I recognize this joke.

or Groucho ...

If you're not interested in Criterion releases, get out of the thread. Future threadcraps will be deleted.

Wow. I guess attempts at humor aren't appreciated around here.

good attempts are

i'm interested in upcoming titles, but i'm not interested in "criterion releases"
though i have a number of their blurays- crumb, gimme shelter, killing, paths of glory, and on and on.

but i'm not buying something cause it says "criterion"

and IMHO 80-90% of their releases are garbage, they have people convinced it's an important film cause they put their banner on it.

the wes anderson releases show they could care less about releasing an important film.

And the response to failed attempts is "Get out of the thread"?

Thread title is "Criterion Releases". Sub-forum is "HD Talk". Feel free to stick around the sub-forum, but it's pretty clear you're not interested in being here.

I can overlook failed attempts at humor, but it's the comment above yours that shows he's more interested in threadcrapping.

When it happens several times and people do the 'submit this post to a moderator' thing...

Uh-oh. You're just touched on one of my pet peeves.

[engage rant mode - prepare for a wall of text]

First - it's absolutely fine that the types of films Criterion tends to release release aren't your cup of tea. Second, it's not fine - in fact, it's kind of ridiculous - that you seem to think that your opinion that "80-90% of their releases are garbage" can be extended so widely, and that even those who claim to be a fan of those types of films are "only pretending" or are brainwashed into thinking that they're good by the Criterion label. That's dumb (you're not dumb - the idea is dumb.) I'm sure it makes it easier for you: "I don't have to try to get anything out of these films - after all, even their fans are only claiming they like them because of the Criterion label." But the fact of the matter is that any time you try to come up with ulterior motives for why people like something ("they only like it because it's foreign," "they only like it because they want to look cool," "they only like it because Criterion released it") you're going to be wrong. You've moved beyond the realm of opinion when you start guessing the motivations of a fairly large group of people. You're simply wrong.

The "they're fooled into thinking they're important" thing is a red herring - most people can acknowledge that a movie that they think is really good probably isn't very important to film history. But you seem to be contrasting the terms - "garbage" vs. "important," as in "the films aren't important - they're actually garbage (and you'd understand that if you were as unbiased and objective as me.") In other words, you seem to be conflating "important" with "great" and "unimportant" with "garbage."

Let's make this clear for you: A vast majority of people who claim to like the types of films Criterion releases really do like the types of films Criterion releases. There may be a few hipsters who claim to like the films in the collection to look cool (or something like that) - but they're probably not going to be dedicated enough to keep watching most of the films Criterion puts up, year after year, and they're probably not even going to be dedicated enough to continually post in this thread.

A number of pieces of evidence:

1. Here's the thing - if most people really secretly disliked, or only "put up with," the types of films Criterion releases, Criterion wouldn't still be in business. People aren't willing to pretend to like the product a company releases long enough to keep them in business for 25 years. Especially at the prices they sell for. Most people genuinely find themselves enjoying the types of films that they release, so they keep going back to them and giving them their money. That's how businesses work. When you say that "people only like it because of the label" you've confused cause and effect - people like the films that the label tends to release, and then the label itself becomes prestigious.

In other words, the mere fact that Criterion is still in business after 25 years means that you're going to have to accept that some people really, really do enjoy these "strange," "obscure" (more on the inappropriateness of those terms later) arthouse films, and that their enjoyment has nothing to do with the Criterion label (or with their desire to look "artsy" or "sophisticated" or whatever.)

2. Another interesting point, that rather contradicts your claim that a majority of "Criterion films" apparently weren't liked before they got their spine number, and presumably would still be universally acknowledged as "unimportant garbage" if they had been released by another, less prestigious label: many of the films (a good 75%) that Criterion releases have been labelled classics long before Criterion releases them. Films you've never heard of. Films you would probably instantly label as "pretentious" or "garbage" or whatnot. Why do you think that is? Could it be because people genuinely like films that you don't? Could it? Is it conceivable?

3. There are forums dedicated to the discussion of arthouse films. They discuss the films Criterion has released, but also releases from labels like Masters of Cinema, Second Run, BFI, Kino, Cinema Guild, Milestone, Blue Underground, Carlotta, Artificial Eye, etc. They also discuss lots of films that have never even been released on home video - some of which may eventually be released by Criterion, but others of which are too obscure even for Criterion. The amount of dedication shown in seeking out and discussing those films indicates a passion for certain types of cinema that transcends the Criterion label, and that, in the case of many of the posters, began decades before Criterion even came about. You may say "yeah, but most of the films they like are just garbage," but that doesn't change the fact that they pretty clearly do really, really like many of those films. They aren't pretending to think they're "great/important."

4. Besides all that, the esoteric nature of most Criterion releases has been over-stated. These aren't exactly "super obscure French films with 45 minute slow-motion shots of people taking off their hats." Powell & Pressburger, Fellini, Clouzot, Tati, Rossellini, Renoir, Kurosawa, De Sica, Truffaut, Cocteau, Dassin, even Antonioni and Bergman (all of whom are quite important, regardless of your opinions of them) were quite big box office successes in their day (long before the Criterion label came about - so you don't have that excuse to fall back on), and are actually quite accessible to anyone with even a little bit of experience with foreign/classic/arthouse cinema. Some of the less well-known filmmakers Criterion has released - filmmakers like Olmi and Clair and Naruse and Germi - are also very accessible, and, in many cases, were quite popular in their home countries (and even internationally) upon their initial release (sometimes even with mainstream audiences.) "Couldn't care less." Wes Anderson has been a fairly important figure in the independent scene - but I agree that something like, say, The Life Aquatic probably isn't that important (though I do enjoy it) in the overall scheme of things. Few will deny that the "a series of important films" line is a marketing ploy, and that some of their releases are merely income-boosters rather than being of any great importance to film history.

What kbarkerok doesn't seem to understand is that the titles in the Criterion Collection are in the collection because they were ALREADY considered classic or important before Criterion touched them. The reason Criterion selects any particular film is because of the reputation the films and/or filmmaker have already achieved.

well that's debatable - I point at Todd Solondz's 'Life During Wartime'

Yeah, but one could also point to the second part of that quote to justify its inclusion.

I think Todd Solondz has a reputation for being an important filmmaker, if for no other films than Happiness and Welcome to the Dollhouse.

In his defense, when the Martha Graham: Dance on Film set was released, the message board I was frequenting at that time was full of people complaining about it's release due to them having no interest in it at all, but they were all planning on purchasing it due to it having the number on the spine and the wacky C on it. Some of the posters claimed that they would buy it to keep from having a hole in their Criterion collection and most likely never watch it.

But I will say that people are free to spend their money on whatever they want, and coming into a thread and bad mouthing the topic of the thread and the people in it is trolling.

which I completely agree, but it seems like Criterion just felt obligated to release it since they are in distribution deal with IFC films.

There are, of course, completionists - but I don't think those completionists were ever going to go around on various forums proclaiming that "Martha Graham: Dance on Film" was the best DVD release ever, or at least the best since Border Radio. Completionists are different from the hypothetical class of people kbarkerok is describing who change their opinion of a work simply based on the fact that Criterion releases it. Similarly, it's one thing to say "I hadn't heard of this film before Criterion announced it, but based on the fact that I tend to like the types of films Criterion releases I'll be sure to give this one a try" and another thing entirely to say "I saw this film before Criterion gave it a spine number and I thought it was trash, but now that Criterion is releasing it I think it's great." I don't think the latter happens very often, if at all.

The most annoying thing, to me, is that by many accounts they apparently have the option to pick and choose from most of IFC's new releases, and still end up releasing things like Life During Wartime and Tiny Furniture* instead of what I (and most others, from what I've read) consider to be superior titles like Certified Copy and Police, Adjective. I just think it's a case of one of the executives at Criterion having "unusual" taste in modern films.

*I haven't actually seen Tiny Furniture, so I'm being a bit presumptuous here - it's just that everything I've read about the film makes me think that I'm probably not going to like it.

All of which is an eloquent but roundabout way of asking one simple question. Allow me to be more blunt about it:

kbarkerok, have you ever considered the possibility that you just have bad taste?

If not, perhaps you should. You're certainly allowed to have bad taste. A great many people do. But if you're going to be obnoxious about it, you should expect to be called out for it. Just because you aren't interested in the type of classic or arthouse films that Criterion releases doesn't make them "garbage" by any rational standard.

Are you trying to say that someone that prefers Transformers 3, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Scorpion King 3, and The Muppets over Criterion movies such as Modern Times, Night of the Hunter, The Rules of the Game, and Rushmore has bad taste? Come on, we all know that Rise of the Planet of the Apes is going to be more of a classic movie than Night of the Hunter in the long run.


Isn't it going to take ages when Criterion re-releases their DVD versions onto blu-ray? I don't know whether to buy old Criterion DVDs or just wait for blu-ray versions. I know it wouldn't be financially wise for them to do so, but it would be nice if they just told us all the potential catalog titles they plan to re-release on blu-ray.

^ oh don't be jonesing on the muppets now...

Back on topic, did anyone else hear about the audio issue on Carlos? Apparently, the third episode is missing the left surround channel track, and Criterion has acknowledged the defect.

John Mulvaney posted this on one of the Criterion boards:

When it comes to Criterion DVDs these days, I just get whatever I want that is about to be out of print (or is already OOP), or Eclipse stuff. Kurosawa is an exception, since I get all of his, then upgrade to BD.

It's not humor. It's trolling. The difference should be obvious.

When someone posts here, I tend to think of their interest in being here as pretty self-evident.

I suppose there could've been a gun to his head.

... they might be well-served to relax?

I laughed.