Director's box set collections: best way to view them
#1
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Director's box set collections: best way to view them
I just got the Sam Peckinpah set today and have started with Ride the High Country. I think I will wind up watching the movies in the order in which they were made, though I think the order in which they occurred (since they were all westerns, one could make them a chronological series) might be another possible method.
I was wondering what kind of approach you guys take, if there truly is one to take if you want to watch a set straight. I have the Kubrick box set and think that the order in which they were made is the best one for it. Some would argue that it's best to watch a director's works in the order in which they were made because it enables to see them grow as a filmmaker. However, there are some filmmakers whom one could argue deteriorated with time (Arthur Penn, John Schlesinger, Alan J. Pakula, maybe Oliver Stone).
EDIT: just checked IMDB. Apparently Peckinpah's next to last major film was a film version of the country tune "Convoy". Guess he could be added to the list of auteurs that deteriorated with time. Of course I wish I could see the actual movie to judge that, but alas it ain't on DVD.
I was wondering what kind of approach you guys take, if there truly is one to take if you want to watch a set straight. I have the Kubrick box set and think that the order in which they were made is the best one for it. Some would argue that it's best to watch a director's works in the order in which they were made because it enables to see them grow as a filmmaker. However, there are some filmmakers whom one could argue deteriorated with time (Arthur Penn, John Schlesinger, Alan J. Pakula, maybe Oliver Stone).
EDIT: just checked IMDB. Apparently Peckinpah's next to last major film was a film version of the country tune "Convoy". Guess he could be added to the list of auteurs that deteriorated with time. Of course I wish I could see the actual movie to judge that, but alas it ain't on DVD.
Last edited by Dr. DVD; 01-27-06 at 08:51 PM.
#2
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
Some would argue that it's best to watch a director's works in the order in which they were made because it enables to see them grow as a filmmaker. However, there are some filmmakers whom one could argue deteriorated with time (Arthur Penn, John Schlesinger, Alan J. Pakula, maybe Oliver Stone).
#5
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by joshtown
Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid (Reconstruction) was the best film I saw all year. Brace yourself for that one. Amazing.
#6
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 3,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got the set last week myself and started with RTHC myself, but I was all over the place from there. I was concerned about having enough time to view the films in one sitting, so depending on my schedule, I watched what I could fit into the time I had.
So then I watched PG&BTK because I thought it was way waaaaay long. The time on the back of the case is listed as 237 minutes! WTF! That is like the time of both cuts combined, and just about 4 hours. I didn't know how they could get 4 hours on one side of a disc, but put it in anyway to see what was up. Turns out both cuts are under 120 minutes, and I watched the SE. For once in a long time, I think warner made a mistake, and they threw me off.
So, seeing that I was surprised that PG&BTK was only roughly 120 minutes, and I still had two hours left in my schedule, I put in Cable Hogue. Loved that movie. Never saw it before, but I liked it alot. What a great character Cable is.
Lastly I watched TWB because I've seen it before, I already owned the flipper disc.
So, apparently I have no pattern at all
So then I watched PG&BTK because I thought it was way waaaaay long. The time on the back of the case is listed as 237 minutes! WTF! That is like the time of both cuts combined, and just about 4 hours. I didn't know how they could get 4 hours on one side of a disc, but put it in anyway to see what was up. Turns out both cuts are under 120 minutes, and I watched the SE. For once in a long time, I think warner made a mistake, and they threw me off.
So, seeing that I was surprised that PG&BTK was only roughly 120 minutes, and I still had two hours left in my schedule, I put in Cable Hogue. Loved that movie. Never saw it before, but I liked it alot. What a great character Cable is.
Lastly I watched TWB because I've seen it before, I already owned the flipper disc.
So, apparently I have no pattern at all
#7
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
Some would argue that it's best to watch a director's works in the order in which they were made because it enables to see them grow as a filmmaker. However, there are some filmmakers whom one could argue deteriorated with time (Arthur Penn, John Schlesinger, Alan J. Pakula, maybe Oliver Stone).
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by illennium
Really? That film is, by all critical accounts, an embarrassment.
#9
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by joshtown
An embarrassment? I haven't heard that. Maybe a good ol' studio chop job. Peckinpah was never allowed to cut together the version he envisioned. From what I hear, the theatrical release was a bit jumbled and incoherent. That's why this new Restoration is so incredible. The power of DVD, baby.
#11
DVD Talk Gold Edition
I wouldn't classify the film as an embarrassment either - Pauline's assesment is right on the money. It's a good film with great things in it. It would have been a masterpiece if Peckinpah was on his game. However, watching the films chronlogically is a good way to go, I think.