Once again a possible lame thread from me, but I just got home from Best Buy (and it was actually the best price I could find anywhere for once!) and picked up the 5-disc Fanny & Alexander CC box set as a blind buy for my Saturday night with the movies. It just got me thinking that around the country, there probably aren't too many college-aged students pulling a move like this, as I noticed most other kids buying movies like AVP and Fast Times at Ridgemont High. For fellow college students - and I guess high schoolers too if any are around, got any funny or odd stories about your DVD habits?

http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=natrlbornthrllr

20, college junior.

For the record, my Fanny and Alexander set was a blind-buy, also. Haven't gotten around to it yet, though.

-JP

I am 16, and a sophomore in HS. I don't have a job, and can't afford many DVD's :(

I post here risking humiliation from the "elders". I'm a college student and most of the time when friends ask about what DVDs I've gotten I lie and tell them new releases. I've tried mentioning foreign movies before but none of them ever heard of them.

Still in college & I'd say 99% of dudes my age don't have the the taste in movies I have or have even heard of more than half of the movies in my collection, but it's not an age thing. I think most of the people here are way out of the college age, but if you look at the weekly "what did you get thread" its always the mainstream movies that everyone picks up & few that get the off-beat or older films.

I like a bit of both, though I'll usually only go for the more mainstream films (even the likes of Collateral) if they're on sale or used. The main reason for that is because my roomie will usually buy those titles, and I can just borrow them from him. It's funny, though, when I have friends over. I've got some 500 titles, and practically everybody just looks through them with blank stares.

A conversation that actually took place in my apartment a few weeks back.

"I don't have that big of a DVD collection because I don't buy shitty movies."
"Which of the movies in my collection do you deem shitty?"
(Looks around)
"The Seventh Seal."
"One of Ingmar Bergman's best."
"Oh. Um, how about Cries and Whispers?"
"Ingmar Bergman, again."
"I don't know who that is."

It used to irk me when people would come over to watch a movie, look through my entire collection (which is actually quite varied, but they seem to stumble over the Amores Perros' and American Splendors so much that they fail to notice the Animal Houses and Back to the Futures), and be unable to find anything they wanted to see. They'd then go into my roommate's bedroom, look through his 70 title collection made up of Mr Deeds, Zoolander, and Captain Ron...and yell in excitement, "OH, here are all of the good movies!"

I just don't let it get to me anymore, though. To each his own. It's just a shame that people have that mentality of, "I never saw previews for that, let's watch The Day After Tomorrow instead," or, "Wait that has subtitles at the bottom? Oh I don't want to read the words."

Another conversation, (same guy that I had the Bergman convo with), from a week ago:

"Oh, Hero...is that good?"
"Yeah, I really liked it. ...but it's not in English."
"Oh, so like, I'd have to read it? I thought Quentin Tarantino did it?"
(Hands him the DVD)
"No, see...he presented it. They put that so dumbasses like you will buy it."
"Oh. Hey look it says here that there's an English-language track!"
".........."

So many people are missing out on great movies. Ah well.

-JP

Well, I'm 31, been out of college for nearly 10 years (Class of '96), and I've never heard of Ingmar Bergman. Who the hell is he? And what has he done besides the two titles you listed in your conversations?

EDIT: Oh, checking DVDAficionado's listing...I see a bunch of old '50s, '60s, and '70s foreign movies. No wonder I've never heard of him.

As for Hero...I must admit that the first time I watched it, I did watch it with the English track.

17 year old here.... i also bought fanny 5 disks a few weeks ago.

Well, I'm 31, been out of college for nearly 10 years (Class of '96), and I've never heard of Ingmar Bergman. Who the hell is he? And what has he done besides the two titles you listed in your conversations?

Oh.

:(

I am 21 a junior in college. I have cousins that are in high school and they laughed at me for having To Kill A Mockingbird and the Marx Brothers A Night at the Opera in my collection. Those are two great movies. I wanted to beat them in the head for not knowing anything about them. They said A Night at the Opera looked gay.

My Marx Bros Silver Screen Collection is possibly the favorite title that I own, and the Warner set has been high on my want list for some time now.

Oh.

:(


Oh...what?

Oh, and looking at your collection, NatrlBornThrllr, I see you have a lot of "edited" or "rated" titles, not to mention several Foolscreen versions as well. What's up with that?

http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=natrlbornthrllr

20, college junior.

For the record, my Fanny and Alexander set was a blind-buy, also. Haven't gotten around to it yet, though.

-JP


copier. ;)

I'm 20 and a college junior.

My F&A was a blind buy, too.


I'm very selective when I buy my dvds and I don't buy the usual crap that many people my age do. Of course, I do buy some guilty pleasures and more newer (as in release year) movies than old so I can't say I am a 100% snob. :)

18 year, out of high school - taking a break before college. I don't make enough to pay for a car + all the DVD's I want, but I'm building my collection slowly.

18, in my first year of college...

http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=All&id=noblerabbit

When I tell people that my five favourite movies are...

1. Barry Lyndon (Kubrick, 1975)
2. Once Upon A Time In America (Leone, 1983)
3. 8 1/2 (Fellini, 1963)
4. The Godfather (Coppola, 1972)
5. Rules of the Game (Renoir, 1939)

They look confused.

Luckily, my closest group of friends are all quite interested in quality cinema.

But some of my more casual aquaintances blast my taste in movies when they see my DVD collection. Luckily, the cinematically-mainstream are usually in the minority at my household, which is nice.

18, in my first year of college...

They look confused.

Luckily, my closest group of friends are all quite interested in quality cinema.

But some of my more casual aquaintances blast my taste in movies when they see my DVD collection. Luckily, the cinematically-mainstream are usually in the minority at my household, which is nice.

Me too, I'm part-film major, so the kids in my classes are pretty savvy when it comes to classic and foreign films. But for the majority of my other friends, they're in the same boat with most of everyone elses friends here who are like 'foreign movie? that means subtitles?'

21, third year of college. My catalog of films is mostly comprised of recent films, only because I have a limited experience of films from post-code Hollywood in the 30s to the early 80s.

Oddly I love silents, catching them on TCM for the most part. I'd have a large list of silent films on DVD if A.) They weren't going for a premium ($25-$30+) from select companies that produce them and B.) They were available.

For example, I absolutely love Clara Bow. Her 1927 film Wings was the first winner of the Academy Award for Best Film. And guess what? I had to resort to buying a "Chinese" version of the film to own it. Only a couple of other Bow films are on DVD, and they aren't her best. I hate Down to the Sea in Ships, not a fan of Parisian Love and It! isn't anywhere near the top of my list. Then a film I'd kill to see like Empty Hearts basically hasn't been seen by more than a handful of people in decades.

At least a huge number of Clara's films still exist in the UCLA film library or elsewhere, thanks to some amazing people who have spent thousands restoring and preserving the few prints that still exist of her films. Poor Theda Bara, aside from two films and a couple comedy shorts, her entire catalog is lost forever. One can only hope all of Clara's remaining films will arrive on DVD one day.

As soon as I graduate and have abundant amounts of spare money *cough* running around, I'll dedicate my focus on acquiring a sizeable amount of silents. But when $30 can buy anywhere from 3 new films to 6+ used from Half.com, I'll wait on getting anything other than essential silent films.

I'm 16, collection is in the sig. While it's fairly balenced no one my age shares my taste. Most are stunned when I tell them I like black and white, watch subtitled movies, actually watch things older than the 80s etc etc

Oh...what?

Oh, and looking at your collection, NatrlBornThrllr, I see you have a lot of "edited" or "rated" titles, not to mention several Foolscreen versions as well. What's up with that?

Oh...as in, oh it's sad that there are 30-year old film fans with close to 400 titles in their collection who haven't even heard of Ingmar Bergman. I'm not asking that everybody be a film connoisseur...not by any means. I'm not asking that people own, enjoy, or even watch classic and foreign films. Everybody can have their own tastes, and that's great. It's just sad that there are so many that don't even appreciate these films...films that sculpted some of the contemporary greats.

Ask many modern directors who their favorite filmmakers are, and they'll point to the Renoirs, Fellinis, Kurosawas, and Bergmans of years past as those that have had the greatest influence over their work...who paved the way for modern masterpieces. I think even they would shake their head at the number of people who follow and appreciate their work, but couldn't tell "Rules of the Game" from "Rules of Engagement."

Regarding your "what's up with that" question for me, here are my edited titles:

Eyes Wide Shut
Legend of Drunken Master
Nightmare on Elm Street
Scary Movie

...none of which have "unedited" R1 versions available. Same goes for most of my "rated" films (like Super Size Me). As for the occasional full-screen title, I try to refrain from telling gift-givers to fuck off. That, and they're not films that I wanted enough to buy for myself...so I'm not really anal about whether I'm watching them in wide-screen or not.

Hope that clears up any questions you might have had...and if you've got any other inquiries, feel free to ask. G'day.

-JP

When i was in college It was only me and one other guy who had jumped into the dvd age. We traded back and forth, and between the two of us almost owned every dvd to date...I had a 42 inch tv...he did the 52...pretty big for dorm rooms...

Good thing about starting watching good films in HS and college is that you have a better appreciation, and more time to get through the catalogs...bad news, less cash...and you guys won't get the good/free deals that were online a few years back...might even try to taking a film class if your college offers it.

This has to be one of the most appalling threads I've come across in a long time. I completely understand that not all people like all types of films, and don't necessarily have an encyclopedic knowledge of the movies - but what seems to be a dismal comment on our education system is when people can get through a college education and not even be familiar with the <i>names</i> of important people in film history - or any other area of endeavor, for that matter.

This has to be one of the most appalling threads I've come across in a long time. I completely understand that not all people like all types of films, and don't necessarily have an encyclopedic knowledge of the movies - but what seems to be a dismal comment on our education system is when people can get through a college education and not even be familiar with the names of important people in film history - or any other area of endeavor, for that matter.

Well said.

-JP

This has to be one of the most appalling threads I've come across in a long time. I completely understand that not all people like all types of films, and don't necessarily have an encyclopedic knowledge of the movies - but what seems to be a dismal comment on our education system is when people can get through a college education and not even be familiar with the <i>names</i> of important people in film history - or any other area of endeavor, for that matter.

Amen brother, know that there are a few of us who do

I'm a 16-year-old and thanks to the two jobs I've had since 2001, I have a collection of over 200 DVDs (including, yes, a blind-buy of the 5-disc "Fanny and Alexander,") plus quite a bit of money saved for college. There are still many DVDs I want to own. Unfortunately I haven't had as much time as I'd like to watch movies recently, since my manager at work has been increasing my hours and my teachers are increasing the workload. I love days like today when I have no looming due dates for homework, no work, and I can just read and watch movies (I watched "Ali: Fear Eats the Soul" and "Little Caesar.")

Sadly I'm the only one in my family who really has an appreciation for classic films, though I have been able to convince some of my friends to enjoy films like "Lawrence of Arabia" and "The Third Man."

You know, if you guys would like to get chicks once in a while, you may want to lay off the Bergman. Maybe lay off the Kurosawa. Maybe lay off the Truffaut as well. Pick up a Michael Bay film. Pick up Bring It On. Pick up the American Pie trilogy. Pick up some films that you can enjoy when others are over.

;)

17 here, Junior in high school, employed, free time, DVD's are legal... brings me here. I haven't seen many older films like previous posters, but I've been renting a lot recently... trying to see some classics I haven't before.

All of my friends think that I have a personal blockbuster on my shelf, they're always impressed when they see it. And just like any other collection, there's many titles I wish I had, and even some I could afford to get rid of.

Luckily, the majority of my friends love movies as well. I talk with them about it, hear what they like, what they don't like, and I'll throw a recomendation at them. I try not to argue with some of them, (why 2 Fast 2 Furious wasn't nominated for best picture), because they have their own opinion... and it's not something worth looking like a dick about.

I'm interested in what other have to say... keep it up!

You know, if you guys would like to get chicks once in a while, you may want to lay off the Bergman. Maybe lay off the Kurosawa. Maybe lay off the Truffaut as well. Pick up a Michael Bay film. Pick up Bring It On. Pick up the American Pie trilogy. Pick up some films that you can enjoy when others are over.

;)


If a girl can't appreciate Les Quatre cents coups why would anyone want to be with her? :)


I'm also heavily considering to rename this thread the 'Fanny & Alexander Blind Buy Club' it's very reassuring to know that there's other people my age as interested in auteurs like Bergman.

You know, if you guys would like to get chicks once in a while, you may want to lay off the Bergman. Maybe lay off the Kurosawa. Maybe lay off the Truffaut as well. Pick up a Michael Bay film. Pick up Bring It On. Pick up the American Pie trilogy. Pick up some films that you can enjoy when others are over.

;)


lmao, true that, I see these kids my age post there dvd collection, haven't even heard of some of them, I enjoy being a teenager still! :D


(Check out my collection if you don't believe me ;))

You know, if you guys would like to get chicks once in a while, you may want to lay off the Bergman. Maybe lay off the Kurosawa. Maybe lay off the Truffaut as well. Pick up a Michael Bay film. Pick up Bring It On. Pick up the American Pie trilogy. Pick up some films that you can enjoy when others are over.

;)

Heh, I've got my fair share of Michael Bay, and the American Pie trilogy at that. That said, I'll take a girl who doesn't have to play 20 questions through "Memento" over a "Cinderalla Story" ditz any day of the week.

..and don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day.

-JP

You know, if you guys would like to get chicks once in a while, you may want to lay off the Bergman. Maybe lay off the Kurosawa. Maybe lay off the Truffaut as well. Pick up a Michael Bay film. Pick up Bring It On. Pick up the American Pie trilogy. Pick up some films that you can enjoy when others are over.

;)

-ohbfrank- :lol:

I'll take a 'watch a Bergman jump in bed talk all night then fool around session' over a 'drunken spontaneous "I have to go pee long and hard" after we do it session' anyday.

I've learned my lesson from freshman year, thanks! :D

but I do love to get drunk - once in a while -...

Yes, we all like yto get drubnk sometimse.

-JP

No offense, but people should buy what they like. Not what others say is great. I used to buy Criterions and award winners, etc because everyone here clammored over how great they were. I found that despite them being good, there was no reason to own them as most were one and done.

Some like Ben-Hur, The Godfather, etc I like to have in my collection, but I do not go out of my way to get the classics. I get what I enjoy and what my wife enjoys. My wife likes Pluto Nash (don't ask me why - I did not hate it but it was pretty bad) so it is in my collection and I am not ashamed of that. There is no Bergman - doubt there will be. I may rent it and if I like it find some more, but it is not a priority.

Oh, and as for people not knowing about the classics, that is like saying everyone should know about baseball history or NASCAR or NFL, etc. It is an entertainment thing and not an important part of history - schools do not need to teach film history to today's youth - some basic world history and geography would be a better idea. If they are interested in film, come to places like this and learn.

Oh, and as for people not knowing about the classics, that is like saying everyone should know about baseball history or NASCAR or NFL, etc. It is an entertainment thing and not an important part of history - schools do not need to teach film history to today's youth - some basic world history and geography would be a better idea. If they are interested in film, come to places like this and learn.

I beg to differ. An art credit is required to get a high school diploma. All things considered, film is much more an artistic medium than a form of entertainment. Sure, people go to the movies to be entertained...in the same way that people go to their local 'Museum of Art' to be entertained. Comparing cinema to sports is just plain silly...the two differ on so many fundamental levels.

So, I'll dispute your claims that film "is like baseball," and "isn't an important part of history." Cinema brings to life past societies in a way that no History 101 text book could ever hope to. The emotions, the likes and dislikes, the concerns and worries, the attitudes and mindset of societies past are all laid out on the screen. Video of an old baseball game tells us who was capable of swinging a bat, and which pitcher had an off night. Classic cinema works as a portal into a previous (and often distant) society. The two differ on so many levels that your analogy is nearly laughable.

And finally, we're not asking that these people watch every single frame of film shot by Bergman, Jean Luc-Godard, Fellini and company...no more so than we'd expect the average person to know Jackie Robinson's rookie-year batting average. However, is it that wild to expect the names Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and Cy Young to ring a bell among the average person in modern society? How about Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent Van Gogh, and Michelangelo Buonarroti? Or Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Joseph Haydn, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?

If not, why do you find it odd that most of us are aghast when grown men offer a look of confusion at the mention of some of the most renowned directors of all time?

-JP

And finally, we're not asking that these people watch every single frame of film shot by Bergman, Jean Luc-Godard, Fellini and company...no more so than we'd expect the average person to know Jackie Robinson's rookie-year batting average. However, is it that wild to expect the names Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and Cy Young to ring a bell among the average person in modern society? How about Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent Van Gogh, and Michelangelo Buonarroti? Or Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Joseph Haydn, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?

If not, why do you find it odd that most of us are aghast when grown men offer a look of confusion at the mention of some of the most renowned directors of all time?
-JP

I agree with you; that it would be a good thing for people to know who these excellent directors were and at least have seen some of their films. But your analogy doesn't quite work.

While Bergman, Kurosawa and others might have made huge contributions to the way film is now, they sadly aren't the Babe Ruth's or da Vinci's of directors. People like Hitchcock, Kubrick, Spielberg, Scorsese and Coppola fit better with your analogy of household names. Should the others mentioned in this thread hold the same acclaim? Sure. But they don't.

Most people with a passing interest in films know the directors I mentioned, and have probably seen at least some of their films. The same goes with your analogies in their respective fields. Most people have seen a picture of a work by da Vinci, or a song by Beethoven. But some of the more obscure people in their fields that made as big of or even greater contributions, people have never heard of.

I bet forums dedicated to music or painting have the same debates on other names that were more talented or contributed as much or more than the examples you gave, and are ignored by the general public. And as with here and directors, even many people that consider themselves true art buffs or music buffs are unaware of them.

Famous musicians and famous directors fit well. Everyone loves movies, everyone loves music. People have hundreds of CDs, people have hundreds of DVDs. But I bet you a huge majority of people mostly just listening to music that they grew up with have no idea who people like Robert Johnson were and how their music influences almost every aspect of how music is made today.

I agree with your argument that people that enjoy the art of movies and think more of the field than just something to do while you eat popcorn would be better off knowing the directors mentioned. But the sad fact is these directors aren't names most people have heard of unless they are passionate about films, the art of directing and film history. Blame it on a lot of things, but it isn't an individuals fault that they've never heard of Fellini and thus never seen a film by him.

I've got a pretty varied selection. I'm not in college, but I'm of the college age (23). When girls come over to watch a movie, they're usually not on the same page when I tell them Annie Hall would be great to watch, or say even Amelie. I've got over 600, so when someone wants to watch something, chances are I've got it.

I agree with you; that it would be a good thing for people to know who these excellent directors were and at least have seen some of their films. But your analogy doesn't quite work.

While Bergman, Kurosawa and others might have made huge contributions to the way film is now, they sadly aren't the Babe Ruth's or da Vinci's of directors. People like Hitchcock, Kubrick, Spielberg, Scorsese and Coppola fit better with your analogy of household names. Should the others mentioned in this thread hold the same acclaim? Sure. But they don't.

That was kind of my point...that it's a shame that these guys aren't as well-known as Spielberg, Coppola, Hitchcock, et.al. "A shame" probably wasn't the right phrase, but it's the first that came to mind.

Perhaps Bergman is George Mikan to Hitchcock's Wilt Chamberlain, but on the same token, I'd expect people on a film site to at least recognize the name and the contributions he made to cinema...in the same way I'd expect somebody frequenting an NBA site to say, "Oh yeah, Len Bias...sad story."

I think my analogy came off as saying, "Bergman is as much a household name as Kubrick, so you're crazy for not knowing who he is." My intended point was this: "Bergman contributed as much (if not more) to cinema than Kubrick, so it's crazy that a majority of society doesn't know who he is."

Therefore, those of us who are (and pardon me if I come off as condescending, it's not my intention) well versed in these areas shake our collective head at the fact that the majority of citizens don't recognize names like Renoir and Kurosawa. Likewise, Dvorak and Grieg should be as well-known as Beethoven and Bach...and so on and so forth.

-JP

I think my analogy came off as saying, "Bergman is as much a household name as Kubrick, so you're crazy for not knowing who he is." My intended point was this: "Bergman contributed as much (if not more) to cinema than Kubrick, so it's crazy that a majority of society doesn't know who he is."
...I don't know who he is. :wave:

But hey, that's what this forum is for.

I beg to differ. An art credit is required to get a high school diploma. All things considered, film is much more an artistic medium than a form of entertainment. Sure, people go to the movies to be entertained...in the same way that people go to their local 'Museum of Art' to be entertained. Comparing cinema to sports is just plain silly...the two differ on so many fundamental levels.

So, I'll dispute your claims that film "is like baseball," and "isn't an important part of history." Cinema brings to life past societies in a way that no History 101 text book could ever hope to. The emotions, the likes and dislikes, the concerns and worries, the attitudes and mindset of societies past are all laid out on the screen. Video of an old baseball game tells us who was capable of swinging a bat, and which pitcher had an off night. Classic cinema works as a portal into a previous (and often distant) society. The two differ on so many levels that your analogy is nearly laughable.

And finally, we're not asking that these people watch every single frame of film shot by Bergman, Jean Luc-Godard, Fellini and company...no more so than we'd expect the average person to know Jackie Robinson's rookie-year batting average. However, is it that wild to expect the names Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and Cy Young to ring a bell among the average person in modern society? How about Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent Van Gogh, and Michelangelo Buonarroti? Or Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Joseph Haydn, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?

If not, why do you find it odd that most of us are aghast when grown men offer a look of confusion at the mention of some of the most renowned directors of all time?

-JP

1. Yeah an art credit is required - so film from the 20th Century is more important than the great artist and composers of the last severla hundred years. I don't think so and you are going to have a hard time changing any minds. Even if they taught a little, obscure works like some you are mentioning would never get covered only the superstars like Hitchcock would get covered - that is the way art is handled.

2. Very, very few films offer the kind of art and expression you talk about. The majority of films are made to simply entertain and make a return on investment. For every Schindler's List there are a ton of Pluto Nash. You can learn historical lessons from sports just as you can film, so your assertion that it is more does not hold for me. Looking back on anything can teach you about the past. With very old sports footage at least what your seeing is real and a realistic assertion can be made fom what is seen (what people where, how they act, number of minorities, etc). A film is someone's vision of how something is, not exactly historical documentation.

3. If someone is not interested in cinema, why should they know who these people are. Really, one reason to know who Bergman is. Its nice to know trivia, but if they are not a movie person why should they know. I am never surprised when I say something about a famous athlete and I get puzzled looks. It usually doesn't happen with the likes of Babe Ruth, but it has. I don't think anything less of that person or "shake my head." I may try to inform them briefly to further there education or basically so they will understand why I made reference. In the same respect, I don't look down on people that have no classic in there collection. It's entertainment pure and simple to the majority of people. Elitisit film fans are the only ones that care about stuff like this generally. I put myself in the middle. I care enough to explore notable names and older movies, but not nearly enough to say I am a well informed film fan. Oh, and you do come off with a very arrogant "everyone should be as educated as me" attitude. You say most of us, but there are like maybe 20 posters total in this thread - there are thousands of DVDTalk members.

4. The post above me is nice, a person that does not know but is willing to find out. Be careful not to scare people like this away when you are busy looking down on them for not already knowing who Bergman is.

I thought I'd throw out there for the college student not already in the know that university libraries are great places to borrow and view classic films, including Criterion titles, at no cost. If you are lucky, your library also has a laserdisc collection, allowing you to listen to the Taxi Driver commentary and other exclusives.

First to those saying film could be a great art credit, film is not counted as an art credit at every school. When I took Film Studies in high school, it was an English elective credit, the same category of classes had I taken Creative Writing, that's in south Florida (Miami-Dade Country) though, it may be different in other places.

1. Yeah an art credit is required - so film from the 20th Century is more important than the great artist and composers of the last severla hundred years. I don't think so and you are going to have a hard time changing any minds. Even if they taught a little, obscure works like some you are mentioning would never get covered only the superstars like Hitchcock would get covered - that is the way art is handled.



Speedray - I'm going to strongly disagree here with your idea that only 'the superstars' get covered. Here are some examples of films we watched in my high school film class: A Trip to the Moon (Melies), Bronenosets Potyomkin (Eisenstein), Intolerance (Griffith), Nosferatu (Murnau), Sunset Boulevard and Double Indemnity (Wilder), The Searchers (Ford), City Lights (Chaplin), Cinema Paradiso (Tornatore), The Day the Earth Stood Still (Wise) and a bunch more that aren't coming to mind, this was about 3 years ago. We even watched Plan 9 From Outer Space (Wood); some teachers care more about covering the importance of even those films that aren't 'the most popular.'

Now granted we did do a few auteur studies on Hitchcock (Rope, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Rear Window) and Woody Allen (Husbands and Wives, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Manhattan and Bananas). In a high school setting though, you have to touch up on some of the more popular directors, because honestly at that age (15-18) a lot of kids might not be ready to handle Godard and Cocteau and Fellini. Obviously every single program is different, but there are certainly teachers in high school who care about teaching the history of film, and not just focusing on 'superstars'

I thought I'd throw out there for the college student not already in the know that university libraries are great places to borrow and view classic films, including Criterion titles, at no cost. If you are lucky, your library also has a laserdisc collection, allowing you to listen to the Taxi Driver commentary and other exclusives.

Absolutely. Our library has about 200 or so Criterions, including most of the OOP's which I'd otherwise probably never get to see. Outside of the CC's, they don't have the biggest library of films, but it's definately better than nothing, and free.

No offense, but people should buy what they like. Not what others say is great. I used to buy Criterions and award winners, etc because everyone here clammored over how great they were. I found that despite them being good, there was no reason to own them as most were one and done.

Some like Ben-Hur, The Godfather, etc I like to have in my collection, but I do not go out of my way to get the classics. I get what I enjoy and what my wife enjoys. My wife likes Pluto Nash (don't ask me why - I did not hate it but it was pretty bad) so it is in my collection and I am not ashamed of that. There is no Bergman - doubt there will be. I may rent it and if I like it find some more, but it is not a priority.

Oh, and as for people not knowing about the classics, that is like saying everyone should know about baseball history or NASCAR or NFL, etc. It is an entertainment thing and not an important part of history - schools do not need to teach film history to today's youth - some basic world history and geography would be a better idea. If they are interested in film, come to places like this and learn.

Here...here.

Very well said.

I too couldn't care less what others like. Talk about a film that's a classic? Is it a Criterion? Who gives a rat's ass? I look through Amazon's listing of Criterions (do a search for 'Criterion Collection') and I don't even recognize 5% of the titles.

I went to school, High School and College, to learn what is necessary in the real world. My major ended up being in History, after two failed attempts in engineering and computer science. By having a History degree, I know more of what's going on in the world today than what any knowledge of some Ingmar Bergman film would ever teach me.

This is why "Hollywood" is so out of touch with the real world. They have their collective heads so far up their "fantasy film world" ass that they have no clue on why the US invaded Iraq or who the real threats are to world-wide freedom.

The problem with today's youth...yes, I'm talking to the majority of the participants of this thread, is that when you have to teach you folks '90s history, there's a fucking problem. Why did Bush invade Iraq? Remember what happened in '90 and '91? When you were 4-6 years old? Yep, that's what I thought so...No you don't. Well, I was 17 years old and a senior in High School, when that happened. Yep, I missed the opportunity of being a Gulf War veteran by one year. In fact, one of my classmates joined up right after graduation and serves in the Gulf during the post-war period. Well, my point is, that if half of the "anti-war protesters" of today were out of diapers when the last Gulf War occured, then maybe they'd understand why we're doing today what we're doing.

I don't think having vast film and director knowledge back to the beginning of film history is that damned important when it comes to real life. BTW, I hated English Lit class. Don't even ask me about having to read, "Wuthering Heights". I could have shot my teacher over that one.

Now, give a good movie about the struggle and fight between good and evil, with lots of explosions and high body counts, I'm in. Well, just kidding...sort of.

With that, now where's my copy of 2 Fast 2 Furious..

2. Very, very few films offer the kind of art and expression you talk about. The majority of films are made to simply entertain and make a return on investment. For every Schindler's List there are a ton of Pluto Nash. You can learn historical lessons from sports just as you can film, so your assertion that it is more does not hold for me. Looking back on anything can teach you about the past. With very old sports footage at least what your seeing is real and a realistic assertion can be made fom what is seen (what people where, how they act, number of minorities, etc). A film is someone's vision of how something is, not exactly historical documentation.

Your first point was already addressed, so I'll start here.

Half of what you said is true. Today, there are a dozen films like "The Pacifier" for every Schindler's List. Which makes it all that much more important for filmmakers like Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa and company to be recognized and remembered. These are guys who consistently made a statement with their work...there are no "Pluto Nash" type titles in their filmographies.

Beyond that...I'd debate your notion that "you can learn as much about the past from old sports footage as you can from film," but I really wouldn't know where to start. Let's just say that I wholeheartedly disagree...but if somebody is willing to make a statement that you find wholly outlandish, there's really no sense in even attempting to refute it.

3. If someone is not interested in cinema, why should they know who these people are. Really, one reason to know who Bergman is. Its nice to know trivia, but if they are not a movie person why should they know. I am never surprised when I say something about a famous athlete and I get puzzled looks. It usually doesn't happen with the likes of Babe Ruth, but it has. I don't think anything less of that person or "shake my head." I may try to inform them briefly to further there education or basically so they will understand why I made reference. In the same respect, I don't look down on people that have no classic in there collection. It's entertainment pure and simple to the majority of people. Elitisit film fans are the only ones that care about stuff like this generally. I put myself in the middle. I care enough to explore notable names and older movies, but not nearly enough to say I am a well informed film fan. Oh, and you do come off with a very arrogant "everyone should be as educated as me" attitude. You say most of us, but there are like maybe 20 posters total in this thread - there are thousands of DVDTalk members.

In regard to your "why should they know about such and such" question...you answered it for yourself: "I may try to inform them briefly to further there (sic) education." It's important for the same reason that we have high school literature classes in which students are required to read and analyze works of fiction from years past. Simply put, I feel it's necessary that citizens become more cultured and knowledgeable about a wide variety of subjects past and present (not just film, though that's become the foundation for my little tirade). You apparently don't see the necessity. I suppose we'll just agree to disagree.

4. The post above me is nice, a person that does not know but is willing to find out. Be careful not to scare people like this away when you are busy looking down on them for not already knowing who Bergman is.

There's a whole slew of information about these guys on the internet. If somebody is actually scared away by an ongoing internet forum conversation, well then I don't know what to say other than they can easily find the information they're looking for elsewhere.

-JP

The problem with today's youth...yes, I'm talking to the majority of the participants of this thread, is that when you have to teach you folks '90s history, there's a fucking problem. Why did Bush invade Iraq? Remember what happened in '90 and '91? When you were 4-6 years old? Yep, that's what I thought so...No you don't.

Three cheers for broad generalizations about today's youth.

-JP

To add to colador's analogy to music, I agree with that as well.

When I was in High School, hard rock and heavy metal was the popular music of the day. None of this boy band shit and just the very beginnings of rap...Run DMC and Vanilla Ice ring a bell? Anyway, I became a heavy metal fan when I was a freshman. And through-out my highschool years and then a little less so, even into my college years, I bought several metal albums by groups that hardly anyone had heard of. Some of it was alright, some of it was great...by metal standards. So when I would open up my cassette tape cases, and show people my collection, they would say, "Who is 'Testament' or 'Death'?", or whatever... Those are some pretty common well known band names for heavy metal fans, but for the casual fan of music in general, they just hadn't heard of them. Did I chastise them for it? Did I say, "It's ashame that you haven't heard of, or heard any of Testament's songs, because they are like Metal Gods". No, I just said, "OK, that's fine...I like them"...."Now go listen to your 'Back Street Boys'". Nah, just kidding.

Today, one of my favorite bands is Iced Earth. They're like Metallica and Iron Maiden combined. A high speed progressive metal band.

Now if you were to ask me today what the most popular musicians are, I wouldn't be able to name you any. I haven't heard of a fraction of the musicians today. But give me a classic Van Halen or ZZ Top album anyday.

But give me a classic Van Halen or ZZ Top album anyday.

Who?

;)

-JP

Three cheers for broad generalizations about today's youth.

-JP

Well, look at the TV footage of the anti-war protests. The majority of the participants are ill-informed highschool students, college-aged hippies, and their 50-ish year old professors.

But seriously, I was listening to a radio talk show where the host had to educate the 19-year old caller about '90s history, starting with the '93 WTC bombing. Mainly concerning that how the liberals in teaching professions have attempted to indoctrinate their students into believing that there were no problems with terrorists during the "peaceful" Clinton Administration. When the fact is that there were around 10 separate terrorist attacks on US interests during the Clinton Administration. The difference is that Clinton more or less ignored them, and Bush is dealing with them in the only way the terrorists understand...strength.

Hey Mike Lowrey-
Bravo for making a generalization about some 40-50 million kids, who obviously don't know anything about this world right? You studied history, so you, who as you so eloquently put it - failed in engineering and computer science, are a master of current events and world politics? You have got to be kidding me, I don't believe anyone invited you into this thread to tell myself and every other roughly 16-23 year old in here that we are idiots when it comes to the news, and that you apparently are god because you studied history. I started this thread so some college aged kids could talk about their DVD habits, unless in your failure to understand literature, you also failed to learn how to read and somehow missed the first 40 replies in this thread. Congrats for "graduating high school and college" so you could learn everything in the "real world" because it is obvious that according to you the arts mean jack. There must be some very interesting dinner discussions in your home about political crises around the world. Until you go survey each and every person in my age group, do not generalize what we know. Do not generalize what I know, because you are not in any way "supreme" for the fact that you almost served in the Gulf War, that isn't going to impress any of us. I'm sorry that you fail to see any historical value in film and literature, I guess that's what comes from growing up in the disheartened early 90's as a punk eh?

If you knew me, I never lash out at anyone like this, but what right do you honestly have to make a generalized statement about my generation being ignorant? With age does not always come knowledge buddy.

Hey Mike Lowrey-
Bravo for making a generalization about some 40-50 million kids, who obviously don't know anything about this world right? You studied history, so you, who as you so eloquently put it - failed in engineering and computer science, are a master of current events and world politics? You have got to be kidding me, I don't believe anyone invited you into this thread to tell myself and every other roughly 16-23 year old in here that we are idiots when it comes to the news, and that you apparently are god because you studied history. I started this thread so some college aged kids could talk about their DVD habits, unless in your failure to understand literature, you also failed to learn how to read and somehow missed the first 40 replies in this thread. Congrats for "graduating high school and college" so you could learn everything in the "real world" because it is obvious that according to you the arts mean jack. There must be some very interesting dinner discussions in your home about political crises around the world. Until you go survey each and every person in my age group, do not generalize what we know. Do not generalize what I know, because you are not in any way "supreme" for the fact that you almost served in the Gulf War, that isn't going to impress any of us. I'm sorry that you fail to see any historical value in film and literature, I guess that's what comes from growing up in the disheartened early 90's as a punk eh?

If you knew me, I never lash out at anyone like this, but what right do you honestly have to make a generalized statement about my generation being ignorant? With age does not always come knowledge buddy.

Well, he might be making a very broad generalization, but from my experience it is dead on for a large percentage (not all - you are proably an exception) of that age group. I am barely out of that age group being 25 and feel sad the lack of knowledge those younger than me tend to have when it comes to world events and politics. I am no fountain of knowlege - but do have a general knowledge base I have developed over the last few years. I recently went back to college to take some classes as I am starting my own business and I am around the age group daily. That is why I feel I can make an educated assumtion about the majority of the age group at least in this area.

Yeah, they may know art, and they may know movies, and they may know music, but they in general are lost when you get into a conversation about politics, money and world events. Is art, films and music important - YES. More important than history and the world around us - NO.

I go to a media school - one of the best in the country - especially for Recording Industy. I meet people all the time that are marvels (extensive knowledge) when it comes to the arts. I still veiw them as lost because they don't know what is really important - I assume they will figure it out just like I did when they graduate into the real world. I have a media design degree - art degree - so don't think I am just some art hater. I don't mean to hijack your thread so I will try to resist saying anymore, but he does have a point about who attend these rallies, etc.

Well, look at the TV footage of the anti-war protests. The majority of the participants are ill-informed highschool students, college-aged hippies, and their 50-ish year old professors.

But seriously, I was listening to a radio talk show where the host had to educate the 19-year old caller about '90s history, starting with the '93 WTC bombing. Mainly concerning that how the liberals in teaching professions have attempted to indoctrinate their students into believing that there were no problems with terrorists during the "peaceful" Clinton Administration. When the fact is that there were around 10 separate terrorist attacks on US interests during the Clinton Administration. The difference is that Clinton more or less ignored them, and Bush is dealing with them in the only way the terrorists understand...strength.

And what exactly do your political diatribes have to do with the subject at hand? Obviously you are pro-Bush and a supporter of the Iraqi invasion - fine, so be it. But painting the "majority" of those protesting the war with mindless generalities (your specialty, I've noticed) does nothing to enhance your point of view.

If you recall, before your misdirection and sidebars on how wonderful your musical taste is, how stupid anti-war people are, etc, - the topic was/is about whether or not todays college/high school students have any appreciation for things not of their own generation. I mentioned earlier that I was appalled by this thread, and it has been heartening to see several people subsequently post about their efforts to find something of interest beyond the summer blockbuster.

Simply the act of realizing that there is more in this world than what you already know, and being willing to explore beyond your current knowledge is the true sign of an "educated" person.

can someone tell me if my collection is the typicle teenage collection kind? lol ill admit i got my fair share of mainstream..

Wish I had more money to support my DVD habits. I'm 15, but have a fairly nice collection. Yes, my parents absolutely spoil me :)

speedray - I understand what you're saying
marty - I understand what you're saying

What I don't understand is the necessity of some people - not pointing at you 2 - to hijack a thread that is dealing with college-aged students love/passion for movies. I started this thread specifically to keep it to our age group so we could have a discussion to ourselves since it seems to me that a majority of threads on the board here are run by an older group. If people want to start a 'why teenagers are stupid and need to start reading the newspaper and watching the news everyday' thread please bring it to the Politics section of the "Other Talk" category on the board. Thank you very much.

And on that note, zidane: you definately have a pretty large collection IMO considering your age, like you said definately have a fair share of mainstream, but nice to see some titles like Mean Streets, Miller's Crossing and Taxi Driver, some titles I don't recall most of my high school friends having heard of at the time.

and yes, natevines - that is a nice collection, be happy you have parents that support your hobbies, since I started collecting DVDs, my parents have always been saying to me "why do you need so many movies?" (with a nagging Brookyln accent). Just now (4-5 years after I really struck a passion for film) my parents understand why it's so important to me.

Zidane, your collection is just that: yours. There are titles that I wouldn't own, titles that I proudly own, and titles that I'd like to own. The first two titles listed in your collection are 2 Fast 2 Furious and 25th Hour. I love 25th Hour, and laughed my way through a viewing of 2 Fast 2 Furious with some friends of mine. The important thing is that you're happy with your collection. At 17, with over 220 titles...I sure would be. As far as what's included, most of my college-age friends haven't seen, and probably haven't heard of, such titles as Battle Royale, Das Boot, Fanny & Alexander, The Killer, Seven Samurai, and so forth. If Stealing Harvard and xXx also peak your interest, great. You've definitely got some variation in your collection. I like it...but more importantly, I assume that you like it, and that's really all that matters.

To Natevines...I'll second fliggil's comments. You're lucky to have parents that support your hobbies. Through the years, I've made my way through everything from coins, to sports cards, and now to DVD's, with other fleeting hobbies in between. Throughout, my family has always wondered why I felt the need to spend my money on useless collections. I think they've always accepted my passion for collecting, but on the same token, they never really understood it. It's good that you've got a family willing to not only understand your passions, but to help support them, also.

That said, and at the risk of turning this into a "rate my collection" thread, you've got a hell of a library (including more than a few titles that I'd gladly own if I had the money to do so).

-JP

Bustin' my balls again, are we, marty, eh?

And what exactly do your political diatribes have to do with the subject at hand?

Nothing, I was just expanding on speedyray's anology that while the college-type may be "enlightened" on all things art, that they know next to nothing about real world geo-politics, which most out of college people would consider a bit more important than knowing who some less well-known director from 50-70 years ago was.

Obviously you are pro-Bush and a supporter of the Iraqi invasion - fine, so be it.

Guilty as charged, and proud of it...considering that I voted for Gore in 2000...I guess something changed, huh....the skyline of NYC, for one.

But painting the "majority" of those protesting the war with mindless generalities (your specialty, I've noticed) does nothing to enhance your point of view.

Well, it's actually quite easy to generalize about the anti-war protestors. Why? Because when you go ask them what they're protesting for or against, you get a dozen different answers from racism to the environment, etc. And considering that most of those rallies are organized and funded by groups that are fronts for Socialist and Communist groups, you go figure...

If you recall, before your misdirection and sidebars on how wonderful your musical taste is,

You see, that's just it. I wasn't stating how wonderful my musical taste was. I specifically said that my taste was different and had groups that many had never heard of. I also specifically said that I did not berate folks who didn't know those groups. But it appears that the youngsters here are berating those, who don't know who their obscure foreign film directors are. Yes, maybe these directors were great and contributed a lot to the genre of film, but if they are not well known in contemporary circles, then who are they to skoff at those who don't.

how stupid anti-war people are, etc,

OK, here's a test...next time there's a protest, I challenge you to go down and ask them if they know who the Vice President is. Betcha 80% of them don't know. That's backed up by previous attempts by other folks.

the topic was/is about whether or not todays college/high school students have any appreciation for things not of their own generation. I mentioned earlier that I was appalled by this thread, and it has been heartening to see several people subsequently post about their efforts to find something of interest beyond the summer blockbuster.

That it is. And I have no problem with that. But for these enlightened youngsters to skoff at those who don't share their same taste in obscure directors and their latest Criterion collection, don't expect me to fall all over their shoes.

Simply the act of realizing that there is more in this world than what you already know, and being willing to explore beyond your current knowledge is the true sign of an "educated" person.

No, that's a true sign of an "elitist" person, especially when they shoot it back in your face with a "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah...I know more than you..."

I dare these "educated" people to name me 10 NASCAR drivers....now then...there ya go.

Mike, thanks for your perfect views on life, if you could now, please take it to the "Politics" section of the "Other Talk" category.

I really would like to get this topic back on track instead of having to start a new one.

Zidane, your collection is just that: yours. There are titles that I wouldn't own, titles that I proudly own, and titles that I'd like to own. The first two titles listed in your collection are 2 Fast 2 Furious and 25th Hour. I love 25th Hour, and laughed my way through a viewing of 2 Fast 2 Furious with some friends of mine. The important thing is that you're happy with your collection. At 17, with over 220 titles...I sure would be. As far as what's included, most of my college-age friends haven't seen, and probably haven't heard of, such titles as Battle Royale, Das Boot, Fanny & Alexander, The Killer, Seven Samurai, and so forth. If Stealing Harvard and xXx also peak your interest, great. You've definitely got some variation in your collection. I like it...but more importantly, I assume that you like it, and that's really all that matters.

-JP



lol, movies like stealing harvard and xXx, are crap i agree. I just started collecting dvds a little less than a year ago, last june i believe. I started out with one dvd(starwars Episode 1) it was even full screen, then i found this place and dvds sparked my interest. I love film, i like a lot of older movies, theres a whole lot of older films id like to get and see mainly from the 20s-40s, era. I have been renting a lot of criterions lately and there have been plenty that i loved and still need to buy. Mostly all my friends like these mainstream moives, i mean my best friends favorite movie is Van Helsing rofl. Pathetic i know.. but thats how most of my friends tastes in movies vary. I can tell you most teenagers are into the pop corn flicks, and wouldnt mind watching a mindless movie. After being apart of this forum for almost a year, i have learned to appericiate cinema. I mean i read somewhere on this fourm talking about the marx brothers and rented it and loved it(still need to buy it) but with out this fourm i never would have heard of it. I try to turn my friends on to liking these older movies but for the most part they dont like them. Although i did manage to convert most of my friends into Widescreen lol.

I dare these "educated" people to name me 10 NASCAR drivers....now then...there ya go.

Dale Jarrett
Tony Stewart
Jeff Gordan
Mark Martin
Rusty Wallace
Kurt Busch
Michael Waltrip
Jimmie Johnson
Dale Earnhardt Jr.
Bobby Labonte

Born and raised in Houston, Texas...you're going to have to come up with something a bit more difficult than that. ;)

-JP

NASCAR is not a sport. I do not enjoy NASCAR, hence I do not know any drivers beyond...I don't know, Dale Earnhardt's kid? That makes me no more or less educated than you, haha, I'm sure.

There are uneducated morons on both sides, Mike. GIS "morans" and get yourself an eyeful of a fine, upstanding citizen of Wal-Mart Nation. But I digress.

Relax. Chill. And please take note of the fact that none of your posts have anything to do with the topic of the thread, as far as I can see. You just seemed to come in and read "Why I Became a 9/11 Republican" on the subject line. OK, fine, do whatever, but...there's a section for that, and this isn't it.

fliggil, a big kudos to you for starting up a thread like this. It actually is quite refreshing to know that some of this generation's youth are appreciating quality cinema and that they're actively participating in this very thread you provided for us. I myself have been collecting for about five years since I was 16. The initial draw for me was actually home theater sound. I fell in love with the dynamic audio presentations dvds and a 5.1 system could provide. I'll still buy a "The Rock" and "I, Robot" anyday as long as it has killer a/v. But of course, any film fan can't help but be later drawn into a variety of great movies.

My goal now isn't just to buy or watch important movies, but to build and own a diverse collection of films encompassing all types of genres. I wasn't too concerned with the lack of Kurosawa or Fellini, but rather Japanese and Italian cinema altogether. Having this open mind made the transition to other genres I onced ignored or shied away from like silents, anime, documentaries, and even classic animated Disney features much easier. My collection now includes all types of cinema, extending to all reaches of the globe.Though presentation is important, they can never substitute for content and substance. I think it's fine that many college.high school students enjoy the average mainstream flick, but I would hope they'd keep an open mind about all types of genres.

I forgot where I heard this from, as it's not my analogy, but someone once compared films to foods. Like specialty food, certain films are an acquired taste. If your average summer flick is a bag of doritos, which anybody can pick up and enjoy, a Godard work would be a fine French cuisine.

I've actually have successfully introduced many friends to foreign and obscure cinema. Instead of taking a snobbish approach, I just studied there tastes, and recommended one title at a time, with adjusting levels of accessibility. In other words, give them someting easy to swallow to begin with, and if they like what they see, carefully add more to their plate. Be patient, understanding, and open minded. If each of us can all convince 4-5 of our closest friends, we may see many more fans of quality cinema within our own generation. Sixteen year olds will be selling out local art houses instead of the cinemaplex.

Last, but not least, just watch what you enjoy, but give all movies a chance. With that said, I can both appreciate and enjoy the melodrama of a Sirk piece, or the rumbling bass of a DTS Spidey 2 track. And no, I haven't picked up the Fanny set, I was too busy saving up for Cassavettes five films, but I'm sure I'll get to it eventually.

This is hilarious. I want to preface this post by stating that I'm 24 and currently a law student. I attended college to major in film, but chose finance instead.

First you get the music snobs who tell you if it isn't "indie" it sucks. Then you get the film snobs who tell you that watching The Third Man or The Maltese Falcon will allow you to more greatly appreciate cinema and make you a better person than someone watching Die Hard with a Vengeance or Billy Madison. Art is not objective. What one person loves and connects with varies differently from person to person. You can see this by looking at the DVD list sigs in everyone's links. Don't worry about what other people are watching. Most people who want to sit down and watch a film after class want something that doesn't require a lot of thinking, will make them feel better, and will provide some laughs and entertainment. I'm sorry but 9 times out of 10, Band of Outsiders, Rebecca, The Seven Samurai, or La Dolce Vita just isn't going to accomplish those things for the average person.

You'll realize over time that the movies you go back to and love are the Tao of Steve, Real Genius, Dazed and Confused, Almost Famous, Big Lebowski, Chasing Amy's of your collection and not the cinematic (snob) classics.

If you don't think filmmaking's has progressed over the last 75 years to become both a better ART form, and better entertainment device, you are sadly mistaken.

For the high schoolers in the thread, don't worry, everyone has big dreams. But eventually you'll realize that if you want to get laid, you're gonna have to watch 13 going on 30, instead of Shock Corridor.

For the high schoolers in the thread, don't worry, everyone has big dreams. But eventually you'll realize that if you want to get laid, you're gonna have to watch 13 going on 30, instead of Shock Corridor.

YEAH! The sooner you high schoolers realize that all girls are brainless beings, incapable of having their own refined tastes in whatever the field may be...the better off you'll be. Got that, kids?! Girls don't want somebody who has tastes outside of the norm. If you want to get laid, you'd better get busy realizing that a girl is nothing more than a body with a vagina and ground-beef for brains.

:rolleyes:

The ignorance and stereotypes offered by people can sometimes be overwhelming.

-JP

deadlax: Obviously 'most people' want to watch Big Lebowski compared to La Dolce Vita on a regular basis, that's what makes mainstream, well mainstream, and why it isn't arthouse. That's the reason mindless reality tv rules the airwaves, and not the Charlie Rose Show. What I think some people here may be mistaken about is that you may think our sole goal is to turn every mainstream fan into a fan of Fellini, Kurosawa, etc., but it isn't. It's like music. You have a friend listening to a current rock radio station, so you say "hey ever listen to any Led Zeppelin? check them out, besides being amazing musicians, you can hear where a lot of current rock draws from." It's the same with cinema. Obviously not everyone is gonna go out and buy some Zeppelin, just like after watching Kill Bill with a friend, your friend probably won't go out and buy A Touch of Zen to see some of kung fu's history on film based on your suggestion. If you're going to appreciate art, it has to be with an open mind to suggestion.

And it's not that people check other people's signatures as some sort of elitist 'my collection is better than yours' (well with some people I'm sure it may be), but in my opinion I like going through other people's collections for ideas on movies to check out if we have similar tastes.

And as for the 'want to get laid' comment, sometime's it's just not worth it to sit through 13 going on 30 :) To me, for the other people who also said that you have to watch movies like that to get laid, it's almost like saying 'you gotta read Nancy Drew books with a girl to get laid'. Sure if you're wasted and looking for a quick score that's all good, but I need someone with a slightly higher mental capacity for something longer than a 1-nighter.

Wow, the spin of a burgeoning liberal. 9 times out of 10, my statement is correct, and I stand by it. They don't call them "chick-flicks" for no reason.

Well deadlax isnt that far off from truth. The thread is basically come pat yourself on the back for liking non-mainstream films. So you watch films from Sweden. Thats great. Its good that you can look beyond mainstream titles and see what good stuff there is out there. Coming in here and boasting, acting like watching mainstream movies is some kind of fault is ridiculous.

Well deadlax isnt that far off from truth. The thread is basically come pat yourself on the back for liking non-mainstream films. So you watch films from Sweden. Thats great. Its good that you can look beyond mainstream titles and see what good stuff there is out there. Coming in here and boasting, acting like watching mainstream movies is some kind of fault is ridiculous.

Would you please copy and paste the comments that people have made in this thread saying that "watching mainstream movies is some kind of fault." Thanks, I'll be waiting.

-JP

My gf made me sit through the whole movie of How to lose a guy in 10 days....

Well deadlax isnt that far off from truth. The thread is basically come pat yourself on the back for liking non-mainstream films. So you watch films from Sweden. Thats great. Its good that you can look beyond mainstream titles and see what good stuff there is out there. Coming in here and boasting, acting like watching mainstream movies is some kind of fault is ridiculous.

I believe if you actually check out the majority of our lists in this thread, you will see we have some mainstream titles. I believe 1 or 2 posters pretty much only had mainstream titles. We understand the importance of them for the film industry, and often times the success of mainstream leads to more funding for independent pictures. Sure I have some Bergman and Fellini, but I will not deny owning Boiler Room, How High, or My Big Fat Greek Wedding. There is a lot of enjoyment for some people in those pictures and I, nor do I think anyone else here, would deny it. (Well maybe MBFGK, but anyways) All we're doing is talking about how we enjoy foreign, arthouse, etc. pictures as well. We're not looking for a pat on the back from anyone except the people that this thread is intended for if anyone would care to read the title...

This is hilarious. I want to preface this post by stating that I'm 24 and currently a law student. I attended college to major in film, but chose finance instead.

First you get the music snobs who tell you if it isn't "indie" it sucks. Then you get the film snobs who tell you that watching The Third Man or The Maltese Falcon will allow you to more greatly appreciate cinema and make you a better person than someone watching Die Hard with a Vengeance or Billy Madison. Art is not objective. What one person loves and connects with varies differently from person to person. You can see this by looking at the DVD list sigs in everyone's links. Don't worry about what other people are watching. Most people who want to sit down and watch a film after class want something that doesn't require a lot of thinking, will make them feel better, and will provide some laughs and entertainment. I'm sorry but 9 times out of 10, Band of Outsiders, Rebecca, The Seven Samurai, or La Dolce Vita just isn't going to accomplish those things for the average person.

You'll realize over time that the movies you go back to and love are the Tao of Steve, Real Genius, Dazed and Confused, Almost Famous, Big Lebowski, Chasing Amy's of your collection and not the cinematic (snob) classics.

If you don't think filmmaking's has progressed over the last 75 years to become both a better ART form, and better entertainment device, you are sadly mistaken.

For the high schoolers in the thread, don't worry, everyone has big dreams. But eventually you'll realize that if you want to get laid, you're gonna have to watch 13 going on 30, instead of Shock Corridor.

Thanks....that was the very point I was trying to make in more eloquent language than I could muster.

When a aficionado of one "artform" becomes a snob by only believing that others must respect and/or adhere to some "classic" as if it was the end all be all to "knowing" the artform, then that's what tends to turn a lot of people off.

Me, I'm just a DVD aficionado...I collect DVDs. Just as I did with VHS back in the day. I guess my DVD collecting kinda reflects the way I collected VHS. How? Well, IIRC, the only readily available VHS that were available to buy were mostly mainstream titles. The so-called "classics" were usually relegated to the back aisles of rental stores. And considering that I very rarely rented, the last things I would rent were some old "classics".

So when DVD came along, er when I started collecting DVDs, my collecting habit pretty much stayed the same. I buy mostly mainstream titles, and relatively new titles. The only older titles I buy are typically Westerns or war films. Has the DVD format gotten me to buy titles that I'd ordinarily not buy on VHS? Yes. But typically, they have been TV shows, or some asian foreign language films that now have an available English track.

Secondly, I buy DVDs of titles that will entertain me...not school me on the benefits of reveling in cinematic greatness. Are some of my titles, "great ones"? Sure. Are some guilty pleasures? A few. Are some just mindless action flicks? You betcha! Are some chick flicks? HELL NO!!! Sorry, deadlax, but "13 going on 30" will not be found in my house, ever. ;) :p

All we're doing is talking about how we enjoy foreign, arthouse, etc. pictures as well.

I bet you watch a movie per night on the Sundance Channel too, huh? ;)

I bet you watch a movie per night on the Sundance Channel too, huh? ;)

If my freaking cable provider offered it, I most certainly would :). I usually check out TCM, Bravo and AMC, but more often just watch something I own. Which unfortunately for money's sake, usually leads me to a local b&m to buy yet some more.

When I was in High School, hard rock and heavy metal was the popular music of the day. None of this boy band shit...

You seem to be forgetting the New Kids on the Block!
:)



-

You seem to be forgetting the New Kids on the Block!
:)-

Whoops, that's the one I meant to say, when I said the Back Street Boys. Eh? Those boy bands all look the same to me.

Oh...oh...oh...oho....oh....oh...oho....the right stuff...

Im a 17 year old high school senior, and I spend almost all my money on books like "perks of being a wallflower," "the virgin suicides," and "rules of attractions" and on TV DVD's like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Gilmore Girls," and "Sex and the City" and my friends are always making fun me, calling me the pop culture freak (i can answer any question they have about that)... but today I got back at them all... they all have 3.8/4.0 GPAs and none of them got in the university we all applied to as "strech school" (UC Berkly) well, today i got my acceptance letter (and my gpa is 3.2), but I wrote one of my essays on pop culture and how I wan't to be a film historian. It was Awesome to see the looks on their faces.

The mail doesn't come on Sundays.

They made an exception for his acceptance letter. They knew how badly he wanted to rub it in his friends faces.

Would you please copy and paste the comments that people have made in this thread saying that "watching mainstream movies is some kind of fault." Thanks, I'll be waiting.

-JP

I'm very selective when I buy my dvds and I don't buy the usual crap that many people my age do.


I'm sorry that I buy crap.

I'm sorry that I buy crap.

Looking through your DVDAF collection, I'm not sure where you're coming from with your posts. You are aware that he never said, "every film that gets a mainstream release is crap," right? The guy you quoted, did you even bother to look at his collection? He has quite a few mainstream releases...the same ones you do, in fact (The Big Lebowski, Collateral, Saving Private Ryan, and so forth). I own those titles as well. However, none of us own Honey, Torque, or You Got Served.

My point is...everybody has mainstream films that they enjoy. Nobody has come in this thread and tried to say that, "if you watch any mainstream film, you're a jackass." His comment in no way implied that all mainstream films are crap. He simply said that the mainstream films that most people his age purchase are...and I'm inclined to agree with that to a small extent.

Don't get so defensive, and don't read so much into peoples' posts. There's a difference between the word "crap" and the word "mainstream," despite your efforts to read the former as the latter.

-JP

Bustin' my balls again, are we, marty, eh?

Is that how you view any criticism of something you say? Perhaps that's why your posts mostly come across as hopeless attempts at defensive argument.

As for my previous statement ....
"Simply the act of realizing that there is more in this world than what you already know, and being willing to explore beyond your current knowledge is the true sign of an "educated" person."


....your response tells us all we ever need to know about you.

No, that's a true sign of an "elitist" person, especially when they shoot it back in your face with a "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah...I know more than you..."




<i>Elitist?</i> That's what you call someone who wants to learn more? That's how you view someone who realizes they don't know everything?

Sad, simply sad .....

Looking through your DVDAF collection, I'm not sure where you're coming from with your posts. You are aware that he never said, "every film that gets a mainstream release is crap," right? The guy you quoted, did you even bother to look at his collection? He has quite a few mainstream releases...the same ones you do, in fact (The Big Lebowski, Collateral, Saving Private Ryan, and so forth). I own those titles as well. However, none of us own Honey, Torque, or You Got Served.

My point is...everybody has mainstream films that they enjoy. Nobody has come in this thread and tried to say that, "if you watch any mainstream film, you're a jackass." His comment in no way implied that all mainstream films are crap. He simply said that the mainstream films that most people his age purchase are...and I'm inclined to agree with that to a small extent.

Don't get so defensive, and don't read so much into peoples' posts. There's a difference between the word "crap" and the word "mainstream," despite your efforts to read the former as the latter.

-JP Alright maybe there is a difference between crap and mainstream, but do you know a person who only buys Honey, 2Fast 2Furious, or Anacondas? Joe Six Pack buys the mainstream titles and theres nothing wrong with that. I hate even using the term Joe Six Pack. They aren't any less because they only buy mainstream and you aren't any better for buying foreign or old dvds.

I don't think any of us are claiming to be better because we buy 'foreign and old dvds.' Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, there certainly is a lot of crap in theaters lately. For every Million Dollar Baby, there's a bit too many The Pacifiers for my taste. But look, it was #2 at the BO this weekend, so what seems like crap to me, was probably 90 minutes of enjoyment for a couple of million moviegoers.

I think what we have been trying to say, is that while mainstream may offer a broader base more entertainment value (thus the term mainstream), classic film can offer more artistic value. Just like Justin Timberlake vs. Bob Dylan. Is there anyone here who could deny that Dylan has done more for music? Sure Michael Bay may not have the artistic instinct of an Orson Welles, but his last 4 films have grossed about $675 million, so I don't think any studio execs are going to argue that his films have a general entertainment value. And for those people who think that we are downplaying you because you have no desire to see classic or foreign films, it's just a matter of the fact that you're closed attitude makes you come off like any other person who thinks that a movie is borring because it is black and white.

So in conclusion, there is nothing wrong with mainstream, but if people continue to have a growing negative attitude towards 'artsy' films (often without ever seeing one), then future generations will miss out on a whole lot of cinema. What would happen if we started shunning Dostoyevsky, Twain and Tolstoy, and 'Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus' started to become the base of national literature?

I don't think any of us are claiming to be better because we buy 'foreign and old dvds.' Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, there certainly is a lot of crap in theaters lately. For every Million Dollar Baby, there's a bit too many The Pacifiers for my taste. But look, it was #2 at the BO this weekend, so what seems like crap to me, was probably 90 minutes of enjoyment for a couple of million moviegoers.

I think what we have been trying to say, is that while mainstream may offer a broader base more entertainment value (thus the term mainstream), classic film can offer more artistic value. Just like Justin Timberlake vs. Bob Dylan. Is there anyone here who could deny that Dylan has done more for music? Sure Michael Bay may not have the artistic instinct of an Orson Welles, but his last 4 films have grossed about $675 million, so I don't think any studio execs are going to argue that his films have a general entertainment value. And for those people who think that we are downplaying you because you have no desire to see classic or foreign films, it's just a matter of the fact that you're closed attitude makes you come off like any other person who thinks that a movie is borring because it is black and white.

So in conclusion, there is nothing wrong with mainstream, but if people continue to have a growing negative attitude towards 'artsy' films (often without ever seeing one), then future generations will miss out on a whole lot of cinema. What would happen if we started shunning Dostoyevsky, Twain and Tolstoy, and 'Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus' started to become the base of national literature?


*cough* Million Dollar Baby sucked hard. Maybe even more than The Pacifier does...at least The Pacifier has no delusions of grandeur.

I don't think any of us are claiming to be better because we buy 'foreign and old dvds.' Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, there certainly is a lot of crap in theaters lately. For every Million Dollar Baby, there's a bit too many The Pacifiers for my taste. But look, it was #2 at the BO this weekend, so what seems like crap to me, was probably 90 minutes of enjoyment for a couple of million moviegoers.

I think what we have been trying to say, is that while mainstream may offer a broader base more entertainment value (thus the term mainstream), classic film can offer more artistic value. Just like Justin Timberlake vs. Bob Dylan. Is there anyone here who could deny that Dylan has done more for music? Sure Michael Bay may not have the artistic instinct of an Orson Welles, but his last 4 films have grossed about $675 million, so I don't think any studio execs are going to argue that his films have a general entertainment value. And for those people who think that we are downplaying you because you have no desire to see classic or foreign films, it's just a matter of the fact that you're closed attitude makes you come off like any other person who thinks that a movie is borring because it is black and white.

So in conclusion, there is nothing wrong with mainstream, but if people continue to have a growing negative attitude towards 'artsy' films (often without ever seeing one), then future generations will miss out on a whole lot of cinema. What would happen if we started shunning Dostoyevsky, Twain and Tolstoy, and 'Men are From Mars, Women are from Venus' started to become the base of national literature?
Have you seen the Pacifier?

I think the thing that me, and Ryu, Mike, and others are trying to say is that film was not created to be criticized, but to be enjoyed. If you are watching a movie for its artistic value, you are watching it for the wrong reason. Movies were created to entertain moviegoers by either creating an enjoyable experience, or allowing them to reflect on the story told upon the screen. Just because a film is "artsy" does not mean it does either of these things better than The Pacifier, which I will definitely watch once it hits pay cable, for the oh so lovely Brittany Snow.

What's going on here? Can't you folks just say that so-and-so has lousy taste in film without resorting to personal attacks or apologizing for your opinion? That's all that is necessary. Derailing a thread with an interesting topic because some folks can't take what they dish out is silly. Accept the fact that someone thinks your collection is pretentious or brain-dead and move on.

...film was not created to be criticized, but to be enjoyed. If you are watching a movie for its artistic value, you are watching it for the wrong reason.

Wow. Just wow. I didn't know there were a specific set of reasons to watch movies...? It's also ridiculous to think that criticizing and enjoying films are mutually exclusive.

If a director makes a movie for entertainment's sake purely (going out on a limb, what I assume The Pacifier is) then perfect, anyone who wants to watch a film for entertainment's sake should watch it. Just as people who may be looking for something different (see: not better or worse) such as a movie that makes you think, or that uses different camera techniques should watch something along the lines of Bergman, Welles, Truffaut, or Kurosawa.

All art is subjective, so putting a definite criteria on what it's "supposed to do" is ignorant.

*cough* Million Dollar Baby sucked hard. Maybe even more than The Pacifier does...at least The Pacifier has no delusions of grandeur.

Hahaha, you're my new favorite person on the internet.

Wow. Just wow.

My thoughts exactly.

-JP

*cough* Million Dollar Baby sucked hard. Maybe even more than The Pacifier does...at least The Pacifier has no delusions of grandeur.

I never asked if you liked this movie.


Have you seen the Pacifier?

I saw the trailer, and that alone was 2 minutes too many of Vin Diesel.


Can everyone just freakin relax for a minute here

You know, if you guys would like to get chicks once in a while, you may want to lay off the Bergman. Maybe lay off the Kurosawa. Maybe lay off the Truffaut as well. Pick up a Michael Bay film. Pick up Bring It On. Pick up the American Pie trilogy. Pick up some films that you can enjoy when others are over.

;)

:) Don't let this man scare you, young kids. My wife and I bonded on our first date when she asked me what my favorite movie was, and I said I really liked Kieslowski's Three Colors trilogy. Turned out she was big fan too, and we were in our 20s.

A shout out to NatrlBornThrllr! Funny how age reveals a poor measure on intelligence. Don’t let ignorant geezers get you down. You go, JP!

Here come the "film is art" snobs! I like many of the classics, but to say that a director's first intent is to created art over entertainment is laughable. No one make a movie to say, "Hey, I can use 4200 different types of shots in this flick, and that will make it ART."

I think what many people fail to see here is that entertainment is an artform. Vaudeville, traveling musicians, even the circus. Each work to perfect an artform - whether it be comedy, music, dance, etc. Film is no different. Jerry Seinfeld's comedic delivery is a near-perfect artform (many would agree). Clapton's guitar playing abilities is art. Art should inspire, make you feel emotion - in the case of Kieslowski, you are obviously prompted to feel different emotions than a Michael Bay film. But it makes no difference, as long as you feel emotions,evoke the senses. People should not confuse that something is only art, or only for entertainment purposes. At least in my opinion.

The mail doesn't come on Sundays.
rotfl

For every Million Dollar Baby, there's a bit too many The Pacifiers for my taste. But look, it was #2 at the BO this weekend, so what seems like crap to me, was probably 90 minutes of enjoyment for a couple of million moviegoers.

And for those people who think that we are downplaying you because you have no desire to see classic or foreign films, it's just a matter of the fact that you're closed attitude makes you come off like any other person who thinks that a movie is borring because it is black and white.




I saw the trailer, and that alone was 2 minutes too many of Vin Diesel.



Now who's being closed minded?

I'm prretty sure a few of the the people in here who are defending current "mainstream" movies, have seen as many if not more of the classics that most of the 16-17 yr old people proclaiming their love for their Fanny and Alexander 5 Disc Criterion Collections.

Calling us closed-minded is probably not the most effective way to win the debate.

I'm 18 and last year I ditched school so I could be at Best Buy when it first opened to get my copy of Ed Wood, The first time it came around, I did get it.

I am a senior in H/S and I have a measly job at a skating rink and I would say that most of my checks go to DVD's , oh and Taco Bell!

My most recent purchase was Eraserhead from DL.com.

I just had to throw that in because I am still excited about it!

Anyway, I like all types of films. My favorite movie is Dawn of the Dead ('78), then The Good the Bad and the Ugly, and then Mulholland Dr.. Also The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari has recently become a favorite of mine. I really want to pick up the Fanny and Alexander box, but money is tight. I'm also really looking forward to getting The Adventures of Antoine Doniel box.

I try not to insult people's taste, but when someone tells me they love cinema, and then goes and by the fullscreen version of a widescreen film, and then says that subtitles are stupid, and then says a Classic movie sucks without any good reason, they come off as ignorant and need to be corrected. I believe in the preservation of a film to as close to the creator's vision as possible. And if someone disagrees with that with a well articulated and reasonable arguement, then how can I say they are wrong, other than showing them my well articulated and reasonable arguement? I will not insult them personally however, that is rude and inconsiderate.

Now who's being closed minded?

In theory, yes, but of the past 5 or so movies Diesel has starred in, I saw them all and I was thoroughly dissapointed by each and every one. If you saw, say...5 Hitchcock movies and really did not like every one, I would not call you close minded about seeing more of his pictures. To each his own taste, but thanks anyways.

And the fact is, I see just about as many mainstream pictures as the average American. However, I also have a devout interest in learning about the history of film and exploring it in other countries as well. I will admit that I am very close-minded about horror films, both low-budget and mainstream, they just don't do it for me. If you looked at the last 100 movies I saw, I'm about as open-minded about film as one could be. If I know that I do not appreciate a director or actor's work, there is no reason for me, in my eyes, to continue to see their films when there is so much else out there.

Vin Diesel's last seven movies before The Pacifier. Just in case your statement was made without thought.

The Chronicles of Riddick (2004) .... Riddick
A Man Apart (2003) .... Sean Vetter
xXx (2002) .... Xander Cage
Knockaround Guys (2001) .... Taylor Reese
The Fast and the Furious (2001) .... Dominic Toretto
Pitch Black (2000) .... Richard B. Riddick
Boiler Room (2000) .... Chris Varick

No it was not, the only one on that list I like is Boiler Room, he actually acts in that film in my opinion. A Man Apart was ok but no replay value for me. If I saw any of the others on tv, I'd flip right through them. It's a shame because I know he has the ability to really break out - I can't wait to see him in the new Lumet movie - but he let himself be typecasted, because well, his movies were successful at the box office. Hopefully Find Me Guilty will open some doors for him.

Hahaha, you're my new favorite person on the internet.



My thoughts exactly.

-JP