The Criterion Collection

[llj]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I swear to god, if Sixteen Candles gets released before Le Samourai I will immolate myself on the sidewalk in front of the Criterion offices in New York.

...at least I will leave this godforsaken world with my honor intact.

[Show spoiler]

I don't want a le Samourai blu-ray until they remaster the film right. The first french HD restoration was a travesty. Have they made a new one yet?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by llj

I don't want a le Samourai blu-ray until they remaster the film right. The first french HD restoration was a travesty. Have they made a new one yet?

They did fix it shortly after, but it's still bad.

[KillDaWabbit]

Could the Roman Statue be Roman Holiday since the statue is wearing a fanny pack?

[MTRodaba2468]

Originally Posted by John Klein

Considering Sixteen Candles and actually Molly Ringwald and John Hughes' 80s collaborations are considered 80s teen masterpieces and still hold a lot of love to this day, it makes a ton of sense for Criterion to want to add them to their collection.

Surprised they didn't get their hands on The Breakfast Club first though.

Universal released The Breakfast Club twice on Blu-Ray already, with the latter of those releases using a new 4K transfer. The best thing I can say about the Blu-Ray for Sixteen Candles is that it's not as bad as Weird Science's transfer. If the clue is, in fact, for Sixteen Candles, and a new transfer is given, that alone would be a good enough reason for an upgrade. Combined with what baheidstu said:

Originally Posted by baheidstu

However, Sixteen Candles is still a significant film, it was John Hughes's directorial debut and kicked off an entire cycle of teen dramadies.

It actually makes sense why they'd go for this film if they wanted a John Hughes film to release.

Originally Posted by BTSMGL

And it's a viewpoint that's been shared in various circles and publications for a while now. I mentioned it after I first saw it and a bunch of my movie geek friends chimed in with "oh yeah, you didn't know that? That movie is super weird". Thus, either Criterion didn't know of that and really wanted a Hughes flick, or they did know and figured it still wanted to put the movie out. Both options would surprise me, to be honest. I'm curious about what the reaction will be when/if they announce it. Don't be surprised if a few eyebrows are raised online. My reading of the movie isn't as uncommon as you think.

I REALLY doubt that Criterion would be unaware of the, ahem, questionable content in Sixteen Candles. It's not exactly an obscure film, nor is it one with a very niche appeal. Not to mention, those viewpoints you have have been shared and expressed by plenty of other people.

There really shouldn't be any surprise that they would elect to release it in spite of the content, either. Context is key. In this case, it was an 80's comedy, most of which had plenty of questionable, un-PC content. Hell, you brought up an example of an 80's kids film using a homophobic slur. It was the time period. Sixteen Candles isn't really more extreme than, say, Revenge of the Nerds, for example. With that said, though, the film does have merit, which is why it's stuck around as long as it has, despite its more problematic implications now being acknowledged (and not just by the fans; the people involved with the film have too). It's ultimately the same reason why films like Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are still studied in film schools, despite the messages they portray.

As far as the reaction for if/when it gets announced, I imagine the bulk of it will be what we've seen here: "Why the **** is Criterion releasing Sixteen Candles?" Not because of the content, but because it's not a film people would expect from an arthouse label, despite the fact that Criterion could never strictly be called that when you look at their overall history.

[whiteberry]

I love all the outrage over Sixteen Candles but not The Razor trilogy or any of the other Japanese exploitation movies Criterion has the rights to.

[Brad1963]

I think John Hughes made some fun films like Ferris Bueller and Planes Trains and Automobiles, and Breakfast Club is well done. But overall he was a hack. His writing got really lazy and his films are just not in the same league as his contemporaries. 16 Candles had a delightful cast but was bogged down by a terrible script. I'm not sure why Criterion would feel the need to release it other than they think it will sell many units. But even then you can fish out the Universal release out of bargain bins, John Hughes is not around anymore and I cannot imagine what supplements would make it worth an upgrade

[mja345]

Well, I don't know if it's been brought up in the last several pages, but the main character in "Revenge of the Nerds" does technically commit a rape. He makes a girl think that he's her boyfriend by wearing a costume and subsequently has sex with her. There was all kinds of shit in 70s and 80s comedies that seems strange by today's standards. As mentioned above, it's important to view those films in the context of when they were made. "Soul Man" is maybe the exception, as it's quite incredible Hollywood greenlit a film, even in 1986, featuring a guy in blackface most of the time.

An example of a scene that seems strange now, but probably no one thought about in 1979: This scene from "Meatballs", where Bill Murray "wrestles" a girl onto the couch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q85fsxWYG6A

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by whiteberry

I love all the outrage over Sixteen Candles but not The Razor trilogy or any of the other Japanese exploitation movies Criterion has the rights to.

SJWs always go after white men. No surprise there.

[MifuneFan]

Please stop with the SJW labeling bullshit

[postmodel]

Originally Posted by vader4

We have very similar taste

Just hopping onto this agreeing wholeheartedly. I would love a Gummo release and more John Waters.

Also throwing in that I'm psyched for Ghost World.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Please stop with the SJW labeling bullahit

Why, only SJWs have the right to label others who don't see rape and sexism in everything?

If you don't like what I write, exclude me from your "safe space" (i.e. add to ignore list).

[BTSMGL]

Originally Posted by Smegma

I'm not trying to pile on here, but how is this 'unfortunate'? That is accurate. That is how kids talked. Did you grow up on planet earth?

Did I say it was inaccurate or did I say it was unfortunate? As far as I know things can be both accurate and unfortunate at the same time. At least on the planet Earth I grew up in.

[Nuck Horris]

I think Criterion should do a Revenge of the Nerds 4 film box set.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

I think John Hughes made some fun films like Ferris Bueller and Planes Trains and Automobiles, and Breakfast Club is well done. But overall he was a hack. His writing got really lazy and his films are just not in the same league as his contemporaries. 16 Candles had a delightful cast but was bogged down by a terrible script. I'm not sure why Criterion would feel the need to release it other than they think it will sell many units. But even then you can fish out the Universal release out of bargain bins, John Hughes is not around anymore and I cannot imagine what supplements would make it worth an upgrade

I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but...

I watched most of Hughes's early films at the time they came out. I quite enjoyed them then, but with the exception of Ferris Bueller (which I think is an unqualified comedy classic), I haven't watched them in decades, and to be honest, I don't really feel inclined to visit them again. Mostly, that's because they represent a cultural zeitgeist that I lost interest in a long time ago. At the same time, I would have no problem with Criterion releasing Sixteen Candles, for precisely the same reason: it represents a specific cultural zeitgeist. And whatever one might think about Hughes as a filmmaker, he is a filmmaker of note from that period.

As for the issue(s) that have sparked this debate, I can say that even while I liked it overall at the time, I did feel uncomfortable back then about the character of Long Duk Dong. At the same time, I never felt like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are a number of films that have elements that I'm uncomfortable with while still praising them as an overall work.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Why, only SJWs have the right to label others who don't see rape and sexism in everything?

If you don't like what I write, exclude me from your "safe space" (i.e. add to ignore list).

If you don't like what others write, actually engage in some debate and counter those points with your own. Dismissing someone as a SJW is the coward's way out. Maybe you're the one that needs the safe space?

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by whiteberry

I love all the outrage over Sixteen Candles but not The Razor trilogy or any of the other Japanese exploitation movies Criterion has the rights to.

Has it occurred to you that the people "outraged" by Sixteen Candles might not be familiar enough with these "Japanese exploitation movies" to know whether they should be outraged by them?

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Why, only SJWs have the right to label others who don't see rape and sexism in everything?

If you don't like what I write, exclude me from your "safe space" (i.e. add to ignore list).

I don't see anyone "labeling others who don't see rape and sexism in everything". The people you seem to be calling SJWs here are talking about the films, not the people who may or may not be bothered by specific elements in the films.

This topic started because someone posted what he felt about Sixteen Candles. And he defended his opinions on the film. What he did not do was dismiss people who didn't feel the same by slapping a snarky label on them as a way of invalidating their opinions.

[MTRodaba2468]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

I think John Hughes made some fun films like Ferris Bueller and Planes Trains and Automobiles, and Breakfast Club is well done. But overall he was a hack. His writing got really lazy and his films are just not in the same league as his contemporaries. 16 Candles had a delightful cast but was bogged down by a terrible script. I'm not sure why Criterion would feel the need to release it other than they think it will sell many units. But even then you can fish out the Universal release out of bargain bins, John Hughes is not around anymore and I cannot imagine what supplements would make it worth an upgrade

I'll agree with you that after Home Alone, John Hughes got lazy with his writing. His 80's work, in my view and in plenty of other people's, still holds up. As far as why Criterion would consider releasing it (again, this assumes that it's not a clue for something else), there's a number of reasons. Financially, it'll likely sell a decent amount of copies. For a business, that's priority one. Outside of economic reasons, it's the debut film of a notable filmmaker, whose work is still influential to films today.

Yes, you can still find the current release fairly cheap. With that said, it's not like Criterion has shyed away from tackling those titles. All one has to do is look at Boyhood, Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas, Brazil, Traffic, Inside Llwelyn Davis, Dazed And Confused, or almost any Wes Anderson film after The Life Aquatic, for example. Plus, Sixteen Candles is an older Universal catalog release, with all the traits of those releases. If it were to get a a new transfer, that alone would be worth an upgrade.

[Smegma]

Originally Posted by BTSMGL

Did I say it was inaccurate or did I say it was unfortunate? As far as I know things can be both accurate and unfortunate at the same time. At least on the planet Earth I grew up in.

Depicting reality, as it is/was is 'unfortunate'?

Would you also say every crime, shooting, murder, assault, in every film is 'unfortunate' as well?

Is it 'unfortunate' that 'the N-word' was included by Mark Twain in 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' or by Harper Lee in 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?

I'm trying to understand here.

[Nuck Horris]

Originally Posted by Smegma

Depicting reality, as it is/was is 'unfortunate'?

It's unfortunate for BTSMGL that the entire history of the human race didn't conform to his self-created subjective moral code, that's all. He's mad and he just ain't gonna take it anymore.