Gregory wrote:
These two covers are making me ask myself: do I really, really need to own these DVDs? I still respect the films, of course, but Criterion is not making it easy to want them on my shelf.
What on earth are you talking about?
are you telling us you are not going to get these purely for the dislike of the cover?
I do wonder sometimes what people are really interested in
I do not like the new cover for Idaho. It's plain awful. The old cover is perfect. It perfectly evokes the mood and themes of the film. The film is about Mike and his place in this world, it begins and ends with Mike alone on the road. This is his journey to find his place, his home, and most of all, his mom. I feel that the old cover reflects all this beautifully.
subbuteo wrote:What on earth are you talking about?
are you telling us you are not going to get these purely for the dislike of the cover? I do wonder sometimes what people are really interested in
No need to get yourself all worked up. Cover art is important (and Criterion knows this) but of course not more so than the film itself. It is one factor out of many. I like both Jules and Jim and My Own Private Idaho, but neither is among my favorite films. If I'm on the fence about whether I really want to own a title (as opposed to simply renting it when I want to watch it) a really godawful cover can tip the balance and make me decide to wait awhile. Okay?
Who the hell complained about the Le Corbeau cover-art? I thought the majority of us felt it was one of the best Criterion had ever attempted.
If Jules and Jim will be a digipack in a slipcase, perhaps the artwork on the digipack itself will differ from the artwork on the slipcase? Perhaps there's an image of Jules and Jim on the digipack to go along with the image of Catherine on the slipcase? Why do I even care?
Anyone else think of that SNL sketch where Jon Lovitz plays an elderly Picasso, and just doodles on paper and signs it, and then proudly exclaims "It's a Picasso!"?
Last edited by Andre Jurieu on Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
subbuteo wrote:What on earth are you talking about?
are you telling us you are not going to get these purely for the dislike of the cover? I do wonder sometimes what people are really interested in
No need to get yourself all worked up. Cover art is important (and Criterion knows this) but of course not more so than the film itself. It is one factor out of many. I like both Jules and Jim and My Own Private Idaho, but neither is among my favorite films. If I'm on the fence about whether I really want to own a title (as opposed to simply renting it when I want to watch it) a really godawful cover can tip the balance and make me decide to wait awhile. Okay?
Okay I understand now! you like the films but they aren't favourites and you are willing to wait for an edition with a less godawful cover.
Firstly, you have reiterated the point I was making that it would seem cover art is first and foremost vital to you, unless it is a favourite film.
Secondly, can I ask how many favourite films you have with super dupa works of art for there covers, not many I would imagine; and last but not least can I suggest you look at 'the 'worst dvd covers... ever' thread for some examples of 'godawful art'
P.s I bet you get both of those titles you mentioned.
subbetuo wrote:you have reiterated the point I was making that it would seem cover art is first and foremost vital to you, unless it is a favourite film.
No, I distinctly said, "Cover art is important but of course not more so than the film itself," i.e. cover art is never the most important thing. Pointless to make myself any clearer on this trivial point, I suppose.
Changing the subject, I wonder why the cover art for upcoming releases is so often delayed. I'd think that would be something they could line up as soon as they've decided to work on releasing a title. Perhaps their deadlines for designers are somewhat lax. This isn't a major source of concern, of course, just something I'm a little curious about.
I haven`t seen idaho, so I don`t know which cover is more in the spirit of the film, but I really liked the old cover (even with the pink swirls), because, quite simply, it was a more beautiful, interesting shot.
Also, it didn`t include Keanu Reeves, which is just anti-marketing.
I figured that there'd be a big mess about these covers on here when I saw them. I admit, the new my My Own Private Idaho is terrible -- I've not seen the film so I can't comment on the appropriateness of image and font, but I will say this:
The graphic art style of the original has not been altered, and the wide, slightly off-center composition of the original source image demanded the very bold and symmetrical style of the text layout. By changing the compositional sense of the source image, the unchanged text layout looks garish and needlessly complex. Generally, Criterion is careful not to overwealm a close-up image with graphic design silliness (see: L'Eclisse), but they sure did here.
But I like Jules et Jim. I'm not crazy about it, but I think, more than any other company, Criterion has made graphic art into an influence that extends all around and through the package. Like Kagemusha and M before it, I find the cover 'acceptable', but keep in mind that we can't see the spine, the back, the booklet or the discs... a weak front image for Criterion may conceal a handsome package, one that sits nicely on the shelf. Being a huge Lang fan I found the M image simply 'expected' when it was first posted, but on seeing it in person, I agree that it's perfect. I will say that I think the Jules et Jim image is very French and very Truffaut.
Given the fact that I'm reasonably sure that somebody from Criterion, or even the graphic art team is reading this, I say: don't change it. My Own Private Idaho: yes, by all means, change it back or totally rework it if you must use that image. But Jules et Jim is very classy, and it's nice not to have to have Truffaut's name plastered across the image. The film can stand on its' own.
Am I the only one who's slightly disappointed about the Jules et Jim cover since they didn't use the original poster design, which is a classic? (Guess Criterion's trying to distinguish from the awful R3 Panorama DVD, which does use the original poster design.)
Anyway, it looks like a temp cover, so maybe there's hope for changes.
editman wrote:Am I the only one who's slightly disappointed about the Jules et Jim cover since they didn't use the original poster design, which is a classic? (Guess Criterion's trying to distinguish from the awful R3 Panorama DVD, which does use the original poster design.)
Anyway, it looks like a temp cover, so maybe there's hope for changes.
I agree, I was hoping for the classic running shot.
chaddoli wrote:
I agree, I was hoping for the classic running shot.
oh god please no! Not Again!!..... please go back to page 7 in this thread, read and study carefully, then pray for your soul at the foot of your bed every night until the DVD is finally, mercifully, released.
Annie Mall wrote:All I can say is this: the Wajda covers better be good.
Considering that a lot of Sadowski's theatrical posters look like the second coming of George Grosz (albeit more realistically proportioned), I don't think I'll be disappointed.
If Criterion does indeed end up putting out the Threepenny Opera and Pandora's Box by Pabst, they should definitely consider him for the covers. I think the aesthetics and context would mesh well.
In regard to the Jules et Jim cover, would it be wrong to presume the tear, milky mo and title will be on the outside of the slipcase? Either way, a sad Richard Avedon rip-off.
Thank goodness Criterion remembered they speak English, so the alteration to "JULES AND JIM" is a much welcomed clarification to the baffling original. Can you imagine the sheer pandemonium if "JULES ET JIM" had hit the shelves??
it would've been worth keeping the original title just for all of the americans phonetically pronouncing "et" (and don't tell me stores wouldn't be full of at least employees who would).
Accents, including the cedilla, are generally left off capital letters in French, so this isn't necessarily philistine - unless they chose to go with all caps for the director credit just to avoid the dreaded goatee.
I must say this thread has become amazingly obsessive-compulsive of late.
