criterionforum.org

Yawn. What's the point of arguing about whether this movie is worthy of being in the collection? On the surface, Criterion's collection development policy ostensibly seems to hinge upon "importance" -- but then the mods here keep insisting that it really is centered around whatever helps Criterion pay their employees and bring in revenue. This announcement supports their argument, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. People need to let go of their high-minded ideals of what the Criterion Collection is all about -- the for-profit company already has.

Thomas J. wrote:People need to let go of their high-minded ideals of what the Criterion Collection is all about -- the for-profit company already has.

Really?! Such hyperbole. You'd think this release were somehow unethical. I don't understand how the occasional Oscar-fodder somehow diminishes their mission statement.

Though I'm not a fan (by far Fincher's worst) I really don't mind as I see it funding discs I'm looking forward to, such as the Painleve set or the next Brakhage anthology.

GodDamnit!!! and here I was hoping for a a 3-disc SE of The Beat of a Live Drum; clearly the collection needs more Rick Springfield. Love Fincher, hate BButton; Zodiac I still think is his best film. Still, wouldn't a director's reel of his videos (ala Beastie Boys) be a better investment than the B. Belly Button? A vapid, banal, worthless exercise; I even liked Panic Room and Alien3 more as mental masturbation pieces (style for the sake of style). The Game is great for a first viewing but subsequent viewings make it plodding and pedantic. Even Seven gets most of its impact from a first viewing. Zodiac (Dir. cut) at least increases in cinematic value (for me) on multiple viewings. And c'mon, Fight Club would make a great Criterion offering; truly a one of a kind film that also increases in value with time. Ahhh, F-it, it's not like Armageddon or The Rock or Traffic or Bottle Rocket or Chasing Amy (etc., etc.) were masterpieces. At the end of the day, it's just another f'ing company trying to make money. Rose-tinted corporate hagiography gets us nowhere. Fade to black.

Not that I want to engage in this debate, or agree with Thomas J. on the record, but I'm always surprised that Criterion's status as a "for-profit" company is somehow a justification for any business decision. Now, releasing one movie vs. another may not be the same as polluting water that kids drink or wathavyu...

Flike wrote:You'd think this release were somehow unethical.

If Sontag was right, and aesthetics = ethics, then yeah, some releases are going to be more ethical than others. Is there not an ethical choice being made at the multiplex, on a purely aesthetic level (that is, ignoring the dubious financial excess of big studio product or any other possible "behind-the-scenes" ethical question)? In other words, isn't it better to see a good movie than a bad one? (Cue the response: "there's no such thing as good or bad," "that's entirely up to the viewer," etc.)

A DVD company that focused entirely on, I don't know, AICN-fodder would be, in my mind, unethical in some way. Maybe not an over-arching or all-encompassing way, but in some fashion. Just like I would prefer to work for a company that sells good shoes, or good fruit, or good insurance, rather than shit. If I work for a company that makes shit, I'm making an ethical choice to support extra shit in the world, and I become a part of the shit-machine.

Of course, all of that to say that I am in favor of Criterion releasing anything they deem worthy so long as it meets a basic standard matched by their mission statement and they can make a killer special edition. In the case of B. Button, done and done.

Flike wrote:I don't understand how the occasional Oscar-fodder somehow diminishes their mission statement.

I don't think it does. I'm questioning people who think it does. The mods keep implying that for all intents and purposes, in Criterion's eyes, an important film is one that brings in more ROI than an unimportant film. Intuition suggests that this release will bring in relatively greater ROI than normal. So it fully supports the mission.

Flike wrote:Though I'm not a fan (by far Fincher's worst) I really don't mind as I see it funding discs I'm looking forward to, such as the Painleve set or the next Brakhage anthology.

However, I also don't know why people think increased revenue will fund the more obscure releases that you're waiting for. Why do you make that assumption? The supposed increased revenue could be put towards upgrading staff computers or funding a new marketing initiative, what have you, rather than paying the licensing fees of new acquisitions.

Is there a reason why this isn't on Criterion's website yet? Kinda odd.

Worst. Thread. Ever.

Shut it down, mods.

This is the first time I'm just hearing about this. I feel a bit stupid asking but can someone link me to an article confirming this? I haven't seen the movie yet and don't want to happen upon a spoiler.

No one's discussed the movie in this thread, it's purely bitching. The link's first post, first page.

David Prior wrote:I produced, directed and designed all the supplements and the menus. Criterion's involvement came very late in the game, and is really about branding. We brought them in to help acheive a better footprint in the marketplace than we got with the Zodiac special edition.

So it looks like Jeff was right. Fincher and Prior are producing the disc themselves and the extent of Criterion's involvement with the release is offering up the logo and spine number. I just hope Criterion is getting something good out of this arrangement beyond the exposure...I still have my finger's crossed it's a second batch of Paramount titles. Or even if it was just a small fee ...it's free money essentially, as they don't seem to be incurring any costs.

ianungstad wrote:So it looks like Jeff was right. Fincher and Prior are producing the disc themselves and the extent of Criterion's involvement with the release is offering up the logo and spine number.

As I said at the start, prostituting the Criterion brand (and I don't use the word prostituting as a slight against BENJAMIN BUTTON's quality or age; I would use the same word even if we were talking about e.g. JOHNNY GUITAR in these circumstances) is something that deserves to be criticized. It sets a dangerous precedent and dilutes Criterion's value. Studios should not be able to pay Criterion to license their Wacky c -- the logo should be a sign to consumers that they're paying for a package Criterion actually worked on. The people here who think Criterion's release decisions are beyond reproach need to pause and consider how novel (and insidious) this situation is.

You realize the precedent goes back at least as far as Chasing Amy, right?

knives wrote:You realize the precedent goes back at least as far as Chasing Amy, right?

Smith or his cronies are on record as saying Criterion had nothing to do with that set? They didn't even work on the transfer? If so, no, I didn't know that. Still, a decade of Criterion not selling their logo would have made me hope the practice was long behind them. Indeed, their seeming rejection of Smith asking them to release his new bonus CHASING AMY disc felt like a good sign. (For the record, I am not insulting CHASING AMY. My point is about Criterion's involvement, not the films.)

As for any attempts to justify (at worst) or excuse (at best) that this type of release by suggesting it will increase the likelihood of other, less-profitable, more "arty" films from the label -- I ask, where is the proof of that? Where are the examples of such previous efforts? Have Criterion flatly stated that this (or any previous) "commercial" releases were done for such purpose? We have as much evidence of that as we do of any other business arrangements made by the company: none at all.

It's safe to assume that not all their titles sell equally well and that it's not things like Painlevé that do the most to keep them in business; it's Fear and Loathing and the Anderson titles.

I essentially agree with Jared's criticism and suspected earlier that this was basically a "phony Criterion" but it wasn't confirmed for me how little they had to do with producing the disc until that Prior quote. Nevertheless, if it yields dividends down the line, I'm still for it. It's up to Criterion what they do with their brand, and I don't think something like this will be their downfall.

I'm actually surprised so many people here are even minimally invested in Criterion maintaining some sort of "integrity" with regards to the films they release. I'm completely disinterested in CC as anything other than a company that often releases DVDs which I am interested in purchasing. Sizing up the total scope of their catalog with regards to how well it corresponds to their mission statement holds no attraction for me. This is nothing more than a DVD I won't be buying, something which Criterion usually releases multiple of every month.

jaredsap wrote:Smith or his cronies are on record as saying Criterion had nothing to do with that set? They didn't even work on the transfer?

Criterion actually did the supplements for Chasing Amy, and did the transfer for the laserdisc, though I'm not sure about the transfer on the DVD.

Binker wrote:I'm actually surprised so many people here are even minimally invested in Criterion maintaining some sort of "integrity" with regards to the films they release. I'm completely disinterested in CC as anything other than a company that often releases DVDs which I am interested in purchasing. Sizing up the total scope of their catalog with regards to how well it corresponds to their mission statement holds no attraction for me. This is nothing more than a DVD I won't be buying, something which Criterion usually releases multiple of every month.

Would you care if Criterion vanished?

The brand represents the people that care about great or neglected films being given very high quality restorations and releases. It would be a shame to lose that.

Yeah, we're really heading down that road.

Well, obviously we aren't. But my point is that there's a reason people grow attached to the brand and care about things like 'integrity'.

cdnchris wrote:

jaredsap wrote:Smith or his cronies are on record as saying Criterion had nothing to do with that set? They didn't even work on the transfer?

Criterion actually did the supplements for Chasing Amy, and did the transfer for the laserdisc, though I'm not sure about the transfer on the DVD.

So can you or a Criterion expert like Jeff confirm that I am correct this BENJAMIN BUTTON "branding"* deal represents a precedent for the company?

*In the words of David Prior himself.

Jaredsap, can you just assume that we all think you are right about everything so you can knock off the attitude already?

Cde. wrote:Well, obviously we aren't. But my point is that there's a reason people grow attached to the brand and care about things like 'integrity'.

Yes, there's a reason, but I don't believe it has anything to do with distress over the idea that Criterion might suddenly stop releasing "great and neglected films" in favor of mainstream ones.

domino harvey wrote:Jaredsap, can you just assume that we all think you are right about everything so you can knock off the attitude already?

What attitude? I think what's happened with BUTTON -- as confirmed by David Prior -- is a unique situation for Criterion and it bears discussion. No one is asking you to enter this thread. If you think I've been disrespectful to someone, bring it to my attention and I'll apologize.

To be clear, I'm only speaking for myself, and I certainly hold nothing against those that have become attached to the CC and are invested in the integrity of the catalog. It just isn't my relationship with the brand.