criterionforum.org

So, who just bought Sweet Smell of Success then?

domino harvey wrote:So, who just bought Sweet Smell of Success then?

If it helps, I'll buy another copy of Barry Lyndon...

I just bought the Misfits... c'mon c'mon c'mon

Re: Barry Lyndon (and Lolita). Warner will inevitably go Blu on these the next time through their Kubrick promotion cycle. As Warner is the only major studio consistently releasing catalog titles on Blu, I'm more than happy to let them get to it eventually and allow Criterion to focus on other films (such as the MGM bounty we shall be reaping over the next year or two).

As for Kubrick, I was referring to Paths of Glory, The Killing, Killer's Kiss, not Warners (dream on guys).

Cinephrenic wrote:As for Kubrick, I was referring to Paths of Glory, The Killing, Killer's Kiss, not Warners (dream on guys).

are you the guy posting requests for these every other day there? the new crop of joshua goldbergs are out of hand. that bill guy....that sandy peacock girl....that stephen guy with four names and a creepy thumbnail of his face...those three alone are dominating the place, and then filled in with the same 12 things being asked for every damned day. and then they whine about Criterion not answering the requests. how many times do they have to say no to Bela Tarr? or Blood Simple? or whatever else they get obsessed about...but Kubrick is right up there.

I think it was that Bill melwhatever dude that posted some idiotic "suspicious that criterion came in and commented only when dissent started...very suspicious!" comment yesterday I think. As though their job is to sit around all day and say no to the 1839th request for Rivette. (just checking for curiosity, and it was asked again 16 hours ago).

But they're releasing Fincher's Facebook movie, right?

domino harvey wrote:So, who just bought Sweet Smell of Success then?

Me, naturally.

HistoryProf wrote:

Cinephrenic wrote:As for Kubrick, I was referring to Paths of Glory, The Killing, Killer's Kiss, not Warners (dream on guys).

are you the guy posting requests for these every other day there? the new crop of joshua goldbergs are out of hand. that bill guy....that sandy peacock girl....that stephen guy with four names and a creepy thumbnail of his face...those three alone are dominating the place, and then filled in with the same 12 things being asked for every damned day. and then they whine about Criterion not answering the requests. how many times do they have to say no to Bela Tarr? or Blood Simple? or whatever else they get obsessed about...but Kubrick is right up there.

I think it was that Bill melwhatever dude that posted some idiotic "suspicious that criterion came in and commented only when dissent started...very suspicious!" comment yesterday I think. As though their job is to sit around all day and say no to the 1839th request for Rivette. (just checking for curiosity, and it was asked again 16 hours ago).

I just posted on their page asking about the Kubricks last night...I hardly ever post anything on there because expecting them to respond to everything is insane. I think that was probably the first time I'd posted a request since I first asked about them a year or so ago.

I still can't believe that people over there had this big argument over the fact that they don't respond to every little post. As you said, how many times can they say no to the same thing? I'd rather they give us little hints as to what's coming than responding to every little post.

HistoryProf wrote: the new crop of joshua goldbergs are out of hand. that bill guy....that sandy peacock girl....that stephen guy with four names and a creepy thumbnail of his face...those three alone are dominating the place,..

You're absolutely right, except that "Sandy Peacock" is our very own " Peacock" - a male person, unless he isn't.

tojoed wrote:

HistoryProf wrote: the new crop of joshua goldbergs are out of hand. that bill guy....that sandy peacock girl....that stephen guy with four names and a creepy thumbnail of his face...those three alone are dominating the place,..

You're absolutely right, except that "Sandy Peacock" is our very own " Peacock" - a male person, unless he isn't.

As long as this topic is on a hate-tangent... Melidoneas needs to take a vacation from that page.
Sandy Peacock, while posting a lot, at least makes honest-to-god interesting recommendations (part of what pushed me to finally try MoC) and almost always posts for a good, pro-contributive reason (unlike Bill).
Not much of a problem with Stephen or his profile pic (I guess HistoryProf doesn't think he has "the angles" for it? but whatev).

...as for myself, I mostly post frivolity and very rarely suggest a title in my OPs (one time suggested Rivette for the sole hope that it would drive somebody over the edge, haha), and sometimes try to helpfully steer others to info they seek. But I've been more of a lurker there for the past couple years - finally trying to branch out over here (in a more on-topic fashion, of course)!

tojoed wrote:

HistoryProf wrote: the new crop of joshua goldbergs are out of hand. that bill guy....that sandy peacock girl....that stephen guy with four names and a creepy thumbnail of his face...those three alone are dominating the place,..

You're absolutely right, except that "Sandy Peacock" is our very own " Peacock" - a male person, unless he isn't.

Huh. go figure. I guess I still hear the name Sandy and think of Olivia Newton John. Damn you Travolta.

CrazedCollector wrote:Not much of a problem with Stephen or his profile pic (I guess HistoryProf doesn't think he has "the angles" for it? but whatev).

I just find him annoying over all...which makes his face annoying. it was the only other thing I could think to describe him by. He posts every day and does a lot of that "So what's your favorite Criterion?!?!" nonsense. Or even better, "What's your most wanted Criterion!?!??!" he's a primary perpetrator of that garbage filling the page. and I don't like how he stares at me when he does it.

HistoryProf wrote:

CrazedCollector wrote:Not much of a problem with Stephen or his profile pic (I guess HistoryProf doesn't think he has "the angles" for it? but whatev).

I just find him annoying over all...which makes his face annoying. it was the only other thing I could think to describe him by. He posts every day and does a lot of that "So what's your favorite Criterion?!?!" nonsense. Or even better, "What's your most wanted Criterion!?!??!" he's a primary perpetrator of that garbage filling the page. and I don't like how he stares at me when he does it.

Aside from your Frank Booth moment at the end thar, I think this touches on something that I've been wondering about for some time: what qualifies as a good, productive post on that page, and what doesn't? There are obvious examples of either, to be sure, but still some gray areas in my line of vision, and I'd like some guidance from more seasoned forum contributors on the matter. I'm particularly interested in what you, HistoryProf, think makes (excuse the vomit-inducing term) good Criterion Facebook page citizenship.

CrazedCollector wrote: As long as this topic is on a hate-tangent... Melidoneas needs to take a vacation from that page.

Exactly. For example, here's one of Bill's latest postings:

With the anticipated B&N Criterion sale approaching what budgets have we set ourselves for our cinephile indulging enterprises?

CrazedCollector wrote:

HistoryProf wrote:

CrazedCollector wrote:Not much of a problem with Stephen or his profile pic (I guess HistoryProf doesn't think he has "the angles" for it? but whatev).

I just find him annoying over all...which makes his face annoying. it was the only other thing I could think to describe him by. He posts every day and does a lot of that "So what's your favorite Criterion?!?!" nonsense. Or even better, "What's your most wanted Criterion!?!??!" he's a primary perpetrator of that garbage filling the page. and I don't like how he stares at me when he does it.

Aside from your Frank Booth moment at the end thar, I think this touches on something that I've been wondering about for some time: what qualifies as a good, productive post on that page, and what doesn't? There are obvious examples of either, to be sure, but still some gray areas in my line of vision, and I'd like some guidance from more seasoned forum contributors on the matter. I'm particularly interested in what you, HistoryProf, think makes (excuse the vomit-inducing term) good Criterion Facebook page citizenship.

well not that my opinion matters worth a shit any more than yours or anyone else's, but I'll take a stab anyway. To start, Bill's latest quoted by Tribe just now is NOT in the good category...and it's what Bill, Stephen 4name, and a couple of others engage in DAILY that clutter it all to no end.

What's good behavior? answering questions if you have an answer; posting relevant information on cinematic showings of Janus properties; giving Criterion feedback on recent purchases, whether it be praise or having an issue that deems public attention; and simply exercising some semblance of RESTRAINT. And since you are on the internet, I know you have access to google, so don't post idiotic questions when answers are easily available on-line already. The 87 posts of "A CRITERION DARJEELING LIMITED?!??!? NO WAI?!?!? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN!!!" are annoying as hell. See also: responses to discovering the OOP announcements. I know people get excited about things, but don't run to facebook with every remotely criterion related thought and post it. every movie you think is good does not need to be mentioned there. And in general, no one really cares what you just bought. Those in particular are really worthless. "I picked up Red Desert today." doesn't help anyone. really? great! AND?

I understand people wanting to be a part of it all...but it's really gotten out of hand at this point. the only reason I even keep them as a "friend" is that I do like their news posts. But visiting the page has gotten so cumbersome that I rarely do it anymore, and thus miss things that I'd otherwise find informative, helpful, or interesting. I think people are just enamored of the idea that they can talk directly to their favorite DVD company...but the privilege has been so abused of late that it may not last much longer. I guess the short way of saying all this is: Remember that there are 25 thousand people on that list now, it doesn't belong to you, and they don't really care about your personal buying habits or what you think the most controversial film between Spine #200 and #350 is. Let it be and think before you post

here ya go crazed...back to back examples from today:

Ian, no one cares, especially since you clearly have no taste whatsoever.

Ben - Kino released it already, use google on your fucking Iphone to look it up.

Ian Wolfe
I cannot wait for The Thin Red Line to come out on blu. It will be my first purchase since The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button.

-----------------

Ben R-n
Criterion!: Get Elem Klimov’s Come and See!

Phenomenal 1985 Russian psychological war drama.

Intense as any film on the subject gets!

15 hours ago via Facebook for iPhone · Comment

HistoryProf wrote:See also: responses to discovering the OOP announcements. I know people get excited about things, but don't run to facebook with every remotely criterion related thought and post it.

Well, guess I'm guilty of this so far as when I panicked and asked about Time Bandits and The Long Good Friday (before they returned from the depths in short fashion).

HistoryProf wrote:here ya go crazed...back to back examples from today:

Ian, no one cares, especially since you clearly have no taste whatsoever.

Ian Wolfe
I cannot wait for The Thin Red Line to come out on blu. It will be my first purchase since The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button.

I wanted to tell him to check out what he'd missed in the interim, but figured I should leave it at a shake of the head.

HistoryProf wrote:here ya go crazed...back to back examples from today:

Ian, no one cares, especially since you clearly have no taste whatsoever.

Ben - Kino released it already, use google on your fucking Iphone to look it up.

Ian Wolfe
I cannot wait for The Thin Red Line to come out on blu. It will be my first purchase since The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button.

You're clearly being trolled by Ian Wolfe.

But, yeh, the Criterion Facebook page has always been a complete hellhole, where the majority of posters seemingly have no clue over film or DVDs as they exclusively worship Criterion as if they are somekind of deity.

Well, you know, it's Facebook. Basically, the structure itself of Facebook makes people thinks they can chit-chat here, like it's not bothering anyone.

But honestly, for 99% of the time, I just skip through. There's some interesting things, but the noise-to-signal ratio is below any human limit.
Still, I like when CC asks things like "what are you going to watch this weekend ?" or stuff like that. People answers simply, and gives ideas for movies I have to watch too, but I didn't feel like yet.

tenia wrote:Still, I like when CC asks things like "what are you going to watch this weekend ?" or stuff like that.

I'm not quite enthusiastic on Criterion's quasi-gloating in such statements. It reminds me of my trip to the Orangina Facebook page (Yes, Orangina has a Facebook and yes, it's embarrassing) and the following was the norm:

Orangina Facebook wrote:It's Summer time!! Who's ready for an Orangina?

Granted, Criterion offers far better discussion with their questions, but the effect is very similar.

That said, I only scroll through the Facebook page until I find a C- hopefully notifying of some film possibly in the works. Joshua Goldberg ruined any hope of interesting discussion. I can understand the pain of filtering through the junk, but at least nothing will be as horrible as the first day of the Kurosawa quiz...

By the way, if the Facebookers want nothing more than to discuss pointless lists, they should know that a forum for that purpose already exists.

Hey everyone: some person unknown to all of us said something ill-informed or mockworthy on Facebook. Discuss.

I appreciate that everyone at the company interacts with fans via their FB, but they really should have a community manager that can tend to their FB next time they go on a four or five day vacation. What a mess.

Minkin wrote:

tenia wrote:Still, I like when CC asks things like "what are you going to watch this weekend ?" or stuff like that.

I'm not quite enthusiastic on Criterion's quasi-gloating in such statements. It reminds me of my trip to the Orangina Facebook page (Yes, Orangina has a Facebook and yes, it's embarrassing) and the following was the norm:

Orangina Facebook wrote:It's Summer time!! Who's ready for an Orangina?

Granted, Criterion offers far better discussion with their questions, but the effect is very similar.

That said, I only scroll through the Facebook page until I find a C- hopefully notifying of some film possibly in the works. Joshua Goldberg ruined any hope of interesting discussion. I can understand the pain of filtering through the junk, but at least nothing will be as horrible as the first day of the Kurosawa quiz...

By the way, if the Facebookers want nothing more than to discuss pointless lists, they should know that a forum for that purpose already exists.

Ooooh... vicious!
I like that in a person.

Mubi wrote:why does no one mention this about jurassic park??

Man, they have the best threads over there

Anybody notice the two trolls on Criterion's FB page last night? This one made me L-O-L:

Lance Marchbank on Criterion's Facebook wrote:Hey Bill Melidildo, it's a great movie, ass. You don't even know.

That gem was under Mr. Marchbank's appeal for Street Smart / Buffalo '66, following Bill's usual brand of response.

The other fellow, one Josh Miller, was more sexually explicit in his postings (mostly responses), and I don't much care to reproduce his run-of-the-mill trollery. But I'm very surprised this hasn't happened before - unless somebody else here can recall a previous extended incident like this?