Would love to.  So far we're still on Step One: convincing the rest of the panel to watch it. 

For that first 60 years the movie industry had a much bigger market to sell to - in the past few decades movies have consistently lost market share to television (there used to be maybe ten channels in any given market, now there are hundreds), video games, the internet, etc.  Home video has been keeping the studios alive while they continued to lose ground to all those other things.   

This is why they've been so adamant about paying low residuals on home video, through numerous strikes by writers and actors etc.

And studios would love to sell their product all over the world, all the time, as much as possible.  It just isn't that easy.   Countries have laws about foreign imports, they have their own movie industries to protect and promote, and there are a finite number of theaters in every country.   Overseas releases have all kinds of local conditions and restrictions to deal with - it's not a matter of picking a date and having theaters available.  They may not be.

For example, the only countries where Carruth's movie isn't for sale online already are the very few where the movie has yet to be released in theaters.   Releasing a movie in theaters requires the hiring of a distribution company who become partners in the release - they book the theaters and take a share of the profits etc.   So I'm guessing his movie isn't online in those markets because that was a requirement by the releasing company. Why go to all that effort to put out a niche movie with tiny market potential as it is - if it's already online?

Movie studios are scrambling to make use of all these new markets, but it's not easy... there are an awful lot of laws and union restrictions and global trade issues to hack through.   And all the while, the market for movies in general continues to shrink.

In the end, I suspect Spielberg and Lucas are right, tentpoles will become fewer, movie production in general will scale down, and that's not necessarily bad.  But there will be a lot more company failures along the way, and jobs will continue to disappear and never come back.

Eww.  I hated that trick when Harry Potter did it, too.

EDIT:  And when Neo did it, and Jesus, etc.   But that's the trope, we just loves to keep using it.

We mention the Kirk Alyn/Noel Neill cameo when it happens (right around the 36 minute mark). 

However, I said that Neill was the Lois from  the TV show opposite Reeves... what I didn't remember - until I looked it up just now - was she was Lois in the Alyn movie serials and the tv series.

Seems like only yesterday the internet was losing its collective shit over early stills of Superman's new costume... how time flies.

Of course by the time Hobbit II comes out we should be well into Star Wars pre-production.  I suspect JJ has more people working on plans to troll the internet than he does actually making Episode VII right now.    So strap in, JJ's got a laser pointer and the whole internet is gonna be his cat. 

Since White's drawing a straight line between Burton and Snyder, I'm pretty sure when he says "real filmmaker" he means someone who uses and/or experiments with the medium in a way no one else does.    He's not talking about  accessibility, box office results, or even necessarily narrative coherence.

Love it or hate it, a Burton film looks like a Burton film (unless it's somebody else trying to copy the look of a Burton film).  A Snyder film looks like a Snyder film.  And since you mention them, I would put Ang Lee and Gondry into that crowd too, probably even ahead of Nolan. 

But Branagh and Whedon?  Although very talented and capable of making very successful entertainment, they have yet to do anything distinctive or unprecedented with the medium of film.   Which is in no way meant as an insult - they're highly skilled users of the medium, which is still rare enough to deserve all the accolades they get.    Ditto for Cameron and Lucas and even Spielberg. 

As opposed to, say, Kubrick.  And Fincher probably rates the "filmmaker" tag as well.  And I'm not at all sure yet which side of the fence Zemeckis belongs on - that's a toughie.  None of which has anything to do with whose movies I personally enjoy or don't.

Again, I'm just saying I understand what White's getting at, even though he's intentionally giving the back of his hand to a lot of folks with that snerky "real filmmaker" comment.  Doesn't mean he's wrong about there being a difference between crafting popular entertainment and advancing an art form.  Doesn't mean he's right about which of those Man of Steel is, either.

heh, I guess since it's a glowingly positive review he felt compelled to start with something inflammatory to keep his cred intact.

to be fair, I can sorta see what he means when he says "real filmmaker" - although I'd include Nolan in that category even if White doesn't.

And then the Romans crucify him.   

/Shyamalan!

Exactly.   Abrams did exactly what I suspect he was trying to do - take a niche property and make it mainstream.     As I've said, I found the movie "entertaining" myself... once I realized it was just going to be circus rather than Star Trek.

Just as (to re-use an analogy Dorkman made about a different movie) if a movie called SuperBowl had interesting characters and funny quips and lots of great action setpieces - except "football" in that movie was played with hoverboots and involved catching seagulls - I might find that entertaining, too, because I don't know much, or care about, football.  But someone who's into football might be a bit perturbed.

Similarly, I'll probably get around to seeing Man of Steel eventually - and whether I like it or not will have very little to do with whether they got Superman "right" since I'm not a Superman fan.

But Star Trek I have a stake in, so I had some problems with Brand Name We Licensed Into Darkness.   And even if it wasn't a "Star Trek" movie at all, I'd still have been annoyed by all the silly science.  Everything that happened in that movie could still have happened without breaking the rules of reality, if anyone had bothered to care about that.

So, Benedict Cumberbatch again?

Unfortunately due to the messy rights issues, there's apparently only been one pan-and-scan DVD release, based off a muddy print.   That's pretty much the only way to see it right now - that's better than nothing, I guess.

I do hope the end result of this new restoration will be a proper widescreen restored video release as well.

*ahem*

/as you were