criterionforum.org

Wings is an all-time great cover! Can't beat classic silent poster art.

Roma needs a different font.

I hate Le mani sulla citta'.

Wow, looks like a great lineup! Good to see more Fuller and Fellini. \:D/

For the life of me I will never understand why Criterion didn't use that poster for their release of White Dog. I know which version would catch my eye on the shelf.

You do know that Criterion initially wanted to use the black cover pictured here, right? They were contractually unable to though, and so went with the white cover, retaining the black one for the booklet. I kind of like how that worked out--a calm exterior but ferocious inside.

swo17 wrote:You do know that Criterion initially wanted to use the black cover pictured here, right? They were contractually unable to though, and so went with the white cover, retaining the black one for the booklet. I kind of like how that worked out--a calm exterior but ferocious inside.

Interesting, I wasn't aware that they were hindered by contractual issues. That would explain some of it although I still think the composition on the MoC release is preferable to both Criterion iterations. In any case, it's a welcome addition.

Pretty impressed by the covers except Serpico feels like Let it Be reissued by Warner Archive

Excellent line-up! will wait with picking up Criterion`s Nashville release to compare it to this one. Will probably replace my Wings BD as well. Hope they keep this up in 2014!

In a bizarre request from Paramount apparently, that Eureka! had to remove their own company logo from the MoC covers...

I heard about Wings but thought it was a design mistake. It seems that it's not, and I'm wondering why such a silly thing could be needed. :-s

If the Eureka logo is missing from the top of the spines, I don't know how I'm going to survive.

It's the usual corporate thing: obsession with 'branding' and the belief that their customers are easily confused idiots.

HJackson wrote:If the Eureka logo is missing from the top of the spines, I don't know how I'm going to survive.

It's OK, it's OK! According to Eureka "Spine and back is fine, just not on the cover..."

Can you imagine a Criterion release without that crooked C? Its insane.

I can imagine about 350 of them actually

Oh man I just got that the "C" stands for Criterion. Everything makes sense now.

I didn't realize that I had to explicitly mention it. My post was in current perspective, or in other words, it was meant for the ones after the 1st 350 releases
The 1st 350 actually has The Criterion Collection written on the top part of the front cover art, right? Sorry if I am not being precise regarding the number. I know that there are a bunch of them among those 350 releases, for which The Criterion Collection has been replaced with "C". Anyways, to me its just insane that Eureka "had to remove their own company logo from the MoC covers..".

At least the names of the films are still on the covers. 8-[

Of course there's still the names of the movies, but why Paramount would ask such a detail ? I mean, they are not selling these titles themselves ! So it's not like it's going to get a prejudice from saying it's a Eureka release.
I'm still baffled at this request, no because I care so much (it's indeed a small detail), but because I don't understand the motive behind this request, and if someone has an explanation, I'm all ears.

Same here. My copy of Wings has just arrived. I probably wouldn't even have noticed that Eureka was missing from the front. I'd have missed it from the spine, but it's there all right.

But why would they ask for such a thing? It's beyond the realms of logic. What did they fear might happen if the Eureka logo were on the front?

tenia wrote:Of course there's still the names of the movies, but why Paramount would ask such a detail ?

How does one display sarcasm to those sarcasm challenged? Is there a proper sarcasm emoticon?

But in all seriousness, I don't understand the hysteria. Eureka's name is still on the packaging. It is on the spine and I am sure it's also listed on the back, if anyone would care to confirm. And I would bet the MoC ident is still there when the disc is played. And if it bothers folks so much make that little Eureka label yourself and stick it on.

FrauBlucher wrote:But in all seriousness, I don't understand the hysteria.

I don't think anybody is really that hysterical about it (at least now that the spines are confirmed to be unaffected!), we're just very confused. It's an incredibly odd and petty request from Paramount.

FrauBlucher wrote:I don't understand the hysteria...

Hysteria (noun): Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.

See that here, do you?

Here's another good word beginning with Hy...

Hyperbole (noun): Extreme exaggeration or overstatement; especially as a literary or rhetorical device.

But you didn't answer my question about sarcasm. Sigh.

Sarcasm and irony depend entirely on tone of voice and don't come across at all in cold text.

To show that you were only mucking about, just add one of these -

I've been online for fifteen years and winky man seems to be the universal symbol for "Only joking".

RossyG wrote:Sarcasm and irony depend entirely on tone of voice and don't come across at all in cold text.

To show that you were only mucking about, just add one of these -

I've been online for fifteen years and winky man seems to be the universal symbol for "Only joking".

LOL. My question was really just in jest. But thanks.

My use of the word "hysteria" was used to mock the obsessive compulsive behavior that one reveals when collecting, which I also share, but not with this particular issue.

I'm being playful all the way around.