Criterion & Eclipse Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol.3

Message

#626 Post by **domino harvey** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:17 am

you really can't talk too much about how terrible the Eclipse boxes are though.

godardslave · #627 Post by **godardslave** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:51 am

i just was hoping they were going to change the eclipse packaging.
I cant imagine what benefits the good folks at criterion think this packaging has.

Its ugly, annoying and cheap looking.

#628 Post by **Matt** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:16 pm

godardslave wrote:Its ugly, annoying and cheap looking.

That's why my cardboard sleeves go straight into the bin and the discs get shelved by their individual titles.

patrick · #629 Post by **patrick** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:21 pm

Has it been determined how Criterion chooses which titles get digipaks and which ones just get the figure-8 Amrays? I actually like both, but it seems odd to me that even the digipaks aren't standardized (for instance, the Double Life of Veronique packaging vs. the Third Man packaging).

justeleblanc · #630 Post by **justeleblanc** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:02 am

patrick wrote:Has it been determined how Criterion chooses which titles get digipaks and which ones just get the figure-8 Amrays? I actually like both, but it seems odd to me that even the digipaks aren't standardized (for instance, the Double Life of Veronique packaging vs. the Third Man packaging).

I assume this is up to the producer.

Cinesimilitude · #631 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:41 am

I doubt it would ever be standardized, I can think of many things that would be a factor... internet buzz, pre-orders, projected sales based on similar dvds in the collection and similar works from the same director or actor, availability of print quality artwork/imagery (it takes much more to cover a digipak than an amaray, for example). That's my inexperienced assessment, so there is probably much more...

#632 Post by **domino harvey** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:48 am

I am not sure how it works for DVDs but when you are producing digipak CDs, the price is so cost-prohibitive already and then on top of that it costs a lot more for represses than with jewelboxes, you have to be sure of the sales.

Highway 61 · #633 Post by **Highway 61** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:25 am

If it's so cost-prohibitive, why even bother? It can't be for any aesthetic standards a company holds, save perhaps Criterion. Does it simply make bootlegging harder?

#634 Post by **domino harvey** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:48 am

I like digipaks and so do many other people, I think they feel "special," for whatever reasons, probably just because they're different without being too different from the ordinary case packaging. I will say this, when I reviewed music and had publicists sending me handfuls of CDs daily by unknown bands, digipak releases always got listened to first.

eez28 · #635 Post by **eez28** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:54 pm

kekid wrote:Every time I get a new Eclipse title I am reminded of how poor the pckaging design is. (I am refering to the cardboard sleeve). At a minimum, the packaging should protect the discs from gravity. These sleeves do not. When picking up the set from the shelf I need to squeez the sleeve, else the contents slide off. In my opinion this is sub-standard. Even cheaper labels do better than this.

How hard is it to use a blade to cut out the top of the plastic wrap so the discs slide out only through the top

#636 Post by **domino harvey** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:33 pm

eez28 wrote:
kekid wrote:Every time I get a new Eclipse title I am reminded of how poor the pckaging design is. (I am refering to the cardboard sleeve). At a minimum, the packaging should protect the discs from gravity. These sleeves do not. When picking up the set from the shelf I need to squeez the sleeve, else the contents slide off. In my opinion this is sub-standard. Even cheaper labels do better than this.
How hard is it to use a blade to cut out the top of the plastic wrap so the discs slide out only through the top

If a consumer is expected to come up with the solution to a company's packaging problem, guess what

hammock · #637 Post by **hammock** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:22 pm

domino harvey wrote:If a consumer is expected to come up with the solution to a company's packaging problem, guess what

You visit a nerd forum and get help?

TheGodfather · #638 Post by **TheGodfather** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:35 am

hammock wrote:
domino harvey wrote:If a consumer is expected to come up with the solution to a company's packaging problem, guess what
You visit a nerd forum and get help?

#639 Post by **Jeff** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:35 pm

Alonzo the Armless · Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:37 pm

The Jarmusch covers sure don't seem very imaginative.

Tribe · #641 Post by **Tribe** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:39 pm

I take it that for Robinson Crusoe they were trying to go for that old quasi-Frank Frazetta look. And they didn't get it. Awful, awful cover.

Tribe

jbeall · #642 Post by **jbeall** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:39 pm

Alonzo the Armless wrote:The Jarmusch covers sure don't seem very imaginative.

Agreed. And the scary thing is that they'll probably be better than the eventual cover for the Martha Graham set. An off-month for Criterion, IMHO.

Musashi219 · #643 Post by **Musashi219** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:40 pm

LOVE LOVE LOVE the cover for The Threepenny Opera!

miless · #644 Post by **miless** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:43 pm

I love the Jarmusch covers...
I really like Roberto Benigni on Night on Earth.
But I really love the cover for Stranger Than Paradise. minimal and grey (with a touch of humor, in the form of 'welcome to Florida') that seems to encapsulate the film perfectly. It looks like the cover of a book.

jbeall · #645 Post by **jbeall** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 pm

Musashi219 wrote:LOVE LOVE LOVE the cover for The Threepenny Opera!

I like it a lot as well. For that matter, the Robinson Crusoe on Mars does a really nice job of capturing the pulpy sci-fi paperback feel. Those two are easily my favorites from the past couple of months (although that's not really saying much, as I haven't really liked too many since the April releases).

Mr Pixies · #646 Post by **Mr Pixies** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:40 pm

Tribe wrote:I take it that for Robinson Crusoe they were trying to go for that old quasi-Frank Frazetta look. And they didn't get it. Awful, awful cover.

I don't think so, looks like an old sci-fi novel, and it is beautiful. This is what Frank Frazetta's work looks like. All these covers are great, Jarmusches are fitting and I can't wait to get them.

Doctor Sunshine · Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:53 pm

A monkey in a spacesuit is going to move a lot of DVDs.

Cinephrenic · #648 Post by **Cinephrenic** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:58 pm

Love the Robinson Crusoe. Similiar to the original poster (in which I love). Threepenny Opera almost looked like a Hausman painting, but it's not dada ofcourse. The others are just plain ok.

justeleblanc · #649 Post by **justeleblanc** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:34 pm

Why don't I remember the really hot cannibal chick from Trouble Every Day in Night on Earth?

Nuno · #650 Post by **Nuno** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:38 pm

justeleblanc wrote:Why don't I remember the really hot cannibal chick from Trouble Every Day in Night on Earth?

[Béatrice Dalle]

Internal Resources

External Sites

Specialty Labels

Site Menu

Criterion & Eclipse Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol.3