Criterion & Eclipse Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol.4

[Steven H]

As long as Forgetting Sarah Marshall doesn't magically appear next to them, it'll probably be ok.

[domino harvey]

That spine crease is a common occurrence in thick CD digipaks too and it's from settling in transit. It's not something to hyperventilate about-- it doesn't look as straight as, say, the Forgetting Sarah Marshall case in that picture because it's not a slipcase over a solid Amaray, it's a slipcase over a digipak. Take a deep breath

[cyan]

Yeah, I don't expect to be in the majority by thinking this is a problem, but for the most expensive Blu-rays in my collection to appear the cheapest when you view them on the shelf is a bit ridiculous. There are others out there that share my sentiment, because I was around the 20th person to join the Warner-bashing thread over at AVS when they revealed the now-relatively-less-awful book packaging that they use for some of their releases.

And the problem itself doesn't step from "settling" in shipment, it is from the movies not being held flat when the shrinkwrap is put on. It's not a problem if you open every movie you buy, because you can just straighten it then. But, as with the DVDs, I had planned to buy every criterion blu-ray, and I've still got a couple hundred Criterion DVDs that are not opened.

[swo17]

And the problem itself doesn't step from "settling" in shipment, it is from the movies not being held flat when the shrinkwrap is put on. It's not a problem if you open every movie you buy, because you can just straighten it then. But, as with the DVDs, I had planned to buy every criterion blu-ray, and I've still got a couple hundred Criterion DVDs that are not opened.

I'm sure Richard C. Kevyip would sympathize with your plight.

[Tom Hagen]

I love that there are three copies of Bottle Rocket next to two copies each of the other Criterion BDs in that photo.

[HerrSchreck]

I think they look cruddy and cheap. They went from "top of the heap, no-expense-spared" in the DVD Presentation Dept down to "cutting-corners, penny-pinching" in the BD world.

[fdm]

I think they look cruddy and cheap. They went from "top of the heap, no-expense-spared" in the DVD Presentation Dept down to "cutting-corners, penny-pinching" in the BD world.

Well, no surprise, but I agree 150%...

[exte]

a slipcase over a solid Amaray

I think this is the only way to go... except when they have that cut square for the barcode. Otherwise, perfect.

[cyan]

a slipcase over a solid Amaray

I think this is the only way to go... except when they have that cut square for the barcode. Otherwise, perfect.

That's exactly what I was hoping for, or at least packaging like 'The Third Man,' 'Sansho the Baliff,' 'Bicycle Thieves,' etc. had on their DVD releases.

I think they look cruddy and cheap. They went from "top of the heap, no-expense-spared" in the DVD Presentation Dept down to "cutting-corners, penny-pinching" in the BD world.

Now we know how they managed to keep the BD prices equal to the DVD prices.

I love that there are three copies of Bottle Rocket next to two copies each of the other Criterion BDs in that photo.

Given the sales volume that the Wes Anderson Criterion DVDs did, I'm surprised we received his Blu-ray at only a 3:2 ratio to the others. That being said, 'Bottle Rocket' was the last one of these 4 that I watched. 'Chungking Express' and 'The Third Man' were the ones I was most looking forward to.

[swo17]

I think they look cruddy and cheap. They went from "top of the heap, no-expense-spared" in the DVD Presentation Dept down to "cutting-corners, penny-pinching" in the BD world.

Now we know how they managed to keep the BD prices equal to the DVD prices.

I doubt this was their motivation. No matter what cases they're using (aside from elaborate digipaks), the different options for cases can't result in much more than a fraction of a dollar difference in price per unit, I would think. I think they just genuinely wanted to try something out that would:

1. set them apart from SD DVDs
2. set them apart from other companies' Blu-rays
3. be compact, as shelf space is always a concern

Perhaps their experiment failed. I for one would like to actually hold one in my grubby little hands before judging.

[HerrSchreck]

the different options for cases can't result in much more than a fraction of a dollar difference in price per unit, I would think. .

Which, multiplied by thousands and thousands each year and over the years, will result in serious money. Just like wobblings in the prices of stocks or commodities, the increase or decrease in value of a thing that is trafficked in bulk over time can make or break the fortunes of those who traffic in them.

It's the genius of the american Mafia, which in the middle decades of the 20th century, typically imposed a "mob tax" of a few pennies or dimes on the smallest unit of measure of so many of the everyday things which move in bulk thru american life: a loaf of bread, a pound of cement, a gallon of gas, rounds of gambling in Vegas, etc.

Those pennies, nickels and dimes, multiplied by quantity and over time, are the crux of the biscuit for vast fortunes around the world.

[swo17]

You aren't wrong, but my point was that I doubt the packaging looking/being(?) cheap has anything to do with them charging the same for BD as SD. It's not like Jon Mulvaney said one day to his loving wife, "Uh oh, the only way this is going to work is if we charge $50 MSRP for an upper-tier Blu-ray," and Mrs. Mulvaney replied, "Wait dear, I've got it--just use the cases that cost $10 less!"

[domino harvey]

Digipaks cost more than amarays, especially on reprint.

[HerrSchreck]

You're probably basing your research on print costs, for B2C packaging deals available online like here. (though I could be wrong, I'd be interested in your source either way.) What you're seeing is not the costs of the raw materials, but the fact of the printing onto multiple panels vs the single one sided sheet of an Amaray. If you're interested in the costs of plastic resins versus pulp paper in manufacturing, you can start here.

What I have a problem with is not neccessarily the digipak itself, but with the lack of a sturdy, immutable housing. I actually like digipaks better than Amarays, and the lack of amarays wasn't why I thought they looked cheap... it's the lack of a Furies/Vampyr/etc type cardboard housing that prevents the shapeless "sway" in the pics above-- the product looks skimpy and cheap.

[Antoine Doinel]

I have a feeling that the switch to digipack in addition to cost concerns (whether or not digipacks are cheaping to make, I would imagine they are lighter, and cheaper to ship) is probably some kind of "green" initiative internally on Criterion's part. Digipacks are probably easier on the Earth in terms of manufacturing, materials used etc than hard, plastic amarays.

But in the end, I think its such a silly "problem" to get worked up over. How long are people standing looking at their DVD shelves making sure everything is perfectly aligned? Like swo, I want to hold one in my hands before jumping off a ledge, but at least in the picture, they look a lot nicer and more unique than the standard BD packaging I have from the other studios. If anything, at least in a retail environment, Criterion's packaging will help them stand out from the crowd.

[HerrSchreck]

How long are people standing looking at their DVD shelves making sure everything is perfectly aligned?

You ask this on this forum?

(Speaks in Scottish urgency a la Body Snatcher's Doc MacFarlane):

"Good heavens, man, have you not seen the dvd library thread?"

How often to people arrange vases and photos on their shelves? Statuettes on mantles? The furniture in their house? When you have thousands of titles, order (lashes whip) becomes necessary.

The opinions are just opinions, and no sillier than anything else on the thread, or the forum.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

I have a feeling that the switch to digipack... is probably some kind of "green" initiative internally on Criterion's part. Digipacks are probably easier on the Earth in terms of manufacturing, materials used etc than hard, plastic amarays.

I've never quite understood this notion. I don't have all the stats at hand, but I'm pretty sure that just because something is made of paper - or even recycled materials - doesn't necessarily mean there are less pollutant byproducts in its manufacture. You could argue that once the item re-enters the waste stream, a paper item is more easily recyclable, or more fully degradable, but even that's questionable -- especially considering most digipacks are, of course, not just paper, but plastics, inks and binders.

There's a similar train of thought that replacing traditional media (newspapers, mags, etc.) with computers, and digital information is far less damaging to the environment, but any study of PC manufacturing methods and the resultant byproducts (which are outrageously toxic) as well as maintaining the infrastructure of the internet, etc. seems to suggest otherwise.

It might be a sort of superficial idea that something made of "natural" materials like wood, paper, etc. are "closer to the nature" than synthetics like plastic but that fails to take into account the various lifetimes of each material. If things were made well, made to last - regardless of materials - then we might have to replace them less often. Of course, when's the last time any of us threw a DVD in the garbage?

[fiddlesticks]

Of course, when's the last time any of us threw a DVD in the garbage?

I use an old disk of The Brother From Another Planet to catch the breeze in my windchime. Reduce, reuse, recycle!

[GringoTex]

Has Criteron been using a lot less animation or movement in their menu screens the past year?

[kaujot]

I've never noticed an abundance of animation in their menus. Some, but never an overt amount.

[HerrSchreck]

Of course, when's the last time any of us threw a DVD in the garbage?

Ever see Kino's Liliom? Koch Lorber's Lola Montez?

[kaujot]

I threw out Warner's True Stories.

[GringoTex]

Of course, when's the last time any of us threw a DVD in the garbage?

Ever see Kino's Liliom? Koch Lorber's Lola Montez?

I threw Lola Montez in the garbage. I would have felt guilty selling it on Amazon.

[domino harvey]

I don't think I've heard the dirt on why Lola Montez's DVD is so bad-- Dish! Dish!

[HerrSchreck]

It's like watching the movie thru a snowstorm. Or watching it after having a friend give you a Junior High School Shotgun (breathe in and out and in and out repeatedly as hard as you can for thirty seconds, then hold it in, then have your bud immediately give you the hardest bear- hug possible, so hard he lifts you off the ground, so that sparks pop behind your eyelids). It's terrible. It's worse than vhs-quality.

The non-anamorphism is the least of it's worries.