Twilight Time Discussion Thread

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by RickDee

No that's not the question. The question should be do they ever release more than one good one to every 10 ho hum forgettable films from back in the day?

I'd say that Twilight Time's ratio of memorable to forgettable.movies is much higher than your ratio of productive to unproductive comments. If you have such disdain for Twilight Time, why don't you go troll somewhere else?

p.s. I hate your avatar.

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by belcherman

I'd say that Twilight Time's ratio of memorable to forgettable.movies is much higher than your ratio of productive to unproductive comments. If you have such disdain for Twilight Time, why don't you go troll somewhere else?

p.s. I hate your avatar.

I agree, I don't understand why some people hang around, if all they are going to do is complain about not liking a label, they add nothing to the conversation.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Does TT ever do movies anyone has heard of?

You own two of them, and already added a rumored one to your collection (Panic Room)

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

lovely cover!

Agreed, it's one of their best in a while. I'm looking forward to Singing and Garden.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by RickDee

No that's not the question. The question should be do they ever release more than one good one to every 10 ho hum forgettable films from back in the day?

Considering you no longer purchase Twilight Time titles, what the eff do you care what they release?

[Hellraiserfan]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Considering you no longer purchase Twilight Time titles, what the eff do you care what they release?

Exactly.

Keeps coming back to complain all the time.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Seven of the titles released by TT were released on DVD by Fox as part of their "Studio Classics" line. Another seven were released by Sony on DVD as part of their "Columbia Classics" line.

Seventeen of the titles released by TT were nominated for Best Picture Oscars, with three of them winning. Among those are also nine Best Director nominations (three wins), with another four of those for films that didn't get nominations for Best Picture.

Calling these (and many of the others released by TT) "niche" is absurd. Seriously, these are "niche"?...

As Good as It Gets
The Song of Bernadette
Philadelphia
Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing
Sleepless in Seattle
Oliver!
All the King's Men
Birdman of Alcatraz
Judgment at Nuremberg
Inherit the Wind
A Man for All Seasons
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Lilies of the Field

They are niche in that they are mostly non-genre catalog films (i.e., dramas and a musical). And have any of those titles sold out? If not (or mostly not), then that's also why studios dump these kinds of titles, good films or not.

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Does TT ever do movies anyone has heard of?

They have released a few obscure films, but if you haven't heard of many of their releases, then I'd say learn more about film. Most of their titles are well known, to people who know cinema, anyway.

[RickDee]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Considering you no longer purchase Twilight Time titles, what the eff do you care what they release?

Because I made an observation and gave an opinion on a topic that was presented? But I will play along with your absurdity and answer the question. I don't care what they release.

Originally Posted by Hellraiserfan

Exactly.

Keeps coming back to complain all the time.

Who was complaining? It's not limited to TT but others distributors as well. I don't want it to look like I am picking on TT as I have no problem with them. I don't think I ever said I had a problem with them, I think my observation "complaint" was directed towards the distribution.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by RickDee

Because I made an observation and gave an opinion on a topic that was presented? But I will play along with your absurdity and answer the question. I don't care what they release.

The only thing absurd was your need to make a trollish comment to a post that was clearly intended to be trollish to begin with.

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by RickDee

Because I made an observation and gave an opinion on a topic that was presented? But I will play along with your absurdity and answer the question. I don't care what they release.

Given that you clearly stated that you don't care what they release and clearly add nothing else to this thread besides your usual "Boycott SAE!" and "TT sucks!" bile-spewing, I'm actually curious to know why you even bother posting here?

And no, "because I like trolling this thread" doesn't count as an answer; that much is clearly obvious to everyone else who posts here.

[ParaOK]

So, how is Eureka? I am considering a blind buy. I can't seem to find anywhere to pay to stream it and check it out.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by ParaOK

So, how is Eureka? I am considering a blind buy. I can't seem to find anywhere to pay to stream it and check it out.

I watched it when I was on a Nicolas Roeg kick last year and thought it was a fascinating, but very odd film. That's kind of expected with Roeg. I'm not sure how much replay value it has. Its filled with the trademark Roeg visual flair and bits of surrealism and one brutally, and I mean brutally, violent scene. It kind of echoes the themes of "Citizen Kane", an incredibly wealthy man isolated at the end of his life, but with much more cruelty on hand. It is stunning visually, so I'll be interested to see how the BD looks. I'd say it's a notch below Roeg films like "Walkabout", "Don't Look Now", "Insignificance" or "Performance". I don't know if it's a film I'd blind buy. I'm on the fence myself about picking it up.

[ParaOK]

Originally Posted by mja345

I watched it when I was on a Nicolas Roeg kick last year and thought it was a fascinating, but very odd film. That's kind of expected with Roeg. I'm not sure how much replay value it has. Its filled with the trademark Roeg visual flair and bits of surrealism and one brutally, and I mean brutally, violent scene. It kind of echoes the themes of "Citizen Kane", an incredibly wealthy man isolated at the end of his life, but with much more cruelty on hand. It is stunning visually, so I'll be interested to see how the BD looks. I'd say it's a notch below Roeg films like "Walkabout", "Don't Look Now", "Insignificance" or "Performance". I don't know if it's a film I'd blind buy. I'm on the fence myself about picking it up.

Interesting. I am very hit or miss on Roeg. The main attractions for me on this one are Gene Hackman and Rutger Hauer. Also, Joe Pesci and Mickey Rourke. The trailer is very intriguing.

[solovoyager]

Originally Posted by ParaOK

So, how is Eureka? I am considering a blind buy. I can't seem to find anywhere to pay to stream it and check it out.

If you wanted to try it out on DVD and have Prime you can buy it for around $8 shipped at Amazon.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by RickDee

No that's not the question. The question should be do they ever release more than one good one to every 10 ho hum forgettable films from back in the day?

And the answer to that one is also "yes".

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

They are niche in that they are mostly non-genre catalog films (i.e., dramas and a musical). And have any of those titles sold out? If not (or mostly not), then that's also why studios dump these kinds of titles, good films or not.

Yeah, that's kinda the point. Without trying to argue the dictionary definition of "niche", that word to me doesn't apply to mainstream titles that are (or have been) popular with the general public, but to specific genres that have a more restricted fan-base. I resist the idea that an Oscar-winning film from the 50s should be considered "niche" just because many people today don't care about "old" films.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by ParaOK

So, how is Eureka? I am considering a blind buy. I can't seem to find anywhere to pay to stream it and check it out.

The first third is among the best work Roeg's done: the second two thirds are an indication of which way his career and work was heading. On one level its problem is that it's about a man whose life peaks early and the film reflects that on a first viewing because nothing is as intoxicating as the delirious scene where he discovers the gold, but on a second viewing those last two thirds work a lot better. In many ways it's the closest Roeg ever got to making a Citizen Kane: it's not on that level, but it's an intriguing study of self-destruction when a man has everything and nothing. It's the kind of film that would make a great double-bill with under the Volcano, another film that works better on a second viewing.

[AgentOrange]

Originally Posted by RickDee

No that's not the question. The question should be do they ever release more than one good one to every 10 ho hum forgettable films from back in the day?

Actually, Twilight Time has released dozens of "well known" films with major Hollywood stars and/or directors. The ratio is not even close to 1:10, even to a complete film novice. Though as someone else said, the original point was for them to release "barely known" films with a good quality presentation - sometimes these might be really great films with big stars, that for whatever reason sort of get pushed aside compared to the "classics" and the ocean of more cult-ish and horror stuff that is more popular on home video. The only disappointment that is valid, is when a "well known" film that could easily get a wide release, falls into the limited edition model and is either $29.99 or sells out. That is an issue, but it is what it is. What can be the complaint when an almost totally unknown film like Rapture is released by them, and despite it's intrigue it doesn't even sell out after 3 years?

There have been quite a few gems among the films previously unknown to me (The Egyptian, Those Magnificent Men and their Flying Machines, Rapture, Bell Book and Candle, Swamp Water, Experiment in Terror, Major Dundee, Khartoum, Fate is the Hunter, The Driver, Man Hunt, etc). I could go on with dozens that I've found to be substantially better than "ho hum forgettable", but actually films that I would rate as highly under-appreciated, and for the most part these are presented with exceptional technical quality as well (i.e. so long as they are from Fox or Sony, most of them are of pretty high standard).

I think it's fair to say that once MGM was introduced, the technical quality became far more more mixed. But I don't consider it that difficult for me to parse me which ones are worth giving a shot. I do think $19.99 is a much better price point, especially when taking a gamble on a completely unknown film.

[jacobb1313]

Originally Posted by RickDee

No that's not the question. The question should be do they ever release more than one good one to every 10 ho hum forgettable films from back in the day?

I will only say that 90% of TT's releases have merit of some kind, and forgettable is relative. I have discovered a few good to quite amazing films through their catalog, so with a promotion I always throw in a film of interest that I have never seen (Rapture, The Egyptian, Mindwarp - yes, Mindwarp, which is crazy underrated here - The Other, When the Wind Blows), hoping for a surprise. I have not yet been disappointed.

Well, the 10 to Midnight Autograph promotion is still going on, one day later. Good news for me.

Judgment at Nuremberg
A Man for All Seasons
The Little House (one of those curious blind buys from them)
Where the Sidewalk Ends

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by jshaide

Surprised the 70mm roadshow of The Hateful Eight didn't come up at all in these last few posts. Did you all get to see it?

Off topic, but given the tangent regarding The Hateful Eight and Ultra Panavision 70, I was interested to note in the IMDb listing (add salt to taste) that the forthcoming Star Wars one-off, Rogue One, is being shot in that format.