The Criterion Collection

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

I highly recommend Primer, in my opinion, the greatest intelligent time traveling film ever made. Upstream Color will be out on blu ray May 7 th

I've considered purchasing those, but something about them doesn't really seem interesting to me. I don't know - I'll probably give them a chance someday lol.

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by oildude

Seems you are the only fan getting upset, and needlessly so. Are you really reading Pat's posts in such a way that words like "angry" and "nasty" come to mind? I read what Pat writes and completely agree and understand where he is coming from. He is one of the most well mannered and repectful long-time posters in this forum.

[Show spoiler] Even if he disagrees with something he is nice about it. And, most importantly, he is an Audrey Hepburn fan. You forgot the rules of Audrey. Rule #1 - Audrey trumps all.

You are probably one of the few who has even seen the film. At least Pat gave it several chances and decided it wasn't for him.

He doesn't need to give a discourse that meets your needed definitions, or provide a basis for further discussion. You like the film, he does not. End of story. NOTE: extra smiley faces so you don't interpret my post as angry and nasty

Well said.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by oildude

And, most importantly, he is an Audrey Hepburn fan. You forgot the rules of Audrey. Rule #1 - Audrey trumps all.

That is a very good rule.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Were you not entertained?

I know what you mean, though. I thoroughly enjoyed Gladiator when it was released, but, wow, that movie got really old really fast. I have no desire to revisit it these days.

I was really just playing around with the whole 'don't just say it sucks' conversation leading up to that. Although the first time I saw it I did kind of think it sucked. But I caught part of it on cable a year or so ago (early, Richard Harris was still chewing up scenery) and somehow it kind of hooked me. To the point where I changed the channel because I wanted to buy it (which I haven't yet) and watch it straight through. I think it helps that Jaquin doesn't annoy me nearly as much as he used to. Or maybe I'm just more used to it.

And full disclosure: I don't even want to admit how long I looked at the 'not entertained' line thinking 'wtf, that sounds familiar, where do I know that from'.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

On the subject of early 2000s flicks...
As I continue to watch my unwatched Blu-rays, I revisited the first two Extended Editions of The Lord of the Rings series over the past three evenings, and will watch The Return of the King tomorrow.
Good God, these are long movies. They're still so much fun in a popcorn way, but...they are long long long. That's why I only feel a hankering to rewatch them once every five years or so.

Obviously my 'eh, what the hell, buy it' bar isn't exactly high but I still haven't been able to talk myself into the extended editions. They're great movies but I can barely sit down with the theatrical cuts. And it's not like The Dark Knight where I love some stuff but other stuff really, really drags. I really like pretty much everything in the various Ring movies but I cannot keep my mind from wandering.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by octagon

Obviously my 'eh, what the hell, buy it' bar isn't exactly high but I still haven't been able to talk myself into the extended editions. They're great movies but I can barely sit down with the theatrical cuts. And it's not like The Dark Knight where I love some stuff but other stuff really, really drags. I really like pretty much everything in the various Ring movies but I cannot keep my mind from wandering.

Think of the Extended Editions of the three movies in The Lord of the Rings trilogy as being almost like the televised five-plus hour version of Bergman's Fanny and Alexander, except with a lot of wizards, dwarves, trolls, elves, and battles.

Okay, maybe that's not the best way to go about it, on second thought.

It has been years since I last saw these movies, and I initially was not going to bother buying them unless I saw them for a crazy cheap price. I did, indeed, see the three Target-exclusive Extended Editions for ten dollars apiece last month, so I pulled the trigger. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and I find that I'm having a lot more fun revisiting these than I expected. I almost have to treat them like a television series Blu-ray set, though, by watching bits and pieces of these Extended Editions when I find time.

This has absolutely jack to do with the Criterion Collection, except that it brings a Criterion-related question to my mind...

What are do all of you think about prospect of Criterion releasing current movies that are heavily reliant on computer-generated effects?

We're not seeing a lot of CGI movies released on Criterion nowadays, but the practice has been so prevalent over the past couple of decades that there will likely be no shortage of CGI-heavy material that might or might not go into the collection. Will these movies seem too dated in years to come? Do movies created with with such an ephemeral technology fit into the canon of "timeless" releases that Criterion is noted for restoring?

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by oildude

Seems you are the only fan getting upset, and needlessly so. Are you really reading Pat's posts in such a way that words like "angry" and "nasty" come to mind? I read what Pat writes and completely agree and understand where he is coming from. He is one of the most well mannered and repectful long-time posters in this forum. Even if he disagrees with something he is nice about it. And, most importantly, he is an Audrey Hepburn fan. You forgot the rules of Audrey. Rule #1 - Audrey trumps all.

You are probably one of the few who has even seen the film. At least Pat gave it several chances and decided it wasn't for him. He doesn't have to give a discourse that meets your needed definitions, or provide a basis for further discussion. You like the film, he does not. End of story.

NOTE: extra smiley faces so you don't interpret my post as angry and nasty

Here's what I wrote earlier:

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I'm just asking for a bit more of a descriptive/critical interpretation. That's all. If you are bored, tell us why. If you don't find it interesting, tell us why. Saying "nothing happens" renders your statement into a complete failure in my book. It ends any potential discourse right there.

Its fine if someone wants to post a "one-shot" review on a certain film, but it would much better if the post leaves room for conversation.

[joie]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

[...]We're not seeing a lot of CGI movies released on Criterion nowadays, but the practice has been so prevalent over the past couple of decades that there will likely be no shortage of CGI-heavy material that might or might not go into the collection. Will these movies seem too dated in years to come? Do movies created with with such an ephemeral technology fit into the canon of "timeless" releases that Criterion is noted for restoring?

Kim Someone (don't recall the name, but she is with Criterion) has said that Criterion aren't film curators, so I don't think they keep/have/maintain any sort of canon.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by joie

Kim Someone (don't recall the name, but she is with Criterion) has said that Criterion aren't film curators, so I don't think they keep/have/maintain any sort of canon.

I probably should have worded that differently, as in film restorations that Criterion is noted for releasing, as opposed to films that Criterion is noted for restoring.

Good point.

My question still stands, though. What does everyone think of Criterion releasing movies that are heavily reliant on CGI effects that might look dated in years to come?

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I probably should have worded that differently, as in film restorations that Criterion is noted for releasing, as opposed to films that Criterion is noted for restoring.

Good point.

My question still stands, though. What does everyone think of Criterion releasing movies that are heavily reliant on CGI effects that might look dated in years to come?

We do have Curious Case of Benjamin Button in the collection.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

We do have Curious Case of Benjamin Button in the collection.

To my discredit, I have not seen that film yet. It's always on sale at five-dollar used racks around here, so I should try, but I just cannot get fired up about watching it.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

To my discredit, I have not seen that film yet. It's always on sale at five-dollar used racks around here, so I should try, but I just cannot get fired up about watching it.

If the disc is in great shape, I'd say that's a pretty nice pickup. I believe WalMart has had them on sale for $7.88.

The extras alone are worth that price:

[Show spoiler]

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button debuts on Blu-ray with plenty of bonus features, most of which may be found on a second disc. Inside the case is a small insert with technical notes on the video and audio transfer, supplemental video credits, key cast and crew listings, and the essay The Man Who Watched the World Go By by Kent Jones. Disc one of the set begins with a commentary track featuring Director David Fincher. Fincher offers a solid track that flows well and proves entertaining and informative. His information is pertinent and insightful, discussing the small tidbits of the film and lines of dialogue that lend to the film it's overall feel, casting, the performances, effects, and plenty more. Also included is a timeline where viewers may select a scene based on the segment of the film or the themes of the commentary.

Disc two features The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (1080i, 2:55:24), a documentary lengthier than the film itself. The piece is divided into four sections (First, Second, and Third Trimester and Birth) with some segments not included in the "play all" option. First Trimester begins with Preface (3:08), a short piece featuring Director David Fincher discussing life, death, and briefly touching on the overreaching theme of the film. Development and Pre-Production (28:56) examines the history of the project more than 20 years in the making, featuring a series of interviews with most of the primary cast and crew and behind-the-scenes footage, focusing on, among other things, the casting, the proposed use of technology in the film, and the shooting locations. Next up in First Trimester are three features not included in the "play all" option: Tech Scouts (12:23), a piece featuring the crew discussing shooting locations and how they will be incorporated into the film, Storyboard Gallery, and Art Direction Gallery.

Second Trimester begins with Production: Part 1 (26:15) and Production: Part 2, a pair of segments that look at the making of various scenes and a discussion of the breadth of the production, populated by raw behind-the-scenes footage, plenty of interview clips with cast and crew, a look at the construction of props, sets, and special effects, the challenge of assembling some shots and creating specific looks for each location, the importance of precise acting to the film, and more. Also included are two features not included in the "play all" option, the self-describing Costume Design (7:38) and Costume Gallery.

Third Trimester focuses on effects and music. Visual Effects: Performance Capture (7:43) looks at the role that advanced, computer-based effects techniques played in bringing the movie to life. Visual Effects: Benjamin (16:55) takes a highly fascinating look at the complexities of bringing Benjamin's character to life, showing the lengthy physical and digital processes necessary to get the look and performance just right. Visual Effects: Youthenization (6:21) looks at the technology behind "digital facelifts." Visual Effects: 'The Chelsea' (8:48) examines the process of bringing the ship and the environments around it to realistic life. Visual Effects: The Simulated World (12:52) features an examination of bringing historical locations to the screen. Sound Design (16:06) takes an interesting look at adding to and editing the film's sound effects and dialogue. Finally, Desplat's Instrumentarium (14:53) takes an in-depth look at the film's score.

Birth features two segments. First up is Premiere (4:20), a short but entertaining piece showcasing the film's New Orleans premiere on December 1, 2008, accompanied by reflections from the cast and crew. Also included is a segment not available via the "play all" option, Production Stills. Rounding out the supplements are a pair of theatrical trailers (1080p, 1:49 & 2:42).

[rkish]

Originally Posted by oildude

Seems you are the only fan getting upset, and needlessly so. Are you really reading Pat's posts in such a way that words like "angry" and "nasty" come to mind? I read what Pat writes and completely agree and understand where he is coming from. He is one of the most well mannered and repectful long-time posters in this forum. Even if he disagrees with something he is nice about it. And, most importantly, he is an Audrey Hepburn fan. You forgot the rules of Audrey. Rule #1 - Audrey trumps all.

You are probably one of the few who has even seen the film. At least Pat gave it several chances and decided it wasn't for him. He doesn't have to give a discourse that meets your needed definitions, or provide a basis for further discussion. You like the film, he does not. End of story.

NOTE: extra smiley faces so you don't interpret my post as angry and nasty

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Here's what I wrote earlier:


Its fine if someone wants to post a "one-shot" review on a certain film, but it would much better if the post leaves room for conversation.

I'm a lot like Pat in this and other regards, concerning posting in this thread. We've both been here for around 5 years or more and we are both film hobbyists. I have never claimed to be an expert on film and have learned a lot from the veterans that have posted to this thread over the last 5 years or so. I also see no need to post a personal review of any film. This is not only because of my limited knowledge about a lot of films and film genres...but because there are people getting paid to write professional reviews of films (Dr. Svet, amongst others) that know a lot more than me and most of the posters on this thread. Not only about the films themselves, but about the technology involved in transfers, etc. etc. etc. Like Pat, I usually only post my own likes or dislikes of a film, without most of the meat, that a number of people choose to do. That is certainly their prerogative and some of their posts have helped to educate me. But for the most part, I try to post, only when I can offer information that I think will be helpful to others, or news that you might not be familiar with.

[greekak229]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

To my discredit, I have not seen that film yet. It's always on sale at five-dollar used racks around here, so I should try, but I just cannot get fired up about watching it.

Steal for $5. Umm, absolutely get it.

[Fellini912]

Amazon has Letter Never Sent for $14.49 in new condition.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

My question still stands, though. What does everyone think of Criterion releasing movies that are heavily reliant on CGI effects that might look dated in years to come?

Why specifically CGI? Stop motion animation can look dated as also, non-CG optical FX done in the several decades before CG came to play a significant role in film visuals. IMO It's all about the strength of the artistry, and not the technology powering it.

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

What does everyone think of Criterion releasing movies that are heavily reliant on CGI effects that might look dated in years to come?

Not any significantly more different than the silent films with their camera effects (however fascinating I find them); or the golden age pictures that feature largely defunct techniques like rear projection; or even genre films like Robinson Crusoe on Mars that have their own effects 'character'.

It all comes down to the quality of the films themselves. As a curator of cinema in its genres and movements, the Criterion Collection would certainly be justified in including a worthy CGI-heavy film of this recent age as an exemplar - if they could get the rights.

Originally Posted by rkish

I'm a lot like Pat in this and other regards, concerning posting in this thread. We've both been here for around 5 years or more and we are both film hobbyists. I have never claimed to be an expert on film and have learned a lot from the veterans that have posted to this thread over the last 5 years or so. I also see no need to post a personal review of any film.

This.

I appreciate discussion, but not everyone finds it fit to submit their opinion to the vultures.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Why specifically CGI? Stop motion animation can look dated as also, non-CG optical FX done in the several decades before CG came to play a significant role in film visuals. IMO It's all about the strength of the artistry, and not the technology powering it.

The Criterion edition of "Equinox" says hi.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Cinemach

Not any significantly more different than the silent films with their camera effects (however fascinating I find them); or the golden age pictures that feature largely defunct techniques like rear projection; or even genre films like Robinson Crusoe on Mars that have their own effects 'character'.

It all comes down to the quality of the films themselves. As a curator of cinema in its genres and movements, the Criterion Collection would certainly be justified in including a worthy CGI-heavy film of this recent age as an exemplar - if they could get the rights.

Great post. I like this line of thought.

My affinity for Equinox pretty much negates my concerns, although I still prefer the crude practical effects of that film to most CGI-heavy films.

If a movie is well-rounded and fun overall, though, then all is good.

[shortmartin]

Should the steroid users be allowed in the baseball hall of fame?

Just kidding, clearly a different argument than the CGI one, although it did come to mind in reading these last several posts. I'm in agreement that it's all about the artistry of the movie itself and its quality. I tend not to watch CGI-heavy movies for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that my time tends to be devoted to older films (in my home movie collection) or a different stripe of movie (in my local arthouse theater).

If I might ask . . . were rights and access not an issue, which CGI-heavy movie/s do you think would most likely fit in the Criterion Collection given the brand's focus on artistic and historical importance?

I really don't have a dog in this fight or even a hunch since, like I said, I haven't seen many of these movies. But I'm keenly interested. Still got my DVD of Armageddon in my collection, a nice collector's item, and one that was doubtless included by Criterion for many of the same reasons as, say, the earlier sci-fi movies, and potentially a CGI-heavy flick.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by shortmartin

I'm in agreement that it's all about the artistry of the movie itself and its quality. I tend not to watch CGI-heavy movies for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that my time tends to be devoted to older films (in my home movie collection) or a different stripe of movie (in my local arthouse theater).

If I might ask . . . were rights and access not an issue, which CGI-heavy movie/s do you think would most likely fit in the Criterion Collection given the brand's focus on artistic and historical importance?

Um, wasn't Benjamin Button just mentioned three posts before this argument started?

(Okay, so that's kinda loose on the standards of "Artistic and historical importance", but you get the point: CGI Is Not A Genre(tm).)