What?!? Criterion is releasing Benjamin Button?!?

Message

Gregory · #101 Post by **Gregory** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:59 am

This will help Criterion a great deal financially, which is cause for celebration. But it will also surely take up a huge amount of the staff's time and effort. I wouldn't be surprised if this has something to do with why the release schedule has been a little light recently. But I think future dividends will be worth it.
I'm ignoring the question of the film's value because it's been discussed numerous times in the past to no real avail, and also because while others see the Criterion brand per se as a mark of quality on the films themselves I don't see any compelling reason to do so. Their definitions of great and important are different from mine, as Matt pointed out.

Cabiria21 · #102 Post by **Cabiria21** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:01 am

This announcement has got to be an April Fool's joke in the making. [-o<

JAP · #103 Post by **JAP** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:06 am

From The Criterion Collection FAQ:

3. How does Criterion decide which films receive the “Criterion treatment”?

We aim to reflect the breadth of filmed expression. We try not to be restrictive or snobby about what kinds of films are appropriate. An auteur classic, a Hollywood blockbuster or an independent B horror film has to be taken on its own terms. All we ask is that each film in the collection be an exemplary film of its kind. Of course we can’t just pick movies and put them out. The process of getting the rights to release a film can take years. Even if we want a film, we can’t work on it unless the film’s owners grant us the rights.

Question, questions... Is this announcement 100% reliable? Could it be a hoax? Why #476? What's in it for Paramount? After all they produced on their own a superlative 2-disc Director's Cut DVD/BR of Zodiac. Is Warner going to handle video release(s) outside North America? What kind of content is going to/could be ported to those editions? And aren't the vast majority (all?) of the Blu-Rays from Warner and Paramount region free?

For the record, I've been watching theatrically Fincher's movies since 1993, own them all and think he's probably one of the greatest "smugglers" that ever worked in Hollywood. (Please refrain from throwing blunt objects. Thank you...

)

manicsounds · #104 Post by **manicsounds** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:24 am

I've never seen so much threadcrapping for a single Criterion treatment...

ianungstad · #105 Post by **ianungstad** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:17 am

Fincher's next two projects are also with Paramount...so it's possible Criterion will be involved with them as well. Black Hole actually looks quite interesting, so here's hoping.

As for Benjamin Button, considering the extensive "making of" featurette on the Criterion, it seems that this deal was probably negotiated before shooting even began on Button. (much like Life Aquatic, The Rock) If so, it's unfair to pan Criterion for releasing a film that many on the board felt was subpar. It's a gamble that comes with any company releasing a first-run title.

Remembering that quote Austinfilms got from Linklater in the WB thread, I hate to see the reaction on the forum when that Newton Boys dvd hits. Hah.

dx23 · #106 Post by **dx23** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:41 am

God, for a moment thought I stepped in dot com. I suggest moving all this bickering of the movie's worthiness to the Infighting and Navel Gazing forum and keep here actual discussion from the movie. Maybe even merge the New films thread discussion with what little film discussion has taken place here.

#107 Post by **Jeff** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:45 am

ianungstad wrote:As for Benjamin Button, considering the extensive "making of" featurette on the Criterion, it seems that this deal was probably negotiated before shooting even began on Button.

The original story that you linked on Wednesday said that the deal was finalized over the weekend. Fincher probably had his own team working on everything from the beginning. I'm guessing that most of the supplements were produced by Fincher's own DVD producer, David Prior. If the deal was just finalized this weekend, and the disc is due on May 5th, you can bet someone outside of Criterion put most of the stuff together. It looks like Fincher and Prior are producing, Paramount is distributing, and Criterion is simply "prestiging."

It seems that Fincher just wants that Wacky C and the cache that it carries on his disc -- not necessarily the expertise of the Criterion crew. I've often wondered if this situation is what was holding up The Game. Surely the original laserdisc supplements would be included, but I imagine there would be lots of new stuff too. Fincher would likely want his Prior and his staff producing, and Criterion generally likes to use their own crew.

#108 Post by **domino harvey** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:46 am

I think the thread could do with a Contempt-style lockdown until everyone cools off, that's for sure. I think most of us weren't around for the Bay/Smith/(original) Anderson bemoaning, so everyone is trying to get in on the ground floor or something. If this were a vacation drive, this is the point where I'd be looking to Matt to turn around and threaten to turn the car around if he hears one more bitch about the film

Michael · #109 Post by **Michael** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:52 am

TCCOBB is a pile of crap, there I said it. But seriously, I still don't get it - how CC would profit greatly from this release. The Life Aquatic was released in two different editions by the same company, the CC that is. But with TCCOBB, Paramount releases it as one disc and CC releases it as a special edition, whatever. Why bother? Why not treat the film in the same way as The Life Aquatic?

If CC wants to offer more Hollywood, it'd make more sense if it revisits some great darkhorses, like Moonstruck and Raging Bull for example, which are and will always be enduring classics, that's a smart way to make money and still keep CC's integrity.

kaujot · #110 Post by **kaujot** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:12 am

Yes, Fincher's film is so below Armageddon.

ianungstad · #111 Post by **ianungstad** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:23 am

If I had to guess; Criterion is either only getting a very small percentage of each DVD sale, which for a title that I wouldn't be surprised ships a half million copies in it's first week of release, is still quite a chunk of change. In the first few weeks, it's quite possible Benjamin Button will gross more for Criterion than many titles in the collection ever will during their entire shelf life.

If they are not getting a percentage of profits, I would strongly guess that they took a small upfront fee along with a second batch of Paramount catalog titles, which could prove just as profitable overall. I actually hope something like this happened...as I still have hope that Criterion somehow manages to wrestle away Looking For Mr.Goodbar, Don't Look Now and Harold and Maude.

Michael · #112 Post by **Michael** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:41 pm

Something's been nagging me all morning. Am I being a snob for bitching about CC's inclusion of TCCOBB? TCCOBB is just a movie and CC is just a business producing and releaseing DVDs, like the rest. I mean there are people who think TCCOBB is high art and dimisses Grey Gardens (one of my favorite Criterions). So who are we to judge what's high art and important or not? A friend of mine who teaches film history/appreciation claims that Michael Bay's The Island is one of the greatest films ever, so go figure.

mteller · #113 Post by **mteller** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:04 pm

And there are people on this very forum who actually think Sam Fuller is a good director.

Donald Brown · #114 Post by **Donald Brown** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:07 pm

It's not all relative, Michael. There are aesthetes, philistines, and Fincher-loving middlebrows in between. They're all entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't mean all opinions are equal. There is a point where subjectivity ends. For example, one can debate whether Renoir or Mizoguchi is better, but one can't seriously posit that Ron Howard is their equal.

Napier · #115 Post by **Napier** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:09 pm

mteller wrote:And there are people on this very forum who actually think Sam Fuller is a good director.

You my friend are ready to have venom spit in your face.

Perkins Cobb · #116 Post by **Perkins Cobb** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:27 pm

justeleblanc wrote:I guess when I said "Rivette" Criterion thought I was saying "Benjamin Button."

All is forgiven.

Yeah, hmm ... Maybe Peter Becker was like, yeah, yeah, yeah, backward in time, that's the one we want ... oh, FUCK, I thought we were getting Je t'aime, je t'aime! Sort of like Friedkin wanting Bernard Fresson for The French Connection and getting Fernando Rey because he couldn't be bothered to, y'know, look up some French guy's name?

Hey, it's my theory on the CC Benjamin Button, and I'm sticking with it.

Taketori Washizu · Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:58 pm

Fuck this movie.

Wow, Criterion. Really?

fdm · #118 Post by **fdm** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:06 pm

zedz wrote:It strikes me as incredibly bizarre that The Game, of all Fincher's films, is the one selected to beat this up. Pleasant enough with paranoia-flavoured popcorn, but it doesn't even hold up on a first viewing, let alone a second, and there's a stacked special edition already available if you're really that interested.

I've never quite understood the zeal regarding The Game either. You pretty much describe my reaction to it, but I've only viewed it once quite a while ago. Contemplating a second view at some point, but I can say the same for lots of films.

I've not seen Button yet, and look forward to a Criterion edition of it. Will I like it? Dunno, wouldn't be the first Criterion title I watched that I didn't.

And... I actually enjoyed Chasing Amy. (My first (and only so far, I think) Kevin Smith film.) So there your go. [OBTW, The Rock was entertaining enough, too. Armageddon, not so much.]

ccfixx · #119 Post by **ccfixx** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:35 pm

Michael wrote:Am I being a snob for bitching about CC's inclusion of TCCOBB?

This post isn't necessarily "on-topic," but it is in response to a comment that was on-topic.

Not to offend, or say anything bad about, anyone on these boards, but Michael brings up a good point that I can never quite get over when reading this forum or The Auteurs' forum. As someone who doesn't post and mainly comes here daily just to hopefully read something "worthwhile" and exciting about great films and companies like Criterion that put in the effort to release these films so that we have the option to enjoy them if we so desire, it's always a step backwards, I think, when everyone's lashing out over something so silly like which movies are/are not being released. <-- I think that qualifies as a run-on sentence, right?

The point is what good is it to criticize the titles Criterion chooses to release? Like Michael points out, Criterion is a business, and I'm sure there are good reasons why some films are released and others are not. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know everything about every film, nor have I had the opportunity to watch every film that I would like to see. Hell, I'm just a 31-year old guy with a Netflix queue that's never below 498 movies at a time, so it's not like I'm not trying. Reading certain posts, though, and you'd most certainly think most people on these boards do know everything about film, and in that regard, what would be in Criterion's best interest. Obviously, Criterion has a pretty good grasp on how to run a business and deliver what people want because they've managed to stay in business for 25 years now. I could only suggest to those people that aren't satisfied and do think they know everything to get their act together and start their own company like Criterion did back in 1984. Criterion has proven that it's not impossible. Other wise, in the end everyone just begins sounding like a snobby elitist.

What's even sadder, too, is when someone feels that they have to include a "defense" statement as part of their post for liking certain movies just because it doesn't "fit-in" to the elitist perception of "great" film on the forums. It happens.

And, of course, now I'll probably see a backlash of responses.

CC

#120 Post by **Matt** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:41 pm

What you say is perfectly rational, and I think everyone on this forum realizes that and agrees with you. But this is the internet. Its entire purpose is to facilitate anonymous complaints about minutiae and provide easy access to pornography. Those of us who try to get people to think before posting understand that we are trying to catch Niagara Falls in a coffee cup, but we keep doing it anyway.

knives · #121 Post by **knives** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:47 pm

If there's enough coffee cups...

Ishmael · #122 Post by **Ishmael** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:50 pm

Matt wrote:But this is the internet. Its entire purpose is to facilitate anonymous complaints about minutiae and provide easy access to pornography.

This comment needs to be preserved for posterity in one of those Great Quotes books. Bartlett's perhaps. Or maybe you can just put it in the forum header.

HerrSchreck · #123 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:10 pm

The porno thing is spot on. As well as historically irreproachable. Pornography is almost always the first and final frontier for internet and other digital technology. Servers, realtime cams, texting, hi-speed routing, etc etc, all get their baptism of hispeed technological fire in the world of internet porn. Once proven in this domain, they are deemed solid for the by-comparison relatively lazy zones of Everything Not-Porn.

Perkins Cobb · #124 Post by **Perkins Cobb** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:29 pm

Whew! My earlier comment made it into the "complaint" thread. For a minute there I thought I'd end up with a post in the actual, on-topic Benjamin Button discussion.

jsteffe · #125 Post by **jsteffe** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:34 pm

cdnchris wrote:Seriously, this before The Game!? Fuck!

(I'm a serious defender of that film by the way and other than Stalker it's the only other film I've written Criterion about.)

Agreed! The Game may be not be a perfect film, but Michael Douglas' character is far more interesting than the non-entity that is Benjamin Button. Talk about pretty but empty!

The only part of Button I liked was the brief encounter between Brad Pitt and Tilda Swinton. If I were a screenwriting professor, I would have told Fincher to trash the rest of the script and expand that one section into a feature-length film. Life in wartime Russia, expatriates, America vs. Britain, class difference, etc. That part had a lot of potential. And I would have given him a "D" for the hackneyed frame story ("Back when I was a young girl...") and its cheap exploitation of Hurricane Katrina. Really embarrassing stuff for the director of Zodiac.

OK, whatever, Criterion will make a lot of money on this release, so it will help finance some more interesting titles down the road. I won't gripe anymore about it.

Site Menu