criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:I know you don't have to touch fire to know its hot and all, but how many people whining about horrible this film is have actually seen it? Because it seems to me that suddenly everyone has an opinion on the film's merits

I saw and hated it, but notice I'm not one of the ones whining.

CSM126 wrote:

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:

Matt wrote: I guess I don't see what one has to do with the other, but the mission statement (if we're going down that old crumbling pike again) says "a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films." That's important as defined by Criterion, not as defined by MyNameCriterionForum (or anybody else on this forum).

And I guess I don't see how "directors wanting their films to be in the Criterion Collection" is justification for their inclusion. I didn't realize it was their choice as much as Criterion's.

If you think Criterion would put their mission statement above the mighty dollar, you've got your head up your ass. If you had a tiny boutique label and David Fincher asked you to release his multi-million dollar earning, Academy Award Winning movie that has a massive fan base...would you say "Um, no. I'm fine with my Mizoguchi releases that sometimes manage to break even"?

Excuse me, but I didn't suggest that. Matt suggested that (and I quote, again): "certain directors want their films to be in the Criterion Collection because of the cachet it affords" as one of many possible justifications for CC releasing this title. I found that reasoning somewhat dubious. Criterion has clearly made choices that have balanced art with commerce since day one.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:Excuse me, but I didn't suggest that. Matt suggested that (and I quote, again): "certain directors want their films to be in the Criterion Collection because of the cachet it affords" as one of many possible justifications for CC releasing this title. I found that reasoning somewhat dubious. Criterion has clearly made choices that have balanced art with commerce since day one.

You may not have meant to suggest that, but you did. It's not the fact that Fincher wanted this that made it happen. It's the fact that the movie is going to earn them millions that made it happen. Criterion have probably had to turn away a number of smaller-name filmmakers who wanted "the Criterion touch" on their work, but who wouldn't have enough drawing power to justify the time and money spent.

Ahahahaha, I looked into the forum and immediately thought this was a mod playing some sort of joke.

The fact that it isn't a joke makes it even funnier.

Here's my question: If Button is going to make so much money on DVD, why is Paramount willing to give up all the profits to Criterion? Or even if they're still getting a cut, why not just release it themselves and keep it all? Is it just for the prestige of having a Paramount film get such an honorary treatment?

swo17 wrote:Here's my question: If Button is going to make so much money on DVD, why is Paramount willing to give up all the profits to Criterion? Or even if they're still getting a cut, why not just release it themselves and keep it all? Is it just for the prestige of having a Paramount film get such an honorary treatment?

I do suspect someone at Paramount thinks this arrangement would be mutually beneficial-- which also leads me to assume that the studio's cut must be larger than the normal Criterion licensing agreement, but awarded with some ornamental acquisitions for Criterion attached. Pure speculation of course

I believe Paramount is actually distributing this (like Disney does with most of their titles) so I assume Paramount is the one making the money and Criterion is getting a small percentage. But yes, obviously someone thought the Criterion name might help in some way.

swo17 wrote:Here's my question: If Button is going to make so much money on DVD, why is Paramount willing to give up all the profits to Criterion? Or even if they're still getting a cut, why not just release it themselves and keep it all? Is it just for the prestige of having a Paramount film get such an honorary treatment?

To geater and lesser degrees, you could ask that question about most titles licensed from the studios. The Fox noirs, the Paramount Sternbergs, the other Paramount titles. They may not be current blockbusters, but they still could turn a couple ten thousand profit if they put them out themelves.

It's got to be a give and take situation.

Don't forget Paramount is releasing a single disc version sans the extras. I'm sure most of the films true fans could give a hoot about supplements or the insight of the film making process.

swo17 wrote:Here's my question: If Button is going to make [Paramount] so much money on DVD...why not just release it themselves and keep it all?

This is why:

Napier wrote:I saw this in the theater and thought it was a total snooze fest. I buy everything Criterion releases anyway because I support their mission

Nobody collects Paramount spine numbers.

Chris, that's what I was trying to say-- it seems likely that Paramounts seeing the majority of the money here, but that Criterion's going to get some backscratching in return. And on the spine number tip, the cover bears a strong resemblance to, that's right, the Paramount Centennial template

I think this is great news, mainly because I'd like to see Criterion stay in business as long as possible, and this release is a no-brainer for them.

Whether anybody here likes it or not, it's a very high-profile film with a dedicated audience and a fair bit of critical acclaim. Fincher is an interesting director, and the extras are likely to be more interesting than the film. The comparative lack of major studio Best Picture nominees on Criterion's release schedule isn't because they're too snooty or exclusive for such mainstream piffle, it's because they rarely get the dream opportunity to ride on those kind of coattails.

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 always enjoyed Roger Ebert's review of this film which in summary was pretty much, "A guy ages in reverse but who really gives a sh*t."

How does this film warrant a Criterion release? It is not an art film or an example of independent filmmaking. This seems to go against the mission of the company. What's next Forrest Gump?

Very surprising, but ditto what zedz said. If releases like this are the best way to get, say, Shimizu vol. 2, then so be it!

I think I'm in the Nathan Lee camp about the film itself - the script is so awful that I reckon it's best not to focus on what Fincher manages to salvage of the material (very little) but on how he films it (which is so well that I'm inclined to be generous towards the whole grand folly).

domino harvey wrote:Any film nominated for an Oscar is historically important for being nominated for an Oscar. It's self-fulfilling and there's no value judgment involved

...he judged the value of...

Absolutely thrilled by the news. Really didn`t see that one coming. Since I absolutely loved the film (and everything else Fincher made) this is a no-brainer for me.

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. 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.

Matt, Bay was convinced about Criterion by Fincher? That's really interesting... do you remember any more details on how that went down?

Apparently Bay saw the Se7en laserdisc and was so impressed he called up Criterion while filming The Rock, wanting them to do a laser for it as well. They thought about it for a while and then eventually agreed to it.

So I heard anyways...

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

All is forgiven.

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Can you imagine if Watchmen was announced as #500?

exte wrote:Can you imagine if Watchmen was announced as #500?

I can hear the complaining already...

eh, i hated this movie and was simply annoyed through most of it.
that being said, if criterion doing a special edition of it helps fund more things like the teshigahara box then i'm all for it.

Napier wrote:Don't forget Paramount is releasing a single disc version sans the extras.

This is the version that will be picked up by Blockbuster, Hollywood video, Netflix, etc.

GringoTex wrote:

Napier wrote:Don't forget Paramount is releasing a single disc version sans the extras.

This is the version that will be picked up by Blockbuster, Hollywood video, Netflix, etc.

But won't the BD version be released exclusively through Criterion?