The Criterion Collection

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I enjoy some of them personaly. It's in this collection that you will find movies that won't be release in any other fashion. They also do a wonderful restoration work on the movies. It would be so difficult to have movie like Sergei Eisenstein The Battleship Potemkin or Alexander Nevsky otherwise. They are not movies that are well known by the public and so will not get a wide release.

I know many buy Criterion release out of curiosity, to see different type of movies that you will be able to find at Best Buy Of course I am sometimes a bit suprise by what goes on Criterion listing but c'est la vie

If your talking about Michael Bay films and Hollywood blockbusters (Silence of the Lambs etc..) I think they serve one purpose and thats to generate cash so they can continue restoring films that should be preserved.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by Elvis

If your talking about Michael Bay films and Hollywood blockbusters (Silence of the Lambs etc..) I think they serve one purpose and thats to generate cash so they can continue restoring films that should be preserved.

Are you implying that Michael Bay is not worthy of the Criterion banner?

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Volume11

Are you implying that Michael Bay is not worthy of the Criterion banner?

Umm...Yeah that would be correct but Criterion has to sell "some" mainstream dics to help pay the bills.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Umm...Yeah that would be correct but Criterion has to sell "some" mainstream dics to help pay the bills.

Have you seen the Rock?

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Volume11

I do not fall into that category. Its quite illogical to claim to like every release from Criterion. I have a few friends who have the entire DVD collection and a good portion of the laserdisc library and I always eff with them for just buying anything with criterion printed on the box.

That being said, criterion generally picks quality films and presents them well so they are different than liking a studio like Fox or Columbia.

But I also think people who hvave 500 BDs and counting are absurd and have no taste and/or too much time and money on their hands.

For me personally.... Part 1) I enjoy a large majority of them, and buy the rest for pure "collecting" purposes, and also, because many I find liking more and more over time, or I rewatch them because other films pulled artistic bits and pieces from them, or because you can watch the evolution of a director/actor etc....

Part 2) Maybe they have very "wide" taste, and not none at all..... or perhaps they collect for the sake of collecting..... nothing wrong with that either.

Originally Posted by Volume11

Are you implying that Michael Bay is not worthy of the Criterion banner?

I personally would never imply that either.......



I would flat out STATE IT.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Volume11

Have you seen the Rock?

Yes I have seen "The Rock" and yes I thought it was pure cheese (IMHO). Yes they put some mainstream films out to make money. How many people do you think would buy say Nanook of the North or Jules and Jim? Takes money to restore those films.

I was just trying to get a sense of why you would collect a film if you didnt like it. Do you think if Criterion's didnt have numbers on the spines people would still collect them all just to collect?

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

For me personally.... Part 1) I enjoy a large majority of them, and buy the rest for pure "collecting" purposes, and also, because many I find liking more and more over time, or I rewatch them because other films pulled artistic bits and pieces from them, or because you can watch the evolution of a director/actor etc....

Part 2) Maybe they have very "wide" taste, and not none at all..... or perhaps they collect for the sake of collecting..... nothing wrong with that either.






I personally would never imply that either.......



I would flat out STATE IT.

Of course. I buy old school transformers that cost the same price as 10 new criterion BDs so we all have our vices that others would think somewhat silly.

But don't you dare EVER talk smack on the film-making genius that is Bay.

Sarcasm off.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Yes I have seen "The Rock" and yes I thought it was pure cheese (IMHO). Yes they put some mainstream films out to make money. How many people do you think would buy say Nanook of the North or Jules and Jim? Takes money to restore those films.

I was just trying to get a sense of why you would collect a film if you didnt like it. Do you think if Criterion's didnt have numbers on the spines people would still collect them all just to collect?

I said earlier I'm not a criterion purist that buys anything they put out. In fact, a few pages back I said I was luke-warm on Criterion partnering with IFC because I don't think most of their current library, including CHE and Gomorrah are Criterion worthy. Its seems like a Bay-esque cash-in with more indie credibility but a cash-in nonetheless.

As for numbering its moot on BD as Criterion have opted to use the DVD numbering system (who knows why as they easily could have added a new BD numbering system at the the top and maintained the DVD numbering at the bottom).

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Elvis

If your talking about Michael Bay films and Hollywood blockbusters (Silence of the Lambs etc..) I think they serve one purpose and thats to generate cash so they can continue restoring films that should be preserved.

I did not notice, Michael Bay as some of his movies on Criterion?

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I did not notice, Michael Bay as some of his movies on Criterion?

Yes.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Yes.

That got me curious, went and check the list...Armageddon??? Really??

I am not a film expert, far from it, my taste in movie is rather well known on this site by now Still it's funny to see Michael Bay on a listing of a collection of movies side by side with names like Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Fellini, Truffaut, Bergman, Godard, Olivier & Eisenstein

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

That got me curious, went and check the list...Armageddon??? Really??

I am not a film expert, far from it, my taste in movie is rather well known on this site by now Still it's funny to see Michael Bay on a listing of a collection of movies side by side with names like Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Fellini, Truffaut, Bergman, Godard, Olivier & Eisenstein

It was a cash grab by Criterion.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by zedd_117

The trasfer is truely stunning. I've watched it twice in the past month, and am planning on watching it again with commentary soon. You shouldn't be disappointed. Not quite as strong as "The Third Man" transfer-wise, but a huge improvment over DVD releases I've been told.

Hmmm...the transfer looks better in the screenshots I've seen than the Third Man. Not a fan of the large grain in The Third Man. Seventh Seal features smaller, finer grain and consequently more detail.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...774&position=2

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...195&position=6

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

Hmmm...the transfer looks better in the screenshots I've seen than the Third Man. Not a fan of the large grain in The Third Man. Seventh Seal features smaller, finer grain and consequently more detail.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...774&position=2

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...195&position=6

The 7th seal pops more than the third man. I wonder if it was criterion's choice or is it simply because they remained faithful to the original intent.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Volume11

The 7th seal pops more than the third man. I wonder if it was criterion's choice or is it simply because they remained faithful to the original intent.

Looks like they remained faithful in both cases. It comes down to the type of film stock used. I prefer the type used for the Seventh Seal. I was looking at some of the screenshots for the upcoming release of the Wizard of Oz and it has a similar grain field to the Seventh Seal. Third Man's grain field reminds me of the Godfather's. Huge ass granules.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Elvis

I wonder how many of you collect Criterion though just because it's Criterion? Would you buy a Criterion just to "have" it even if you didnt like it? I have never met anyone that has actually liked all the criterion releases...not one.
I am just curious.....

I like all the Criterion releases except for the Kevin Smith and Wes Anderson junk.

[adh56]

Originally Posted by Elvis

If your talking about Michael Bay films and Hollywood blockbusters (Silence of the Lambs etc..) I think they serve one purpose and thats to generate cash so they can continue restoring films that should be preserved.

Are you implying Silence of the Lambs is not worthy? Everybody else jumped on the Bay portion but the Silence of the Lambs part is sticking with me.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by adh56

Are you implying Silence of the Lambs is not worthy? Everybody else jumped on the Bay portion but the Silence of the Lambs part is sticking with me.

Yes I am implying that (IMHO)....well I am implying that they have to release so many mainstream films to generate cash for more important films. B Button the same deal.....used for cash. Traffic same deal....used for cash.


*I am not knocking Silence of the Lambs, it was a good film. I don't think it was even the best film of 91 but thats a different topic for another time and place.

[Kartoon]

What some people don't understand is that there's no such thing as a "good" film. "Mainstream" or not it's called opinions. Salo is considered a classic yet how many people do you think will watch it? I'll give you a hint: less then Silence of the Lambs, Armageddon, whatever. So that makes one of those two groups wrong? There's a large selection of differing films for a reason, so that EVERYONE can find something they like.

Oh and as for the "mainstream movies for cash"....that's BS. Why would an average consumer pay $30-$40 for a movie they can get for $5-$10? Answer: they wouldn't.

[Belloche]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Yes I am implying that (IMHO)....well I am implying that they have to release so many mainstream films to generate cash for more important films. B Button the same deal.....used for cash. Traffic same deal....used for cash.


*I am not knocking Silence of the Lambs, it was a good film. I don't think it was even the best film of 91 but thats a different topic for another time and place.

I understand what you're trying to say but I hate it when people try to say what is worthy of Criterion or not. Criterion is trying to put out great films, they're not trying to be elitist or film snobs. Back in the Laserdisc days they released loads of mainstream movies.(Halloween, King Kong, Taxi Driver, The Game) The reason they rarely release mainstream movies these days is because they can't get the rights to them since DVD took off. I don't see any division between Silence of the Lambs and The Seventh Seal coming from Criterion. I don't know why people insist on making one up.