The Criterion Collection

[SpiderBaby]

Wow, I got on here to see if anybody wanted to talk crap about me for my Malick bashing, but no, people are complaining about something I didn't start, and something much worse:

Blu-ray tranfers.

"Yes, I prefer better transfers for my big a** t.v.!" says snob A.

"But does the transfer differences really matter? You can't reproduce a true 35mm film print on blu-ray anyways." says snob B.

"Does it matter?" says snob A. "You make me laugh!" while puffing on a pipe. "What film was I watching again?"

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

Wow, I got on here to see if anybody wanted to talk crap about me for my Malick bashing, but no, people are complaining about something I didn't start, and something much worse:

Blu-ray tranfers.

"Yes, I prefer better transfers for my big a** t.v.!" says snob A.

"But does the transfer differences really matter? You can't reproduce a true 35mm film print on blu-ray anyways." says snob B.

"Does it matter?" says snob A. "You make me laugh!" while puffing on a pipe.

I had your back on Malick.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Alkaline

And on top of that, the material is incredibly prescient. "50 years from now, unimaginative hipsters will assimilate these love/hate knuckle tattoos and claim them as their own."

haha, very nice. But still, great movie.

BTW, I thought the "message" was very clear when floating kid heads were on the screen. BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS! AKA, beware of everybody!

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

Wow, I got on here to see if anybody wanted to talk crap about me for my Malick bashing, but no, people are complaining about something I didn't start, and something much worse:

Blu-ray tranfers.

"Yes, I prefer better transfers for my big a** t.v.!" says snob A.

"But does the transfer differences really matter? You can't reproduce a true 35mm film print on blu-ray anyways." says snob B.

"Does it matter?" says snob A. "You make me laugh!" while puffing on a pipe. "What film was I watching again?"

This snob (snob A?) agrees with you about Malick. There's no "there" there.

Badlands is pretty cool though.

[oildude]

Interesting to come across all this discussion about the Leopard after having just watched the Criterion today for the first time. Reading all this about "looking like it came out of a dumpster" and digital noise, poor color, etc., makes me wonder a) what kind of equipment you are watching this on, and b) these statements are over the top ridiculous.

The Criterion looks incredible. Viewed on my Kuro elite 60" from 7' away, I was very impressed by the level of detail throughout. Fabrics - the women's dresses, the curtains, the floor tiles, the building facades, the crumbling and decaying infrastrucure of the the peasant towns compared to the oppulence of the villas. The constant layer of sweat on faces as a reminder that there ain't no air conditioning in the Sicilian summer of 1860; makes me really appreciate the director's emphasis on the characters lives revolving around the refreshment of a bath or a breeze through a window. The scene in the church when the party first arrives in the town where Angelica lives - they go to the chruch immediately after disembarking from the carriages and sit there with a veneer of dust on their faces from the roads. The colors and contrast are remarkable, blacks are inky and shadows richly nuanced. There is a pleasing layer of grain throughout, the subtitles easily read without having to lose focus on the picture (very important and this release does it right). There are a few "hiccups", accurately pointed out in the high def digest review, such as the shifting/jumping doorframe in one scene, and the insect that got on the camera lens in another.

The screencaps in a previous thread don't do justice to either the Criterion or the French version, but this Criterion release has some of the richest, most vaired shades of the color spectrum I've seen in a blu-ray.

[chetripley80]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

Wow, I got on here to see if anybody wanted to talk crap about me for my Malick bashing

So you were purposely trying to evoke a reaction from people on the board? What is that action considered again?

It would be great if you could stop initiating the trolling so much. You do make good points about films when you're not being so snarky about films other people enjoy.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by oildude

Interesting to come across all this discussion about the Leopard after having just watched the Criterion today for the first time. Reading all this about "looking like it came out of a dumpster" and digital noise, poor color, etc., makes me wonder a) what kind of equipment you are watching this on, and b) these statements are over the top ridiculous.

The Criterion looks incredible. Viewed on my Kuro elite 60" from 7' away, I was very impressed by the level of detail throughout. Fabrics - the women's dresses, the curtains, the floor tiles, the building facades, the crumbling and decaying infrastrucure of the the peasant towns compared to the oppulence of the villas. The constant layer of sweat on faces as a reminder that there ain't no air conditioning in the Sicilian summer of 1860; makes me really appreciate the director's emphasis on the characters lives revolving around the refreshment of a bath or a breeze through a window. The scene in the church when the party first arrives in the town where Angelica lives - they go to the chruch immediately after disembarking from the carriages and sit there with a veneer of dust on their faces from the roads. The colors and contrast are remarkable, blacks are inky and shadows richly nuanced. There is a pleasing layer of grain throughout, the subtitles easily read without having to lose focus on the picture (very important and this release does it right). There are a few "hiccups", accurately pointed out in the high def digest review, such as the shifting/jumping doorframe in one scene, and the insect that got on the camera lens in another.

The screencaps in a previous thread don't do justice to either the Criterion or the French version, but this Criterion release has some of the richest, most vaired shades of the color spectrum I've seen in a blu-ray.

They have Ultra Elite Kuro G13s that were never even made and personally calibrated by baby Jesus.

You must be poor with your cute 2 year old Elite...

(I'm kidding, btw).

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Volume11

I had your back on Malick.

I saw that. I find it funny when people complain about others' opinions. I saw the quotes of your post and people seem to dislike that you dislike Malick. So can we not like a director? And including Godard was funny, like a "get-back-at-me" thing, which I don't care, becaus Godard isn't the be-all of film (he is the end-all with "Weekend"). Malick is a cinematgrapher. Plain and simple.


I can make a f'n movie with some Forest Gump-sounding "I don't know why you hurt me!" crap with close-ups of slow motion leaves or grass. WOW, ART! Give me f'n 5-6 years with Pitt and Penn and $ and let me see what I turn out. Yes, he can give some people deep emotion with religion undertones or whatever, but not everyone into religion.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

I saw that. I find it funny when people complain about others' opinions. I saw the quotes of your post and people seem to dislike that you dislike Malick. So can we not like a director? And including Godard was funny, like a "get-back-at-me" thing, which I don't care, becaus Godard isn't the be-all of film (he is the end-all with "Weekend"). Malick is a cinematgrapher. Plain and simple.


I can make a f'n movie with some Forest Gump-sounding "I don't know why you hurt me!" crap with close-ups of slow motion leaves or grass. WOW, ART! Give me f'n 5-6 years with Pitt and Penn and $ and let me see what I turn out. Yes, he can give some people deep emotion with religion undertones or whatever, but not everyone into religion.

I live to take my once a month Criterion thread potshots at you. I prefer that over these thread newbies arguing about fine grain detail and wanting to burn down NYC so Criterion can learn their lesson.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by oildude

Interesting to come across all this discussion about the Leopard after having just watched the Criterion today for the first time. Reading all this about "looking like it came out of a dumpster" and digital noise, poor color, etc., makes me wonder a) what kind of equipment you are watching this on, and b) these statements are over the top ridiculous.

The Criterion looks incredible. Viewed on my Kuro elite 60" from 7' away, I was very impressed by the level of detail throughout. Fabrics - the women's dresses, the curtains, the floor tiles, the building facades, the crumbling and decaying infrastrucure of the the peasant towns compared to the oppulence of the villas. The constant layer of sweat on faces as a reminder that there ain't no air conditioning in the Sicilian summer of 1860; makes me really appreciate the director's emphasis on the characters lives revolving around the refreshment of a bath or a breeze through a window. The scene in the church when the party first arrives in the town where Angelica lives - they go to the chruch immediately after disembarking from the carriages and sit there with a veneer of dust on their faces from the roads. The colors and contrast are remarkable, blacks are inky and shadows richly nuanced. There is a pleasing layer of grain throughout, the subtitles easily read without having to lose focus on the picture (very important and this release does it right). There are a few "hiccups", accurately pointed out in the high def digest review, such as the shifting/jumping doorframe in one scene, and the insect that got on the camera lens in another.

The screencaps in a previous thread don't do justice to either the Criterion or the French version, but this Criterion release has some of the richest, most vaired shades of the color spectrum I've seen in a blu-ray.

I think you wasted a lot of money on that Kuro elite phantasmagoric ultra resoloution super duper HDTV if you can't see the course clumpy digital noise all over the place.

Or you were overwhelmed by the quality of the film itself, which is understandable. Maybe a combination of both.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by chetripley80

So you were purposely trying to evoke a reaction from people on the board? What is that action considered again?

It would be great if you could stop initiating the trolling so much. You do make good points about films when you're not being so snarky about films other people enjoy.

Person A: "New Malick Trailer!"

Person B: "I have to say, not very much into that. Looks the same!"

Me: "I don't like Malick's films either." with reasoning.

Person C: "Oh I don't like what you said. Malick is so much more. What I get fed up with is Godard."

Me = troll.



Funny me posting something like "I was looking to see if someone replied to my post" had someone thinking I was trolling. Don't you think I wrote that because I EXPECT someone to say something smart to me about my disliking something? Happens all the time. I let people that dislikes Godard keep their fingers, so why can't I? I expected it, so I made a joke. Didn't hit, because now it seems like I am a troll.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Volume11

I live to take my once a month Criterion thread potshots at you. I prefer that over these thread newbies arguing about fine grain detail and wanting to burn down NYC so Criterion can learn their lesson.

But we were on the same page this time.

P.S., Funny what you wrote, but did anybody really say they will teach Criterion a lesson with burning down NYC, becaue I didn't read everything.

[ccfixx]

I'm so glad I chose to watch "Green Zone" with Matt Damon tonight.

I hate you all. Please continue to slowly destroy each other.

CC

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

I'm so glad I chose to watch "Green Zone" with Matt Damon tonight.

I hate you all. Please continue to slowly destroy each other.

CC

You've made better posts, therefore you suck.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

I'm so glad I chose to watch "Green Zone" with Matt Damon tonight.

I hate you all. Please continue to slowly destroy each other.

CC

Get ready to "destroy" your blu-ray player.

[tfunk]

I watched Charade today. It was one of the funniest movies I've seen in ages. I wish I'd rewatched part of it again instead of getting on to see the ridiculous hostility b.s. that happened in the past 5 hours. I guess it is the internet, though.

[Trekkie313]

Everyone is getting so damn butthurt over the littlest things. Seriously, lets all get over it.

[keldons]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

I saw that. I find it funny when people complain about others' opinions. I saw the quotes of your post and people seem to dislike that you dislike Malick. So can we not like a director? And including Godard was funny, like a "get-back-at-me" thing, which I don't care, becaus Godard isn't the be-all of film (he is the end-all with "Weekend"). Malick is a cinematgrapher. Plain and simple.

Funny, considering the quote included Godard without me altering it, and wasn't chosen to be directed at you, but rather a comment I remembered off the top of my head from a Mubi user I like. I think Godard is a waste of time for anyone looking for something with substance, so I'm all for it when someone puts him down, and double for when they praise one of my favorite films in the same breath. I don't care what you like, but you're welcome to assume every Godard putdown is directed at you. Why would I waste my time scouring the internet looking for a quote that mentions both my favorite Malick film and puts down Godard just to try and make someone on the internet feel bad?

I could just "explain" my opinions in "snarky" babble and one liners though, if that would make me more popular.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by keldons

Funny, considering the quote included Godard without me altering it, and wasn't chosen to be directed at you, but rather a comment I remembered off the top of my head from a Mubi user I like. I think Godard is a waste of time for anyone looking for something with substance, so I'm all for it when someone puts him down, and double for when they praise one of my favorite films in the same breath. I don't care what you like, but you're welcome to assume every Godard putdown is directed at you. Why would I waste my time scouring the internet looking for a quote that mentions both my favorite Malick film and puts down Godard just to try and make someone on the internet feel bad?

I could just "explain" my opinions in "snarky" babble and one liners though, if that would make me more popular.

Well good for you. Giving opinions on a director. Not going to go back and check, but hope your were not one of the people who hated the Malick opinions, since you know, it would be silly to voice your opinion about something but can't take opinions back. But anyways, I feel Malick is a waste of time when looking for substance. Can you please enlighten me on the path to substance though? If you could give examples, I could prob change my ways. That would be greeeaaattt. I always felt Godard had no substance in his films anyways. I much prefer those great all-star cast Malick features. The way he shows us trees, two words............boner alert.

Paul Morrissey's films has more substance in Joe Dallensandro's **** than Thin Red Line has in it's whole film.

[Tom Hiddleston]

Man I'm loving the 'ignore' feature.