Embarrasing DVD collections. (1 Viewer)

[Shawn Collins]

I like to put it this way; the cool stuff is mine. Anything sappy, it's my wife's choice. Anything that's considered crap, ala Goldmember, are my two teen aged boys. Any of the young children's classics are for my 9 month old.

You can laugh at anything in my collection, but I won't claim it!

I will admit I'm a sucker for nostalgia purchases (BTTF, Cooley High, etc.) although I'm trying to limit them to bargain bin or used unless its not out yet, like Indy or the Love Bug. I keep a list in my wallet in case I run across any (Airplane, etc.).

I don't make too many blind buys unless I've read positive reviews from HTF and DVD file such as About Schmidt.

My prize discs are the Evil Dead series.

Shawn
My Stuff

 

[DaveGTP]

http://www.theonion.com/onion3915/dvd_collection.html
Here's the aforementioned article on the onion, hilarious. "Harsh Light of Morning Falls on One-Night Stand's DVD Collection"
I always tease my fiancee "You bought another Morgan Freeman-Ashley Judd thriller?" She buys a lot of movies like that. Weird that she likes both independent films but also recycled junkBR>My only guilty pleasure is Kung Pow: Enter the Fist.

 

[WillardK]

I can criticize anyone and everyone because my collection is perfect. Every selection is a masterpiece. And here's a tip: Dungeon of Harrow is a little known gem that was highly influential for it's special effects and expertly timed scenes of suspense. Go buy it, now!


(tee hee hee)

I'm not embarassed to show warts and all. It's like someone said, we come here to talk about home theaters and dvd's so exposing your own interests is not a bad way to participate... fodder for discussion and lengthy suggestion lists.

No question there are a few titles in my collection that I wouldn't/won't mind getting rid of... I mean, trading. Like others, I've made the occasional blind buy that I usually manage to avoid. There's that anime title that I tried... and that computer animated feature that I bought early on (still of some interest for form not content like the anime, but very expendable)... and that Goofy tin (which is at least a no risk sellable). So I'm into animation (else I seriously doubt Disney would show up at all). I'd think obsessive genre buying might be a most dangerous way of going about things. Maybe I should be glad I don't like anime!

Oh... and unlike the Goofy tin, I WILL re-watch that dull but bizarre piece of doo-doo called Dungeon of Harrow. Just because.

 

[Al Stuart]

http://www.theonion.com/onion3915/dvd_collection.html
Here's the aforementioned article on the onion, hilarious. "Harsh Light of Morning Falls on One-Night Stand's DVD Collection." I always tease my fiancee "You bought another Morgan Freeman-Ashley Judd thriller" She buys a lot of movies like that.

Yes, my thread on the "other" site was based on that article. I urge all of you to read this thread for a very good laugh:

http://www.dvdfile.com/interactive/f...light=overhaul

Note that the mod who banned me was awfully annoyed at the list (a lot of his DVD's fell into the "mediocre" category) and actually removed the link to the "time waster" list that appeared in my sig.

 

[Darko]

Jason, you do sound "snobby or condescending". No one has asked you to agree or disagree with their choice of movie or "film". For most people, movies are entertainment, they do not need them to fill their life with meaning, or to raise their standard.

Also, in an earlier post you stated that you could tell a lot about people through their movie collections. How dare you presume to know anything about be based on what movies I have.

How do you know??? Maybe I have a high pressure job, and when I come home I want some mindless entertainment to help me wind down! I don't always want to watch Metropolis, M, Contempt etc. etc. etc. Sometimes the mood calls for Zoolander, or something simple. Not by any means the greatest movies, but they serve their purpose.

It's just like food, I really enjoy fine food, but sometimes McDonald's is needed.

 

[GarySchrock]

This thread has finally gotten me to get around to finish updating my dvd profiler list, finally in my sig (minus two discs that weren't in their list as far as I could tell, Goo Goo Dolls in Alaska, and the National Geographic Beyond the movie for LoR that came in the big set). It is the authoritative list of good movies, and if you don't agree, then you're clearly just plain wrong.

I've got several from the list of mediocre, and a fair number more from that list that eventually I'll probably buy. Sure, I may not have movies that many consider classics and must own, but what's the point in owning them if I don't want to watch them?

(Caveat: my collection comes from movies both I and my wife have accumulated, and even I find some of hers a bit strange. It's even worse on the list of movies to eventually buy that I have on my computer.

 

[Brian E]

I own 32 of the titles on Al's list. None of them are what I'd call "desert island discs", but I'm not planing to get rid of any of them either.

 

[Edwin-S]

What constitutes "mediocre" anyway? Because Mr. Stuart says so? I read both his list and the thread that was conducted because of the list. The most amusing thing in the thread was when a poster facetiously asked Mr. Stuart, "what was he thinking to have 'A Boy's Life' in his collection?" It was really funny to watch Mr. Stuart rise up to the bait and start going off about, "how the film was this and that and blah, blah and how he was sure that everyone who saw it would have an affinity for it, and so on and so on. It sure was funny to watch a person who didn't mind letting other people know that their tastes in movies were mediocre, suddenly become defensive when his own taste was challenged.....even when the challenge was little more than an off-hand remark.

I think if you cannot stand the heat, then you should stay out of the kitchen. One person's mediocre can be another person's "masterpiece" (for want of a better word).

 

[Al Stuart]

What constitutes "mediocre" anyway? Because Mr. Stuart says so? I read both his list and the thread that was conducted because of the list. The most amusing thing in the thread was when a poster facetiously asked Mr. Stuart, "what was he thinking to have 'A Boy's Life' in his collection?" It was really funny to watch Mr. Stuart rise up to the bait and start going off about, "how the film was this and that and blah, blah and how he was sure that everyone who saw it would have an affinity for it, and so on and so on. It sure was funny to watch a person who didn't mind letting other people know that their tastes in movies were mediocre, suddenly become defensive when his own taste was challenged.....even when the challenge was little more than an off-hand remark.

I think if you cannot stand the heat, then you should stay out of the kitchen. One person's mediocre can be another person's "masterpiece" (for want of a better word).

Actually the title was "About a Boy," but regardless, I wanted to discuss each title that people object to, or think should be added. If you notice, there were two titles that was removed "Gladiator" and "Super Troopers," because they were debated and the result was that they were not the kind of mediocre we were looking for.

And my response regarding "About a Boy" was also sort of in jest, considering that poster was one of the few who was actually willing to debate the subject at hand and not get defensive. Also the point I was making (and also what The Onion article hinted at) was that each title should have some sort of meaning in your collection, and theoretically you should be able to "defend" why you own each one. Owning an enormous number of movies that you don't even know why you bought seems a bit silly doesn't it? The Onion article makes light of the fact that this patrticular guy doesn't have one distinctive movie in his collection, that as a whole, all it says is that he is an indiscriminate consumer.

Of course I am not the judge of everything mediocre, the idea was to come up with a sort of consensus, much like as another poster pointed out, this was exactly how AFI created their lists.

 

[Mitch Stevens]

Damn, I have exactly 30 titles from the "mediocre" list posted, and that's not all - I want to buy at least 15 more from that list. I have a list of my "Must Own DVDs" on my computer, and 15 more from that list are "must haves" for me.

I found that the list is extremely harsh...There is no way that some of the titles should be listed there. While, I agree that some of them are in fact mediocre but fun to watch, some of them shouldn't be there at all.

For example: "Valentine" is an excellent horror movie which I enjoyed greatly at the theater, as well as "I Know What You Did Last Summer" which is not at all a copy of Scream...It was based on a book by Lois Duncan. Vertical Limit definitely shouldn't be there either. It's a great film, and a lot of people on the HTF have it (especially the Superbit version)

One of the best surprises, was "A Perfect Murder" which I very recently rented from Netflix. It was a great film, and it's also on the list of mediocre movies. That is one of my "must haves" that I mentioned earlier.

There were a whole bunch more on that list that I could argue about, but this post would go over 1,000 pages.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I own the following titles from the mediocre list:

The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course
Evolution
Jurassic Park III
A Knight's Tale
The Sum of All Fears
Sweet Home Alabama

So these movies only account for about 1.5% of my collection or about 1.7% of my non-porn collection. And The Sum of All Fears is the only one there that wasn't a blind buy. Does this make me some sort of sophisticate?

 

[Edwin-S]

You are correct. The title was "About a Boy". My apology. Normally, I recheck a person's post to avoid just this kind of mistake. In this case, I didn't. My contention, however, is that someones (or some groups) decision on what constitutes a mediocre film is entirely subjective. Just because you and some like-minded individuals say that a film is mediocre doesn't automatically make it so. Using the criteria that a film is "unmemorable" as an indicator that the film is mediocre doesn't wash. Using that criteria, every film could be considered mediocre because somewhere in the world there is a person or group of people that is left unaffected by any given film.

Not everyone is impressed by or will remember CITIZEN KANE after they watch it. Does that now make it mediocre because lots of people will find it unmemorable?

 

[Al Stuart]

My contention, however, is that someones (or some groups) decision on what constitutes a mediocre film is entirely subjective. Just because you and some like-minded individuals say that a film is mediocre doesn't automatically make it so. Using the criteria that a film is "unmemorable" as an indicator that the film is mediocre doesn't wash. Using that criteria, every film could be considered mediocre because somewhere in the world there is a person or group of people that is left unaffected by any given film.

As if every list wasn't subjective? The only thing different about this list versus say the Oscars, the Razzies, or an AFI list, is that I have no promotional budget behind it. All of those lists are subjective and arguing any other way is pointless.

As you point out, just because 5,000 actors, directors, and crewpeople decide that Gladiator was the best movie made in 2000, doesn't make it so.

 

[Edwin-S]

The difference is that those lists have at least some objective criteria that results in them being picked. GLADIATOR didn't get picked best picture just because someone or some people thought it was memorable. Saying that a film, supposedly, isn't memorable is not a valid criteria for claiming that a film is mediocre. There has to be something else that makes it mediocre, the cinematography, the direction, or the actors performances.

 

[Edwin-S]

BTW, I think "Behind Enemy Lines" should be taken off your list of mediocre films.

 

[Mitch Stevens]

BTW, I think "Behind Enemy Lines" should be taken off your list of mediocre films.

I agree! This film was excellent!

 

[David Lambert]

I own 53 on Al's list! Wow...I'm a kewl dood!

I can't believe you include "As Good As It Gets" or "Mad About You - Season 1" on your list.

As I said, it's all a matter of personal taste. You think this can tell you something about me? Sure, why not? "Don't judge a book by its cover". Nor will I try to "excuse" listings in my collection by saying they are bought by or for a family member...I won't claim my wife has worse taste than I do! After all, it's not "my" collection...it's *OUR* collection.

 

[Kevin M]

As you point out, just because 5,000 actors, directors, and crewpeople decide that Gladiator was the best movie made in 2000, doesn't make it so.

Well....when Queen Kong(1976) wasn't nominated for best Picture by any major group I stopped caring about "Lists" & "Awards"....fools!

 

[Tony Whalen]

Me personally I don't have much respect for a person so shallow as to judge someone based upon the content of their dvd collection...that's pretty shallow indeed.

Couldn't agree more.

I "only" have about 200 titles in my collection, but I'm proud of it, and my wife and I love our movies. Even the schlocky-cheesy stuff, which we both enjoy. (Hell, my wife loves Ah-nuld movies! No wonder I married her!)

As for that "mediocre" list...

I have 22 of the titles that are on it, and enjoy all of 'em. So I guess I have an 11% medicocre-quotient.

I disagree with some of those movies being classified as "mediocre"...My tastes are my tastes. And I ain't apologizing to anyone for 'em.

 

[Marc_Sulinski]

I just checked the list, and I only have 1 title! My collection isn't massive, but it isn't that small either (about 230 DVDs).

The one that I own is The Tailor of Panama. Not that it bothers me, but how did this get on the list? I really enjoyed it, and I believe it received good critical acclaim. I just checked rotten tomatoes, and it has a rating of 76% (90% from the cream of the crop section, if that means anything).