40 Armageddon

Discuss DVDs and Blu-rays released by Criterion and the films on them. If it's got a spine number, it's in here. Threads may contain spoilers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Martha
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: all up in thurr

40 Armageddon

#1 Post by Martha » Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:20 pm

Armageddon

Image

Bruce Willis and and an all-star cast of roughneck oil drillers blast off on a mission to save the planet in Michael Bay's doomsday space epic.

DIRECTOR-APPROVED DOUBLE DISC SPECIAL EDITION FEATURES

DISC ONE: THE MOVIE

- The exclusive director’s cut, containing previously unseen footage, in a new digital transfer personally supervised by Michael Bay
- Discrete 5.1 channel Dolby® Digital soundtrack
- Two commentary tracks: One featuring Michael Bay, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, Bruce Willis, and Ben Affleck; the second featuring cinematographer John Schwartzman, NASA consultant Dr. Joe Allen, and asteroid consultant Ivan Bekey
- Subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired
- Optimal image quality: RSDL dual-layer edition

DISC TWO: SUPPLEMENTS

- Michael Bay’s gag reel
- Deleted scenes compiled by Michael Bay
- Storyboards and production design drawings
- Analyses of the special effects by visual effects supervisors Richard Hoover, Pat McClung, and Hoyt Yeatman
- Production designer Michael White on the look of Armageddon
- Trailer, teaser, and television spots
- The Aerosmith music video “I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing,” plus interviews with band members

Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Last edited by Martha on Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
daniel p
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

#2 Post by daniel p » Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:07 pm

May seem like a strange question, but is this in a double width or single width case? The reason I ask is, it features the 'old style' criterion font on the front cover - but I have most of the first lot of releases, and none with this 'old style' are double width. Can't picture the spine in double width. Can someone feed my curiosity so I don't have to buy the damn thing for myself?
Last edited by daniel p on Tue Mar 08, 2005 4:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
daniel p
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

#3 Post by daniel p » Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:07 pm

I assumed so, but just can't imagine that style in double width.
Still can't bring myself to buy it though - even if it means an incomplete collection. I'll treat it as OOP, along with the other gaps on my shelf.

User avatar
dekadetia
was Born Innocent
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:57 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

#4 Post by dekadetia » Mon Mar 07, 2005 9:16 am

Well, here's the single-alpha version. I know the old ezboard noted that this disc used to be a double-alpha and is now a single, but I don't know if that info was ever replicated here (the ezboard section was called "Printings and Versions"; if anyone knows how to get into the old ezboard site i think the info is here but I can't load the page.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Posts: 3778
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

#5 Post by cdnchris » Mon Mar 07, 2005 9:59 am

It was double on original release (the one I have is) but it went to single later (it was assumed so places like Wal-Mart could stock more) and then I assume back to double (the video store near me that actually stocks Criterions got more Armageddons in and they were all doubles)

lull
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:21 pm
Location: Canada

#6 Post by lull » Sun May 15, 2005 9:32 am

found this at a used record store yesterday for $14 CDN :) it's probably my most reviled film of all time but i just couldn't up the chance to get a Criterion at that price. the set looks nice and, from what i read from reviews, informative.

lull
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:21 pm
Location: Canada

#7 Post by lull » Sun May 15, 2005 9:33 am

btw, mine's double-width.

User avatar
LightBulbFilm
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

#8 Post by LightBulbFilm » Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:50 pm

No, Armageddon isn't the best film ever, in the collection, hell it's not even in the top 500, but you have to say one thing... It does have style, and that's why it's in the collection. Michael Bay, has a style to his films... A blockbuster style, if you will... and that's why the Criterion Collection holds this film... Because it has it's own style.... Michael Bay has his own style... Try looking at it that way.

User avatar
The Invunche
Alleged Socialist
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:43 am
Location: Denmark

#9 Post by The Invunche » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:12 pm

I didn't get this movie until the second viewing. Very complex stuff.

lull
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:21 pm
Location: Canada

#10 Post by lull » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:23 pm

heard the film was closer to Bergman's original idea for the Seventh Seal than Bergman's own interpretation.
Last edited by lull on Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gordon
Waster of Cinema
Posts: 1682
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#11 Post by Gordon » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:24 pm

Sales from this title must have paid for so many pet projects at Criterion and many much-loved SEs. I love the fact that it and The Rock are in the collection. But how pretentious is it for a filmmaker to insist that his films are released by Criterion. If that is what Bay did. Wes Anderson, too. Can any filmmaker make this request?

Criterion are worth a bundle now. The profits are huge, no doubt. A digitally restored, hi-def transfer of The Browning Version with extras?! And it has sold about 40 copies so far, I bet. I asked Mulvaney about this and he said that he isn't at liberty to discuss sales and profits. One too many Browning Versions and we'll be seeing more Armageddons in the collection, you can bet your butt on that.
Last edited by Gordon on Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Napoleon
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 am

#12 Post by Napoleon » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:31 pm

I'm never quite sure whether the chest-beating USA-ism's, over use of rawk, and slow-mo are supposed to be ironic or not.

Bay is a master at keeping the viewer off balance like that.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Big fan of the former president
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#13 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:01 pm

A few years ago there was a hilarious piece about Bay's movies in Film Comment where the author called Armageddon Bay's masterpiece because it had the balls to go so far over-the-top than any other film he's done. He also said it fit in a loose-knit trilogy -- The Girl in the Control Room. :wink:

If I can find it, I'll dig it up.

Narshty
Posts: 1324
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
Location: London, UK

#14 Post by Narshty » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:07 pm

Absolutely. It's the Scream of disaster movies - both ripping the piss out of itself, and still delivering all the thrills and spills one expects from the genre. Bay goes way, way, way overboard, and it's fantastic. The Rock is so po-faced and charmless in comparison. The attempts at building characters felt terribly forced, as if all involved were aiming for Higher Things, while still throwing in a bunch of dull stereotypes for cheap laughs anyway (the camp hairdresser, for example) - in Armageddon, characters are defined by their quips, as it should be.

User avatar
godardslave
Happy-Fun Sunshine Minion of Intolerance
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:44 pm
Location: Confusing and open ended = high art.

#15 Post by godardslave » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:13 pm

The Invunche wrote:I didn't get this movie until the second viewing. Very complex stuff.


no, you're just slow.

User avatar
The Invunche
Alleged Socialist
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:43 am
Location: Denmark

#16 Post by The Invunche » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:52 pm

godardslave, you have lots to learn about trolling.................and grammar. ;)

User avatar
luxetnox
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:07 pm

#17 Post by luxetnox » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:00 pm

After a few years of my friends telling me that Armageddon was a total blue-collar wet dream and that I should see it, I finally did on September 10, 2001. After sitting through 14 hours of who-needs-to-do-what talking and yelling head television the following day, I watched it for a second time and it was as much of a blast as the first time and I've enjoyed it the dozen times I've seen it since. And I ain't no give 'em hell flag-waving yipper. Tho I do work at NASA.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Posts: 2074
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#18 Post by Andre Jurieu » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:05 pm

So just to make sure I understand, Michael Bay and Armageddon have style, right? Also, the only reason Criterion can justify including this film within their holy collection of films is that the DVD for the movie is a cash-cow that subsidizes other "artistic masterpieces" and "under-appreciated gems". Correct? I'm just so glad we're clearing up these confusing issues.

Gordon wrote:But how pretentious is it for a filmmaker to insist that his films are released by Criterion. If that is what Bay did. Wes Anderson, too. Can any filmmaker make this request?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure any filmmaker can make this request... and then it's up to Criterion do decide if they want to produce the DVD or not.

Anyone else find it funny that the word "pretentious" is being used here?

McMurphy wrote:One too many Browning Versions and we'll be seeing more Armageddons in the collection, you can bet your butt on that.

Sounds good.

User avatar
Gordon
Waster of Cinema
Posts: 1682
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 8:03 am

#19 Post by Gordon » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:13 pm

Andre, dry yer eyes, would ya? :cry: I acknowledge my pretentiousness. I love it.

You will be silent now.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Posts: 2074
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#20 Post by Andre Jurieu » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:31 pm

Gordon McMurphy wrote: Andre, dry yer eyes, would ya?

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:I acknowledge my pretentiousness. I love it.

That's sad.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:You will be silent now.

Good luck with that.

Narshty wrote:Absolutely. It's the Scream of disaster movies - both ripping the piss out of itself, and still delivering all the thrills and spills one expects from the genre.

You know Narsh, I've heard you state this before, but I still don't see it. The movie is over-the-top, but it certainly isn't as overtly self-aware as Scream, where it's painfully obvious for any audience member. I doubt very many viewers see Armageddon as having a laugh at its own expense, or at the expense of its genre.

User avatar
The Invunche
Alleged Socialist
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:43 am
Location: Denmark

#21 Post by The Invunche » Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:06 pm

I just wanna know why they had gatlin guns fitted on the space cars.

User avatar
luxetnox
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:07 pm

#22 Post by luxetnox » Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:52 pm

NASA imperialism. Gatling guns have been on all of the landing craft since 1964 with the exception of the Mars rovers which, due to budgetary and size constraints, were equipped only with saturday night specials.

User avatar
ben d banana
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Oh Where, Oh Where?

#23 Post by ben d banana » Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:58 am

I love the Aerosmith/Diane Warren song.

Narshty
Posts: 1324
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
Location: London, UK

#24 Post by Narshty » Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:59 am

Andre Jurieu wrote:
Narshty wrote:Absolutely. It's the Scream of disaster movies - both ripping the piss out of itself, and still delivering all the thrills and spills one expects from the genre.

You know Narsh, I've heard you state this before, but I still don't see it. The movie is over-the-top, but it certainly isn't as overtly self-aware as Scream, where it's painfully obvious for any audience member. I doubt very many viewers see Armageddon as having a laugh at its own expense, or at the expense of its genre.

Well, I have to justify my irrational love for this great lurching toxic monster of a film somehow. "It rocks" failed to cut it beforehand. Watch it (or as much as you can bear to) again - it's fascinating how Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare seem to be the only ones who realise what kind of picture they're in.

Napoleon
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:55 am

#25 Post by Napoleon » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:00 am

Andrei wrote:
Narshty wrote:Absolutely. It's the Scream of disaster movies - both ripping the piss out of itself, and still delivering all the thrills and spills one expects from the genre.

You know Narsh, I've heard you state this before, but I still don't see it. The movie is over-the-top, but it certainly isn't as overtly self-aware as Scream, where it's painfully obvious for any audience member. I doubt very many viewers see Armageddon as having a laugh at its own expense, or at the expense of its genre.
No they don't, and I remain unconvinced that this was Bay's intention in the first place. If it was perhaps he should have cast Leslie Nielsen in the Willis role to get his point across?

I agree with Narshty (about The Rock as well). And I like Con Air for the same reasons as well.

Post Reply