The Criterion Collection

[RojD]

Originally Posted by kataxu36

Anyone have any thoughts on the movie Still Walking?

Lots of Kore-eda's work touches me, and this is an especially effective film. Good news is that I Wish and Like Father, Like Son aren't out in Region 1 blu, nor is Nobody Knows. So since Still Walking is already a Crit title, I've been hoping for one of those dual-release-by-the-same-director months with Kore-eda. I wish.....

[WonderWeasel]

Originally Posted by jayembee

So don't see them. There really aren't that many. There have been far more science fiction blockbusters or crime/thrillers per year for the last few years than there have been superhero movies.

There are, according to the list that was posted, an average of almost seven films based on DC/Marvel properties to be released per year over the next six years. Considering the marketing budget those films are almost all assured to get, they are going to be omnipresent. Then, they're going to get shoved down my throat via basic cable broadcasts, like every 'Iron Man' and 'X-Men' movie. And if that's not enough, the studios that own the properties are probably going to end up rebooting them within ten years; just look at 'Batman', 'The Incredible Hulk', 'Spider Man', the coming 'Fantastic Four' reboot, etc.

Originally Posted by AaronJ

That's 3.6 DC/Marvel films per year, on average over the next 6 years.

40 divided by 6 is 6.66, not 3.6. 6.66 big budget, heavily-advertised films per year seems like a lot to me.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by WonderWeasel

40 divided by 6 is 6.66, not 3.6. 6.66 big budget, heavily-advertised films per year seems like a lot to me.

LOL

Cut me some slack, I had just woken up. And sure, that's a lot of big budget films. But on the other hand, out of over 600 per year (and again, that's just films that are released and have any gross whatsoever in the US) it really isn't.

Look at this way: There are way more than 6 horror films released each year, but no one says, "OMG, I'm SO sick of horror movies! Why can't Hollywood make anything but horror movies!!?"

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by WonderWeasel

There are, according to the list that was posted, an average of almost seven films based on DC/Marvel properties to be released per year over the next six years.

And how many big animated films do you think will be released per year?

And how many crime/thriller films do you think will be released per year?

And how many science fiction/fantasy films do you think will be released per year?

And how many awful-looking comedies do you think will be released per year?

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

been wanting to chime in here, but I'm a little confused by your argument... mass audiences have lost their taste for art house films and you're citing the fact that they came out in droves for Rain Man?

"movie stars could sell a film"... yes, but the presence of a movie star usually means that said film was not all that artsy, no?

No, the Rain Man reference was about how audiences have changed in general. Has nothing to do with being "art house".

Originally Posted by Feiereisel

Idea: the term "art-house film" has changed with time and thus encompasses different sets of films in different time periods?

The French Connection and the Godfather were/are mainstream films--not art-house but undeniably artful.

Again, they may seem mainstream NOW, but at the time they were essentially indies filled with no name actors (save Marlon Brando) and made by directors who had very few credits. Do they fall under the "mainstream" ideal? Sure, because they are genre films. But again, they weren't huge spectacle Hollywood productions made with famous movie stars (again, with the exception of Brando). In fact, the Godfather was thought to be strictly a B picture, and Paramount had no faith that it would even be any good.

Perhaps they were the wrong films to use as examples, but I still stand by my comments. Compared to the other films being produced in that era, both were outside the norm, used no-name actors and directors, and exhibited styles that were far from common. For that, I call them a type of art house films. By comparison, a film like Airport - with a $10 mil budget and list of stars - was more along the lines of a "Hollywood" production.

But it's really just semantics, agree or disagree.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by kataxu36

Anyone have any thoughts on the movie Still Walking?

I hate to do this again after saying I didn't like Certified Copy, but I also did not like Still Walking. I'm very surprised, as it's the type of film I usually really like (I love Ozu for instance).

[WonderWeasel]

Originally Posted by jayembee

And how many big animated films do you think will be released per year?

And how many crime/thriller films do you think will be released per year?

And how many science fiction/fantasy films do you think will be released per year?

And how many awful-looking comedies do you think will be released per year?

Regardless of the ratio, the fact is that studios don't spend the same amount of money producing and promoting the other genres, with the exception of fantasy films. Looking at the top 20 highest movie budgets of all-time, 7 of them are for films based on comic book properties. Common sense tells you that the studios are also spending a lot more to promote the hell out of those films, just based on their placement in that list, which would make them pop up a lot more during your everyday life, i.e. commercials while watching TV, eating at a fast food restaurant that has a promotional tie-in with the release of a film, or hell, looking at a billboard while you're driving down the interstate.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by kataxu36

Anyone have any thoughts on the movie Still Walking?

I haven't seen it, but there's one keyword in the IMDB list that I always wonder if it is accurate, or someone's idea of a joke:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1087578/...ef_=tt_stry_kw

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by WonderWeasel

Regardless of the ratio, the fact is that studios don't spend the same amount of money producing and promoting the other genres, with the exception of fantasy films. Looking at the top 20 highest movie budgets of all-time, 7 of them are for films based on comic book properties. Common sense tells you that the studios are also spending a lot more to promote the hell out of those films, just based on their placement in that list, which would make them present a lot more during your everyday life, i.e. commercials while watching TV, eating at a fast food restaurant that has a promotional tie-in with the release of a film, or hell, looking at a billboard while you're driving down the interstate.

If Anything it means we will end up with less films like Hugo and Benjamin Button, which are an anomaly in my opinion anyways.

And in general less budget for filmmakers who really are trying new and different things, or at the least will be contracted to direct those comic book movies

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

If Anything it means we will end up with less films like Hugo and Benjamin Button, which are an anomaly in my opinion anyways.

I am already pro-comic book movies, but you are only making me more in favour of them

[WonderWeasel]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

LOL

Cut me some slack, I had just woken up. And sure, that's a lot of big budget films. But on the other hand, out of over 600 per year (and again, that's just films that are released and have any gross whatsoever in the US) it really isn't.

Look at this way: There are way more than 6 horror films released each year, but no one says, "OMG, I'm SO sick of horror movies! Why can't Hollywood make anything but horror movies!!?"

LOL sorry Aaron! You know you can't cut anybody any slack in this thread 😁

Yeah, 600 films is a lot, and the comic book movies make up a fraction of a percent of those... but how many of those 600 are going to get the same advertising and promotional budgets? Maybe 10-15? 98% of those films aren't going to get crammed down my throat the same way every one of those comic book films will.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

I am already pro-comic book movies, but you are only making me more in favour of them

LOL, ok lets add Where the Wild things Are, which was around 100 million without being an action film (my reason to choose those other 2).

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

LOL, ok lets add Where the Wild things Are, which was around 100 million without being an action film (my reason to choose those other 2).

OK, there's one I loved.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by WonderWeasel

LOL sorry Aaron! You know you can't cut anybody any slack in this thread 😁

Fair enough. But you should get someone to look at that OCD.

Yeah, 600 films is a lot, and the comic book movies make up a fraction of a percent of those... but how many of those 600 are going to get the same advertising and promotional budgets? Maybe 10-15? 98% of those films aren't going to get crammed down my throat the same way every one of those comic book films will.

Oh, absolutely: The big-budget comic book/fantasy movies (and I suppose some YA adaptations like Hunger Games) are going to dominate the advertising budget, because if they don't get monster audiences, well, the exec who green-lit is gone before the first showing. So I'm not questioning that.

But take a film like American Sniper. Budget somewhere around $50M, so still a lot, but not a lot in mega-budget movie terms. Or -- and I'm loathe to even bring this up -- 50 Shades of Grey, with an estimated budget of around $40M. Both of those films are going to bring way high profits, even once one accounts for marketing.

And heck, the budget for Blair Witch Project was something like $20,000.

But my real point is that there's nothing stopping any one of us from seeing all sorts of films each year. Right now, for instance, one of the local art house theaters in my area is showing Birdman, Red Army, and Leviathan. So, were I in the mood (and if I still saw films in theaters anymore) I could go see a pretty darn good triple feature which included a Best Picture winner, an excellent documentary, and what is supposed to be a fascinating Russian film. At another similar theater close to that one, Still Alice is playing, and in a week there a one-night only showing of She's Beautiful, a documentary about the early days of the women's movement. That showing includes a Q&A with the filmmaker.

So, I while I understand that the media landscape makes it look like there are three or four movies playing at any one time at most, anyone who wants to know better is totally capable of doing so. We get everything from crazy religious movies to comic book blockbusters to low budget horror flicks to mega-sequels to dreadful rom-coms to some amazing animated movies to all the foreign stuff that flows in, and more.

Granted, I only saw Interstellar, Hunger Games, and Gone Girl last year in the theater; so I'm not one of these people going to see these small documentaries or whatever. But I could be, is what I'm saying. So, I don't see the comic book era as being quite as bleak as some people are making it out to be.

[Feiereisel]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

No, the Rain Man reference was about how audiences have changed in general. Has nothing to do with being "art house".



Again, they may seem mainstream NOW, but at the time they were essentially indies filled with no name actors (save Marlon Brando) and made by directors who had very few credits. Do they fall under the "mainstream" ideal? Sure, because they are genre films. But again, they weren't huge spectacle Hollywood productions made with famous movie stars (again, with the exception of Brando). In fact, the Godfather was thought to be strictly a B picture, and Paramount had no faith that it would even be any good.

Perhaps they were the wrong films to use as examples, but I still stand by my comments. Compared to the other films being produced in that era, both were outside the norm, used no-name actors and directors, and exhibited styles that were far from common. For that, I call them a type of art house films. By comparison, a film like Airport - with a $10 mil budget and list of stars - was more along the lines of a "Hollywood" production.

But it's really just semantics, agree or disagree.

Film releasing strategies--the industry--have also significantly changed. Jaws as the first wide-release blockbuster, etc.

Regardless, I can't get my head around Waterfront, Connection, and Godfather as non-mainstream pictures. Ahead of their time? Avant-garde? Underserved by suits who lacked artistic vision? Sure, that I buy. But they're unequivocally studio productions, (and all Best Picture winners) if not studio tentpoles. One could maybe conceive of them as "art-house" movies in the post-Jaws blockbuster epoch. I get the sense that prior to that, foreign films (akin to the Kiarostami movies that seeded this discussion) were what were considered "art house" fare.

And certainly the home video availability of the subsequent decades, the independent cinema boom, as well as the democratization of the art form through cheaper software and equipment has also changed the "art house" definition as well...hence the point I was trying to raise about how "art house cinema" is something of a moving target.

So, rather than lament attention spans, the devil internet, our cinephile island sinking into the sea or whatever pessimistic hyperbole we want to invoke today--let's take solace in the fact that this stuff is available. I can screen Kiarostami films for friends in my living room now and potentially make new fans. It's possible that people just don't know what they're missing because they're not embedded like we are.

Right?

Anyway, Certified Copy and Close-Up are mad great. I think that's all I really wanted to say.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by RojD

Lots of Kore-eda's work touches me, and this is an especially effective film. Good news is that I Wish and Like Father, Like Son aren't out in Region 1 blu, nor is Nobody Knows. So since Still Walking is already a Crit title, I've been hoping for one of those dual-release-by-the-same-director months with Kore-eda. I wish.....

I Wish is out on Region A Blu-ray. I should know, seeing as how I own it.

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I hate to do this again after saying I didn't like Certified Copy, but I also did not like Still Walking. I'm very surprised, as it's the type of film I usually really like (I love Ozu for instance).

Go home, you're drunk.

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

I haven't seen it, but there's one keyword in the IMDB list that I always wonder if it is accurate, or someone's idea of a joke:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1087578/...ef_=tt_stry_kw

lol oh man. No, that word is not relevant. Someone is playing a dirty joke.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

But they have changed, especially since the advent of the Internet and video games. It's a instant gratification society now, and some have lost the attention span for anything thats not constantly moving. Just look at the top films now as opposed to years ago. On Golden Pond or Rain Man wouldn't even get made today, much less be gigantic mainstream hits. Rain Man made, adjusted, what The Dark Knight made, and it was a simple road movie, but back then movie stars could sell a film. That's not really the case anymore.

Thanks, Bates_Motel, for "getting it".

People can be ignorant and say, "oh absolutely nothing has changed in film audiences in the last 20 or 30 years, or hell, 70 years, so what's your point?".

Well, there is a point here. People have changed. For example, Zen Buddhism posits that change is permanent and our only choice is to accept the moment or become just another tragedy trying to force our way uphill. Sure, I ought not need to quote things related to Zen, but if I can say that I've seen a "trend" or dare I say a "change" in the culture of moviegoing audiences in the last 20 or 30 years, its not some sort of fantasy or delusion I've created in my mind. ADHD, okay, as a mental disorder is far more prevalent in mainstream culture these days than it was way back in the 20th century when cinema was pretty different. Okay, folks, you probably think I sound like good ol' Jeffrey Goines the nutcase from 12 Monkeys again, but I rest my case.

Originally Posted by WonderWeasel

40 divided by 6 is 6.66, not 3.6. 6.66 big budget, heavily-advertised films per year seems like a lot to me.

Yikes. 6.66...looks like the mark of the beast to me. Maybe these big action comic book hero movies are demonic or Satanic in nature? Hmmmmmm. Okay, yup, there I go again...crazy me.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

lol oh man. No, that word is not relevant. Someone is playing a dirty joke.

I assumed so! (It's been there quite some time too. At least a couple of years)

Well folks, let's all start voting it not relevant.

[oildude]

Originally Posted by kataxu36

Anyone have any thoughts on the movie Still Walking?

I cannot recommend Still Walking highly enough. I bought it over three years go as a blind buy. The only reason I bought it at the time was because I had a gift card and this was the only Criterion available in-store at Borders that I did not already own. From reading the description on the back, it sounded like a slow-paced talkie film that I would have to be in a certain mood to watch. I had my doubts about it but bought it anyway.

Was I ever wrong. The story centers around an extended Japanese family's annual gathering on the anniversary of the oldest son's death. The acting, dialogue, and family dynamic are superb. The whole film has an intimacy to it that is very real and touches all the right emotional chords of family life - joyous and talkative, sometimes irritable, sometimes sad and contemplative, often touchingly humorous, and ultimately redemptive. I especially liked how the director frequently used the camera to show detail and mood.

In my opinion, the film is brilliant. The director, Koreeda, takes a low-key approach to a slice of everyday life, showing us the gathering of the family, their interactions over several meals, interpersonal tensions, quiet demons, and conflicts involving modern vs. traditional cultural themes, and makes such a totally compelling and identifiable story that it easily resonates with a non-Japanese audience.

An outstanding film. It is one of my absolute favorites in the Criterion Collection. This is the film that impressed me so much it pushed me to journey deeper into the wonderful world of Japanese cinema. I think it is pretty awesome when a movie can take you in new directions.

[oildude]

Originally Posted by WonderWeasel

40 divided by 6 is 6.66, not 3.6. 6.66 big budget, heavily-advertised films per year seems like a lot to me.

6.66 superhero movies per year....further proof of my theory that this is the devil's work.