The Criterion Collection

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

Thin Red Line BD release date = year 2020 Just in time for a new Malick movie.

why does everyone joke about this? it happened once. its usually about 5 years and that is only because he shoots everything then has to spend 2 years editing to try and make sense of it all. Malick is overrated. Look to Kubrick for a director who takes his time but because he is a good director. Malick is just an art house Michael Bay. They both just shoot 5 million feet of film and try to make it work. Malick just seems to be thought of as a genius for it, I dont know why

[JediFonger]

November for 7 Sam? or maybe Xmas? 7 Sam?

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by Illy Scorsese

TCM definitely has an HD Channel. lol

I've been loving it since my area got it about 7-8 months ago. Their 30 days of Oscar this year was great in HD, as was the Kurosawa tribute last month.

And DVR is an incredible tool.

TCM also posts their 3 Month in Advance Schedule on thier website, so you can go through it and write down anything you really want to see.

Since someone just brought it up, I know they are showing "Persona" in HD on July 2nd, 4:15 AM.

I HATE FiOS!

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by stobbart

why does everyone joke about this? it happened once. its usually about 5 years and that is only because he shoots everything then has to spend 2 years editing to try and make sense of it all. Malick is overrated. Look to Kubrick for a director who takes his time but because he is a good director. Malick is just an art house Michael Bay. They both just shoot 5 million feet of film and try to make it work. Malick just seems to be thought of as a genius for it, I dont know why

Now that was just downright mean.

[alen_shime]

Originally Posted by stobbart

why does everyone joke about this? it happened once. its usually about 5 years and that is only because he shoots everything then has to spend 2 years editing to try and make sense of it all. Malick is overrated. Look to Kubrick for a director who takes his time but because he is a good director. Malick is just an art house Michael Bay. They both just shoot 5 million feet of film and try to make it work. Malick just seems to be thought of as a genius for it, I dont know why

how do you sleep at night

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by alen_shime

how do you sleep at night

Ill put on a Terrence Malik film zZZzzZzzz

In all fairness, I have not seen The Thin Red Line, and I will when it comes out, so I dont know about that. But still even if it is good, one good movie does not make a good director.

But seriously, The New World. I dont want the argument that all the nature shots were beautiful and meant to make the viewer closer to nature and people and to think about story and blah blah blah. He thinks that just because people liked Days of Heaven (which is more the cinematography then his directing skills, but thats besides the point) he can make these movies and get away with it.

He has no idea what to shoot, what he wants, so he films everything and spends his two years looking at the footage saying to himself "what the hell is all this crap that I shot?" then churns out some overindulgent, pretty looking movie, and people think he is a genius. I dont buy it. Thats all.

[jsummers157@]

Originally Posted by stobbart

Ill put on a Terrence Malik film zZZzzZzzz

In all fairness, I have not seen The Thin Red Line, and I will when it comes out, so I dont know about that. But still even if it is good, one good movie does not make a good director.

But seriously, The New World. I dont want the argument that all the nature shots were beautiful and meant to make the viewer closer to nature and people and to think about story and blah blah blah. He thinks that just because people liked Days of Heaven (which is more the cinematography then his directing skills, but thats besides the point) he can make these movies and get away with it.

He has no idea what to shoot, what he wants, so he films everything and spends his two years looking at the footage saying to himself "what the hell is all this crap that I shot?" then churns out some overindulgent, pretty looking movie, and people think he is a genius. I dont buy it. Thats all.

Granted, you are obviously entitled to your opinion. But there are certainly different styles of filmmaking/directing and because his is not the typical, attain a script shoot it in a certain order and churn out a film every 1-2 years does not invalidate his process. Several directors take an approach like this in film or another medium, often to capture the improvisational skills of the actors or certain situations.

Malick, as enigmatic as he and his films have been, has certainly shown an interest in making movies that are heavy on the cinematography and connecting nature to the story in different ways. If this style does not appeal to you, so be it but it seems unfair to assume that because you don't agree with his style or process, he must be overrated or undeserving of praise.

To say he doesn't have a plan and just stumbles into making a movie also seems to ignore fact. Though he has taken his time, he has proven with each film that he spends a lot of time and effort shaping the film to what most closely resembles his vision.

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by stobbart

He thinks that just because people liked Days of Heaven (which is more the cinematography then his directing skills, but thats besides the point) he can make these movies and get away with it.

He has no idea what to shoot, what he wants, so he films everything and spends his two years looking at the footage saying to himself "what the hell is all this crap that I shot?" then churns out some overindulgent, pretty looking movie, and people think he is a genius. I dont buy it. Thats all.

Is that assessment based on last summer when, after a night of bar hopping, Malick drunkenly confessed to you that he "hopes all of his discovery channel footage fools the pseudo-intellectuals", or is it a high tech device you had installed in his head under the guise of standard root canal surgery, providing you an intricate direct feed of all his most intentions and motivations? Did Lucius Fox build it for you?

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by jsummers157@

Granted, you are obviously entitled to your opinion. But there are certainly different styles of filmmaking/directing and because his is not the typical, attain a script shoot it in a certain order and churn out a film every 1-2 years does not invalidate his process. Several directors take an approach like this in film or another medium, often to capture the improvisational skills of the actors or certain situations.

Malick, as enigmatic as he and his films have been, has certainly shown an interest in making movies that are heavy on the cinematography and connecting nature to the story in different ways. If this style does not appeal to you, so be it but it seems unfair to assume that because you don't agree with his style or process, he must be overrated or undeserving of praise.

To say he doesn't have a plan and just stumbles into making a movie also seems to ignore fact. Though he has taken his time, he has proven with each film that he spends a lot of time and effort shaping the film to what most closely resembles his vision.

I dont think that is a good process. My point was not about how he goes about making his movies, as I do also believe that people can take time and "capture the improvisational skills of the actors or certain situations". But my continual reference to Michael Bay was to make the point (I guess I didnt do this well enough) that any person, given enough money and talent behind them (for Malick its his cinematographers) could shoot 5 million feet of film (I know its more like 1 million feet but that is still an insane amout for a feature film) and make the same movie as Malick or Bay.

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by Alkaline

Is that assessment based on last summer when, after a night of bar hopping, Malick drunkenly confessed to you that he "hopes all of his discovery channel footage fools the pseudo-intellectuals", or is it a high tech device you had installed in his head under the guise of standard root canal surgery, providing you an intricate direct feed of all his most intentions and motivations? Did Lucius Fox build it for you?

No....its my knowledge that I could go make a movie about people coming to the new world and the devestation that settlers caused upon this land as compared the the natives. And, like any other person making that same film, would certainly want to capture images of nature to show the contrast. And then have 2nd unit go out with my notes...film stuff. and I would film some stuff also myself. And then when I'm helping edit the film I would think "what the hell is all this crap that was shot and where am I going to put it" "It makes sense in the overall message that Im trying to present with this film, but it fails to fit in with anything" then this is where Malick goes "oh well, lets just put it all over. that seemed to work with Days of Heaven"

But good for Malick, he is making his movies and I am not. So you dont have to agree with me. But as a film student who shoots (film) and edits and does all that. I think I have a better understanding of creating a film then many on here. And maybe a more personal agression towards someone like Malick who craps out a movie like the New World and people praise him for it.

[alen_shime]

Originally Posted by stobbart

Ill put on a Terrence Malik film zZZzzZzzz

In all fairness, I have not seen The Thin Red Line, and I will when it comes out, so I dont know about that. But still even if it is good, one good movie does not make a good director.

But seriously, The New World. I dont want the argument that all the nature shots were beautiful and meant to make the viewer closer to nature and people and to think about story and blah blah blah. He thinks that just because people liked Days of Heaven (which is more the cinematography then his directing skills, but thats besides the point) he can make these movies and get away with it.

He has no idea what to shoot, what he wants, so he films everything and spends his two years looking at the footage saying to himself "what the hell is all this crap that I shot?" then churns out some overindulgent, pretty looking movie, and people think he is a genius. I dont buy it. Thats all.

So just because he spends a lot in the editing process, or shoots a lot of material (which in the end he combines into a masterpiece), he's a bad director, lame argument. You mentioned Kubrick above, so it's fair to say that he's a bad director for shooting material of which 1/10 is being used in the final produc, bad director, and he unlike Malick KNOWS what he wants. So like I said, it's a lame argument, why, because a master director like Alfred Hitchcock who had such a complex and perfect mis-en-scene, relied much on editing (example: the bathroom scene in Psycho). Not to mention directors of the Russian Montage School. So like I said before you've got a lame argument.

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by stobbart

...then this is where Malick goes "oh well, lets just put it all over. that seemed to work with Days of Heaven"

Oh ok, so it's the device. Sweet.

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by alen_shime

So just because he spends a lot in the editing process, or shoots a lot of material (which in the end he combines into a masterpiece), he's a bad director, lame argument. You mentioned Kubrick above, so it's fair to say that he's a bad director for shooting material of which 1/10 is being used in the final produc, bad director, and he unlike Malick KNOWS what he wants. So like I said, it's a lame argument, why, because a master director like Alfred Hitchcock who had such a complex and perfect mis-en-scene, relied much on editing (example: the bathroom scene in Psycho). Not to mention directors of the Russian Montage School. So like I said before you've got a lame argument.

Yeah...no all of this is wrong. My point was not about editing.

I give up, its impossible to talk to people on here about anything because all anyone does is either want to try and be funny and ironic like will smith guy on here, or just focus on something I said and take it out of context like this person.

thats fine, everyone can go on loving Malick, and whoever else Criterion tells you to like by adding their movies to the collection. But as I have said, one movie does not make a good director. All of Kubricks films are fabulous = good director. None of Malicks movies are good (so far that I have seen, again thin red line may be good) = bad director. That should be pretty clear. And to everyone who was worried about Malick not making another movie for 10 years....the next Transformers movie will be out for you all to go see.

[billzfan]

I have a copy of the Third Man and haven't opened it yet. Someone just offered me $80 for it. Should I sell it and hope for a reissue or keep it? Opinions?

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by stobbart

Yeah...no all of this is wrong. My point was not about editing.

I give up, its impossible to talk to people on here about anything because all anyone does is either want to try and be funny and ironic like will smith guy on here, or just focus on something I said and take it out of context like this person.

thats fine, everyone can go on loving Malick, and whoever else Criterion tells you to like by adding their movies to the collection. But as I have said, one movie does not make a good director. All of Kubricks films are fabulous = good director. None of Malicks movies are good (so far that I have seen, again thin red line may be good) = bad director. That should be pretty clear. And to everyone who was worried about Malick not making another movie for 10 years....the next Transformers movie will be out for you all to go see.

Wouldn't humor and irony be the favorable response for someone to bring back to you when your "points" are this ridiculous, though? What's the alternative - an expletive-laden slap fest from someone less kind than myself? You've taken an arbitrary, short-sighted idea/conclusion about Terrence Malick that you apparently arrived at at some point (having only seen--how many, exactly, of his films?), and spouted it out as if it's the end-all definitive "proof of Malick as a one-trick pony/hack/false wizard behind the curtain". Did I really need to point this out to you?

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by billzfan

I have a copy of the Third Man and haven't opened it yet. Someone just offered me $80 for it. Should I sell it and hope for a reissue or keep it? Opinions?

you could sell it and buy an unopened copy off amazon for $59

[BasicGreatGuy]

Originally Posted by billzfan

I have a copy of the Third Man and haven't opened it yet. Someone just offered me $80 for it. Should I sell it and hope for a reissue or keep it? Opinions?

$80.00 can buy 4+ Blu-ray movies. Unless the movie is a must have never part with for anything else, why not sell it and make some profit?

[alen_shime]

Originally Posted by stobbart

Yeah...no all of this is wrong. My point was not about editing.

I give up, its impossible to talk to people on here about anything because all anyone does is either want to try and be funny and ironic like will smith guy on here, or just focus on something I said and take it out of context like this person.

thats fine, everyone can go on loving Malick, and whoever else Criterion tells you to like by adding their movies to the collection. But as I have said, one movie does not make a good director. All of Kubricks films are fabulous = good director. None of Malicks movies are good (so far that I have seen, again thin red line may be good) = bad director. That should be pretty clear. And to everyone who was worried about Malick not making another movie for 10 years....the next Transformers movie will be out for you all to go see.

You really don't know what the hell you're talking about. "All of Kubricks films are fabulous = good director. None of Malicks movies are good (so far that I have seen, again thin red line may be good) = bad director" so that was the theory or a rule I haven't learned while studying multimedia production on the art academy. So the same theory or rule could be applied to I don't know, maybe Orson Welles, God damn the dude made one of the most important movies, but still it's just ONE movie, and Kubrick has got so many fabolous movies, Kubrick surely PWNED him. You are throwing this word DIRECTOR in our face and you don't know what the hell it is. Try watching some movies done by real directors like Ozu, Mizoguchi, Dreyer, Bresson etc.

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by alen_shime

You really don't know what the hell you're talking about. "All of Kubricks films are fabulous = good director. None of Malicks movies are good (so far that I have seen, again thin red line may be good) = bad director" so that was the theory or a rule I haven't learned while studying multimedia production on the art academy. So the same theory or rule could be applied to I don't know, maybe Orson Welles, God damn the dude made one of the most important movies, but still it's just ONE movie, and Kubrick has got so many fabolous movies, Kubrick surely PWNED him. You are throwing this word DIRECTOR in our face and you don't know what the hell it is. Try watching some movies done by real directors like Ozu, Mizoguchi, Dreyer, Bresson etc.

Oh come on people.... not THIS again.

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by alen_shime

You really don't know what the hell you're talking about. "All of Kubricks films are fabulous = good director. None of Malicks movies are good (so far that I have seen, again thin red line may be good) = bad director" so that was the theory or a rule I haven't learned while studying multimedia production on the art academy. So the same theory or rule could be applied to I don't know, maybe Orson Welles, God damn the dude made one of the most important movies, but still it's just ONE movie, and Kubrick has got so many fabolous movies, Kubrick surely PWNED him. You are throwing this word DIRECTOR in our face and you don't know what the hell it is. Try watching some movies done by real directors like Ozu, Mizoguchi, Dreyer, Bresson etc.

You said it there youself. Yes Orsen Wells made one of the most important movies. But thats because of what it did technically. Not because it was a good movie.

And I have seen movies by those directors, and many more. And what theories did you learn on what makes a good director, because I would love to hear the argument for Malick being a good director. As of yet, I have heard nothing. Just that I am wrong.