Criterion & Eclipse Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol. 6

[Finch]

I like the still chosen for The Innocents but the font is awful. Don't mind Macbeth.

[domino harvey]

The only half-way good cover this month is Sundays and Cybele, which is trying to do the period children's lit illustrations thing, but it doesn't look too cohesive as a cover. I would have liked a variation on the original art, which was doing the same thing:

[sir_luke]

Macbeth looks like product of someone attempting to make a fan cover for the first time. I usually like or love all of Criterion's covers, but this one is genuinely unbelievable.

[movielocke]

Is this a dagger I see before me?

[lacritfan]

The only half-way good cover this month is Sundays and Cybele, which is trying to do the period children's lit illustrations thing, but it doesn't look too cohesive as a cover. I would have liked a variation on the original art, which was doing the same thing

I was gonna say I didn't like the cover because it looked like the art class doodles of a junior high school girl but if that's what they were going for then mission accomplished.

[colinr0380]

They all look OK to me - don't mind Macbeth (which hasn't really had any alternative cover other than the one of Jon Finch on the throne) and Sundays and Cybele looks very nice, childish but vaguely threatening. Eraserhead looks like Eraserhead, no tampering with iconic imagery there. The Innocents is OK (though I agree with Finch about the font that is done in the too-modern style of any number of those spooky, ghostly, straight to DVD films of recent years) but the composition reminds me of something:

[CSM126]

I like the look of The Innocents cover, but the way her hands are chopped off seems weird to me.

I don't think they're chopped off at all. They're clasped in prayer, and her outfit is black so it blends into the background. It looks a little odd at a glance, but they are all there.

[criterion10]

Macbeth and The Innocents both have pretty poor covers.

And I wish Criterion would've been able to come up with something more original for Eraserhead. But, oh well -- I guess if it ain't broke, then don't fix it!

[Rolad]

I like the look of The Innocents cover, but the way her hands are chopped off seems weird to me.

I don't think they're chopped off at all. They're clasped in prayer, and her outfit is black so it blends into the background. It looks a little odd at a glance, but they are all there.

I realize it's meant to be her sleeve blocking the bottom of her hands, but they're cut off in a way that makes it a visually awkward image.

[aox]

I just got excited because I though the Virgin Spring was getting a bd upgrade. :/

[HistoryProf]

about as aesthetically boring a month as they've ever had, but i'm so excited for the Ali: FEtS upgrade I just don't care.

[FrauBlucher]

Are we surprised the artwork for Ali: Fear Eats the Soul wasn't updated?

[jindianajonz]

Generally, the artwork is only updated when they build a completely new DVD package with all sorts of new special features. Was anything added to this disc that wasn't on the old DVD?

[domino harvey]

COUGH Naked COUGH Beauty and the Beast COUGH

[jindianajonz]

Generally

[domino harvey]

COUGH

[kekid]

I have avoided posting my response to Criterion's recent packaging decisions because I was convinced that it will prompt strong reaction from those who do not agree with it, and I did not want to get into a diatribe.

However, I bought Red River and Picnic at Hanging Rock in quick succession, and I am now convinced that Criterion has reached an extreme of huge and (in my opinion) largely unnecessary packaging. Here are my specific observations.

1. I will only view the Blu Ray disc. I will not take out either of the DVD's, nor read the book.

2. This raises the question, am I in minority or am I mainstream? The question of including DVD's and Blu Rays in a single package is now moot, given Criterion's recent decision. However, I read some dismissive remarks in the forum from some members about people who disliked the dual format for reasons of size and wastefulness. I wanted to admit that I am an unrepentant target of their comments.

3. How many buyers of these sets are likely to read the included book? Some may flip through it, some will indeed read it, but I will venture a guess that a majority will not have any use for it. Even if we were to argue that books on which these movies are based are a useful reference, digital versions of these books would be a better option. (after all a large number of people read books on Kindle). Now, I still buy physical books if they are beautifully constructed and I consider them good collectors items. The books included with Criterion boxes appear to me to be cheap paperbacks.

4. Most serious collectors will have shelf-space as an important issue, and a manufacturer cannot ignore it. I have transferred the Blu Ray discs from many of their sets to separate boxes, and the massive Criterion boxes sit in my basement. This has proven to be a challenge because they use a box size different from ones readily available from the marketplace. In any case, Criterion should determine what segment of their customers want two formats of discs and a paperback. I prefer aesthetically pleasing efficient packaging to their recent offerings any day.

Though it has not yet been issued, the graphics of the BFI issue of the collected works of Werner Herzog suggests a good concept of packaging. It includes only Blu Rays (and only DVD's in a separate issue); it has been mastered to be contained in only 6 discs (without compromising quality, based on David M's remarks); and it is not puffed up by superfluous artifacts. Let others learn from this example.

[domino harvey]

Luckily, film fans who hate relevant tactile supplemental material are in the minority

[Gregory]

I read some dismissive remarks in the forum from some members about people who disliked the dual format for reasons of size and wastefulness. I wanted to admit that I am an unrepentant target of their comments.

Repent! Repent!

Criterion should determine what segment of their customers want two formats of discs and a paperback.

They already have. You won.

I applaud Criterion (and MoC, BFI, etc.) for keeping the tradition of "liner notes" alive. Early DVDs played with the idea of digitized text (on-screen supplements that one would page through) and almost no one liked it, as far as I could tell. When a label includes a text as a pdf download, there are almost always problems involved with that, and it's a poor substitute for a printed booklet. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with Criterion's booklets that warrants calling them "cheap paperbacks." Cheap paperbacks are the ones published by the major publishers that are printed on the worst paper available.
The industry is full of talk about how e-books are the future, but e-books sales are still in the minority vs. print, and there's no call to suggest that Criterion or other labels should make their booklet content unavailable to people like me who don't use e-book readers and already feel like we spend too much time reading text on screens.
Criterion used to include books far more often than they do now (The Furies, Man Who Fell to Earth, Short Cuts, etc.) so again your side has already won, generally.

Criterion has established itself in the marketplace for releasing lavish special editions. That's what they do. I understand concerns about shelf-space (I've even moved many of my DVDs to ThinPak cases and a 250-disc wallet) but I have to say I've never seen such criticisms leveled at other similar labels, for example Bear Family, Mosaic, Rhino, Dust to Digital etc. for producing sets that are not compact enough and have too much printed matter. It's almost always worth the space. And thankfully now at least the controversy over dual format can die down.

[Charles]

Luckily, film fans who hate relevant tactile supplemental material are in the minority

Amen.

[FrauBlucher]

How many buyers of these sets are likely to read the included book? Some may flip through it, some will indeed read it, but I will venture a guess that a majority will not have any use for it. Even if we were to argue that books on which these movies are based are a useful reference, digital versions of these books would be a better option. (after all a large number of people read books on Kindle). Now, I still buy physical books if they are beautifully constructed and I consider them good collectors items. The books included with Criterion boxes appear to me to be cheap paperbacks.

Are the books or booklets really that much of a nuisance? I much prefer to read something written on paper than having to scroll through text on my TV or computer. Besides, I enjoy going to my local coffee house after watching said film and reading the booklet/book while having a cup of coffee. Wow, I'm old school. Sorry bout that.

[colinr0380]

I'm firmly on the side of including printed material, especially books if they are particularly important to an overall package (or reissue a title that was long out of print that probably would not have seen the light of day again on its own otherwise), although I also liked the use of text screens on earlier discs, particularly the ones on The Silence of the Lambs and In The Mood For Love (which also allowed for hidden easter eggs, such as the Tony Leung music video or the tailor going through the steps of making the 1960s cheongsam).

The big problem with on screen text to my mind was the lack of a 'jump to a page' overview menu to enable the viewer to be able to easily search through the content. Without that, and especially when the viewer was being asked to cycle through upwards of fifty to sixty screens of text, maybe double that, the text screens did become a chore to wade through (very like their more widely adopted image based equivalent, the Stills Gallery), especially if you wanted to find one piece of information that you might have vaguely remembered there being a screen about, and having to click through screen after screen from the very beginning to get back to the right point. I suppose that if even Criterion couldn't figure out a way to make text screens more user friendly to navigate, I guess no one could!

This does remind me that outside of Criterion releases, that Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition was the worst example: amazingly packed with hundreds of screens of information but almost impossible to browse through easily.

[captveg]

Text screens / Galleries have an easy solution to that by making each page individually accessible. Unfortunately the trade off is an exponential increase in menu programming that is tedious and expensive to QC, so at this point most DVD/BD producers see negative value to them.

[cdnchris]

Insomnia
Scanners
The Essential Jacques Demy
The Big Chill

[CSM126]

All good stuff, but Insomnia and Scanners are absolutely gorgeous.