The Criterion Collection

[Idioteque...]

Originally Posted by JJJ225

They've caught a lot of flack for the film, but I really believe it is a movie that will age very well in the future and it's critical reception will only include.

Trying to come up with some witty parallel between my use of "aging" and the film are hereby deemed unclever.

I think what Fincher did with the whole again process is just amazing. The film from a directorial aspect is really amazing. The cinematography is gorgeous but I was looking at it from another view today.

Everything that happens in the movie is intended or isn't a flaw. Like Fincher said, it's an extraordinary man put in ordinary circumstances, he's different from other people but inside he's just a normal guy. Just like each and everyone he meets, they're all unique for their own idiosyncrasies and it doesn't matter how different you are, there's a special redeeming quality to everyone. And it doesn't try to be fictional by sparing some characters. It's life, people come and go. It's just how it is and the ending leaves off on a hopeful note as a hummingbird in the film's universe represent the passing of the soul. It's also about the joys and pains of life. The characters are presented in a incredibly realistic manner. There is time for change. I think a lot of people were turned off by that aspect. The beginning makes more sense now because it marked the birth of Benjamin. I think it's a fantastic film and a good companion piece to Forrest Gump, since that is about an ordinary man going through extraordinary events.

I feel it's well crafted and beautiful (excellent score) and it's a shame it doesn't have a wider fanbase though I feel it could reach a cult status in the future and it excellent performances and Brad Pitt giving one of his finest performances as well.

[Idioteque...]

Originally Posted by Vendetta-akk

Criterion release Armageddon. Any hope you might have had of them staying completely true to their Art House, Classics, and International Greats ideals went kaboom in a big Michael Bay style explosion with their release of that bomb.

I consider the blu ray releases the true Criterion album. The new cover logo seems more of a library thing to me. It has the year on it and then a director approved sticker. The dvd release just had a plain logo on the the packaging wasn't that different. To me when they were on DVD I didn't see much of a huge difference between its DVD counterparts but now with their own unique packaging and their success in supplements, PQ and AQ totally seperates them from other companies that struggle to release strong releases.

[SeanMF]

I keep seeing posts about replacement cases. Are they for damaged ones or they for the ones that came in the cardboard cases?

[Vicon]

Originally Posted by SeanMF

I keep seeing posts about replacement cases. Are they for damaged ones or they for the ones that came in the cardboard cases?

Ones for the cardboard cases.

[SeanMF]

Originally Posted by Vicon

Ones for the cardboard cases.

Who do I contact at Criterion for that? Is there a specific email or phone number? Is there a cost to replace them?

[Beta Man]

My laptop was taken out of commission for 2 weeks (actually permanently, but I got a new one )

I don't even know what the latest Criterion Announcements were.... and I'm actually BEHIND on the releases probably..... time to do some ordering!

[Vicon]

Originally Posted by SeanMF

Who do I contact at Criterion for that? Is there a specific email or phone number? Is there a cost to replace them?

See the first post of this thread

https://forum.blu-ray.com/1629132-post1.html

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by Vendetta-akk

Criterion release Armageddon. Any hope you might have had of them staying completely true to their Art House, Classics, and International Greats ideals went kaboom in a big Michael Bay style explosion with their release of that bomb.

Ummm, is seems like most pepole forget that: The Criterion Collection is a continuing series of important classic and CONTEMPORARY films on home video

Armageddon and The Rock and Ben Button are on there because they are contemporary films that have something of quality to them and I do think they are important in their own way.

They did not just pick any mindless action movie. But they picked two that if you really take a look at them, are different from other movies out there.

And Ben Button, the cinematography and aging effects are top notch.

Im not saying these are some of the best movies even, or should even be considered next to some of the timeless classics that are in the collection. But I can clearly see that these 3 films do have a place in the collection. Just like I said previously, Lola Montes I did not consider a good film, but I do see why it is in the collection. And im sure you can all pick out a movie of theirs that you dont particulairly care for, but can see why Criterion chose it.

And again, they did choose these 3 to make money, no doubt.....but think of it this way...would Bad Boys and Transformers belong in the collection more then The Rock and Armageddon?

[buffetfroid]

Originally Posted by Idioteque...

I consider the blu ray releases the true Criterion album. The new cover logo seems more of a library thing to me. It has the year on it and then a director approved sticker. The dvd release just had a plain logo on the the packaging wasn't that different. To me when they were on DVD I didn't see much of a huge difference between its DVD counterparts but now with their own unique packaging and their success in supplements, PQ and AQ totally seperates them from other companies that struggle to release strong releases.

this whole post is absurd but especially the bolded part

[Idioteque...]

Originally Posted by buffetfroid

this whole post is absurd but especially the bolded part

How's it absurd? There's a few crappy films on the Criterion DVDs. Ever since they changed that logo and started doing blurays it seems as if they are more particular about what movies they pick now.

It seems a few of the posters here rather attack someone when they don't like their post rather than stating why.

And most dvds were very good quality no matter what studio released them.

Now for blu, some studios publish crappy quality or some studios do a magnificent job. There's a risk when it comes to transferring but when it comes down to Criterion blurays you know you're getting a good deal.

[buffetfroid]

Originally Posted by Idioteque...

How's it absurd? There's a few crappy films on the Criterion DVDs. Ever since they changed that logo and started doing blurays it seems as if they are more particular about what movies they pick now.

It seems a few of the posters here rather attack someone when they don't like their post rather than stating why.

And most dvds were very good quality no matter what studio released them.

Now for blu, some studios publish crappy quality or some studios do a magnificent job. There's a risk when it comes to transferring but when it comes down to Criterion blurays you know you're getting a good deal.

Well, perhaps I don't understand your post but it seems like you're saying Criterion's releases on standard dvd are somehow subpar, at least compared to their blu-ray releases, thus making the blu-ray releases the only ones of "quality". That's absurd to me. For the past couple decades Criterion has been one of the few companies to release movies on home video to a higher standard. Your saying that their blu-ray releases constitute the real "Criterion album" completely denigrates that. I assure you there will be some crappy movies released by Criterion on blu-ray. I haven't seen B. Button yet but some people would probably say there already are.

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by Idioteque...

How's it absurd? There's a few crappy films on the Criterion DVDs. Ever since they changed that logo and started doing blurays it seems as if they are more particular about what movies they pick now.

It seems a few of the posters here rather attack someone when they don't like their post rather than stating why.

And most dvds were very good quality no matter what studio released them.

Now for blu, some studios publish crappy quality or some studios do a magnificent job. There's a risk when it comes to transferring but when it comes down to Criterion blurays you know you're getting a good deal.

I'd have to agree with that. And if you go back further there was far "junk" films put out by Criterion on Laserdisc. Gradually it does seem they are getting more selective on what they release.

[buffetfroid]

Originally Posted by Idioteque...

And most dvds were very good quality no matter what studio released them.

not sure how i missed this but...no

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by Idioteque...

I consider the blu ray releases the true Criterion album.
Ever since they changed that logo

This is what I am getting out of your comment (don't take it as I am attacking your posts, just wondering):

You're saying spine #1-341 is crap compared to spine #342-now, because of the logo change?

[JediFonger]

benjamin button was far more 'art-house' for a studio pic than either armageddon nor the rock.

[Idioteque...]

Originally Posted by buffetfroid

Well, perhaps I don't understand your post but it seems like you're saying Criterion's releases on standard dvd are somehow subpar, at least compared to their blu-ray releases, thus making the blu-ray releases the only ones of "quality". That's absurd to me. For the past couple decades Criterion has been one of the few companies to release movies on home video to a higher standard. Your saying that their blu-ray releases constitute the real "Criterion album" completely denigrates that. I assure you there will be some crappy movies released by Criterion on blu-ray. I haven't seen B. Button yet but some people would probably say there already are.

I mean I personally don't like every Criterion bluray right now but none of them stoop to Kevin Smith's Chasing Amy or Michael Bay's Cheesy Armageddon. Or for the matter of fact, most of the films they picked up for DVD were really mainstream. Most of their blurays are not accessible to the average movie goer. I mean you make a fair point about the future releases but like I said before they're being very selective in their new releases. It could take a turn for the worst but right now they're doing good and so far the most mainstream film they released is probably Ben Button.

Now I'm not saying DVD is subpar I just feel that they're taking a new direction with their company.

As for dvd, sure there were crappy transfers in the beginning when it was new but just recently, I haven't come upon a bad DVD transfer. I feel if Criterion was passionate about some titiles they would try to take their rights back but then again some studios might not accept an offer. It's very complex

[neo_reloaded]

Criterion's business model has evolved. When they first started with Laserdiscs, there was very little concept of "collector's editions" or "special features." Studios weren't interested in publishing such titles themselves, allowing Criterion to have the opportunity to license them. Criterion was probably unsure at first as well, which is why they went for more popular titles. As time went on, the home video market exploded, resulting in both a) studios not licensing popular titles to Criterion as they saw they could do such releases themselves, and b) Criterion getting bolder with the niche status of the films they put out.

I don't see what insulting the early Criterion titles really accomplishes. I mean sure, it'd be a bit odd if Criterion put out a Michael Bay film in this day and age, but it was a completely different market back then. There are some amazing titles that Criterion put out even in its Laserdisc days, which makes them all the more laudable since such a market wasn't proven back then. Many of the true Criterion classics are from early in the DVD days - I'd say 400 Blows, Wages of Fear, Seven Samurai, Brazil, The Third Man, etc. are some of the more recognizable and lauded titles in the collection - and those are all very early spine numbers.

[Idioteque...]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

Criterion's business model has evolved. When they first started with Laserdiscs, there was very little concept of "collector's editions" or "special features." Studios weren't interested in publishing such titles themselves, allowing Criterion to have the opportunity to license them. Criterion was probably unsure at first as well, which is why they went for more popular titles. As time went on, the home video market exploded, resulting in both a) studios not licensing popular titles to Criterion as they saw they could do such releases themselves, and b) Criterion getting bolder with the niche status of the films they put out.

I don't see what insulting the early Criterion titles really accomplishes. I mean sure, it'd be a bit odd if Criterion put out a Michael Bay film in this day and age, but it was a completely different market back then. There are some amazing titles that Criterion put out even in its Laserdisc days, which makes them all the more laudable since such a market wasn't proven back then. Many of the true Criterion classics are from early in the DVD days - I'd say 400 Blows, Wages of Fear, Seven Samurai, Brazil, The Third Man, etc. are some of the more recognizable and lauded titles in the collection - and those are all very early spine numbers.

You make a great point and I can't disagree with you but I feel that this new Criterion direction really gives them a distinguishable identity. Even though I barely remember laserdisc days. And it's funny because the titles you listed are the ones they re-released on blu. I mean this new phase of Criterion inspired Lionsgate to start the studiocanal collection which would be the type of movies Criterion would usually release.

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

This is what I am getting out of your comment (don't take it as I am attacking your posts, just wondering):

You're saying spine #1-341 is crap compared to spine #342-now, because of the logo change?

Moreso a direction changed. I'm not saying that every movie in the first 341 is crap. I tend to enjoy most of them but Criterion is being much more selective now. I wouldn't consider Armageddon or Chasing Amy Criterion material let alone good films. And there's a lot of mainstream flicks on the first 341 spines. Now that they're going for films people haven't heard of or aren't popular its seems they're very selective of who belongs on Criterion. IT's like a new start.

[Idioteque...]

I think i must admit something though, due to my biased support for blurays and willingness to only buy blurays could play an effect into my opinion but my belief at the moment is that along with newer titles, that Criterion will try to keep some of the older titles that they prefer in their collection by re-releasing them as blues like Third Man or unless the rights are taken back like with Fear and Loathing.

[jacobsever]

Originally Posted by wharf

Hendrix is a great artist, no question about that, just not my cup of tea. Why buy something I'd never be interested in watching?

Might not like Hendrix, but the Mamas & the Papas, Simon and Garfunkel, The Who, the Byrds, the Animals, the Association...none of those?!?
Maybe it's just the fact I'm obsessed with 60's, or that I'm a 22 year old hippie at heart, but come on, there are some really good artists on these discs!

Oh well, different strokes for different folks.