criterionforum.org

perkizitore wrote:I got a DVD rack from Argos for 75£ delivered, but it proved too small for my needs. Does anyone now any cheap solution that can hold more than 1K of cases?

Billy shelves from IKEA. Will hold approx 400 DVDs with 8 shelves event spaced. With The extention, 450. 2-3 shelves should meet your needs.

I also use the Billy bookcases. Do they now come with 6 moveable shelves (plus the built-in middle and bottom shelves)? When I bought mine several years ago, I had to buy 2 extra shelves for each bookcase separately. I do know they recently changed the shelf depth to favor DVDs over books, so it's great if the also tossed in the extra shelves. Depening on how you count, I have about 1000 spines in my collection with plenty of room for more in 3 Billys.

I won't badmouth Ikea shelves, I have had plenty of them. But I somehow feel that self-made is the best way to go.

Would love to see more pictures of other people's collections. Your shelves look great, kauno.

There was time when I thought I was gonna turn them into plastic sleeves. Then I wised up.

Let's just face it. If you are a collector, you will not be able to keep your collection at a consistent number by culling, or stop yourself from buying more. A collector collects. It is as simple as that. Half of my basement is filled with rolling custom shelves. Luckily I can store books too ... but that is another entire can of worms not worth getting in to.

The embarrassment comes when I take a brand new, never opened DVD that I bought 5 years ago to my neighborhood record store that buys uses DVD's just because I bought the new BluRay edition ... that is still in my pile of to be viewed films. I can't really have a five year backlog ... or can I? I shudder to think about the implications, but fear I will be on one of those hoarder shows. Hopefully, that will happen after my death!

A collector is just a polite name for a hoarder, right?

I've currently got an eleven year backlog! Although at the moment there is only one film in my to watch pile that crosses that line. I really should get around to watching that Tartan DVD of Alejandro Amenabar's Tesis soon.

boywonder wrote:A collector is just a polite name for a hoarder, right?

Not really. I doubt whether many people on this board consider themselves "collectors",
they just have a lot of DVDs because they are interested in films and film history.

Similarly, you may have a huge number of books and records, but that doesn't make you a collector , either.

Book collectors are generally only interested in first editions, and record collectors in first pressings,withdrawn sleeves, misprints and the like. I don't think there is an equivalent in the DVD world.
A hoarder is a different beast altogether, and someone who needs medical help.

If we consider "collectors" to be people who collect with the purpose of just having and not using a collection for its intended purpose, you're probably right. You could be a fan of film without owning a single DVD though. I buy them because A) The bulk of the stuff I buy is part of the national cinemas I have an interest in, and B) I quite like having a collection, a personal library so to speak.

tojoed wrote:Book collectors are generally only interested in first editions, and record collectors in first pressings,withdrawn sleeves, misprints and the like. I don't think there is an equivalent in the DVD world.

Slipcover and Steelbook people.

Of course it's just semantics, but I think that anyone who has hundreds of DVD's surely counts as a collector of some degree, and that it isn't obsessional perfectionism and pursuit of the "original" that defines collecting. Whether books, records or blu-ray steelbooks, we're talking about mass-produced or perversely "limited-edition" mass-manufactured products, not paintings, Zulu spears or hand-fashioned Colonial-American farming implements. Collectors are no longer the wardens of unique objects. They are now only overambitious accumulators (of knowledge and products) at best or incipient completists at worst.

And I'm one of them.

It's hard to say one isn't a collector when they have a collection of physical media.

I havbe trouble finding adequate space for DVDs/Blus -- because my LPs take up the space that might otherwise be devoted to neater DVD/Blu storage.

Oh -- Drucker -- do give Idiot another chance someday -- there is a lot of marvelous stuff left in Idiot, even in its butchered form (have you read Dostoevsky's novel?)

I have hundreds of DVDs in my apartment and I'm not a collector. They're just tools I use to do what I do (watch films; write about them) and totally disposable once I've achieved that purpose.

Michael Kerpan wrote:I havbe trouble finding adequate space for DVDs/Blus -- because my LPs take up the space that might otherwise be devoted to neater DVD/Blu storage.

Oh -- Drucker -- do give Idiot another chance someday -- there is a lot of marvelous stuff left in Idiot, even in its butchered form (have you read Dostoevsky's novel?)

I know I need to. As I've mentioned elsewhere, my film appreciation is still pretty new for me and I've only been watching movies seriously for a few years. With that in mind, I'm not as used to the huge kevyip piles most of you seem to have accepted as reality! (though right now I'm at like 50 films, bigger than it's ever been!)

Never read the book. It's one of many I know I need to tackle (a shamefully long list). I was impressed with it and did enjoy the opening scenes, but the choppiness (just as a scene gets going-cut-narration card) of it did put me off a bit.

"Collector" is a pretty neutral term for somebody who owns and appreciates a large number of related objects, so I don't think anybody should be defensive about it. But there are degrees of focus / obsession, and the guys further around the dial than you are always going to appear crazy. I've been collecting records for decades, and the last time I counted (last century) there were more than 10,000 of them, but those guys who will buy the same music twice because of different picture sleeves? They need psychiatric help.

I think if you feel any need to rationalize your buying habits about this stuff in any way, you're probably a collector. I have a friend who is short of money constantly but "only spends $40 a week on records". If I own something on one format, I always have to justify it to myself mentally to buy the reissue (well they fixed it and it sounds really superior!) or nice copy of it on vinyl. Or if I have it on vinyl but want to listen to it in the car I need the CD, well obviously. etc. etc.

zedz wrote:"Collector" is a pretty neutral term for somebody who owns and appreciates a large number of related objects, so I don't think anybody should be defensive about it.

The term seems to always have had negative connotations. I blame that Terence Stamp film!

You're just that because of that stupid Caulfield book.

zedz wrote:"Collector" is a pretty neutral term for somebody who owns and appreciates a large number of related objects, so I don't think anybody should be defensive about it. But there are degrees of focus / obsession, and the guys further around the dial than you are always going to appear crazy. I've been collecting records for decades, and the last time I counted (last century) there were more than 10,000 of them, but those guys who will buy the same music twice because of different picture sleeves? They need psychiatric help.

I agree with all this. Zedz, have you seen anything like this, by chance? When I was growing up there were a few limited white-vinyl pressings and the like that were fun to find within reason but since the vinyl "resurgence" apparently there are more bands so desperate to have their records to be sought after so they print them like they're rare Pokemon cards made for kids to fork over their allowance for. I don't want to throw any stones in glass houses, but there are definitely very different breeds of collectors.

Gregory, when you get records pressed these days, it's incredibly easy to get colored, or splatter-colored, records done. It costs like 5 cents extra a record or something, certainly a small fee. I would honestly say that when bands do this (mainly in the DIY punk culture) it's just because they look cool and no other reason. I wouldn't read too much into it.

To my knowledge, the pressing technology hasn't changed much since my early days. It seems like there are a few bands that do this far more than any others, knowing they have many die-hard collector fans who will buy many copies if there are 44 different versions. I don't think bands/labels that do that are naively innocent of how that kinds of collecting influences demand for their product, but certainly there are also bands and labels that do lots of colors solely with the expectation that each buyer will simply get one of a variety of colors and there's no marketing strategy involved.

Just head over to Blu-Ray.com. People freaking out over slipcovers and steelbooks for movies they admit they don't even like. I can't say I understand it.

Gregory, I guess I'm more talking about the majority of DIY punk/indie bands that press their own vinyl, who I don't think (and know quite a few) are doing it for any real reason. But surely, you're probably right about the bands that get records done for Record Store Day and the like.

zedz wrote: I've been collecting records for decades, and the last time I counted (last century) there were more than 10,000 of them

I don't think I ever counted my collection of LPs. (I prefer not to know) ;~}