criterionforum.org

mfunk9786 wrote:

jwd5275 wrote:

eerik wrote:Glad to see Tenenbaums Blu-ray. Not that I have that I'm interested, but it will keep some whiners shut for a while.

Great. Whining about whiners...

Yeah, who was whining about this not being out yet?

All of facebook?

The Mailer eclipse makes it over a year since they've done a Japanese eclipse, considering we've had two japanese releases a year, every year, that's the longest layoff in between releases from that country. I wonder if the next japanese one will be a much needed silent Ozu set, more mizoguchi, shimizu or naruse, a set along the lines of the Nikkatsu noir, or a surprise like Kurahara.

Also, it'll be interesting if we get just six eclipse this year, or seven releases, as we did in 2007. I presume we'll get six, probably some of those much rumored box sets in the mainline in September, November and December and an eclipse release in October.

I don't read Criterion's Facebook page much these days, but I can't help but imagine there are still plenty of "MOAR WES ANDERSON" requests. It probably won't stop until Criterion releases everything up to and including Moonrise Kingdom on Blu-ray.

Does Facebook even count as actual discourse? Everyone whines at Criterion about everything on there. What is it you're looking to get out of it that you'll now get out of it since The Royal Tenenbaums was announced?

I realize the Lonesome release is an absolutely incredible package otherwise, but is anyone else a little disappointed that they didn't include the silent version of Lonesome? I'm sure the partial-talkie version is truly the definitive one, but having only seen the silent version I guess I'm a tad worried the talkie scenes will detract from it a bit. Guess I shouldn't make too many judgments before I see it.

Exactly. Which is why I long ago gave up on the Facebook page. I can't speak for eerik, obviously.

YnEoS wrote:I realize the Lonesome release is an absolutely incredible package otherwise, but is anyone else a little disappointed that they didn't include the silent version of Lonesome? I'm sure the partial-talkie version is truly the definitive one, but having only seen the silent version I guess I'm a tad worried the talkie scenes will detract from it a bit. Guess I shouldn't make too many judgments before I see it.

Is the silent version actually different, or does it just omit the two talkie scenes?

I believe, just with the talkie scenes omitted.

mfunk9786 wrote:Does Facebook even count as actual discourse? Everyone whines at Criterion about everything on there. What is it you're looking to get out of it that you'll now get out of it since The Royal Tenenbaums was announced?

That said, there are some titles that people (facebook and bluray.com) just won't shut up about... The Game, Following, Badlands, any Wes Andersons, etc etc. I'm sure they'll move on to Fight Club or something now that Tenenbaums has been replaced, but wow, that crowd can be annoying/predictable.

Well, duh.

Minkin wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:Does Facebook even count as actual discourse? Everyone whines at Criterion about everything on there. What is it you're looking to get out of it that you'll now get out of it since The Royal Tenenbaums was announced?

That said, there are some titles that people (facebook and bluray.com) just won't shut up about... The Game, Following, Badlands, any Wes Andersons, etc etc. I'm sure they'll move on to Fight Club or something now that Tenenbaums has been replaced, but wow, that crowd can be annoying/predictable.

Then instead of whining, just don't look at the Facebook posts. They annoy me as much as anyone, to the point that I only check the Facebook when Criterion posts something and even then I rarely look at the comments. However I thought that the was a given sentiment here. Hence the Facebook thread for the most part has not become the whine about Facebook thread it easily could be (we all generally feel the same about the Facebook crowd) but the look at what Criterion posted on Facebook thread it should be.

Eh, Facebook is the natural progression for things to make fun of after we lost interest in The Auteurs/Mubi

jwd5275 wrote:Then instead of whining, just don't look at the Facebook posts.

But then what would people do to feel smug and superior?

Minkin wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:Does Facebook even count as actual discourse? Everyone whines at Criterion about everything on there. What is it you're looking to get out of it that you'll now get out of it since The Royal Tenenbaums was announced?

That said, there are some titles that people (facebook and bluray.com) just won't shut up about... The Game, Following, Badlands, any Wes Andersons, etc etc. I'm sure they'll move on to Fight Club or something now that Tenenbaums has been replaced, but wow, that crowd can be annoying/predictable.

You should count your blessings. All those people used to vent here.

Sorry to be a nuiscance, but I posted this on the last page but didn't get a response. I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts to share, so I'm going to re-post what I wrote:

Pretty good month overall, but something just came to thought that could be a little bit of a downer for me. Does everyone remember the picture that Criterion posted on Facebook months ago, the one that showed a list of titles barely visible that they were working on for 2012? Well, one of those titles that people saw was "Mahler," the Ken Russell film that I've been anxiously awaiting ever since. Since this month saw an Eclipse set of films by Norman Mailer, was there a chance that the word "Mailer" is what everyone saw instead of "Mahler"?

I think there's a chance it could have said "Wlaslid."

Minkin wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:Does Facebook even count as actual discourse? Everyone whines at Criterion about everything on there. What is it you're looking to get out of it that you'll now get out of it since The Royal Tenenbaums was announced?

That said, there are some titles that people (facebook and bluray.com) just won't shut up about... The Game, Following, Badlands, any Wes Andersons, etc etc. I'm sure they'll move on to Fight Club or something now that Tenenbaums has been replaced, but wow, that crowd can be annoying/predictable.

I think we can all agree that the people who regularly post on Criterion's facebook page are cringe-inducing individuals, and that regularly visiting said page would spoil your enjoyment not just of facebook but of cinema itself.

On the subject of Royal Tanenbaums, coming on the heals of the two Stillman announced blus last month, I feel like there's a pattern developing that I don't feel great about. What I like most about Criterion is that they give you films that come from a place or time other than your own, and provide context that allows you to understand those films as much as you would films that come more from the world you live in and whose context you can provide from your life and memories. I'm American and born in the '70s, and I'm kind of disappointed whenever they release or upgrade an American film made after 1980 or so.

Admittedly, I'm not a fan of Stillman or Anderson, but I like Jim Jarmusch a lot, and I still think the Down By Law upgrade was sort of a bummer. I don't feel like I want or need help interpreting that film the way I do with foreign or classic films, and since CC nominally only distributes to North America I'm not sure why other people are so eager. It's not where the criterion treatment is most needed, and it's not what they're best at.

I'm trying not to whine here - or at least not just whine - but to ask a serious question. Is CC actually moving in this direction - releasing and upgrading more American films made within its buyers' living memory - or is it just my imagination? If this is actually something they're doing more and more of, is this the best use of their resources? It seems like the last two months at least have been determined mostly by the demands of those facebook people, who as far as I can tell want for Criterion not to teach them anything, but just to validate their tastes.

As far as Blu upgrades go (the Stillmans, Anderson and Jarmusch), I think it is just much easier to upgrade films with newer materials and therefore far less work needing to be done to make them up to snuff. I too would rather something like Boudu, but I am under the impression that would take far more work at this point.

Sam T. wrote:What I like most about Criterion is that they give you films that come from a place or time other than your own, and provide context that allows you to understand those films as much as you would films that come more from the world you live in and whose context you can provide from your life and memories.

You must be horrified by the series from 616 to 622, then. The horror, end of days. 2012 is coming, etc...

Norman Mailer? The Tough Guys Don't Dance guy? Yeesh. I hope these films aren't that bad.

CSM126 wrote:Norman Mailer? The Tough Guys Don't Dance guy? Yeesh. I hope these films aren't that bad.

I'm trying to imagine the retail demographic for the Eclipse Mailer set. Although he has unquestionable name recognition, was anyone dying for a release of these films (which all score in the low-5's among the few dozen IMDb users that voted for them). From a business standpoint, this set must be one of Criterion's riskiest.

Glad I'm not the only one deflated by the name of the eclipse set though I'm glad to have even just these three. Anyone want to put in a good word for Weekend? From this distance it just looks like generic indie romance 3045i9 with the 'twist' that the characters are gay.

The Mailer Eclipse is three films on two discs. I doubt it took THAT much of an investment to prepare for release when compared to other Eclipse sets. More than likely it did little or nothing to delay anything else.

Now that there's Mailer they've got to do a Sontag Eclipse set next.

Looking back at that 2012 schedule picture it seems it was Gorin, Mailer, Downey as the first three on the eclipse list.

Fourth could have been Czech Pearls, Seventh perhaps Gremillon.

movielocke wrote:Looking back at that 2012 schedule picture

Where might one see this picture you speak of?