criterionforum.org

Jeff wrote:

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.)

I've written to them about it too. The Game is a masterpiece -- even better than the amazing Zodiac.

Just in case you weren't aware, the R2 European DVD of The Game (available in many countries, including the UK) replicates the Criterion laserdisc frame for frame. It seems likely they'd expand the supplements for a DVD/BD edition, but until then it's all there.

jaredsap wrote:Fincher's worst film by a mile gets a spine number? You've got to be kidding me.

Totally agree. The only consolation is that hopefully this means The Game and some better titles from the Paramount catalog are on the way. I'm sure Paramount was more than happy to have another company help with the DVD release (remember, they split financing of the feature with Warner Brothers). This probably means Criterion threw some money in to help produce features on the extra disc which does make it a "big deal" because that is money that could've gone toward licensing/producing further extras for LYAM or MDWA (or insert other favorite title here).

I also hope they roped Fincher in for commentaries or intros on future discs.

On a similar note, I had a pretty vivid dream last night that MoC was releasing Slumdog Millionaire.

Paramount released a fantastic edition of Zodiac eventually, but I recall reading that Fincher was frustrated that they insisted on putting out the barebones disc first. This had to have been his idea when he found out that Paramount now has a working relationship with Criterion.

Sigh.

This...is a bad idea. Not financially, of course, but in terms of label credibility. Then again, Armageddon and Chasing Amy haven't had any real effect on how the Criterion brand is perceived. And as others have noted, that the examination of the groundbreaking visual effects behind the film could be of interest.

Hopefully the money goes to more interesting projects, and hopefully if Criterion are to release contemporary Hollywood cinema in the future they will focus on some actually great and interesting, perhaps overlooked, films.

Oh well. It's better than Michael Bay, I suppose.

Criterion should be releasing movies like Wendy and Lucy or Frozen River, and utilizing their ability to introduce important contemporary cinema to a new audience. If they're going to release films that came out in the past year, they should use their brand name for good, not evil. I'd rather see a release of My Winnipeg than this, and I HATED that film. At least it would have some precident, and fit cohesively into Criterion's mission statement. This release gets more puzzling the longer I think about it.

Cde. wrote:This...is a bad idea. Not financially, of course, but in terms of label credibility. Then again, Armageddon and Chasing Amy haven't had any real effect on how the Criterion brand is perceived. And as others have noted, that the examination of the groundbreaking visual effects behind the film could be of interest.

Hopefully the money goes to more interesting projects, and hopefully if Criterion are to release contemporary Hollywood cinema in the future they will focus on some actually great and interesting, perhaps overlooked, films.

Oh well. It's better than Michael Bay, I suppose.

I don't think Criterion loses credibility at all. Button was critically acclaimed film, nominated for many awards. Actually, I think it enhances Criterion's image a little more during the DVD era, since consumers that continuously call the company snobs will see that they are willing to release a more mainstream film that has some popular awards recognition.

To be frank, I don't think anyone would had created suck a fuzz about the worthiness of this release during the Laserdisc era. I still don't get why every time a mainstream film is released by Criterion, a lot of people complain and go up in arms about how this should stand beside Ozu, Bergman and Kurosawa films. I like the idea of Criterion releasing films like this every now and then since most likely this will make them a more financially stable company specially in the economic situation the world is in.

Come on, folks. Everyone knows that Criterion is a business and they need to pay the bills. And certain directors want their films to be in the Criterion Collection because of the cachet it affords. Both of those reasons are why Michael Bay is in there (ironically because David Fincher initially put him up to it) and why Benjamin Button is coming.

I don't expect this thread will die down until everyone has had a chance to voice their displeasure or mount a defense of the film, but can we try to stop being so predictable every single time a film made in the last ten years gets the Criterion treatment? Don't make me move all these posts to the Why Don't They Release Only What I Want thread.

Aside to mfunk: Just because Frozen River was made for 10¢ doesn't make it any less formulaic than a big Hollywood film like Benjamin Button (but we can take that to another thread).

If this fills up the coffers for criterion to do more and interesting releases I'm all for it. While most complain about the actual movie or call it a cash grab with this economy maybe they feel like this is something they need to keep things progressing at a better rate. I don't want a Bergmans Island release every month, that's for sure. Call me crazy but I didn't think the movie was horrible. Much better than Chasing Amy, Arm.., and The Rock.

Matt wrote:Everyone knows that Criterion is a business and they need to pay the bills.

They're not a charity?

Matt wrote:Frozen Rover

Matt wrote:I don't expect this thread will die down until everyone has had a chance to voice their displeasure or mount a defense of the film, but can we try to stop being so predictable every single time a film made in the last ten years gets the Criterion treatment?

I don't recall any uproar on the forum when Criterion announced BRAND UPON THE BRAIN! or REVANCHE.

As I said, the problem here is that because we know Paramount and Fincher were perfectly capable of creating this deluxe package on their own, the motives on both sides feel incredibly crass (a money-grab for Criterion and a cheap reach for prestige from Fincher). I'm not saying Criterion shouldn't have made this decision, but it certainly deserves scrutiny and criticism.

jaredsap wrote:

Matt wrote:I don't expect this thread will die down until everyone has had a chance to voice their displeasure or mount a defense of the film, but can we try to stop being so predictable every single time a film made in the last ten years gets the Criterion treatment?

I don't recall any uproar on the forum when Criterion announced BRAND UPON THE BRAIN! or REVANCHE.

As I said, the problem here is that because we know Paramount and Fincher were perfectly capable of creating this deluxe package on their own, the motives on both sides feel incredibly crass (a money-grab for Criterion and a cheap reach for prestige from Fincher). I'm not saying Criterion shouldn't have made this decision, but it certainly deserves scrutiny and criticism.

I think Matt's point, and the focus of many complaints, is directed at the so-called Hollywood productions (such as Button, Armageddon) . I doubt that anyone here would deem Maddin's work typical Hollywood fare.

You're right that Criterion isn't, and shouldn't be beyond criticism, but many of us do have a tendency to look down on typical Hollywood productions...and most of the time with good reason. I haven't seen Button, so I can't venture an opinion on the merits. However, with over 400 titles that Criterion has released we can stand a few Hollywood star-vehicles every now and then.

Matt wrote:Come on, folks. Everyone knows that Criterion is a business and they need to pay the bills. And certain directors want their films to be in the Criterion Collection because of the cachet it affords.

Seriously. Yeah, this was a big surprise. Yeah, the film kind of sucks. It's hardly the end of the world though. It doesn't harm the brand, and it isn't a harbinger of the apocalypse. All of this carping and doomsaying lost any charm it may have had 12 years ago when people were bitching about Criterion picking up Supercop in alt.video.laserdisc.

Criterion went downhill after King Kong

And if there's bitching and moaning now...wait until the cover comes out!

As someone who has made a living consulting small businesses in the $4M to $10M per annum range (which, if memory serves, Criterion find themselves), I think this is a major coup for them and I applaud it. This will certainly move more units than their other recent first release (The Life Aquatic), and will increase their exposure significantly. This is never a bad thing.

Insofar as aesthetic considerations are concerned, I do not necessarily think this represents poor judgment. Although I prefer virtually all of Fincher’s other films to Button – and would love to see The Game fall under Criterion’s aegis once again – this strikes me as akin to what the Academy does from time-to-time, i.e., reward achievement for a body of work rather than a particular instance (see Kate Winslet).

That being said, the transfer and supplements should be stellar – especially if Fincher and company hashed out the arrangement prior to filming – and it potentially bodes well for future collaborations with the director.

Simply put, my leaning-towards-a-purist knickers are not in a twist over this one.

Tribe wrote:I think Matt's point, and the focus of many complaints, is directed at the so-called Hollywood productions (such as Button, Armageddon) . I doubt that anyone here would deem Maddin's work typical Hollywood fare.

You're right that Criterion isn't, and shouldn't be beyond criticism, but many of us do have a tendency to look down on typical Hollywood productions...and most of the time with good reason. I haven't seen Button, so I can't venture an opinion on the merits. However, with over 400 titles that Criterion has released we can stand a few Hollywood star-vehicles every now and then.

I don't think this gives the carping quite enough credit. As evidenced by everyone clamoring for THE GAME, obviously this forum has no problem with Criterion releasing recent big Hollywood productions if there's a valid reason for it (i.e. its owner ignoring it). I don't think BUTTON's release deserves scrutiny because of its vintage or quality -- it's more complicated than that. But I agree if this sort of thing only happens occasionally, it's a non-issue. Criterion can put the money to wonderful use.

My complaint is not really with the complaints about this particular title, just that the complaints themselves are so predictable:

Complaint #1: This film is a piece of garbage, I can't believe Criterion is sullying their name with it. They've lost all credibility.
Complaint #2: I can't believe they're releasing this and not more Great Director A.
Complaint #3: More Great Director A? There's enough Great Director A available, they should be releasing more Great Director B.
Complaint #4: More A? More B? There's enough of both. When will Criterion turn their attention to Neglected Auteur X or Indie Wunderkind Z?
Complaint #5: At least it's not a Michael Bay film. Michael Bay sucks.
Complaint #6: I'll buy this, because I buy everything with a spine number. But I won't be happy about it.
Complaint #7: Why are they releasing this film by Interesting Mainstream Director Q? Why not Title O instead?
Rebuttal #1: I, for one, am happy to see Criterion release this. I thought it was pretty good.
Rebuttal #2: Though I won't buy this (I haven't seen it, but I'm sure it's a piece of crap), I'm hopeful that it will allow Criterion to release more neglected, uncommercial films.
Rebuttal #3: Hey, I like Michael Bay. At least it's not Chasing Amy.
Metacomplaint #1: Will you guys shut up? Every damn time Criterion releases a film you don't like, it's the same damn thing.
Metarebuttal #1: These complaints have merit. Criterion deserves our scrutiny because... well, they just do.

Aaaaaaaaaand SCENE.

=D> That made my day.

Tribe wrote:And if there's bitching and moaning now...wait until the cover comes out!

Here ya go.

If CC eventually do The Game if Button is the expected bestseller, I'd love it if they also licenced Zodiac. Paramount's SE is wonderful except for the mediocre transfer which is identical to their barebones release. But it's never going to happen..

The Curious Smell from Benjamin's B*tthole.
Sorry I just had to do it.

Has the Game been discussed at length anywhere on this forum because uhhh I feel like I'm missing something