The Criterion Collection

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jw007

Man, I totally forgot to vote in the poll...I'm bummed.

I'm bummed too because not voting means I can't ***** about the ugly covers that won

[aes3728]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I am 99.9% certain that the rose clue is simply for The Rose (1979).

Vilmos Zsigmond has been at the Criterion studios lately and although we are all hoping for McCabe and Mrs. Miller, this can be no coincidence.

Wasn't the caption along with the photo something along the lines of working on something very exciting. Do we really classify The Rose as exciting? Meaning no offense by asking this question, just trying to hold on hope for McCabe

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

The biggest surprise in the results was the lack of votes for the Demy and Tati sets.

When it comes to boxsets, I bet they often sit on the shelf to be watched, longer than other releases. People probably like to group their watches of sets together as much as possible.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by SlickDamian

I'm really curious about Il Sorpasso.

I was too and I bought it and it's one of the best releases of the year.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by aes3728

Wasn't the caption along with the photo something along the lines of working on something very exciting. Do we really classify The Rose as exciting? Meaning no offense by asking this question, just trying to hold on hope for McCabe

Oh, I completely agree with you.

I haven't seen The Rose, but it's not something I would ordinarily go out of my way to see. Still, what's exciting for us may be totally different from what's exciting to Criterion.

[TJS_Blu]

If one wanted to see hundreds if not thousands of people looking similar to the Napoleanic officer (?) in the New Year's cartoon, one could do much worse than checking out some clips from Bondarchuk's War and Peace. Just saying. Not praying or anything.

[mrjohnnyb]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I haven't been following this thread too closely over the past few days, but have we gotten any other definitive films out of the clues besides these?

The Brood
The Fisher King
Inside Llewyn Davis
A Master Builder
Moonrise Kingdom
The New World
One-Eyed Jacks
Speedy

You forgot Lost Highway.

[oildude]

Originally Posted by aes3728

Wasn't the caption along with the photo something along the lines of working on something very exciting. Do we really classify The Rose as exciting? Meaning no offense by asking this question, just trying to hold on hope for McCabe

As I mentioned in my previous post, The Rose was a big deal in 1979 and I have no doubt Criterion would consider it exciting. Oscar nominated for its performances and music, it had good reviews and a hit soundtrack. Back then I was a teenager and had no desire to go see it. I had no interest in Bette Midler then because she wasn't a member of Kiss, AC/DC, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Foreigner, or the Talking Heads, nor was she with Ted Nugent or Alice Cooper. Anyone not falling into those or similar groups got tuned out. It also didn't help that the title song was on the radio every time I turned it on, to the point I got thoroughly sick of it. Still haven't seen the movie, but now I would welcome the opportunity.

[Roninblues]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Vilmos Zsigmond has been at the Criterion studios lately and although we are all hoping for McCabe and Mrs. Miller, this can be no coincidence.

I hope so, I just watched my DVD a couple of nights ago and would love an upgrade.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by Roninblues

I hope so, I just watched my DVD a couple of nights ago and would love an upgrade.

Zsigmond and Bailey have worked together before, as cinematographer and camera operator, respectively, on Winter Kills. Just an observation, but an uncut version of this film might qualify as exciting.

[demonknight]

Originally Posted by mrjohnnyb

You forgot Lost Highway.

Lost Highway? Any way it might be released with the previously confirmed Mullholland Dr. in a manner similar to The Shooting/Ride in the Whirlwind?

[jshaide]

Originally Posted by demonknight

Lost Highway? Any way it might be released with the previously confirmed Mullholland Dr. in a manner similar to The Shooting/Ride in the Whirlwind?

I can't see Highway and Mullholland as a two for the price of one deal.

[demonknight]

Originally Posted by jshaide

I can't see Highway and Mullholland as a two for the price of one deal.

I don't see it as a 2 for 1 price, but I can see them paired together.

Then again, would you have expected Five Easy Pieces, Easy Rider, and Last Picture Show to be put in a set with 4 more movies for the price of only 3. Sometimes, it surprises.

[CHEЯNOБLY!]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

You'll have to explain that since the picture literally shows a King holding up an eye.

A single eye, not multiple 'jacks' or anything to suggest it actually is meant to be a 'jack.'

Originally Posted by filmmusic

According to wikipedia, "jacks" is a kind of fish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack

So, an one eyed fish ---> one eyed jacks.

To depict the "I" in King and I with an "eye", it seems to me a big stretch.

I agree with you that One-Eyed Jacks is a strong contender, but not with the reason you put forth. A "Jack Hook" is a type of fishing hook. He seems to be fishing with the eye and not catching it; hence, he is fishing with "one-eyed" jacks or hooks.

The king in the boat is a definite lock for the Fisher King, as in the Arthurian legend the king is crippled by a wound and in the thigh or groin and can do nothing but fish in the river near his castle, thus the nickname.

This seem the most logical combination of clues, but the king could be a double clue, both in a reference to the king in the Fisher King and the king in The King and I...but IDk, has Criterion ever drawn a figure/character in a clue that referenced two different films? Like, the figure of the king would have to be clue for two different films...does this make sense? Lol

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by CHEЯNOБLY!

This seem the most logical combination of clues, but the king could be a double clue, both in a reference to the king in the Fisher King and the king in The King and I...but IDk, has Criterion ever drawn a figure/character in a clue that referenced two different films? Like, the figure of the king would have to be clue for two different films...does this make sense? Lol

Have they ever had such a perfect opportunity before?

[Edward J Grug III]

And jack is a kind of fish, not a jacks. If they were trying to put the word jacks across there would be a school of them. (Ditto with the hooks idea above)

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

And jack is a kind of fish, not a jacks. If they were trying to put the word jacks across there would be a school of them. (Ditto with the hooks idea above)

Well English is not my native language, but "jacks' was an option too for a kind of fish, in that wikipedia link I posted.

Esox (northern pike), young called "jacks"

(or "young" is in plural?)

I can't understand how English/American people distinguish plural from singular in some words. Sometimes when I write "you" in a forum, I have to write in parentheses to whom I'm addressing to)

Originally Posted by CHEЯNOБLY!

I agree with you that One-Eyed Jacks is a strong contender, but not with the reason you put forth. A "Jack Hook" is a type of fishing hook. He seems to be fishing with the eye and not catching it; hence, he is fishing with "one-eyed" jacks or hooks.

Well, you would know better.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Well English is not my native language, but "jacks' was an option too for a kind of fish, in that wikipedia link I posted.

Esox (northern pike), young called "jacks"

(or "young" is in plural?)

It does mean plural, yes.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Well English is not my native language, but "jacks' was an option too for a kind of fish, in that wikipedia link I posted.

Esox (northern pike), young called "jacks"

(or "young" is in plural?)

I can't understand how English/American people distinguish plural from singular in some words. Sometimes when I write "you" in a forum, I have to write in parentheses to whom I'm addressing to)

Trust me: There are a LOT of English speakers who cannot seem to differentiate between singular and plural, either.

Add to that the situation between American English and British English, and it complicates it even more. The British have what is called the "collective plural." For example:

General Motors are making sweeping changes this year.

Since 'General Motors' is a group of people, they are referred to in the plural. Whereas in American English, that would read:

General Motors is making sweeping changes this year.

[CHEЯNOБLY!]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

And jack is a kind of fish, not a jacks. If they were trying to put the word jacks across there would be a school of them. (Ditto with the hooks idea above)

Well, for the hook idea if they put more than one "eye hook" the drawing would appear to be two-eyed.

Anyway, I understand what you are saying with the pluralization, which is why I do not rule out The King and I, but I think you a reading too much into the "s." The clues don't have to literally depict accurate pictographic representations of every word or syllable, etc. Take this clue for example:



The movie isn't titled Badlambs.

Or this one:



The title is Love Streams...I only see one stream.