, De Palma, etc.? What I mean is who are the directors of this age?

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

There's also the fact that Coppola would do practically anything for money. Do you imagine Kubrick even considering to do something like Jack, for instance?

Some directors just like to work more frequently though. Guys like Kubrick and PTA clearly are comfortable working very infrequently, which is fine and it means fewer misfires. Coppola is very wealthy, both through his filmmaking and wine business, so I doubt he was doing a lot of his lesser films as cash grabs. I think "Jack" was foreshadowed by the truly atrocious "Life Without Zoe" segment in "New York Stories", which indicated that Coppola had a desire to do something very sentimental and family-oriented. He probably went into "Jack" with the intent to do something he believed was going to be good, but turned out to be shit.

I think as filmmakers get older, human nature probably kicks in and they figure the well is going to dry up eventually, so they sometimes start taking on projects that aren't necessarily perfect with the belief they can shape it into something in line with their personal vision. I mean, Paul Schrader never would have done "The Canyons" during his prime years, for example. Kubrick never seemed to be burdened with that, but, truthfully, I would have loved to have seen Kubrick take on a few more projects than he did, even if they didn't end up being masterpieces.

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

There's also the fact that Coppola would do practically anything for money. Do you imagine Kubrick even considering to do something like Jack, for instance?

Two differing philosophies here: both filmmakers wanted complete control, but while Kubrick molded the studio (since 1971, Warners) to his will (final cut, full creative autonomy, etc.), Coppola tried to be his own studio so he wouldn't have any interference from 'the suits'.

He swung for the fences and missed. I believe his 'gun-for-hire' days were in large part due to the fact that Zoetrope went belly-up once "One From The Heart" tanked at the box office and basically bankrupted him. A lot of his films after that could be termed as "gun-for-hire", but I believe that "Tucker: The Man And His Dream" was a very personal project for him because he saw so much of himself and his dream (Zoetrope becoming a viable studio) in Preston Tucker's struggles with his car.

I don't see Kubrick taking any project just for the money, basically because he never put himself in the position where he had to.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Hey, thanks for the hours spent to compile that late era Ashby overview. I guess I'll just revisit Shampoo or watch The Landlord for the first time if I want to appreciate the "other Ashby" stuff (unless I'm feeling especially adventurous).

"The Landlord" is great. If you're going into the bad ones, "Lookin' To Get Out" is the least worthless, but that might just be because I tend to appreciate Voight and Young.

Originally Posted by mja345

I watched "8 Million Ways to Die" recently and it's actively bad IMO. It reminds me of Cimino's "Desperate Hours".

Yeah, it's just that at least it has the dumb pulpy plot, which is more than the other three '80's Ashby movies have. But I might have overrated it above.

What I remember about "Desperate Hours" is that Cimino, who is so great at shooting epic widescreen stuff, decided to lock himself in a single house, and it was just cutting him off at the knees, or even the waist. I was hoping at least Rourke would come through with something, but only David Morse was interesting, and Lindsay Crouse was just bad.

[captainron_howdy]

All Three Films..... Blow Up, The Conversation & Blow Out achieve greatness IMHO. Yes, they're all an extension of each other , with Blow up pretty much being the start, but man are they all great in their own ways also. It's a hell of a trilogy.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by mja345

Some directors just like to work more frequently though. Coppola is very wealthy, both through his filmmaking and wine business, so I doubt he was doing a lot of his lesser films as cash grabs. Guys like Kubrick and PTA clearly are comfortable working very infrequently, which is fine and it means fewer misfires. I think "Jack" was foreshadowed by the truly atrocious "Life Without Zoe" segment in "New York Stories", which indicated that Coppola had a desire to do something very sentimental and family-oriented. He probably went into "Jack" with the intent to do something he believed was going to be good, but turned out to be shit.

Coppola has money now from his wine, but he was working for years to pay off his debts from "One For The Heart". The story I heard about "Jack" is that it was written by a film school graduate who was set up to direct the film, and then Robin Williams got involved and refused to work for a first time director and requested Coppola, so Coppola was able to get a big payday because Williams was actively pulling him for him. (That said, I'm sure that Coppola didn't *just* take the money, I'm sure he found something in it that he actually wanted to make. I have no idea what it might be, other than just "It would be fun to make a movie starring Robin Williams," but I don't mean he was 100% *just* in it for the money.)

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by BagheeraMcGee

A lot of his films after that could be termed as "gun-for-hire", but I believe that "Tucker: The Man And His Dream" was a very personal project for him because he saw so much of himself and his dream (Zoetrope becoming a viable studio) in Preston Tucker's struggles with his car.

I think George Lucas was the one for whom "Tucker" was initially a personal project, but he let Coppola develop it more than most of his "for-hire" jobs, and he wound up putting a lot of himself in the character. It's definitely my favorite of his post-'70's movies.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Coppola has money now from his wine, but he was working for years to pay off his debts from "One For The Heart". The story I heard about "Jack" is that it was written by a film school graduate who was set up to direct the film, and then Robin Williams got involved and refused to work for a first time director and requested Coppola, so Coppola was able to get a big payday because Williams was actively pulling him for him.

I'd forgotten about Coppola's bankruptcy. Although, I do think that "Life Without Zoe" was a clear sign that Coppola had something like "Jack" in him.

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I think George Lucas was the one for whom "Tucker" was initially a personal project, but he let Coppola develop it more than most of his "for-hire" jobs, and he wound up putting a lot of himself in the character. It's definitely my favorite of his post-'70's movies.

I knew Lucas was involved with "Tucker", but didn't know to that extent. It's my favorite of his post-'70s films as well.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by BagheeraMcGee

I knew Lucas was involved with "Tucker", but didn't know to that extent. It's my favorite of his post-'70s films as well.

Honestly, now that I'm looking it up, it was something Coppola wanted to do for years, and then in the mid-80's, Lucas said "You should do that" and produced it, so I was wrong on that. I thought Lucas was the one who owned some of the cars, but it turns out that each one owned two, and FFC's dad had owned one (and some Tucker stock!). So, yeah, it sounds like the reason that one is so good is that it was in no-way a for-hire job. But Lucas said "It shouldn't be a musical, it should be a Frank Capra picture."

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by captainron_howdy

All Three Films..... Blow Up, The Conversation & Blow Out achieve greatness IMHO. Yes, they're all an extension of each other , with Blow up pretty much being the start, but man are they all great in their own ways also. It's a hell of a trilogy.

Only the second two are extensions. Blow Up was first. No extension bro!

They all have different points of emphasis too, although I think Blow Out and The Conversation have more in common with each because they are more specific and less universal than Blow Up.

Re: Coppola. Almost every film he made after One From The Heart until Youth Without Youth was an assignment. He doesn't even try to hide that fact. He got sick of being a director for hire and stopped making films for almost a decade.

Coppola's reach often extends his grasp whereas Scorsese is more aware of his limitations and takes less risks. The end result has been a more consistent filmography.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Martin_31

I’m loving this conversation! I have to say though, can the 2000’s and 10’s bring forth a director as Coppola, Scorsese, Kubrick, De Palma, etc.? What I mean is who are the directors of this age?

• Darren Aronofsky
• Denis Villeneuve
• JJ Abrams
• Rian Johnson
• Edgar Wright
• Alex Garland (predicting that Annihilation and future works will be awesome)
• Christopher Nolan. *turns and runs before everybody throws tomatoes*

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Honestly, now that I'm looking it up, it was something Coppola wanted to do for years, and then in the mid-80's, Lucas said "You should do that" and produced it, so I was wrong on that. I thought Lucas was the one who owned some of the cars, but it turns out that each one owned two, and FFC's dad had owned one (and some Tucker stock!). So, yeah, it sounds like the reason that one is so good is that it was in no-way a for-hire job.

Quite the opposite of 'gun-for-hire'; I'd term it more as a "filmmaker-with-his-heart-on-his-sleeve" production.

And come to think of it, "Tucker" would be a great title for Criterion to release. It would be a day-one buy for me, that's for sure.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by BagheeraMcGee

Quite the opposite of 'gun-for-hire'; I'd term it more as a "filmmaker-with-his-heart-on-his-sleeve" production.

And come to think of it, "Tucker" would be a great title for Criterion to release. It would be a day-one buy for me, that's for sure.

If George Lucas suddenly gets a phantom page, it seems like it would have to be for Tucker.

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

If George Lucas suddenly gets a phantom page, it seems like it would have to be for Tucker.

Quite true. Doesn't seem like they'd get "American Graffiti" from Universal (although we all probably said the same thing about "The Breakfast Club" not too long ago), I'm not sure that WB would license "THX 1138", and I strongly doubt Disney would give them "Willow", so the odds would definitely be in favor of "Tucker".