Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

To me a snob isn't just someone who has particular tastes, but someone who in conjunction with those tastes looks down on and demeans those they feel have lesser taste. Are there Criterion fans who are snobs? Sure, I guess. But does the Criterion label itself indicate snobbery? I don't think so. There are even certain segments of film lovers who think Criterion is too mainstream.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

Criterion is too mainstream ? Well, if mainstream means that they put out movies that very, VERY few people have ever heard of, then....I guess so. Out of all the Criterion dvds and blu-rays that I've seen a list of, other than The Blob, I've heard of probably only 2 or 3 of the movies.

To me, a douche would be someone that collects either JUST movies that no one has ever heard of (Criterion) or just mainstream movies. It helps to have a mix of all kinds of movies. I have classic Disney movies, tv movies, cheesy martial arts movies, 60s tv shows, 80s and 90s cartoons, superhero movies, and classic 80s and 90s comedies. All kinds of stuff.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

If you think Criterion films are obscure you should check out Facets, Cult Epics, Mondo Macabro & Second Run.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

This. "Obscure" is a very relative term - while it's true that a vast majority of people will have only heard of a tiny handful of Criterion releases, the average Criterion title is actually pretty mainstream as far as older "art house" films go. Since they tend to focus on certain famous auteurs/countries, I'd say a good majority of Criterion's releases have at least a thousand votes on the IMDb (and some of the bigger ones by Fellini/Bergman/Kurosawa/Hitchcock/etc. - along with some of their more modern releases - have tens of thousands of votes.) Compare that with Second Run releases like Black Snow (119 votes on the IMDb) and All White in Barking (31 votes.)

Of course, Criterion does occasionally release some genuinely obscure films like Letter Never Sent and The Organizer - but even those have more votes than a lot of the films in the Second Run catalog.

Once you start really digging into film history, you'll realize that the rabbit hole goes pretty deep - and one of the joys of watching more obscure movies is finding some hidden gem that's been almost entirely forgotten in recent years.

As others have said, what you like is far less important than your attitude. If you're primarily interested in Czechoslovakian films of the 1960s, that doesn't inherently make you a snob or douchebag. On the other hand, if you only like Italian neorealist films and think that anyone who watches anything else is an inferior being - then yes, you're a douchebag. Of course, you can just as easily be a sci-fi snob as an avant-garde film snob.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

Please try to be more clueless next time.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

I dunno if I'd call Criterion obscure but every so often they do have quite a few flicks I never heard of.

And, off topic, Spottedfeather can actually see you guys? :eek:

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

How am I clueless ? What I said about Criterion is correct. 99% of the movies they release VERY few people have ever heard of. What part of that is incorrect ?

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

The part where you had a ? next to clueless.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

This might be entertaining.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

Guess you're not going to be a man and actually answer my question.

So Sondheim says essentially what I said, and that's fine. But it's not fine when I say it ?

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

Yeah

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

I think everyone here should have this Criterion in their collection:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-pr...jpg?1328128348

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

I'd say 99% is a pretty high number. That would mean the average person wouldn't even recognize 7 out of the 600+ titles. I guess maybe my mom might fall into that category, but certainly anyone who has enough interest in dvds/movies to regularly participate in an online discussion forum should be able to recognize way more than that.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

Because you lack clues.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

:lol:

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

I have to admit forcing myself to watch some of them them on Hulu+ because I think they must be good because they're Criterion. Can't tell you how many of their slow moving Japanese dramas I've fallen asleep to on a Friday night.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

AND here we gooooooooooooooo!! And please sprinkle in how something is a "good" or "bad" movie absolutely.


-popcorn-

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

Before Scorsese became a parody of himself!

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

Criterion Collection is cheaper than going to film school. And you'll get more out of it than film school, imo.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

It doesn't take a snob to say that's pathetic. Every consider broadening your horizons?

Also, it's just not true. I'm sure you are familiar with Wes Anderson's films. Of course you are. So that's 5 titles right there. Those 5 plus the Blob makes 6 titles you are familiar with. Add to that the films that even if you've never seen them you must have heard of: Seven Samurai, Dazed and Confused, The Gold Rush, Godzilla, Being John Malcovich, The Game, Paths of Glory, Easy Rider. Are you unfamiliar with any of these?

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

You rack disciprine.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

I'll just say this is far from my favorite Criterion - I just thought it could be relevant to the discussion. ;)

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

And it's worth pointing out that the blu ray isn't very good. Very little improvement over the DVD.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

Heard of Seven Samurai, Dazed And Confused (hate it, though I majorly do), never heard of Gold Rush, heard of Godzilla, heard of Being John Malcovich, never heard of The Game, never heard of Paths Of Glory, and heard of Easy Rider, though never seen it.

And Wes Anderson....I had to look him up to find out who he was. Seeing the list of his movies, it's no wonder I didn't know who he was.

Maybe 99% was a bit high. But my point still stands. The vast majority of the films that Criterion puts out aren't known by the vast majority of people.

Re: are criterions for douche-bags
 

The one Scorsese movie that I like. It's an amazing film...