criterionforum.org

A bad blunder in a Photoshopped image: having the light hitting figures in the image from different directions, so that the shadows make no sense and the entire composite image looks even more tacky and fake than it probably does anyway.

An even worse blunder: having the sun actually visible in the image, while the sunlight hits the figures from a different direction.

(There's more, but I won't belabor the point.)

Regarding the Y Tu Mama Tambien cover, I think Criterion forgot that April Fools Day was over a month ago...

That cover is unbelievably hideous. I would be embarrassed to show it to anyone I was trying to recommend the movie to.

It does look pretty terrible, pink Viridiana cover levels of bad!

I wonder why it has proven so difficult to produce a cover for an often beautiful looking film. Perhaps the designers have trouble capturing the tone of the film? The UK DVD cover was pretty atrocious too:


Which leaves the old MGM DVD cover as the semi-best of a bad lot. At least it looks sexy!:

I think even the UK dvd cover is way better than Criterion's.

domino harvey wrote:And they made the title placement worse! A+ all around, Criterion!

My problem is with the placement of Maribel Verdu's hands. :-k

Well, in none of these designs do you ever feel any hint of the tone of the film. The U.S. poster always looked like a salsa movie to me. The U.K. cover managed to be both loud and frustratingly indistinct.

But honestly, the Criterion cover looks the worst of all. For one thing, the three leads are clearly not even in character for the shot. Marible Verdu is looking at the photographer, wondering whether he is actually snapping a picture right at that point. The typography is nondescript and really very boring. The color on the cover looks nothing like anything we see in the movie. The photo of the car has not even a little bit of the effect it might be intended to have. Nothing in the Criterion layout coheres, even slightly.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Worst cover in Criterion's history, so much blur, so much lens flare, so much mess. Awful. The anarchist in me hopes they never change it.

Wow, great cover.

I'll go on record as saying I prefer the revised Criterion to any other YTMT cover that has preceded it. Not my favorite of the newest covers (though I'd be hard-pressed to state which that wold be) but far from being the worst cover. I'd give that prize to Picnic At Hanging Rock, which everyone seemed to love despite it being a similar concept, but with worse exectution (still from PAHR) looks like it is 2 images split in 2 at seam because of harsh yellow in the bottom half & top half is hazy gray)..and the iimage is just not as attractive as YTMT's.

I'm sure everyone will love the cover in person. It's clearly meant to be a pop-up book style cover with Maribel Verdu's hands revealing what's behind them.

Nice cover--scenic yet provocative. I like it.

I think it's a bad cover, but I think it's WAY closer to being a good cover than everyone else. I think it's the comical photoshopped lens flare that kills it for me. Without it, I like the colors, the typography, even the images themselves. But goddamn does that lens flare make it look like a poorly executed parody.

rwiggum wrote:I think it's the comical photoshopped lens flare that kills it for me.

If I'm not mistaken, the exaggerated lens flare is actually part of the photography of the driving scene. Could be wrong.

That is indeed a hideous YTMT cover, good thing the movie itself is good then...
Great Almoldovar cover and lovely to see Cassavetes get another one in the Collection

Zot! wrote:

rwiggum wrote:I think it's the comical photoshopped lens flare that kills it for me.

If I'm not mistaken, the exaggerated lens flare is actually part of the photography of the driving scene. Could be wrong.

It's not so much the flare itself, but the way it's implemented into the design. In the film, it works because it fits with the cinematography, which is a living, breathing, almost verité entity. But the cover seems like it's shooting for existential grandeur. Likewise, as someone before, it's mixing two different styles and sources of light, which make the image clash, and make it feel a lot more artificial and photoshop-y.

Regarding the "Red River" box set:

Yaanu wrote:

boywonder wrote:The book spine format doesn't line up with the package format.

I'm pretty sure that's just a printing error for his particular release. Chances are that the rest of them line up almost perfectly.

Nope! This wacky box set with its almost illegible typeface (and my constant worry that the duke is going to smash his head into the flaming orange and red "e") has a misregistered book spine. Who sent the template specs to book publisher? ... Probably the same person who designed the cover. Well, at least it is consistently wonky across the board!

But, still, even, and yet ... another box set out a single dent! My bating average for non-boxed up box sets is still 1000! What's the average for all you box haters?

boywonder wrote: But, still, ever, and yet ... another box set out a single dent! My bating average for none boxed up box sets is still 1000! What's the average for all you box haters?

I have more trouble receiving damaged plastic cases from Criterion than box sets (which like you, is none). I much prefer they released everything digipak, but I know there are more people on the other side of this argument.

I'll get more pics up as soon as I can, but here's a look at the new 3-disc dual-format case: https://www.facebook.com/criterionforum ... tif_t=like" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's on Facebook but you shouldn't need an account.

Both All That Heaven Allows and L'eclisse come in them.

Alright! These look great, thanks Chris!

Was looking forward to that Sirk being in a beautiful digipak.

I am happy, but this is just extremely bad luck for me that I will never see a Satyajit Ray digipak (single film)

I hope this doesn't mean they are doing away with them completely on 3 disc releases.

SpiderBaby wrote:I hope this doesn't mean they are doing away with them completely on 3 disc releases.

Hopefully not! Also, now people will probably start complaining about the back of the booklet being damaged. Also, this kind of cases will only allow thinner booklets or leaflets. For thicker booklets, they will probably use the digipaks. Overall, this move is good in my book, I really didn't want digipaks for a lot of them in last few months.