This is one of those cases where I think a multitude of repetitive threads might be okay.
It is pretty goddamn insane, you have to admit.
I suppose Criterion needs to make money too in these hard times. I’m okay with them putting out a few duds that will sell as long as it allows them to stay afloat and continue to bring us so many great films. I’d prefer Synecdoche, New York of all the movies that came out last year for a criterion release, but beggars can’t be choosers.
I forgive Criterion.
It’s equivalent to a director making a sell-out commercial work in between greater films; Criterion needs a big studio seller to pay the bills.
Hahahaha, I love the freak-outs.
But if they need the money, then why not put out for a “Slumdog” disc with docs on Hindi films, or “Milk” with a second disc for the 1980s documentary?
Hopefully it will expose the masses to Criterion, then people will start buying more Criterion and viewing movies they wouldn’t have seen otherwise, then years from now our country will have good taste in film across the board. At least that is the dream…
Ryan – You’re quite the dreamer. I am glad to see some of us still hold on to that type of faith. It does my pessimistic heart good.
Ehhh… Criterion has released some duds, as it was called, before, they’ll do it again. As long as they release classics along with those duds, and don’t go the way of New Yorker films I’ll be happy.
Experience has already told us that even though Criterion has released Armaggedon, The Rock, Robocop and that sort of commercially succesful films, they have kept releasing high quality but still unknown films over and over, so instead of speculating a turnaround on Criterion’s focus over commercial stuff, why don’t we believe everything is going to be ok? As Ryan says, let the masses get to Criterion, and maybe the bigger its audience becomes, the bigger its collection becomes faster than ever…
Actually, Criterion released “Se7en” and “The Game” in special edition Laserdiscs way back in the day, so it’s no surprise that they have a relationship with David Fincher. I am, however, surprised that a Warner Bros./Paramount mega-budget co-production would be outsourced to a boutique label like Criterion, but maybe Fincher knows it’s where his movie will get the best treatment on DVD. Who can say? But before people go getting all alarmist, all they need do is look at kind of titles Criterion has been releasing lately to see that they’re nowhere near selling-out.
Oh God I thought me getting crap for defending Benjamin Button was over after the Oscars. Ok I will say it I really liked the film. Is it strange that Criterion is releasing it? Sure. But if they were going to release a new film….well this isn’t the one I would pick but it is still a good (not great) choice.
If Criterion is going to release a Fincher film, it should be Zodiac. I haven’t seen Benjamin Button, so I can’t really comment as to its quality. Maybe Criterion is snatching it up because it’s a Fitzgerald work, and maybe there was something innovative about the makeup and special effects. I just can’t say on this one. Guess I’ll have to see it.
I am really upset! This film is indicative of what is wrong with Hollywood right now, even the awards/art films are retread garbage. When acquaintances were talking about how artistic this film was I simply laughed at them, knowing they had no clue of what art meant or what good movies are, now criterion, the brand that towers over other brands of anything, releases this garbage. I am upset and have gone on my first forum rant ever! As far as it representing Fitzgerald’s work, well that is simply not the case. This film spits on his story and all that he brought to an admittedly novel short-story (pun intended). Criterion better take the money and take some chances or release the six hour thin red line or something.
P.S. I am sorry for sounding so elitist, but the movie itself just made me so angry and now this, I am fuming.
Actually, it took me a couple of days to articulate what was the sensation I got from Benjamin Button, considering the near perfect production values of it vs a so so coming of age tale. In the end, it doesnt feel like a Fincher film, nor like a valuable discourse, nor like anything at all: just an extended pragmatic and farsic romance story. Alien 3 is way better. If Criterion is releasing it, well, who cares? There´s still lots of good stuff to pick from.
I am very dissapointed as well. Wonder why Criterion is doing that. There’s one thing that I would like expalined though: Why is there nothing about it on the Criterion website? The fact that it isn’t on there still gives me hope that it is just a bad joke.
Haven’t seen it yet. But a lot friends told me it’s a sad and depresing film. Some guy said that it was so depressing, he wanted to kill himself after. Me? I’m still waiting for a Blu Ray release..
People get a life. It’s no big deal. Criterion needs to pay bills. Something has to support the release of crap like White Dog. I’d rather watch Button again than that dog.
Steve you are right other way to think of it is its a good sign, the money from something as popular as button can be flushed into buying more distribution rights of more hidden gems from more countries, so in a way good for us serious criterion fanatics too..
The defense of this release seems to be centering on the money it will bring Criterion.
While I’m sure it’ll become one of their all time best sellers, this is a Paramount release, made by Criterion. The only money Criterion will be getting is whatever percentage fee they worked out before hand. There’s also a very good chance that they only received a upfront lump sum to produce the disc, with the distribution rights to some of Paramount’s past releases being the primary form of payment.
It feels more like a bid from Paramount to add some prestige to a movie that really has none to speak of. I wonder when this deal was made, was it before the film was released to such a lukewarm response?
I’m noticing that there is no mention of this release anywhere on the Criterion website. Is this even supposed to be a part of the Criterion Collection as such? Or is this the dawn of some new era of Criterion farming out themselves out for other projects?
Criterion is a business. Right now a lot of classic and foreign films are going out of print and you just have to go grateful that Criterion is adding to its catalog of non mainstream films.
I’m not personally interested in Benjamin Button but if people enjoy it and buy it and that means I get Eclipse sets like Kaurismaki, Shepitko and Shimizu which would have languished then it’s fine.
Criterion has been developing a pretty dynamic business model and if that means they have a little for everyone then fine. They wouldn’t be able to survive on art house alone.
I guess it’s what happens when they can’t get any other Fincher title…
I just looked at a big image of what the cover art is going to look like, and it doesn’t say David Fincher on it, only Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett.
http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/7249/release-date-cover-art-for-criterion-the-curious-case-of-benjamin-button
Take Benjamin Button. Strip it of the CGI, reduce its budget, remove a great deal of hype, popularity, and some of the awards its won. The result would be that many people here would be defending it as a great overlooked film. Whether its truly great or not I can’t say. I don’t think its a modern classic, but there are titles on Criterion that are far worse.
Richard, which films on Criterion are far worse than BENJAMIN BOREDOM?
ummm Armageddon! It’s tied with Pearl Harbor for worst movie ever!
Richard, regardless of the amount of cgi contained in the film, or it’s budget, it would still be working from Eric Roth’s slight rewrite of his script for Forrest Gump.
I know complaining about this is a bit of a cliche, but it’s something that I’m truly interested in. Sure, we all complain about Hollywood lacking originality, and yes, many artists from all mediums revisit certain themes they explored in their past work… but Roth’s script for Button is so incredibly identical to the one he wrote for Gump that I’m genuinely upset he was paid for it, and then went on to receive an Academy Award nomination. This in a year in which Charlie Kaufman writes Synecdoche, NY and gets nothing at all.
Armageddon (I don’t care if its ironic), The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (I like this film but its average), Jubilee (Punk cult film or not, I really thought it was pointless), The Vanishing (Another film that was supposed to be great, but was just boring), Schizopolis (Another very average film).
I’m not saying these shouldn’t be Criterion releases, I’m just saying that the Criterion name doesn’t guarantee quality. Along with quality is cult status, obscurity, and popularity in the case of Armageddon, for profit. I don’t see how Benjamin Button was a bad film, I don’t even see how it was mediocre. It might not be a classic, but it rose above some of the more average fair released by Hollywood. I thought it was a very thoughtful and contemplative film. Qualities that you don’t usually see in such a big budget, CGI-laden affair. I think that it was a courageous move, given that along with the awards, also came word of mouth of how boring it was. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett may star in it, but it requires patience and time to develop, and it should be commended for not taking an easier way out. Forest Gump had much more immediacy, accessibility, and entertainment value. I’m not saying this because it was the better film, I’m saying this because it was meant to appeal in a way that BB was not.
>>I just looked at a big image of what the cover art is going to look like, and it doesn’t say David Fincher on it, only Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett.<<
Let’s face it. The general public doesn’t have a clue who David Fincher is. They do know who Brad & Cate are.
>>In the end, it doesnt feel like a Fincher film … just an extended pragmatic and farsic romance story.<<
That’s my problem with it. Is there anything in Fincher’s resume that suggests he’s the right director for a romantic fantasy?
Blake GOBLE
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/03/19/the-curious-case-of-benjamin-button-on-criterion/#more-22767
So, slim has it that Criterion is going to release a Criterion of Brad Pitt’s pensive, sepia-toned opus?
OK. Royal Tenenbaums, fine. Anderson’s a creative.
Armageddon, fine. It’s too ironic to pick on.
But Benjamin Button? David Fincher? Paramount’s Golden cow from 2008? This film was neither good art nor commercial satisfaction. It was a bad Forrest Gump. Any takers?
Or should the smoke blowing out of me go backwards?