The Criterion Collection

[the sordid sentinel]

Originally Posted by blkhrt

Speaking of Egoyan, The Sweet Hereafter has always been a favorite of mine, and one that I have long hoped Criterion would release.

Yeah, I love that movie as well..Ian Holm is great in it. Just recently watched it again on HDNet Movies. A Criterion release would be most welcome.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by blkhrt

I had a student write a paper about Polytechnique last semester, which made me really want to see it. I hope it becomes more readily available, regardless of who releases it.

It was a fantastic way to tell that story. Knocked me out.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by keldons

Herzog, Haneke, Kiarostami are known exactly for not being cinephiles. Haneke and Kiarostami in particular have expressed their lack of knowledge or interest in the art of film multiple times. I don't think Bela Tarr and Bresson have any interest in it either. And those are just the ones off the top of my head.

There is no one constant among directors, which some of you have failed to realize.

Naturally, there will be some not interested in film history but there's many more I can list who've been inspired by the likes of Ford, Hitchcock, Fellini, Welles, Bergman, etc.

[BohemianGraham]

Ruh Roh! Seems like Criterion is making too many "phopas" lately, with letting unworthy films in the collection, screwing up audio, and now they're screwing up the packaging!

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=3&theater

(no need to have facebook or log in to view conversation)

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Tempest in a tea cup.

That fold out is cool, though. It would be even better if there was an audio chip that made the Godzilla screech every time you opened it.

I was being snark, hence the ruh roh! at the beginning of the post, and making the remark about "unworthy films."

I feel the urge to somehow fashion such an audio chip to glue to my copy once I get it. That is an amazing idea. I'm serious, I want an audio chip on my copy of Gojira now! I'm not going to send it back because it doesn't have one (unlike those slipcover junkies), but I'm going to see if it's possible to fashion a thin enough one so it will fit in the slipbox.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

I was being snark, hence the ruh roh! at the beginning of the post, and making the remark about "unworthy films."

I feel the urge to somehow fashion such an audio chip to glue to my copy once I get it. That is an amazing idea. I'm serious, I want an audio chip on my copy of Gojira now! I'm not going to send it back because it doesn't have one (unlike those slipcover junkies), but I'm going to see if it's possible to fashion a thin enough one so it will fit in the slipbox.

Neat idea. Just buy one of those hallmark cards you can record your own greeting on and record the roar. Then cut it out and affix it to the case so it goes off when you open it..

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Ruh Roh! Seems like Criterion is making too many "phopas" lately, with letting unworthy films in the collection, screwing up audio, and now they're screwing up the packaging!

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=3&theater

(no need to have facebook or log in to view conversation)

At least they don't DNR they hell out of their releases like an upcoming Universal release

[octagon]

If you savages are going to talk about defacing defenseless digipacks you could at least use spoiler tags.

I feel woozy......

[DetroitSquirreL]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Ruh Roh! Seems like Criterion is making too many "phopas" lately, with letting unworthy films in the collection, screwing up audio, and now they're screwing up the packaging!

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=3&theater

(no need to have facebook or log in to view conversation)

a Godzilla pop up book

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by octagon

If you savages are going to talk about defacing defenseless digipacks you could at least use spoiler tags.

I feel woozy......

Well it's a better conversation that what went down yesterday. Also, you would only "deface" the side with no pictures on it. I think having the film would be more important than the package it comes in. It's not like I'll be putting "I killed Liz, I killed the teen dream. Deal with it." on Gojira.

[silentblu]

Originally Posted by DLizzle

The fact that you got "smugly talk like you should be respected" from:

"...But I know myself, for better or worse, and mafia narratives (be they tragic, comic, starring a Pacino, a De Niro, or even my beloved Hugh Grant) leave me utterly cold. I guess I’m generally nonplussed by a complex web of crime."

says a little something about your prejudices here I think. If anything, the quote has a self-deprecating tone.

Yes, smugly. What's the point of bringing it up otherwise? It's her loss...thinking The Godfather is just a mafia narrative. Whatever.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Criterion Collector

I am kind of surprised about the seemingly angry tone that is aimed at this film. Personally, I do not see a reason to be angry that a film was released under the Criterion banner that you did not enjoy. That doesn't make sense to me.

I think it's because there are only so many titles released per month, so the inclusion of a film that most deem unworthy is taking up the space of a title that most of us would enjoy.

Originally Posted by Criterion Collector

To call the director names, insult her, and attack her personally, is way over the top and not necessary. Especially in a thread that is supposed to be populated by film lovers with an open mind, and not the type of person who just eats up Hollywood garbage with wall to wall explosions.

If a director is going to make unsubstantiated judgments against classic films, then that opens up the floodgates to criticize her. It's also within anyone's right, as she is now a public figure, thus she's "newsworthy." Making ridiculous sounding statements only puts her that much more in the critical eye - if she doesn't want criticism, then she shouldn't make public statements.

I, as a film lover, do have an open mind. She apparently does not, if she dismisses undisputed classics based solely on the genre with no actual knowledge or experience of the film itself. As I said, I work in Hollywood and it's a sad state of affairs when younger filmmakers shun classics because it's hip to do so, or because they don't think they need the knowledge of 100 years of cinema because they believe they already know everything. As a result, their films often fail because they refuse to acknowledge the basic understanding of why the classic films are classics, and what makes them work.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Well it's a better conversation that what went down yesterday. Also, you would only "deface" the side with no pictures on it. I think having the film would be more important than the package it comes in. It's not like I'll be putting "I killed Liz, I killed the teen dream. Deal with it." on Gojira.

lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala la...

[BohemianGraham]

Interesting, this will be my last piece on this conversation that no one seems to want to drop because the film is, contrary to what the believe, important to them because they won't shut up about how much they hate it and Lena Dunham.

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Criterion's response to the Godzilla packaging whinging, from Jan. 9:

" Hey everybody, regarding the Godzilla artwork:

Artist Bill Sienkiewicz used the original, '54 Godzilla as reference for his artwork, but all of the renderings are nevertheless, in the end, Bill's personal vision of the creature, albeit on...e that is Toho approved. We can see why some viewers consider it to be more akin to the 2002 incarnation of Godzilla because the back plates seem more sharp-pointed and jagged than the curved tips of the '54 original, for example, or the tail tapers more to a point, but those plates don't exactly mirror the ones from the 2002-3 monster either.

We pushed Bill to address Godzilla as a force of destruction, an elemental being, to step away from a rendering that would be purely literal and fetishistic in detail, and think he came up with a terrific interpretation. This is also why there is color in the packaging art. Although the movie is a beautifully-photographed B&W work, we kept leaning towards the elemental aspects of fire and water and wanted the color palette to evoke that."

You don't ask an amazing artist like Bill Sienkiewicz to do artwork for something and not know you are going to get a beautifully realized piece of art, if filtered through his own vision. Asking Sienkiewicz to do something that constrains his wonderful vision would be an abomination. It's Bill Sienkiewicz! People need to step away from the ledge...

[rock, stone]

Originally Posted by Truewitt

You don't ask an amazing artist like Bill Sienkiewicz to do artwork for something and not know you are going to get a beautifully realized piece of art, if filtered through his own vision. Asking Sienkiewicz to do something that constrains his wonderful vision would be an abomination. It's Bill Sienkiewicz! People need to step away from the ledge...

Isn't the issue that the pop up photo is the Godzilla suit from 1998 and not from the movie on the disc? The fact that CC's response seems to to willfully ignore that complaint is kind of lame.

For the record, I don't really care, but think it is sloppy design.

[Wally Q]

Can someone provide a link to the Lena Dunham controversy? It can be time consuming just to find a single post in the thread so my apologies for asking. I'm pretty curious about all the hate.

[rock, stone]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

It might have been in the Curtis Tsui interview, but apparently it isn't any particular cinematic Godzilla. Apparently it has elements of different Godzillae. But it probably looks more like the '98 monster than the '54 monster, yes.

I guess my response to the "sloppy design" bit is, short of using stills, how much artistic license is too much? Look at the Harold & Maude cover. They are caricatures, not realistic depictions of what's in the actual film.

Isn't the pop up an actual photo? I'm sure there was some debate about the illustrated cover, but the thing people are complaining about now (*checks watch*) is the pop up photo.

It is like using a picture of Raymond Burr from Godzilla 1985 for the artwork. Same character, different movie.

[The Dark Uniter]

Originally Posted by DetroitSquirreL

a Godzilla pop up book

I'm sorry but I don't see the joke. You must note, regular Godzilla releases don't really have nice packaging outside the Criterion or the Classic Media releases or even tons of extras and audio commentary. We certainly have a much better release extras wise, packaging wise, and video quality over the Japanese release.

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Sorry, sometimes I can be a real drongo.

Accepted