The Criterion Collection

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Whats wrong with a film being over dramatic and unrealistic? Sometimes its nice for a film to focus on the extremes rather than get it as close to realism as possible...





I swear you post this about every topic around a film discussion... even when there aren't even spoilers lol

Wheres the limit though, surely there are film in collection you haven't seen that get spoiled unintentionally on a regular basis... we can't have thread FULL of spoiler tags lol

Most people BOLD film titles, so if you see a film you haven't seen bolded, just ignore the post...?

He has a valid point about the discussions in this thread. They generally meander into films that have nothing to do with Criterion and will never be released by Criterion (aka, Whiplash). Those discussions are supposed to be in their designated threads, or at least that is supposed to be the idea, no?
I used to post regularly in this thread, when we actually discussed the films in the collection or films/directors that related to it. There were tangents very often and usually Beta (moderator) tried to keep things at an even keel, but now it is at the point where this thread has been more about every film that has nothing to do with Criterion, than the films itself. Almost feels like people post 10-20 times a day in this thread out of boredom, instead of posting to enrich a discussion or bring new information to others about Criterion (which is why I still visit the thread). I am not picking on you Polaroid, as I have read some helpful posts from you regarding Criterion and its related material. This is just my 2 cents and you can spend it as you like, but I guarantee you he is not the only one with a valid beef about this thread....

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

It only bugs me in Whiplash's case because it's a case of something i care about being used as the backdrop in a completely dishonest manner and the fact most people have taken it to be realistic since they don't know anything about the subject to begin with. It wouldn't bug me if like...there were tons of jazz movies that mostly treated it seriously and thus it wouldn't be taken as gospel. For a completely ridiculous comparison, imagine if almost no one had heard of the holocaust (ex The Pianist, Schindler's List, etc had never been made), and then a big budget remake of "Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS" was getting tons of oscar nominations and was most people's only exposure to the holocaust and they thought it was realistic.

I always preface this with saying the vast majority of people who don't know much about jazz music are not going to be bothered by this, but it's really obnoxious to many people who do care about it. And obviously Whiplash is in no way anywhere close to as offensive on any level as Ilsa.

But couldn't you say the same for films like The Wrestler, Black Swan, The Red Shoes? etc

I haven't seen the film so judging on short and trailers, but tbh I am sure you get some people who are obsessive over certain things and will do anything to be the best at the role?

Its hard to comment as not seen :P I do get your points though

Originally Posted by jcs913

He has a valid point about the discussions in this thread. They generally meander into films that have nothing to do with Criterion and will never be released by Criterion (aka, Whiplash). Those discussions are supposed to be in their designated threads, or at least that is supposed to be the idea, no?
I used to post regularly in this thread, when we actually discussed the films in the collection or films/directors that related to it. There were tangents very often and usually Beta (moderator) tried to keep things at an even keel, but now it is at the point where this thread has been more about every film that has nothing to do with Criterion than the films itself. Almost feels like people post 10-20 times a day in this thread out of boredom, instead of posting to enrich a discussion or bring new information to others about Criterion. I am not picking on you Polaroid, as I have read some helpful posts from you regarding Criterion and its related material. This is just my 2 cents and you can spend it as you like, but I guarantee you he is not the only one with a valid beef about this thread....

There is no real rule saying we HAVE to stick to Criterion discussions, plus how far can you go with topics, like whats the limit?

A lot of the 'Off topic' does relate to Criterion in some form or another, directors, actors, similar stories, films you want to see get upgrade, supplements, quality discussions etc etc

You cant just stick to 'CRITERIONS ONLY' and expect to stay in that subject, we ar all film fans and it does steer off, people like hearing of other films that are similar to ones in collection, or film they think would make a nice addition to collection etc.

You'll find most off topics do relate to this thread though - so you can't really complain

I mean, couldn't your thread count as not Criterion related....? also some people only use this thread or a couple others (like me), plus there is a group of people here who are nice to talk to about this stuff, when you go to a new thread it tends to be new people and you don't have that click.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

I've never had a movie ruined for me by a "spoiler," it seems to be some kind of slightly annoying thing that's really been built up by the internet the last few years into something that is a lot worse than it is. For example, I loved the crying game even knowing the "spoiler," I can't think of any movies where knowing the plot beforehand actually makes them less enjoyable besides maybe things like those old creaky Hammer thrillers from the 60s where there was no substance other than insane plot developments that came out of nowhere. I can't recall anyone who flipped out about Terminator 2 being ruined by

[Show spoiler]the revelation that Arnie was a good guy

even though the movie clearly was trying to set that up as a surprise, even though I think 98% of the people that saw it knew that going in.

But yeah, I "spoilered" my extremely oblique reference to the end of Whiplash just in case having a vague idea of what the ending might be would make the entire movie worthless to you :P

I think you're getting hung up on the term spoiler. The point isn't to hide things that you personally would think would spoil a film for yourself (especially considering you have just explained that you personally have never had a film spoiled for you), it's about respecting the fact that people shouldn't have to come in here expecting discussion about one topic (The Criterion Collection) and instead stumble across a topic they are purposely trying to avoid. For you even unexpected plot details may not spoil a film. Others of us do not like to even read other's opinions or impressions of a film before seeing themselves. It's about being respectful to others.

As for Poloroid's question about films in the collection, that's a different matter. It would be unreasonable for someone reading the Criterion Collection forum to not expect discussions of the films in the collection. You would still hope people would be careful with important plot details, but If one wanted to avoid those discussions altogether they should avoid this thread, much like I described avoiding the Whiplash thread.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

I think you're getting hung up on the term spoiler. The point isn't to hide things that you personally would think would spoil a film for yourself (especially considering you have just explained that you personally have never had a film spoiled for you), it's about respecting the fact that people shouldn't have to come in here expecting discussion about one topic (The Criterion Collection) and instead stumble across a topic they are purposely trying to avoid. For you even unexpected plot details may not spoil a film. Others of us do not like to even read other's opinions or impressions of a film before seeing themselves. It's about being respectful to others.

As for Poloroid's question about films in the collection, that's a different matter. It would be unreasonable for someone reading the Criterion Collection forum to not expect discussions of the films in the collection. You would still hope people would be careful with important plot details, but If one wanted to avoid those discussions altogether they should avoid this thread, much like I described avoiding the Whiplash thread.

But as I said before, a lot of people BOLD the film title so it stands out and you can choose to ignore it... You don't HAVE to read every post, you do have that choice to ignore it...

[cakefactory]

Fair enough, I just respond to discussions I see starting if I have any input. I try to avoid STARTING the OT-ness. :P

And yes, Black Swan and The Red Shoes are great examples of things that are VERY similar to Whiplash in their depiction of a subject that few people know anything about. I would not be at all surprised if ballet aficionados were offended by them the same way I'm offended by Whiplash. I liked both of them very much, and I know absolutely nothing about ballet.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

But as I said before, a lot of people BOLD the film title so it stands out and you can choose to ignore it... You don't HAVE to read every post, you do have that choice to ignore it...

Is spoilering that much more work than bolding?

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

There is no real rule saying we HAVE to stick to Criterion discussions, plus how far can you go with topics, like whats the limit?

A lot of the 'Off topic' does relate to Criterion in some form or another, directors, actors, similar stories, films you want to see get upgrade, supplements, quality discussions etc etc

You cant just stick to 'CRITERIONS ONLY' and expect to stay in that subject, we ar all film fans and it does steer off, people like hearing of other films that are similar to ones in collection, or film they think would make a nice addition to collection etc.

You'll find most off topics do relate to this thread though - so you can't really complain

I mean, couldn't your thread count as not Criterion related....? also some people only use this thread or a couple others (like me), plus there is a group of people here who are nice to talk to about this stuff, when you go to a new thread it tends to be new people and you don't have that click.

Polaroid, you can and discuss whatever you like, as no one is apparently limiting discussions in this thread, as the mods are supposed to be doing. The idea of having other threads, as this is a large website with a lot of topics presented, is to discuss those topics in the appropriate thread. That is sort of the idea, as we could obviously talk about Disney films right now if we wanted to, but out of respect for the site, we are supposed to be topic related. I think it's safe to say, and seems proven by your posts, that you use this thread as a meeting area, which I understand. But you need to understand that others visit this thread to read about Criterion related material. When they have to sift through pages of non-related material to get some information, it's counter-productive, and frankly annoying. I think that is why shaded mentioned something. Again, I am backing him up, as this thread goes all over the place frequently now and the mods now just let everyone run with it, which is fine. They run the site and people will continue to ramble non-related material in all the other threads too. As I stated, don't be offended, as you are not the only one. I am just spending another 2 cents reiterating my point...

[Freeza]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I swear you post this about every topic around a film discussion... even when there aren't even spoilers lol

Wheres the limit though, surely there are film in collection you haven't seen that get spoiled unintentionally on a regular basis... we can't have thread FULL of spoiler tags lol

Most people BOLD film titles, so if you see a film you haven't seen bolded, just ignore the post...?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if not, he's referring to films not in the collection. If someone goes into a thread about Criterion titles, then that's on them if a Criterion is discussed in ways they'd rather not know, but when discussion appears randomly about films outside of that (or the tread topic, whichever the case may be), it is unexpected and therefore can blindside the reader, sometimes causing them to see something they may not have wanted to. And since tastes and opinions vary, just because one poster isn't affected by spoilers, that doesn't mean others won't be.

So the spoiler tags he's asking for are not for films in the collection, just those outside.

IMO, and this doesn't refer to just this thread alone, nor even this forum, but regular posters tend to form a camaraderie which allows for the discussions to drift into more of a casual banter about common interests (in this case, films and media). When this happens topics get stretched, and stretched too far they can lose their appeal to those not in the inner circle if you will.

Sorry if these points were overly obvious.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Is spoilering that much more work than bolding?

Yeah but then the entire thread will be filled with spider tags and just be very boring to read through and annoying having to click them.

Plus people spoiler images/videos so its not spammy - how can you tell difference when everything will be spoilered :P (I know not every post will be but just saying :P)

Also I have seen people post stuff that contains NO spoilers and people get pretty mad and its a bit unfair on poster who is just sharing stuff... people do take things to the extreme lol (me included)

Some people just don't realise they are putting spoilers or stuff people don't want to see, you can't force everyone to change how they see things - I mean I will happily spoil obvious stuff, but its not always needed and stuff, and it makes the person posting feel bad when you make a comment about them 'ruining' a film....

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Whats wrong with a film being over dramatic and unrealistic? Sometimes its nice for a film to focus on the extremes rather than get it as close to realism as possible...

Depends on the subject matter. For something fantastical, sure. Seeing John McClane fall 4 stories and get up running takes you out of the movie, because it's unrealistic. Seeing Captain America do it is fine, because the world the filmmaker set up is fantastical. If its a "real life" setting, with no magic or super powers, then IMO it should stick to that; otherwise, set up the world differently.

Obviously, there are probably exceptions that work, and no rule should be taken as law in every case.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Depends on the subject matter. For something fantastical, sure. Seeing John McClane fall 4 stories and get up running takes you out of the movie, because it's unrealistic. Seeing Captain America do it is fine, because the world the filmmaker set up is fantastical. If its a "real life" setting, with no magic or super powers, then IMO it should stick to that; otherwise, set up the world differently.

But where does it stop? What about films like Black Swan? and Birdman?

I get your point but sometimes it does work

EDIT

Oops missed your last line :P!

But yeah, I do hate when a serious film doesn't follow realism (to an extent) but sometimes it works quite well, and from what I have seen it doesn't look that bad in Whiplash, I mean I haven't seen the film in full so can't truly judge :P

But then again I love film that go to the extreme, like films by Hanake and Lars Von Trier

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by Freeza

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if not, he's referring to films not in the collection. If someone goes into a thread about Criterion titles, then that's on them if a Criterion is discussed in ways they'd rather not know, but when discussion appears randomly about films outside of that (or the tread topic, whichever the case may be), it is unexpected and therefore can blindside the reader, sometimes causing them to see something they may not have wanted to. And since tastes and opinions vary, just because one poster isn't affected by spoilers, that doesn't mean others won't be.

So the spoiler tags he's asking for are not for films in the collection, just those outside.

IMO, and this doesn't refer to just this thread alone, nor even this forum, but regular posters tend to form a camaraderie which allows for the discussions to drift into more of a casual banter about common interests (in this case, films and media). When this happens topics get stretched, and stretched too far they can lose their appeal to those not in the inner circle if you will.

Sorry if these points were overly obvious.

The bold is fine and it is not only exclusive in this thread, but frankly, that is what the mods are supposed to be monitoring and that is not happening. OT is one thing and fine for a few posts, as we are humans and feel we need to talk about everything when others are listening. But pages of OT posts is ridiculous and as I stated, counter-productive to people visiting the site/threads for real information. Doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by jcs913

The bold is fine and it is not only exclusive in this thread, but frankly, that is what the mods are supposed to be monitoring and that is not happening. OT is one thing and fine for a few posts, as we are humans and feel we need to talk about everything when others are listening. But pages of OT posts is ridiculous and as I stated, counter-productive to people visiting the site/threads for real information. Doesn't seem like a reasonable request.

But you can choose to ignore them - some of those OT posts have a few people involved, just because you don't like it or are not involved you can't say its ridiculous.

I see load of posts that are pointless or off topic that I just ignore, because they don't involve me, its simple to skim past them lol and tbh it better than having a stagnant thread.

[The Great Owl]

I just bought Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence from Barnes and Noble for $10, because of a 20% off coupon and a $20 gift card.

I was compelled to buy this title at long last, because it is discussed in Nicholas Pegg's book, The Complete David Bowie, that I've been reading as I've been going through all of Bowie's albums in my collection and rediscovering them again for the first time in a few years.

This looks like a solid excellent war film, and I'm glad that I have it now.

[oildude]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I just bought Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence from Barnes and Noble for $10, because of a 20% off coupon and a $20 gift card.

I was compelled to buy this title at long last, because it is discussed in Nicholas Pegg's book, The Complete David Bowie, that I've been reading as I've been going through all of Bowie's albums in my collection and rediscovering them again for the first time in a few years.

This looks like a solid excellent war film, and I'm glad that I have it now.

Have you seen it before? Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence was my first Criterion Blu-ray in 2010. I bought it because I had rented it years before on VHS and found it to be an exceptional film that stuck with me. Fast forward nearly five years and now I have shelves full of Criterion titles. The beginning of my addiction.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by oildude

Have you seen it before? Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence was my first Criterion blu-ray. I bought it because I had rented it years before on VHS and found it to be an exceptional film that stuck with me. Fast forward five years and now I have shelves full of Criterion titles. The beginning of my addiction.

Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence is a blind buy for me, as I've been buying and watching some of Bowie's standout movie appearances. He's a much better actor than a lot of musicians-turned-actors.
(...and yes, I totally revisited Labyrinth a couple of weeks ago and turned the volume up during "Magic Dance.")

After reading your post, though, I'll havè to fast-track it to the top of my unwatched stack.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

But you can choose to ignore them - some of those OT posts have a few people involved, just because you don't like it or are not involved you can't say its ridiculous.

I see load of posts that are pointless or off topic that I just ignore, because they don't involve me, its simple to skim past them lol and tbh it better than having a stagnant thread.

I think you are simply missing the point. The idea of a topic related thread is to gain information about THAT topic. You have to actually read the words to see if it is the information you may be looking for, no? That sort of throws out the idea of ignoring, as you are still wasting your time reading it, no? As for thinking this becomes a 'stagnant thread'?? This thread is far from that, as I think it has the most posts on the entire site. Camaraderie is a nice thing, but I think I have stated before, is fine for a few posts and not pages. I hope you get what I am saying, as ironically, we have wasted a page on this discussion. But IMO, it needed to be brought up in this thread.

Now back to the fact that the jerks at Criterion never had a flash sale...

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I just bought Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence from Barnes and Noble for $10, because of a 20% off coupon and a $20 gift card.

I was compelled to buy this title at long last, because it is discussed in Nicholas Pegg's book, The Complete David Bowie, that I've been reading as I've been going through all of Bowie's albums in my collection and rediscovering them again for the first time in a few years.

This looks like a solid excellent war film, and I'm glad that I have it now.

The film is worth seeing for Bowie's stellar performance, in my opinion.

[pedromvu]

Everyone has their own idea of what this thread should be, i mean there is always someone complaining of what the other posts are talking about even if they talk about the Criterion flash sale which i believe is Criterion related topic , i think the debates start because everyone wants to have the final word as if that mean something, i guess for some it means they won the discussion.

I mean sometimes i see people talking about music and i am not mad about it, i just skip most of those comments unless i see a title in bold that i have any interest in.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Marlow27

I've always been super intrigued by Robinson Crusoe on Mars, and it's inclusion in the collection. Not in a snobby sort of way, more in a general "it's not the sort of film that you'd usually find in the collection" sort of way, and I'm intrigued by it. The screenshots are beautiful and I've heard good things, but I was curious to hear other people's thoughts on it?

The reason given for why this film is in the Collection is because one of the Criterion higher-ups considers it one of his favorite films, and fought to convince Paramount (who at the time normally didn't license things out to other labels) to let Criterion release it on laserdisc (and later DVD and Blu-ray).

The movie is a rather silly bit of skiffy fluff that is more enjoyable than it has a right to be. It also has one of the best cast credits you'll ever find in a movie.