I only own two Criterion Collection DVDs, and they are Armageddon and The Rock (I may eventually buy Fear & Loathing). I was not really satisfied with the bare bones releases of these, so I am glad Criterion re-released them.

Really? Not Spielberg or Lucas or Cameron? What about Mel Gibson? Peter Jackson? Chris Columbus? Sam Raimi (he's only got one major one now, but another couple are coming)? Emerich? The Wachowskis? Zemeckis? Gore Verbinski? M. Night?

Hell, even 'Men in Black' grossed more than 'Armageddon'.

There isn't a director in the Criterion collection who brings in as much money as Michael Bay does, though, I'll grant you that.

That metaphor doesn't work; a stamp collector still looks at his stamps, while a person who collected 'Salo' just to have it doesn't derive any enjoyment from actually watching the movie, that was the original poster's point. I understand you're going for "use/use", but collecting isn't just about use, nobody would argue that; if it were, you could derive as much satisfaction from living next door to a Blockbuster as owning DVDs. His point was that nobody enjoys 'Salo' as a movie and few of the people who buy it are doing so for any reason other than to own it as a point of pride. He's just saying, he doesn't seen any reason to be prideful that you paid a large amount of money for a DVD of a movie you aren't going to watch.

I do think it's funny, though, that you'd even compare stamps to DVDs; sure, you can treat DVDs like stamps and collect stuff just to look at the cases, but why would anybody do that? And why would you act like people who don't understand why anybody would do that are idiots?

That said, the defensiveness of people saying, "Oh, hey, it's not just DVDs that people collect!" are missing the entire point of DVDs, which is that, yes, you can collect them, but you get more out of them than just "collecting". They're comprable to CDs, if anything, folks; if you can't see the difference between collecting DVDs and collecting coins, there's something wrong with you and your collecting habit. Best of luck and all, don't get me wrong, but collecting movies for the *sole* purpose of having them, never of watching them, there's something weird about that to me.

True, but 'The Rock' was meant to be earlier, it just took them a while to get all the stuff transferred in from the LD. Or rights or something. I don't remember why, but I know it was intended to be released earlier than it wound up being.

I disagree, Bay *loves* the Criterion collection, and he's powerful enough in Hollywood to get what he wants; he's been able to force Disney (Disney for God's sake!) to only release his films in widescreen on DVD, never fullscreen (even as an option). In much the same way, he wanted to work with Criterion, he contacted them, and it got worked out. If he wants to in future, the studios won't say no. (They let Wes Anderson do it too.)

I'm not saying it's a guarantee, but I expect we'll get a few more Bay titles from Criterion. And I bet they'll be great DVDs, too. (I don't have 'The Rock' or 'Armageddon', but I'm sure they're great discs.)

well, i own it just for the film, nothing else, and I enjoy watching it as a subversive, challenging, unique piece of cinema. Of course that won't surprise anyone who sees my nom de plume!

Its a film which uses often-clumsy non-professionalism of neo-realism and even amateur porn, yet paring it with the portrayal of an ultra-structured, facsist society.

In fact, I was unaware of Criterion's reputation when I bought Salo - i just bought it because I enjoy all kinds of bizarre cinema. Of course, since then I now own a couple hundred criterions other than Salo and have been very pleased with their releases (enjoying the Michael Bay criterion's just as much as the Brakhage's or Pasolini's).

I'm not disagreeing with you, but do you have proof that those instances are because of Bay's clout? Personally, considering the draw of Bay's movies, it doesn't seem like he could force a studio to forego DVD profits and let him go to Criterion.

Bad Boys - $65,807,024
Bad Boys 2 - $138,608,444
Armageddon - $201,578,182
The Rock - $134,069,511
Pearl Harbor - $198,542,554

4 out of 5 movies made more than a 100 million. That's pretty good considering they weren't part of a trilogy.

Spielberg is the only one that can compare. Without Star Wars Lucas is broke, same goes for Peter Jackson without LOTR, Chris Columbus? No more Harry Potter for him. Sam Raimi? Another one lucking out with a trilogy. Michael Bay and Spielberg are the only directors that can take any material available to them and make over 100 million with it.

That's kind of like saying "Without 'The Rock" and 'Armageddon' Michael Bay is broke." And let's not forget that in addition to Harry Potter, Columbus directed two extremely profitable "Home Alone" movies and "Mrs. Doubtfire," which grossed more than $212 million in the U.S. alone.

There are plenty of directors who compare to Bay, who not only make a shitload of money but make better movies as well.

James Cameron and Ridley Scott come to mind.

Once again pretzel-boy Mr. Salty comes through with an excellent reply!

This is off topic, but when you consider the budget of a Michael Bay movie, these numbers are a lot less impressive.

"Pearl Harbor," for example, cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $175 million to make. So that's a profit of about 12 cents on the dollar, except that the budget didn't include marketing and distribution costs, so it's a wash, maybe.

I think "Bad Boys," "The Rock" and "Armageddon" made money, but a dollar invested in a Bay movie does not produce an exceptional return. Before "Pearl Harbor" it was considered "safe" to trust him with a budget of that magnitude, which meant that he was a pretty important director, because that's a short list. But he is no longer the king of the mega-budget blockbuster.

It's not considered a runaway success when a $150 million picture makes $150 million. It's considered breaking even.

I think these are stylish...

but then again style and what looks good is in the eye of the beholder...

DVD fanatics...that includes me...

A business -- By god I hope so it does not go out of business, because that would mean no more Renoir, Kurosawa, Bergman, Fellini, and others with good documentaries about how the films were made and how they interpret each scene or such...

Of course there is more to say about your post, but I will leave it to the other DVDTalkers...

Cheers

DVD Smurf

Yeah man, those Indiana Jones films flopped big time!!

Pearl Harbor made $450 million worldwide, and pulled in a fortune in DVD sales. Hardly a "wash", I'd imagine. Maybe not as big a hit as Disney hoped for, but still very much a profitable film.

It's still IMHO a collossal piece of crap, but the figures don't lie.

Absolutely . . . Criterion covers tend to be beautiful . . . even the minimalistic Armageddon cover is great.

I don't know what the international receipts were, but I know that, typically, a film needs to pull in considerably more than its budget in the domestic box office to be considered a success. It wasn't a disaster like "Final Fantasy," but I suspect that it will make it difficult for Bay to get a similar budget for future films.

When compared to a "Pirates of the Caribbean" or a "Spider Man," there's no question that "Pearl Harbor" was a box office dissapointment.

And "Bad Boys 2" didn't do so hot either, with $138 million in domestic returns on a $130 million investment, despite being a franchise sequel. I think there is a strong argument that Bay is no longer the "go to" guy for a summer blockbuster.

I own salo just for the movie as well.

I bought the Criterion disc a few weeks after it was released, and quickly sold it, when it was going for huge bundles- i got $635 for mine.

I upgraded to the BFI edition, to own the film. So i'd believe there are quite a few people who own the film, just for the film itself, not as a point of pride.


what's not to enjoy, i find it funny for anyone to call the film disgusting, you must live very sheltered lives, cause i could name, 10-20 films off the top of my head which people would be more offended by..

Granted it's not pasolini's best film, but it's still a good film.

Were they able to get Robert Vaughn to reprise his role as Salo in that movie?

Do not respond to posts that are against the rules. Report them. I can't say it any clearer. - Static

This just in: let's move on. - Static

It did.

So, bottom line is that Criterion takes a hit on your order of merit because some guy didn't admit that Michael Bay films allow Criterion to produce more obscure titles ...

Fine I guess ... other than it is not true.

Criterion pays for films and prices them so they all have the opportunity to make money. That's their business. You make it sound like they produce some titles in some philanthropic effort as film lovers or something. They may love films but it is a business. And if they don't put the film on DVD, someone else will. There are plenty of other small groups that don't have any blockbuster films to shoulder the load but are in business and more seem to be joining them. How are they staying in business?

Putting out Bay films allows Criterion to be a bigger company and get name recognition, no doubt. However, it doesn't get their smaller films any better distribution. It is not like Wal-mart, CC, Best Buy etc. is going to be carrying Pickup on South Street any time soon. These films need to survive on their own merit.

Btw, the Bay films is old news and ain't the trend. More and more studios want to produce their own product and this trend ain't going away. Particularly, blockbuster titles. So Criterion will have to live and die in the smaller film market and be willing to pay more dollars to license content as other DVD producers vie for the same titles.

Notice that Criterion is trying to create their own content. Smart move.

I still think Anchor bay and BU kick their ass 100 times , as both those companies have better transfers, better extras, and better packaging.

No mention of the films?

I think it's naive to think Criterion does-or at least used to- channel money from the blockbusters into their lesser titles; the head of the company as much admitted it, finally, in the print interview that is linked on this thread. I never questioned its effect on their DISTRIBUTION, but on their production. The profits from Bay's films allow them to produce titles with limited appeal like SALO and KWAIDAN. The Criterion Company perpetuates the myth that they are a bunch of cinephiles producing ART, and initially ignored the real motivations behind releasing Bay's films, ergo this thread. However, as I wrote in a follow up, they ultimately addressed the situation. Nowadays it's more DVD fans, or fanatics, who refuse to think of them as being less than holy and that's wherein the revelation of their CORPORATE mentality needs to be remembered. They do not always do what they do out of their love of film, no matter how good their transfers are. I'm not sure many people who post on these boards can accept that. So be it. Criterion says fetch, too many people fetch.

I do agree with you though that this has become old news. The marketplace has changed considerably since I heard that interview in 2000. As you said, many more companies have sprung up to compete with Criterion on their own terms, companies I feel are every bit as good as them. So what you have seen now is Criterion pump up their reputation even more than their already inflated sense of self, but if they feel this idealized image will keep them afloat, then they have to do it. As long as they continue to release good titles with good transfers, there is every reason to believe they will survive without any blockbusters. However, I question blind adulation and devotion for any company and I challenge DVD buyers to not let Criterion rest on its laurels, to make sure they are more than just a name. SONY is now learning this after burning people for years with their bad television sets, but coasting on their brand name. Now that they've had a bad couple of years and tv sales are down, they will have to address having moved their manufacturing out of Japan, overpricing and horrible customer service.

If obsequious worship of Criterion persists on these boards, ultimately there isn't anything I or anyone else can do about it. But if I see hypocrisy I'm going to point it out. They may have a built in public just waiting to throw money at them, but Anchor Bay and Blue Underground and Kino and Image don't and I think it's important to point that out as well.

People like Criterion because they release good DVDs of good, somewhat obscure movies. That's all they are and everyone realizes that. Why are you trying to read so much into it?

I do agree that Criterion fans go overboard. On a marketing front the smartest thing that Criterion ever did was put numbers on their DVDs. This leads to (for some) this "which one's are you missing or hope to add" kind of dialogue that makes for amazing word-of-mouth. And word-of-mouth is the best form of advertising one could hope for. However, it also becomes like baseball cards (to a limited degree) where you need Topps #148 to complete the set - yet you really don't even know or care who Freddy Parent was.

There are many other good companies, although I would suggest that Anchor Bay (with their many editions of the same film) have shot themselves in the foot. Kino and Image products deserve more attention than they receive.

I would add Palm Pictures with their Director Series releases to the list of worthy DVD producers. Hopefully, they will expand into other areas of content as well. Home Vision Entertainment may not match the quality of Criterion releases but they have a knack for selecting some terrrific titles and getting them in our hot little hands at a fraction of Criterion's cost.