The Criterion Collection

[Scottie]

Does anyone know where I can purchase replacement cases for the Eclipse series DVDs?

I e-mailed Jon Mulvaney almost two weeks ago because one of the films in my Bergman set has a cracked case. Unfortunately he has not responded.

[ShellOilJunior]

Attention Fassbinder fans:

The Cleveland Cinematheque is showing 8 of his films in Nov/Dec.

ALL in 35mm.

11/1 6:45 PM The Merchant of Four Seasons + post film discussion
11/2 8:30 PM The Merchant of Four Seasons
11/8 7:30 PM The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant
11/9 8:15 PM The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant
11/15 6:40 PM Effi Briest
11/22 5:00 PM Fox and His Friends
11/23 8:10 PM Fox and His Friends
11/30 6:30 PM Satan's Brew
12/6 8:50 PM Fear of Fear
12/13 5:15 PM Chinese Roulette
12/20 8:50 PM Mother Kusters Goes to Heaven

[pedromvu]

I have seen all Terry Gilliam films, and my favorites (and the ones i own) are 12 Monkeys and Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

From all his others there has been some serious letdowns like Tideland and Jabberwocky, and the rest i thought were just ok, The Zero Theorem had some interesting ideas but at the end it didn't went anywhere.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

If anything he'll be less appreciated over time because his films lack intellectual or emotional depth. They are surface level.

Well, apparently Criterion wouldn't agree with you on that as they are bringing Time Bandits back to the collection in blu-ray and then in 2015 The Fisher King will be coming to the collection for the first time since it was on Laserdisc.

On top of that, there were originally 6 Gilliam films on Criterion LD. Surely he must be a relevant director for him to gain such utmost respect to have a firm place in the Criterion Collection.

I would agree there is a lack of emotional depth (unlike, say, a Terrence Malick film) in Terence Gilliam films, however, I must beg to differ on that his films will be devalued and depreciate over time.

If anyone here actually like Terry Gilliam please let me know so I feel like I'm not in the twilight zone!

[jw007]

I just caught some of the Charlie Rose show and George Lucas talking about how there is less imagination and talent in today's movie industry. Lucas was a lucky bastard because he was part of the American new wave movement of directors in the late 60s/early 70s (ie. America Lost and Found: The BBS Story) before executive producers in Hollywood decided to focus on blockbusters and less on story.

George Lucas on Hollywood's Blockbuster Mentality (Oct. 17, 2014) | Charlie Rose - YouTube

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jw007

Well, apparently Criterion wouldn't agree with you on that as they are bringing Time Bandits back to the collection in blu-ray and then in 2015 The Fisher King will be coming to the collection for the first time since it was on Laserdisc.

On top of that, there were originally 6 Gilliam films on Criterion LD. Surely he must be a relevant director for him to gain such utmost respect to have a firm place in the Criterion Collection.

And with the above two coming back into the collection, four of the six will be on Blu-ray. Maybe Sony will license Holy Grail and Baron Munchausen to them down the road.

I would agree there is a lack of emotional depth (unlike, say, a Terrence Malick film) in Terence Gilliam films, however, I must beg to differ on that his films will be devalued and depreciate over time.

In comparison to Bergman or Welles or Huston or Lean, sure, Gilliam's films "lack emotional depth", but most of them are comedies. There's no reason to expect emotional depth when you're talking about knights running around using coconuts as pretend horses, or arguing about the taxonomy of sparrows.

At any rate, I don't see why Gilliam's films should be "devalued" and "depreciate over time" any more than Monty Python's work.

If anyone here actually like Terry Gilliam please let me know so I feel like I'm not in the twilight zone!

Not all of his films are gems, but setting aside the ones I've not seen (Jabberwocky, Tideland, and The Zero Theorem), only two of his films leave me indifferent: Time Bandits and 12 Monkeys.

[BTTF_]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

If anything he'll be less appreciated over time because his films lack intellectual or emotional depth. They are surface level.

I don't know about that.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jw007

I just caught some of the Charlie Rose show and George Lucas talking about how there is less imagination and talent in today's movie industry.

Has there ever been a director anywhere who hasn't at some time or another bemoaned the state of the industry?

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jw007

I just caught some of the Charlie Rose show and George Lucas talking about how there is less imagination and talent in today's movie industry.

OK, I'm not sure that the man who gave us The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones really has any cause to be denigrating other people's imagination and talent.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by jw007

before executive producers in Hollywood decided to focus on blockbusters and less on story.

That kicked off with films like Star Wars. Some might say blockbusters, which ended up as one of the top examples for the fun-for-the-whole-family way of creating all of our movies, blockbuster mentality.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

That kicked off with films like Star Wars. Some might say blockbusters, which ended up as one of the top examples for the fun-for-the-whole-family way of creating all of our movies, blockbuster mentality.

There's obviously a lot of truth to the idea that the immense success of films like Jaws and Star Wars (coupled, I suppose, with the immense failure of Heaven's Gate) sealed the fate of the 70s Golden Age but the more I learn about that era the more I think the inmates were running the asylum on borrowed time anyway.

A lot of different factors (influence of foreign films, the crumbling of the production code, social and political changes in the US, old studios were kind of falling apart and corporate owners were taking over but didn't really know what do with them) came together to create a perfect 'well, I suppose we could just let people make movies' storm that wasn't going to last forever.

Studios were bound to reassert control over their product at some point. Films like Star Wars just gave them a really clear (and arguably not very appealing) direction to take once they did.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by octagon

There's obviously a lot of truth to the idea that the immense success of films like Jaws and Star Wars (coupled, I suppose, with the immense failure of Heaven's Gate) sealed the fate of the 70s Golden Age but the more I learn about that era the more I think the inmates were running the asylum on borrowed time anyway.

A lot of different factors (influence of foreign films, the crumbling of the production code, social and political changes in the US, old studios were kind of falling apart and corporate owners were taking over but didn't really know what do with them) came together to create a perfect 'well, I suppose we could just let people make movies' storm that wasn't going to last forever.

Studios were bound to reassert control over their product at some point. Films like Star Wars just gave them a really clear (and arguably not very appealing) direction to take once they did.

I agree with every word. It's just kind of funny guys like Lucas and Spielberg blast the studio system today with everything having to be a mass audience, toy making, car commercial, hollow blockbuster when they were literally the poster boys for this kind of thinking (Spielberg literally came out and said such with this way of 'the blockbuster' in a Wenders documentary from the 80s interviewing filmmakers. He knew where it was headed and he was driving).

[octagon]

Yeah, Lucas likes to portray himself as a maverick who broke free from the studio system but all he really did - and I'm not knocking it, mind you - was sell a shitload of Star Wars t-shirts and start his own studio.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

I agree with every word. It's just kind of funny guys like Lucas and Spielberg blast the studio system today with everything having to be a mass audience, toy making, car commercial, hollow blockbuster when they were literally the poster boys for this kind of thinking (Spielberg literally came out and said such with this way of 'the blockbuster' in a Wenders documentary from the 80s interviewing filmmakers. He knew where it was headed and he was driving).

Yes, I think I have to blame it all on the baby boomers for screwing everything up in the end. (sorry to anyone here who is a baby boomer). ha.

Originally Posted by octagon

Yeah, Lucas likes to portray himself as a maverick who broke free from the studio system but all he really did - and I'm not knocking it, mind you - was sell a shitload of Star Wars t-shirts and start his own studio.

In a simplified way, yes... but more or less he damaged the future of the film industry so the studios and producers could get money-making blockbusters out and forget about actual talent.

I feel like I opened a can of worms with that Lucas video post...yikes.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by buzzwoody

Oh man I hope that's as good as it sounds. Guess I'll have to visit my Barnes and Noble when it releases next month.

That's exactly how I imagines it to be, with the logo cut out revealing artwork, and the rest of it plain and simple XD

Criterion give me a job lol

[BobbyMcGee]

Originally Posted by jw007

I just caught some of the Charlie Rose show and George Lucas talking about how there is less imagination and talent in today's movie industry. Lucas was a lucky bastard because he was part of the American new wave movement of directors in the late 60s/early 70s (ie. America Lost and Found: The BBS Story) before executive producers in Hollywood decided to focus on blockbusters and less on story.

George Lucas on Hollywood's Blockbuster Mentality (Oct. 17, 2014) | Charlie Rose - YouTube

If you own it, I highly recommend the special feature, "A Legacy of Filmmakers: The Early Years of American Zoetrope" found on the Blu-ray for THX-1138. It gives great insight into Lucas's formative years as an early filmmaker at American Zoetrope.

[BobbyMcGee]

Originally Posted by octagon

There's obviously a lot of truth to the idea that the immense success of films like Jaws and Star Wars (coupled, I suppose, with the immense failure of Heaven's Gate) sealed the fate of the 70s Golden Age but the more I learn about that era the more I think the inmates were running the asylum on borrowed time anyway.

A lot of different factors (influence of foreign films, the crumbling of the production code, social and political changes in the US, old studios were kind of falling apart and corporate owners were taking over but didn't really know what do with them) came together to create a perfect 'well, I suppose we could just let people make movies' storm that wasn't going to last forever.

Studios were bound to reassert control over their product at some point. Films like Star Wars just gave them a really clear (and arguably not very appealing) direction to take once they did.

Also totally agree. This is pretty much the same conclusion I came to as well. I mean, what wasn't headed towards that direction. Not surprising that film went that way as well. Although, I think that there was an interesting renaissance of sorts in the early to mid-90's (arthouse cinema).

[CinemaBlu]

Originally Posted by BobbyMcGee

Also totally agree. This is pretty much the same conclusion I came to as well. I mean, what wasn't headed towards that direction. Not surprising that film went that way as well. Although, I think that there was an interesting renaissance of sorts in the early to mid-90's (arthouse cinema).

I'm pretty optimistic about the future of cinema. Good equipment is somewhat affordable and pretty much anyone can make a film if they really wanted to. The problem now is the tedious task of weeding through the garbage put out by talentless hacks.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

If anything he'll be less appreciated over time because his films lack intellectual or emotional depth. They are surface level.

You seem to be confusing Terry Gilliam with Henry Jaglom, who likes to think he's Arthouse, and intelligent, but it's basically a mockery.

Originally Posted by jw007

Well, apparently Criterion wouldn't agree with you on that as they are bringing Time Bandits back to the collection in blu-ray and then in 2015 The Fisher King will be coming to the collection for the first time since it was on Laserdisc.

On top of that, there were originally 6 Gilliam films on Criterion LD. Surely he must be a relevant director for him to gain such utmost respect to have a firm place in the Criterion Collection.

I would agree there is a lack of emotional depth (unlike, say, a Terrence Malick film) in Terence Gilliam films, however, I must beg to differ on that his films will be devalued and depreciate over time.

If anyone here actually like Terry Gilliam please let me know so I feel like I'm not in the twilight zone!

He's one of my favourites. The only films I do not own on DVD or Blu-ray are Tideland and Zero Theorem.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by jw007

If anyone here actually like Terry Gilliam please let me know so I feel like I'm not in the twilight zone!

I'm a big fan. Generally speaking he seems to be really well liked too, I've never seen a reaction to him like there is in this thread.