Do you want validation? Why did you write your post in such an ironic manner

They were adopted by "them" (by that i mean the entry-level film buffs who might or might not behave like seasoned knowers of the field) but their intentions mid-way their existence was noble: Buy the rights of famous and influential works that had no circulation and re-run them for an audience who knew what they were and could pay a small premium for it. I have my beef with them as they are a bit pretentious at times for a company that distributed Armageddon to make a living and downright sells not-good projects because some popular figure appeared on it ("Como Agua Para Chocolate" for example). Also some anons here have reported they are a bit anal in their comment sections regarding controversial topics even when the articles directly touch upon the debate on them. You have to feel empathetic sometimes for some teams' efforts because one never knows what kind of userbase/freaks will get hold of your work and pervert it with their behavior and opinions in the long run. But i won't blame you, it's very easy to dislike village people who think their cup of tea is the best in the realm despite never traveling out of their mountain.

>>1521 >all these buzzwords go back

>>1524 >>1522 A. Buzzword itself is a buzzword B. Epic, Reddit, and Cuckchan have all been espoused by dozens across the web, hypocrite you are, you could have simply not replied or pointed them out. >>1523 >Buy the rights of famous and influential works that had no circulation and re-run them for an audience who knew what they were and could pay a small premium for it. Yes but film conservation and distribution doesn't need the level of marketing they seemingly have, the sheer fact that they periodically release films as events makes things rather clear what type of business they are and what type of audience surrounds them. Especially given how the films they preserve are almost always the basic "art house" type done with no real ingenuity, just a standard story to tell. More over I don't even particularly hate CC, but simply put the sheer fact that normalfags can now recognize them at a name drop and high five one another as though they're part of the same secret club now, without a doubt the Collection must be dubbed lower film making there I avoided the word "Reddit" you fags happy now? because if we don't now by 2030 it will be by cuckchan or reddit themselves after they have moved on and this little stint of popularity in the cultural zeitgeist dies. We live in strange times where good art has gotten more recognition than ever before, however a negative effect never charted before is that as long as the bar moves higher, art that no longer stand up to scrutiny are thrown in the trash despite being "In" ages ago. Or simply put in 100 years from now Criterion will be dead. This post isn't even a shot at them, it's a warning explaining the end of all things, and being the first to acknowledge them, they must as such officially be shunned by anyone serious about films.

You are trying way too hard to fit in. The people you described would be the "reddit" in this situation, and you would be the "fucking moron".

>>1527 the problem is that you used 3 reddits 2 normalfags 1 cuckchan 1 epic and to make it worse you were asking for validation if what they liked was reddit. anything you dont like is reddit, that's how it works. also, cuckchan reddit and discord, when used in such generic means, are basically interchangeable.

I can't hate them for some of their great video restorations they've done, or making a lot of non-mainstream films I like easily available on blu-ray. I can hate them for their reputation on butchering audio tracks though.

>>1523 >Also some anons here have reported they are a bit anal in their comment sections regarding controversial topics even when the articles directly touch upon the debate on them. That was me. I went back months later and discovered my comment had been removed as spam. I was able to manually approve it. To be fair, I'm not sure if the original problem was Disqus or Criterion.

>>1527 >doesn't need the level of marketing they seemingly have That depends, i am leaning towards agreeing with you but there is a factor that stuck me with some of their releases. Take for example 1976's Canoa, released by Criterion i don't remember when but it shines around what kind of "agenda" some of the publisher's runners have. It frankly is an obscure mexican movie from the mid-70's (an already obscure era in that country's cinema history) and like the vast majority of its productions it didn't see a restoration by its nationals nor someone outside, the most they did was put it in VHS, convert it and put it on a DVD (very rarely they get a BR release) but then why did that movie get treatment? to be direct on the point without referencing situations most of us here can understand: The director was part of a jew-centric scene (along with Jodorowsky and the Ripstein Brothers) and the work touches upon communist sensibilities that are well-liked by foreigners. I'm not fond of the movie but i know if it wasn't for CC almost nobody would've known the movie nor Cazals the director i don't know if that's a good thing but anyways, they probably did it because of the liberal agenda inside and it fits your description of works being released as events/festivals instead of a routine, the show runners are simply on point with contemporary liberal city tastes many "film buffs" have (aka neutral to even conservative/traditional leaning viewers are not the market). Take another example in movies from the Eastern Bloc (sans Poland), many of the famous works are soft or hard critiques on the regime or playful allegories on them yet i don't recall CC touching them, perhaps maybe because they don't fit their ideas. Yugoslavia and Hungary for example are not touched by CC other than maybe works of the gypsy Kusturica. I went long-winded there but what i wanted to say is that CC does pull things out of their hats from time to time, things that would be unknown or found in very shanty conditions but i know they do it to rub their personal or focus group ideologies rather than doing it to help the medium. I can name plenty of more interesting movies in Mexico than Canoa, even from the same director, but they don't do it and i don't think it's due to not having the reels because i know for a fact the national museum of cinema has many of them and you can access them via public inquiry they are slow as nails because they are lazy sub-human sons of mangy bitches but that's another story They do help the medium and the marketing schemes are double edged to make them win money and sing to the 4 winds they did it, but they still do it so i can't be that angry at them. I am angry at their cultists just as you are but we cannot do much about them other than bullying them, something i think was discussed previously here: Never pass the chance to bully an entry-level cinephile if he starts acting superior to others, some people who only watch trashy plebeian entertainment for fun sometimes have more knowledge, either technical and/or philosophical, than many who religiously watch "the good stuff" but never or rarely analyze as a quick exercise after watching them, they just see them feel good and archive the DVD as if it was a video game objective never to be seen again. >they preserve are almost always the basic "art house" type done with no real ingenuity That's a bit harsh but now that i think of it i don't recall a real mind bender from them, then again real experimental film is usually badly taken care of even by their creators. Seeing their catalogue now i can see they've released more stuff than i remember (also they recently restored Pixote and Flowers of Shanghai, can't say that i am not excited for those) but Cher's Moonstuck, Marriage Story and Lazy-eye's Ghost Dog? That's trolling material if anything. But yeah, most of it is conventional cinema with a few risky projects here and there, most cinema is like that but to be fair even if they threw strange stuff in there i wouldn't recognize it but then again just like they did with the Godzilla Set they could make a special product for real visual-centric stuff.

>>1530 >I can hate them for their reputation on butchering audio tracks though. I didn't know about this. Which releases?

>>1532 >I went long-winded there but what i wanted to say is that CC does pull things out of their hats from time to time, things that would be unknown or found in very shanty conditions but i know they do it to rub their personal or focus group ideologies rather than doing it to help the medium. Well you can't really expect them not to in current year, what really surprised me is that they're scared of Eastern Bloc and tankie films. You are wholeheartedly right though, there's a lot of similarities among Criterion films, you can arguably synthesize a whole new film out of just recutting the one's they have released, maybe even get them to distribute it for an extra layer of sweet irony.

>>1544 Perhaps "butcher" is a bit harsh, but they have a reputation for going too far with NR. Here's a blog with some good write-ups on different releases: https://blah-ray.blogspot.com/

>>1523 Is Cómo Agua bad? I was trying really hard to show it to my grand mother but she needs italian subs and i havent had thé time to make them

>>1547 Not really bad but out of place in the original meaning of the catalogue (not so if Moonstruck is there too) it was a mainstream movie for the "let's take the missus to the cinema" audience based on a popular book in the style of romance/magic realism made by a woman about a family in a town she seems to have never visited or misunderstood a lot. Wrote this part last, wrote a lot again so TL;DR it's not real bad but its meta is controversial so your nonnina will probably not care much unless she expects some cream of the crop product that also touches upon odd topics. Strictly talking about this case the movie seems to have been restored due to being directed by a communist called Arau (who was a good comedian in its time) in association with a team chuck full of jews pushed back then by the mainstream, the most famous being Emmanuel Lubezki who had one of its uncles as the part of the jury who gave the movie a lot of national prizes. That's the reason i think the movie was a candidate, the politics are there along with being a heavily-prized movie forgotten in time by the viewers and even the continental scene (latin american i mean). For example 1974's Calzonzin Inspector, an older movie by Arau is a much more notorious example piece of cinema than Como Agua, mainly because it humorously touched on a strong topic in its days, the characters are kinda memorable, became an unexpected hit outside the country and wasn't in its home turf because the government shadow banned it due to showcasing rulers' numerous bad decisions as malicious rather than honest mistakes. It was shown briefly in cinemas then only found in bootlegs until 1989 and on TV after 2000's elections. Yet has been ignored by most studios for some reason or another, which leads me and some others to believe CC's decision to pick one over another as a proof they are in cahoots with the usual suspects. Sidestepping the topic, the book was greatly enjoyed by many but the "real" (as in not immigrant) people in the area in which the events of it happens somewhat loathed the book and the author book uses the protagonist's cooking savvy as themes and plot points yet many of the dishes and ingredients are foreign to Piedras Negras which is the town, situated in the northern desert areas yet it seems they are flooded with deep south ingredients and aztec dishes from Central America, much to the chagrin of the IRL local gastronomy circles. The town was picked mainly because of the plot point of being a Revolution War hotspot in which the author, a Mexico City resident in the south, wanted to touch upon often It was even a joke in a comedy show on how aggressive the natives could get back then, a tourist goes to the town and says loud "ah yes, mole sauce with turkey!" in which an old, seemingly-sweet lady replies "and F your mother too, cat-eater" ("y chin-chin a tu madresita, come-gatos"), plays a bit too with the city's catchphrase in recent era for being an immigrant hub: "Ya vayase" (Go away already). It's a classic case, once again, of culture shock/misunderstanding inside the same country, but oh well the people in that city have had worse: Some years ago the mayor (who wasn't a local either) built a replica mayan pyramid in a park. It would be interesting to see movies who moderately depict a place or area and ask the real natives if they liked it, in my personal experience it is a rare occurrence among national cases but it makes me wonder what other cases occur in Asia or Europe. I remember reading the Cretans loved Zorba but i have my suspicions towards that statement, also i recall an obscure case of a serbian movie, i think it was U Ime Naroda, who playfully mocked the mountain serbs (Montenegrins) yet in some reviews, written and on video, they claim they loved it to bits down to the accents.

>>1521 >popular = bad damn this board went to shit in record time

>>2821 Nothing is any good if other people like it.

Criterion new releases are WALL-E and mainstream black movies

>>2823 Jesus Christ.

>>2821 You necrobumping a two year old thread to whine about OP itself is shittier (and obnoxiously retarded)

>>2821 >record time Did you check the dates? i disagree that the fans affect what a released product's quality is but they do decide the direction of its creators (curators in this case) if they want the money. The example is this: >>2823 Wall-E i don't have that much of a problem because it is a special kind of animated movie in the case that it focused more on the movement and set pieces rather than in dialogue or musical numbers, but there's no excuse with the obamanesque nigger drama movies, Cooley High even looks like the cover of a 2010's porn parody production directed by jews both in fiction and in reality, no respect i tell ya. Criterion has indeed been the go-to for people who pretend to be fans of cinema, but at least it served the function to present to those a bit of international cinema with english menus and subtitles (at least back in the mid 00's) and in some cases some of them a bit obscure even for the local market of said movies... still it has been years now where old movies want tons of royalties and Criterion has decided to cash in and distribute catnip for politics, like communist nigger faggot products (those were descriptive, not pejorative) or plainly average stuff that is used as bait for those who know some names (''Solo con tu Pareja" being gutter oil but got a release due to Cuaron & Jewbezki having their names attached). Rather than refocus and start hunting for smaller projects/using different names to bait interesting movies they decided to pick a different crowd and make the same money but from different suckers, if anything the old Criterion buyers have now relied on piracy or hunting titles by directors rather that keep buying their releases while the average soy latte chugger still blindly buys their stuff and gets to namedrop or discuss shit even opinionated blacks know shit about because their cultural marks are 2pacs' rather than Abdoulayes', but because confidence is one hell of a weapon the catfishes have to concede against the testosterone-lacking after they namedrop pic related. Seeing their recent releases i don't think it's that bad, aside from re-releasing a Shaw Brothers kung fu film as an artsy 25 dollar disc when they are 5 dollars for 3 movies at a discount retailer everywhere.

>>2827 Making money and artistic integrity are mutually exclusive. They're running a business. I still chuckled at your take because in an ideal world they'd abandon the majority and do more interesting things.

>>2836 Of course, almost no one runs charities, but you can survive or aka live relatively well and then there's making money and trying to make more and more. Criterion adjusted their market, if they kept going with the really niche stuff after they ran out of "the basics" they would not pump out the same volume and restorations as nowadays due to lack of specialists on staff but i don't think their top workers would be counting beans, they would probably buy a new car every 5 years and eat beef 3 or 4 times a week, sounds dumb but some business do maintain that stable if maybe mediocre or stagnant way of doing stuff. You can maintain artistic integrity and eat a fillet mignon once a week if you play your cards right, i agree you can't buy that mansion trying to be a good dog and provide with quality only as people don't like quality, they like convenience and being targeted with marketing. The siren song of making more money by slightly tweaking trivial work routines (but heavily important doctrine guidelines) is very hard to not heed but some lunatics in some companies do stick with their old ideals or merely create a sub-division to have the oldfags working in niche projects while the main division rakes the market; i don't belittle Criterion, there's other distributors out there, i am just commenting on their nature of what most people think they are and what we know they do. >in an ideal world I also agree there's no ideal world but once in a while there's ideal people, and just sometimes those people also make and take decisions which affect our world.

>>1521 All the cool kids only watch Kino Lorber releases.

>>2932 >Watching KL releases over the true kings of kino

>>2941 Fantastic work in their niche but I wouldn't watch most of it

>>2941 vinegar syndrome is fucking trash taste. massacre video has amazing curation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ggGmjPgEI0 /film/ has always been full of posers and pseuds like that collage chick who likes to gatekeep titles and the 8chan fag who said that player piano was top tier kino.

>>2953 >and the 8chan fag Do you even know where you are, which one are you talking about?

Girls have never posted here. But what is "player piano", I missed that discussion

>>2954 ofc i do, what a stupid question. I was also on endchan and julay. i come back every so often >>2955 missed dubs. vegan girl who has trash taste and liked EO makes those collages. I think in 2014 there were these two anons who were arguing about what constituted kino. one of them said top tier was 1977 player piano, fucking jfl

>>2957 >vegan girl who has trash taste and liked EO makes those collages. That's a polish fanook not a vegan girl >one of them said top tier was 1977 player piano Deep lore, I don't remember that

>>2960 >fanook I gave him the benefit of the doubt. explains his shit taste tho

>>2957 >i come back every so often >I think in 2014 there were these two anons who were arguing You have an iron memory, i do not recall that hence my doubts