The Criterion Collection

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

If anyone wants the DVD of "Cul-de-sac" it can be had for $1 on Amazon's pre-order RIGHT NOW!

then vanished into thin air....

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

You're awesome (just for putting Fincher in his place with Anderson and Bay first of all.)

Film snobbery has jumped the shark if you think Michael Bay has 10% of the movie Fight Club was in him, or Anderson. The Game might not be all that, but it doesn't void the rest of Fincher's very good output that eclipses the best of Bay in his worst of attempts.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Schonfelder

Uhm, because the film is French and a release in Germany doesn't mean "English subtitles" ?

Anyway, it would be awesome to have this one, even on DVD. Same goes to L'Amour Fou (which i think is even harder to happen).

1. He always likes to respond to my posts, so the Out 1 without any English subtitles thing didn't come to him. He just thought I said something smarta**, even though I was agreeing with 2 posts before mine, I guess he missed those and went right to me.

2. L'Amour Fou is the one I want the most too.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by popeflick

Film snobbery has jumped the shark if you think Michael Bay has 10% of the movie Fight Club was in him, or Anderson. The Game might not be all that, but it doesn't void the rest of Fincher's very good output that eclipses the best of Bay in his worst of attempts.

Well, then with your snobby comment about Bay not being good enough for Fincher, I say this: Bay has 2 films in this little Criterion suckfest.

Also to go with your comment about Bay not having as "good of an output" as Fincher, I don't believe Fincher has up to par with the likes of Godard, Bergman, etc. So where do we meet on this?

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

Well, then with your snobby comment about Bay not being good enough for Fincher, I say this: Bay has 2 films in this little Criterion suckfest.

Also to go with your comment about Bay not having as "good of an output" as Fincher, I don't believe Fincher has up to par with the likes of Godard, Bergman, etc. So where do we meet on this?

I appreciate you'd like to change the topic, but it was comparing Bay's films to Fincher's - begun by you, while bagging on some fans behind their back - nothing else.

Although I'm sure if you write the 'criterion suckfest' they'll tell you why they've released what they have by Michael Bay.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by popeflick

Although I'm sure if you write the 'criterion suckfest' they'll tell you why they've released what they have by Michael Bay.

Isn't that devastatingly obvious anyway??

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by popeflick

I appreciate you'd like to change the topic, but it was comparing Bay's films to Fincher's - begun by you, while bagging on some fans behind their back - nothing else.

Although I'm sure if you write the 'criterion suckfest' they'll tell you why they've released what they have by Michael Bay.

And more so, why they will release Fincher's film. Plus I don't see how I changed the topic.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

And more so, why they will release Fincher's film.

Same reason

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

Same reason

Exactly. They will say it's because Fincher pulled an artistic blah blah blah like they did with Bay, but the real reason is : $$$$$$$$ off these U.S. customers who loves the Social Network and Fight Club. Edit: Oh and also that movie where Brad Pitt ages backwards.

[neo_reloaded]

Breaking news: Popular movies are popular

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

Exactly. They will say it's because Fincher pulled an artistic blah blah blah like they did with Bay, but the real reason is : $$$$$$$$ off these U.S. customers who loves the Social Network and Fight Club.

Well duh. What company doesn't want to make money?

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Well duh. What company doesn't want to make money?

The convo was about the artistic merit of Fincher and why some people say Bay is crap compared to Fincher, when I just see both as a ploy to make money, so why are they different? Of course I know compnies want to make money. This is about that.

Criterion should just do 2 brands. 1, the world cinema they say they release (maybe we can get some Brazil and Africa in). And 2, the Hollywood movies we make money off of to release #1.

[nailz74]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

Well, then with your snobby comment about Bay not being good enough for Fincher, I say this: Bay has 2 films in this little Criterion suckfest.

Also to go with your comment about Bay not having as "good of an output" as Fincher, I don't believe Fincher has up to par with the likes of Godard, Bergman, etc. So where do we meet on this?

Myself, when I see a film trailer that looks good to me then at the end of it see that Michael Bay directs, I automatically put that film into the "I'll pass" section. Michael Bay can't even be a coffee-getter on David Fincher's set. Unless that coffee is to be overly filtered and needs to explode. "The Game" is good in my opinion, and 10x better than Bay's most ambitious work. Of course, these are my opinions, and bound to be disagreed with by someone.

[nailz74]

I'd like to see "Slacker" released on Blu-ray by Criterion. Criterion released it on DVD. I'm sure Blu-ray might not do it much justice, seeing as how "Slacker" was done on a very small budget, but I'd like to see it anyway. While they're at it, I'd also like to see "suBurbia" released under the Criterion banner.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

The convo was about the artistic merit of Fincher and why some people say Bay is crap compared to Fincher, when I just see both as a ploy to make money, so why are they different? Of course I know compnies want to make money. This is about that.

Two directors can have equal levels of popularity, and disparate levels of quality. I agree that both Bay and Fincher films are more popular than most of what Criterion puts out, and both helped some extra cash make its way to Criterion's coffers. But that doesn't mean you get to discount what Criterion says when they justify the releases, and that doesn't mean both Bay and Fincher are directors of the same caliber. Fincher has outstanding critical support, and to deny that anyone could legitimately want him in the collection is just another instance of you equating popularity with trash.

And I don't even intend this comment to be a defense of Fincher per se. I don't like Bay's films, but I don't see his inclusion in the collection as a blatant cashgrab either. The DVD market was very different when the Bay titles were released - while Fincher is borderline in terms of popularity and what Criterion is able to get their hands on right now, that is about where Bay was back when The Rock and Armageddon were released. Not that Bay's popularity has changed significantly, but studios now handle many more titles themselves and Criterion has shifted from super mainstream (LD days) to sometimes mainstream (early DVD days) to mostly foreign and art-house (current).

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

Two directors can have equal levels of popularity, and disparate levels of quality. I agree that both Bay and Fincher films are more popular than most of what Criterion puts out, and both helped some extra cash make its way to Criterion's coffers. But that doesn't mean you get to discount what Criterion says when they justify the releases, and that doesn't mean both Bay and Fincher are directors of the same caliber. Fincher has outstanding critical support, and to deny that anyone could legitimately want him in the collection is just another instance of you equating popularity with trash.

I believe that fine a distinction is lost on him.

[dwane5]

made in USA dvd is 11.99 at amazon. seems like a nice deal?

[Arkadin]

god if it took 5 years until the next post in this thread with the words "Fincher" or "Bay" or "game" or "rock" or "snob" or "armageddon" it would honestly be too ****ing soon.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by popeflick

I believe that fine a distinction is lost on him.

a lil' jab. Anyways, I know the difference between Bay and Fincher, but to place a snob title on me (which you did to start this little topic) is funny because it doesn't matter what state of film loving you like, you can still be a snob (in case you, thinking Fincher is an all-mighty artist and Bay the kid that likes to play with bottlerockets.).

Next your going to tell me that hack Zack Snyder is somehow above Bay too, well since he is signed on to do Superman right? And Nolan's name is on that. Which means He will be doing a movie under the mighty Zeus.

And yes, I prefer Bay over Snyder. Fincher over Bay. But this isn't about opinions with me.

[GunRanger]

Originally Posted by nailz74

Myself, when I see a film trailer that looks good to me then at the end of it see that Michael Bay directs, I automatically put that film into the "I'll pass" section. Michael Bay can't even be a coffee-getter on David Fincher's set. Unless that coffee is to be overly filtered and needs to explode. "The Game" is good in my opinion, and 10x better than Bay's most ambitious work. Of course, these are my opinions, and bound to be disagreed with by someone.

I'll take The Island, even Armageddon, over The Game. I like the movie overall, but ending of The Game is completely ludicrous.