Ever sat through that movie? i would pay good money never to watch it again.
@Francisco J. Torres
Yes, but when it come out on home video. I used to think ARMAGEDDON (1998) was a good film, now I think it wasn’t any good because it was long and focused on some of the characters besides the end of the world.
As people have pointed out, they have put out mindless indie bullshit films, are those alright? And if they are hurting their brand, so what? They’re not the football team you support, they’re just a company, albeit one that has cultivated this nonsense air of exclusivity. If anything, their seal of approval with probably help some films be reappraised.
Wrong.
Well, that’s like your opinion, man. Who is daft enough to buy a £15 DVD anyhow?
@Scorpio
“wasn’t any good because it was long and focused on some of the characters besides the end of the world.”
I would normally appreciate a dumb action movie focusing on it’s characters, yet it still managed to mess that up. Out of curiosity, what did you like about it long ago if you don’t mind my asking?
Aren’t The Rock and Chasing Amy Criterions too?
I think Traffic is pretty atrocious.
Traffic has definitely not aged well. A lot of Soderbergh films seem to have that problem. I still love Sex, Lies, and Videotape, but, boy, is it ’80s all the way…
Duffers – My point is that even though you say “so what… they’re just a company,” you seem to be missing my point that a company which builds itself by establishing themselves one direction, is attacking their own foundation when they go against that brand. It’s like chopping down the tree beneath you when you’re still in the treehouse!
So what? Well if you’re a company that just jumps around and changes what you stand for every other day then you’re not going to last very long. You’ll lose your loyal customers (who helped you establish your company) and without that base, without that foundation, your business can thrive (or crumble) based on the popular trends of the day. And we all know how quickly trends change…
Also, I don’t think it’s so much about building an “air of exclusivity,” but they do call themselves the Criterion Collection, which implies they leave certain things out based on certain set of principles. So by definition they couldn’t (and shouldn’t) be all inclusive.
Yes, I understand all of that. What I don’t understand is why any of that is of concern to people who buy their DVDs. Do you toss and turn at night about your local supermarket’s financial well being too?
That’ll be that air of exclusivity then. I mean, they sell arthouse films at a premium rate with all the identifying logo and unique covers.
Just to be clear, Criterion releasing mainstreamy films isn’t exactly a shocking new development. They were doing it as far back as 1989 when they released The Princess Bride on laserdisc, and later Ghostbusters, they seem to have had a thing for Larry Kasden’s films, Tootsie . . .
^^that was in the 80s and 90s though. in the last ten or so years they have become more ‘selective’, for lack of a better word, so it seems surprising that they released the occasional film like Armageddon once upon a time.
Yeah, I think that’s partly to do with the move from laserdisc to DVD shifting their place in the market (so that for the most part studios were doing DVDs themselves rather than licensing the video rights to a third party like Criterion).
@LoverOfLeCinema
What I liked about it was the cast and was action-packed special effects, those were what I loved about the film (oh, not to mention Aerosmith).
Scorpio Velvet
@Francisco J. Torres
I don’t think ARMAGEDDON was Criterion’s biggest mistake, and I do hope HEAVEN’S GATE (1980) won’t be ether.