300 The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

[justeleblanc]

(I'm guessing Aquatic will count as two spines)

why?

That's what they did with Fanny and Alexander with both versions. It was merely a guess.

[denti alligator]

(I'm guessing Aquatic will count as two spines)

why?

That's what they did with Fanny and Alexander with both versions. It was merely a guess.

Yeah, both those were two different versions of a film. The 2-disc Life Aquatic won't contain a feature film that is any different from its single-disc counterpart.

[justeleblanc]

why?

That's what they did with Fanny and Alexander with both versions. It was merely a guess.

Yeah, both those were two different versions of a film. The 2-disc Life Aquatic won't contain a feature film that is any different from its single-disc counterpart.

I'll bet you. If I'm wrong I'll eat my shoe.

[godardslave]

Something about this seems wrong.
I had to keep checking it wasnt April the 1st already.
Maybe the spine number isnt definite, at least. And if thats the real cover art, its awful.

Mark my words [!], something about this announcement is fishy [get it!]. #-o

[cdnchris]

Something tells me they'll both get the same spine number (unless they do something like back in their laserdisc days, like 300 for the 2-disc, and 300A for the single, or even no spine number at all). But it's such an odd decision on Disney's part. They should have just released the single disc without any reference to Criterion at all, as their own barebones, then just stuck the Criterion logo on the two-disc (and lost that "Two-Disc Special Edition" shit at the bottom, since more people link Criterion to "special edition" already) It'll probably just confuse people anyways.

Plus the two releases make no sense since the price difference is so small. It's not like Fox's "Huckabees" or "Master and Commander" releases, which had $20 price differences. It's like $10 regular, $3 on sale (sorry, just $3, misread the 2-Disc price).

I actually liked the poster art to the film, I even liked Tenenbaums'. I figured they would use it for the cover and didn't mind (hell, I was really tempted to try and buy that stand-up at the local theater), but I was hoping for a better composition. That is kind of shitty. I can't wait to see Eric's cover, though, which I'm sure will be posted on the Criterion site in a week or two.

[javelin]

As for the cover art: remember The Royal Tenenbaums, folks. That two disk edition looks like a slipcase, like Tenenbaums. The art (if you wanna call it that) is terrible because (unfortunately) famous people's mugs sell better than Eric Anderson's drawings. I doubt that either Anderson nor Criterion would let this be released with that cover alone.

[Narshty]

But it's such an odd decision on Disney's part. They should have just released the single disc without any reference to Criterion at all, as their own barebones, then just stuck the Criterion logo on the two-disc (and lost that "Two-Disc Special Edition" shit at the bottom, since more people link Criterion to "special edition" already) It'll probably just confuse people anyways.

But this way, Criterion will get paid twice.

[Derek Estes]

I have a feeling the price difference is a mistake. The re-release of 'M' was announced at $29.95, before it was caught, and changed to $39.95. I guess that either the single will be reduced to about $20 or the double will be raised to about $40. TRT was a reduced priced title for Criterion, so I would not be suprised if that trend carried on to TLAWSZ.

[Steven H]

Pretty scathing review up at the Telegraph by Sukhdev Sandhu who had this to say about how it is "deeply annoying":

And the shame is that it didn't have to be that way. For Anderson has at his disposal a fairly large budget for someone of his twisty, obsessive brand of filmmaking. And a great cast - Bill Murray, Anjelica Huston, Cate Blanchett, Willem Dafoe - a number of whom he has worked with before.

harsh stuff. Does that imply that a larger budget should make it less annoying?

His films, this one included, make a big song and dance about being precisely delineated narratives. Since his early film Rushmore, however, they've lacked internal logic or obvious structure; they're just empty tracks on which Anderson's rolling stock of A-list actors can be shunted to and fro.

The internal logic (though the reviewer and I may have different ideas of what this means) has at the least felt consistent through his films, and why the specific "obvious structure"? Do they only have an unobvious structure? I'm baffled.

Anyway, British pieces on Huston here, Blanchett here, and it's reception at Berlin here (where it seems to have been largely disliked).

[cbernard]

I hope those covers aren't final. Am I alone in feeling that way? Even when Criterion derives their covers from the original poster art (e.g. TRAFFIC) there's at least a small measure of abstraction.

The list of cast members...I don't know. Let's hope for something more like this:

[FilmFanSea]

Personally, I doubt Criterion had much input about the cover art for The Life Acquatic .... I think the Mouse House chose it.

[jedgeco]

But it's such an odd decision on Disney's part. They should have just released the single disc without any reference to Criterion at all, as their own barebones, then just stuck the Criterion logo on the two-disc (and lost that "Two-Disc Special Edition" shit at the bottom, since more people link Criterion to "special edition" already) It'll probably just confuse people anyways.

I'm betting the single-disc edition is just a regular Touchstone. The statement at the link above is a little ambiguous:

According to the details we have, the film will be available in both single and double-disc Criterion editions from the 10th May.

It's certainly plausible that the author only intended "Criterion" to modify "double-disc" and not "single."

[Michael]

I found an image that would make a fantastic cover for The Life Aquatic but call me ignorant, I have no idea how to post the image on here.

[dekadetia]

I found an image that would make a fantastic cover for The Life Aquatic

Is it this one? (From an ebay action, so it probably won't hang around.) This is a teaser poster, which I had been hoping for as an outside possibility; the art is "Disney-sanctioned", after all...

I think the thing that bothers me about the final poster is the way that it invokes the end of the film while adding Owen Wilson to it (I'm sure people would have wondered why he isn't there otherwise) and presenting Jeff Goldblum sans bandages. I'm sure there are other discrepancies, too. It seems to me this sort of fools with the narrative unnecessarily. There are plenty of other scenes in the movie to go with -- dvd cover aside, the dimensions and size of a poster, a quad especially, would have been great for a detail of the inside of the ship with all the actors on board. Everyone looks awkward as hell too, like on the Tenenbaums poster, except you don't have Gene Hackman's smiling mug to provide a counterpoint. Perhaps these two posters are metaphors for the films' respective merits and flaws in that sense, but I digress, a lot...

[Michael]

Yeah, that's the one. Love that poster design which leaves room for mystery and imagination.

[cdnchris]

I don't know what the hate is with the poster art (I can understand the DVD cover since it has too much other crap on it not needed). At least it's not faces badly pasted around thanks to a quick photoshop job (Sideways) I like the poster art because it showcases the characters more than the actors I feel (they even include Gambon and Cort and I never heard anyone say "hey! That looks like Michael Gambon, let's see that!"), and it has all the characters on a little journey in a tiny sub. Sure, Murray's and Wilson's mug might sell more, but I like seeing all the characters together.

Anderson's films always have that final shot where all the characters are together and I like that, and the poster captures that and I like the fantasy of the underwater world and the sub. I also always preferred the unused Rushmore poster found in the supplements on the DVD, with the characters all at a banquet table. And I actually didn't mind the Tenenbaums poster, though it would have been cooler if it looked more like a painting, like this one, a family portrait of sorts. His movies are about the characters so you should showcase them. It's not his fault he has actors, recognizable ones, in those roles

While I know Eric's cover will more than likely kick ass and I will prefer it to the poster art, I do have to admit I am kind of glad the poster art made its way to the DVD. But I will throw in a couple repeat bitches: lose that garbage at the bottom, get rid of the names (especially the BIG "Bill Murray" at the top) and maybe leave an "A Film By Wes Anderson" bit and I would be 100% OK with that cover.

[Gordon]

I love Anderson's movies - they are beautiful, sweet, unsentimental mini-masterpieces.

Does anyone know about the deal Anderson, Disney and Criterion have to release his films as Criterion DVDs? I have nothing against such a deal, but it is rather unusual; of all the films that stand out in the Collection, it is these three by Anderson and the Michael Bay macho-man movies: they are modern 'hits'. Popular movies, but not well-established classics. The Michael Bay films' presence in the Collecton disturb me more, of course,

What if more filmmakers insisted on their films being distributed by Home Vision under the Criterion label? Tarantino, for example. Or Sophia Coppola?

Not that it matters, but such a situation would slow down the output of landmark foreign films.

Why can't Anderson's and Bay's films come out on HVE? Why does it have to have the Criterion banner and spine number? Are they being a bit pretentious?

[Sai]

Why can't Anderson's and Bay's films come out on HVE? Why does it have to have the Criterion banner and spine number? Are they being a bit pretentious?

With the possibility of going off topic, I think Richard Linklater can be a good example to make clear why some 'popular' filmmakers like to have their films released on DVD through Criterion. When working on the new Dazed & Confused SE he encountered lots of problems with Universal that wanted to rush the release, not giving him the proper time for an audio commentary (or something to those lines). After that experience he didn't want to work on the SE anymore and wanted to license the film to Criterion. Obviously, filmmakers as Anderson and Linklater like to work with Criterion because they are given more freedom on the DVD.

I think.

[Andre Jurieu]

Well, for one thing, filmmaking is still a business. When a well-known contemporary filmmaker, such as Anderson and Bay, seeks to have their films placed on the Criterion banner, both sides know it is somewhat of a statement, but more of a marketing tool, whether we like it or not.

Anderson and Bay understand that there is a certain respectability and sophistication to the label in the eyes of consumers. That is why they would want their films to be in the Criterion Collection. Now I'd have to say Bay isn't all that worried about his films being grouped in with the other films in the collection (it's a nice side-effect), but he is concerned with what the "Criterion Collection" label has to offer his DVD package. That label has less to do with cinematic quality for Bay, and much more with conveying to DVD-nut consumers that this package is the highest he can offer them. Bay no longer requires that type of brand positioning since Disney can now create loaded packages for his films in-house. Meanwhile, I believe Anderson's seeking to be included with the label has to do with his films being thought of in the same company as Bergman, Fellini, Kubrick, Kurosawa, etc.

From Disney's perspective, it's best for Anderson's films to remain under the Criterion Collection banner, because they understand his films appeal to a niche market that may overlap with those consumers that purchase Criterion Collection DVDs. It is in their best interest to have Anderson's films be included alongside cinematic masters, because they are attempting to market and position his films in the marketplace to art-house audiences. This appears to be a unique decision to Disney (and possibly Universal with Linklater, since Slacker is not that well-known a title), as they are allowing their artists to appear on another label. I'm sure other artists such as Tarantino (remember there is a Pulp Fiction Criterion laserdisc) and Coppola could ask their studios to release their films to Criterion, but I also guarantee that these studios are not likely to do so given the name-brand of the director and the potential profits from their DVD sales. Plus, Tarantino has a much larger fan base than Anderson, so there are more profits to be had by studios that work with Tarantino.

A filmmaker such as Anderson, Bay, Tarantino, or Coppola will NEVER allow their films to be released under the HVe banner. Simply put, that is commercial suicide for artists with the name recognition that these directors currently enjoy. What is to be gained by the director or studio by having the film placed under the HVe label? Absolutely nothing. It's a little known label for little known films when put in perspective of the mainstream marketplace. There is no advantage for a studio to market these artists through the HVe label, when they could just accomplish the same thing by doing it themselves and retaining more of the profit. Simply put, that would be an awful business decision, and one that someone could lose their job over at a major studio. How many consumers wait out ever month for the latest HVe DVD releases? Not enough to make a profit when shared between two companies.

[DrewReiber]

I think Sai and Andre have both made excellent and very true points. It is interesting to note that though Life Aquatic and Pearl Harbor were Buena Vista relatively disappointing films to the studio, Bay's work was NOT admitted into the collection. It's interesting that both films recieved a bit of a critical backlash, but for whatever reason (most likely the niche market and Buena Vista's new DVD branch), Aquatic remained on course as a release.

[Steven H]

I loved Life Aquatic as much as you did Drew, but I don't think the quality of the film had much to do with it being released. It seems like Criterion planned on putting it out at least during, if not before, production. Anderson seems to be their cashcow of late... not that I mind. As cashcow's go, they could do much worse. Makes you wonder what filmmakers have asked and been turned down...

[Theodore R. Stockton]

Can I still eat Werner Herzog's shoe?

[yumitree]

i'm not sold that thesingle disc will be criterion... just look at the cover the criterion banner is totally tacked on, too low and slightly off center (look at how the yellow line doesn't reach the right edge of the cover. while that could easily be the result of a rushjob, the single disc artwork has a couple of other changes and isn't just a cropped version of the 2 disc.

[DrewReiber]

I loved Life Aquatic as much as you did Drew, but I don't think the quality of the film had much to do with it being released. It seems like Criterion planned on putting it out at least during, if not before, production. Anderson seems to be their cashcow of late... not that I mind. As cashcow's go, they could do much worse. Makes you wonder what filmmakers have asked and been turned down...

When I said "admitted", I just meant in the general sense of being included in the collection. I believe Pearl Harbor was designed for Buena Vista DVD from the get go, because Disney's move to the format necessitated their own special editions and therefore no need for a label like Criterion for such a large film. THEN the movie came out and was trashed, which probably had no real impact on the DVD whatsoever (similar to Aquatic's situation). If I remember correctly, Pearl Harbor had both single and 2 disc special editions anyway.

As it was said earlier, Criterion is a marketing tool for Disney. Agreeing with their choices or not, the label implies a very high standard in film, transfer and sometimes supplement quality. I can already imagine people seeing the DVD on the shelves thinking, "Gee, I though this movie bombed. I don't remember Entertainment Weekly liking it very much. But hey, if Criterion put it out..." and they snag a copy. I know some sheep here at my film school with that EXACT mentality (EW and the CC!).

Personally, I just wish Universal and Focus would do more with the label for their newer releases. Lost Highway, and IMO Lost in Translation, are in desperate needs of better DVDs.

[DrewReiber]

I'm baffled.

This is definitely one of those films where the narrative structure becomes more apparent during the second viewing. An example would be the order in which information about Steve and Ned's past through letters appears, giving backstory to the relationship between them, Ned's mother and Jaqueline. If the critics choose to just immediately write it off as confusing, I don't doubt for a second they'll themselves re-examining their opinions if they happen to find themselves watching the film again.