The Criterion Collection

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by thebard

Outdoors... Out... Doors...?
What is this place you speak of?

Oh... you mean that bright place I see in a lot of films?

What is big yellow ball in sky?

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Popped in Stalker to watch it for the second time (saw it years ago) and then, after watching what had to be five seconds of it, decided to just do what I've been planning on doing: wait for the Blu.

Really hope it gets the transfer it deserves.

Stalker deserves a lot better than that Kino DVD.

Not that I do not love it, because that Kino DVD is all that we've had so far, but I get the feeling that a better transfer of that movie would make some serious waves with movie fans around these parts.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Dumbhuman

You really can't see how people would find it boring? I find that a little hard to believe. Don't get me wrong, I like the film, but I can easily understand why many people would lose patience with it. It mostly boils down to the film lingering in places to build atmosphere rather than advance the narrative. At those points, one's perception of the film is going to come down to a matter of personal aesthetics, meaning that if you happen to find those shots beautiful on your own terms then you will be quite content but otherwise you could quite easily become bored and impatient. It's the difference between thinking, "Wow! I'm in space and this is amazing!" and thinking "I get it. Space. Get on with it." When you consider younger audiences in particular, the little kid wonder response to space travel is going to be much less likely to overpower their desire to be force fed a steady diet of jump cuts full of new visual information.

You could probably cut the narrative down to be an interesting Twilight Zone episode without losing any of the essential story. You'd lose a lot of monkeys sitting around, stewardesses walking carefully, and space craft very very slowly making their way towards their objective. As it stands though, most people dislike ambiguous endings enough without being made to sit through quite so much "filler" just to get to that point.

Keep in mind, that's all devil's advocate, really. I do enjoy 2001, but it's not something I readily recommend to all viewers precisely for the reasons stated above. Everyone has their own tastes. I mean, somewhere out there I'm sure there's someone who's really hoping that Criterion releases a Blu-ray of The Brown Bunny.

Hunh. I always figured that the reason a lot of people thought 2001 was a bore was because they'd only seen it on VHS or broadcast TV, where it was pan-&-scanned and (in the latter case) interrupted by commercials.

Back about 25 years ago, I was in a similar discussion with someone who had only seen it on TV, and thought it was dull as dirt. When the film showed up at a local art/rep theater, I convinced him to try it on the big screen in all its widescreen glory. He did, and his opinion took a 180.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by jayembee

It's all a matter of perspective.

At the World SF Convention in 1977, there was a panel on SF movies. One of the panelists was Jack Williamson, one of the premier authors (along with E.E. "Doc" Smith" and Edmond Hamilton) of space opera, as well as the first SF writer to write about anti-matter (in the 1940s, with his novels Seetee Ship and Seetee Shock). His career as an SF author started in the 1920s.

Of course, Star Wars came up, and Williamson said, "Star Wars is exactly the kind of science fiction I've been reading and writing for the last 50 years."

Distinctions between "science fiction, sci-fi, and space opera" is a relatively recent concept, partly due to movies like Star Wars. But back in the day, fans tended not to care. It was science fiction or it wasn't.



Interesting choice of analogy. Would you also say that Seven Samurai wasn't really a Samurai film, because it "could have been transposed to a Western setting and no one would have been the wiser"?

Holy cow! Really making me think today, eh? Well, sure, we have 'Magnificent Seven' don't we?

But, yes, Star Wars is technically sci-fi, but I can't think of anything in the way of thought provoking analogies that the sterling examples Owl gave us had, you know what I mean? Hence, the other worldly setting is basically window dressing.

I'm not an absolute expert in the Samurai genre (largely, its just been Kurosawa and assorted others), but doesn't Seven Samurai adhere to the tenants/themes of the genre fairly well?

(It's time to dust of my copy and watch it again)

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Agreed 100% about transposing Star Wars onto other genres. It's essentially an outer space western.

Outland is probably the most obvious example of that. High Noon in space.

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

When I was younger, I imagined that spaceships like the Discovery would be commonplace by now in 2013. The idea that our 2013 society would care more about reality television and camera phone photos of Walmart shoppers than space exploration never would have occurred to me back then.
In all fairness, though, there are some extraordinarily cool things happening. The Mars landing, with all of the technology and precision involved, was a joy to see.

Born the same time as you, i thought the same thing about NASA, space, and the Space Shuttle. I hoped to be able to hop a trip on the shuttle to the moon and back for a vacation, or a long stay. I knew it was a bit of a dream, but I thought we would be so much further along than we are. And now... now everyone cares more about some over-weight, redneck child, and how many wifes some guy has, than about where were are going in the future and that the space program has been cut to shreads. So many important discoveries came out of the space race... that fact that we have such powerful, yet small, computers is in part, if not mostly, a result of the space race. having to squeeze so much in such a small place, and then control the rest from the ground has helped science and technology in ways that have long since been forgotten... but I digress.

The long and short of it, more people need to get back into that mindset Kubrick had of space and science and get us back on the right track. Just MHO.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Stalker deserves a lot better than that Kino DVD.

Not that I do not love it, because that Kino DVD is all that we've had so far, but I get the feeling that a better transfer of that movie would make some serious waves with movie fans around these parts.

I have a feeling it will sneak up with my all-time favorites once I watch a (hopefully) better transfer.

I only have two more Tarkovsky's to watch: Andrei Rublev (saving the best for last? we'll see) and The Sacrifice (own it on Blu).

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Holy cow! Really making me think today, eh? Well, sure, we have 'Magnificent Seven' don't we?

But, yes, Star Wars is technically sci-fi, but I can't think of anything in the way of thought provoking analogies that the sterling examples Owl gave us had, you know what I mean?

You can call it "sci-fi" or "space opera", but aren't those just one (or two, if you want to get technical) kind of science fiction? Keep in mind that "genre" comes from the same root as "general" or "generic". It brings with it the capacity for a great variety of material under a simple classification.

There are certainly specific ideas in SF that get me more excited than others. And I'll certainly say that 2001 and Blade Runner the like I find more interesting as science fiction than Star Wars or Star Trek but that doesn't prevent me from thinking that the latter examples are just as much science fiction as the former.

Hence, the other worldly setting is basically window dressing.

But "window dressing" is just "window dressing". Thus my oblique reference to the interchangeability of the Samurai and Western genres.

Now, one might argue that "Western" is all about window-dressing, since the parameters of the genre are typically time (19th Century) and place (the American West), but there are examples of the genre that fall outside the lines: Quigley Down Under is set in Australia (albeit Western Australia), Bad Day at Black Rock is set in the 1940s. But even in the Western genre, there's a class system of sorts. A film like The Searchers, now that's a Western while your typical Gene Autry film like The Singing Cowboy is just a "horse opera". And yet the Autry film is a Western, too.

I'm not an absolute expert in the Samurai genre (largely, its just been Kurosawa and assorted others), but doesn't Seven Samurai adhere to the tenants/themes of the genre fairly well?

In some respects, yes. But Kurosawa was heavily influenced by John Ford, and Seven Samurai is really a western with new window dressing. The Magificent Seven just brought it back home. My point is that Seven Samurai being a Western in kimonos doesn't mean it's not a Samurai film. And The Magnificent Seven being a Samurai film with six-shooters and cowboy hats doesn't mean it's not a Western.

For another example, take The Road Warrior. The film is really just a post-apocalyptic, set-in-Australia samurai film, with Max as your typical itinerant ronin. (You could also note that the relationship between Max and the Feral Kid as being taken from Shane.) But that change in window dressing does make it something different as well.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by jayembee

You can call it "sci-fi" or "space opera", but aren't those just one (or two, if you want to get technical) kind of science fiction? Keep in mind that "genre" comes from the same root as "general" or "generic". It brings with it the capacity for a great variety of material under a simple classification.

There are certainly specific ideas in SF that get me more excited than others. And I'll certainly say that 2001 and Blade Runner the like I find more interesting as science fiction than Star Wars or Star Trek but that doesn't prevent me from thinking that the latter examples are just as much science fiction as the former.



But "window dressing" is just "window dressing". Thus my oblique reference to the interchangeability of the Samurai and Western genres.

Now, one might argue that "Western" is all about window-dressing, since the parameters of the genre are typically time (19th Century) and place (the American West), but there are examples of the genre that fall outside the lines: Quigley Down Under is set in Australia (albeit Western Australia), Bad Day at Black Rock is set in the 1940s. But even in the Western genre, there's a class system of sorts. A film like The Searchers, now that's a Western while your typical Gene Autry film like The Singing Cowboy is just a "horse opera". And yet the Autry film is a Western, too.



In some respects, yes. But Kurosawa was heavily influenced by John Ford, and Seven Samurai is really a western with new window dressing. The Magificent Seven just brought it back home. My point is that Seven Samurai being a Western in kimonos doesn't mean it's not a Samurai film. And The Magnificent Seven being a Samurai film with six-shooters and cowboy hats doesn't mean it's not a Western.

For another example, take The Road Warrior. The film is really just a post-apocalyptic, set-in-Australia samurai film, with Max as your typical itinerant ronin. (You could also note that the relationship between Max and the Feral Kid as being taken from Shane.) But that change in window dressing does make it something different as well.

Jay, I was not seeking to clarify or expound on what defines a film in the science fiction genre. Yes, of corse, Star Wars belongs in the science fiction genre, maybe the action sci-fi sub genre.

I like Star Wars very much, but essentially, I was just stating my preference for "thoughtful science fiction" (which I am sure you can argue for the inclusion of Star Wars into, but I will not).

And with regards to those westerns and samurai films, you state your case admirably, hell, I agree too. I guess when you go all the way down the rabbit hole, yes, categorizing films is very tricky.

(Oh, crickey, if I'm not totally clear, just note that I was severely deprived of sleep last night )

[Dumbhuman]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Hunh. I always figured that the reason a lot of people thought 2001 was a bore was because they'd only seen it on VHS or broadcast TV, where it was pan-&-scanned and (in the latter case) interrupted by commercials.

Back about 25 years ago, I was in a similar discussion with someone who had only seen it on TV, and thought it was dull as dirt. When the film showed up at a local art/rep theater, I convinced him to try it on the big screen in all its widescreen glory. He did, and his opinion took a 180.

That's certainly true for some people, I'm sure. In the case of your friend, there just wasn't enough to satisfy his personal aesthetic tastes until he saw it presented correctly. Of course time and added context could have also played roles in his shift of opinion since our tastes are necessarily influenced/informed by the sum of our experiences at that particular time.

Unfortunately I have a friend who watched it last year on his sizeable widescreen television and still thought it was very boring. This friend used to gladly accompany me to any film I wanted to see in New York (no matter how artsy or obscure) without knowing anything at all about them, so he's generally very open-minded and patient, but 2001 was just not his cup of tea. It happens.

[The Great Owl]

This is halfway Criterion-related by a slight degree of separation, I guess...

A friend of mine from a running forum that I've posted at for years lives near Bodega Bay and went to a recent autograph signing with his daughter. Since it's common knowledge that I am a massive Alfred Hitchcock fan, he sent me this surprise in the mail this week.

[Show spoiler]

[freeguac]

I own 108 Criterions (Sorry, needed to post something on the forum to make comments for contests.)

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by freeguac

I own 108 Criterions (Sorry, needed to post something on the forum to make comments for contests.)

Oh no, you're not getting off the hook that easily. Tell us which Criterions are your favorites.

Welcome to the forum!

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

This is halfway Criterion-related by a slight degree of separation, I guess...

A friend of mine from a running forum that I've posted at for years lives near Bodega Bay and went to a recent autograph signing with his daughter. Since it's common knowledge that I am a massive Alfred Hitchcock fan, he sent me this surprise in the mail this week.

[Show spoiler]

Are you going to frame it, Owl? I can't tell you how obsessed I was with all things Hedren back when I was a Senior in High School/Freshman in college, so it goes without saying that I would.

I really wish I could have attended the Psycho screening two years ago. She supposedly gave a small talk beforehand.

[smoss469]

Wait, did someone say they're doing a release of It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World?

[Hypnosifl]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Distinctions between "science fiction, sci-fi, and space opera" is a relatively recent concept, partly due to movies like Star Wars. But back in the day, fans tended not to care. It was science fiction or it wasn't.

What about the distinction between "hard science fiction" and other types? That distinction has been popular with writers and critics since the 1960s (see here for example).

[thebard]

Originally Posted by smoss469

Wait, did someone say they're doing a release of It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World?

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...ostcount=82901

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Oh no, you're not getting off the hook that easily. Tell us which Criterions are your favorites.

Welcome to the forum!

yeah! get involved ;-) it's a lot of fun here.

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

This is halfway Criterion-related by a slight degree of separation, I guess...

A friend of mine from a running forum that I've posted at for years lives near Bodega Bay and went to a recent autograph signing with his daughter. Since it's common knowledge that I am a massive Alfred Hitchcock fan, he sent me this surprise in the mail this week.

[Show spoiler]

That is amazingly cool! You sir a lucky man!

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I'm hard-pressed to imagine how the film could be viewed as boring, because I am still blown away by each and every scene. The attention to detail shown by Kubrick's camera eye is just phenomenal.

While I agree with this now, back when I first saw this film, around age 15-16, I was bored watching it for the first time. To be honest, I was just getting into movies and was trying to find my niche, so to speak, and 2001 just wasn't what I thought it was going to be. I was working at a video store and was taking home stacks of movies every chance I got, just watching anything I could, and seeing what I liked and didn't. I think I was looking for more of a "sci-fi" action movie, and not what 2001 really is... not sure if I call it a "sapce opera," but it's not a sci-fi action flick.

Upon later viewings I saw what Kubrick was trying to do and I love every minute of it. In fact I plan on introducing it to my wife over the weekend, hoping that she will enjoy it, and maybe see something in it that I don't.

So yeah, I can see how some could see it as boring, especially if they have the wrong expectations going in... but they do need to watch it a second and third time... that'll change their mind.