criterionforum.org

With all due respect -- you're nuts. ;~}

Michael Kerpan wrote:With all due respect -- you're nuts. ;~}

Thank you very much - I like you too! ;o)

I think it goes without saying that hammock is very pleased with the new cover.

hammock's the voice of reason in these troubled times

I sort of prefer the pink version as well. Even though some of you hated it, it at least provoked passionate reactions; it was polarizing, even controversial in a way. This new one, though aesthetically sound, feels almost watered down: it's just a black and white still with a nice font, nothing particularly distinctive in the canon, and completely unprovocative and middle-of-the-road.

Me pooping in your bed would most likely create a passionate response, and might even be controversial. That would hardly make it worthwhile artistically.

So maybe this post wasn't entirely relevant... it's still got a chance at polarizing.

-Toilet Dcuk

toiletduck! wrote:Me pooping in your bed would most likely create a passionate response, and might even be controversial. That would hardly make it worthwhile artistically.

But if it were done on stage! Then, it would be artistic because it would be performance art. (Not sure if it would be worthwhile, though.)

tryavna wrote:But if it were done on stage! Then, it would be artistic because it would be performance art. (Not sure if it would be worthwhile, though.)

Dude, you don't need a stage for it to be artistic. You just need a happy face.

F' you'se all ( [sic] MacGowan) I really wanted the pink cover. Not that it matters much once I get the disc.

Now everyone should complain and e-mail them to change it back.

The new cover is a VAST improvement on the pink cover, end of story!

There are over 200 postings on this thread, which makes it the third most popular thread of the section. The cover of Viridiana has aroused more passion than most films or DVD's. Bunuel would have been pleased. By the way, if Criterion people are indeed reading these posts they will wonder if they did the right thing by changing the cover, because there seems to be a divided opinion. Heaven forbid they decide to ignore our opinions in future.

kekid wrote:By the way, if Criterion people are indeed reading these posts they will wonder if they did the right thing by changing the cover, because there seems to be a divided opinion.

Some are contrary by nature, I believe. This is a very popular thread. Maybe there should be a forum rule that says "you can't post about cover art until you get a couple paragraphs in about the latest Renoir/Kurosawa Criterion DVD". We need quotas.

Most of the dissent over the new cover is coming from a single poster, who, it can be assumed, used to work as an artist, and whose favourite colour is pink.

I'll join in for the pink cover. I'm not quite as impassioned as others appear to be, but I think the untreated screenshots (Wages of Fear, Young Mr. Lincoln, etc., etc.) are getting tiresome. I think using artwork, original or otherwise, creates a much classier cover (Metropolitan, Kind Hearts, Bad Sleep Well are recent examples). I know the pink had a screenshot, too, but--in my opinion--it had supplemental features to make it more of an original cover. I must admit that the one treatment on the new cover--the font from old art--is a great addition. My two cents.

n. w. wrote:Most of the dissent over the new cover is coming from a single poster, who, it can be assumed, used to work as an artist, and whose favorite colour is pink.

If I'm the one you think of here is a few facts:

- I work in legal affairs - mostly agreements and other boring stuff. Never an artist - sorry!
- Pink is a good colour as is any other colour.
- I have nothing against the new cover, but do find it doll compared to the the pink "monster".

I only object against changing covers because some consumers don't like it. It's nice that they listen to us/some of us (if they do), but who decides when there is enough angry posters to change a cover? Does some forums range higher than others (we are not alone)? I think it's about time I write Mulvaney and ask what made them do the change to put an end to these wild speculations. I still would have preferred the limited edition with the original cover released simultaneous with the new cover edition. That cannot possible offend anyone.

Oh, how Criterion likes to toy with us. The pink cover is back up on the Coming Soon and DVD Synopsis/Special Features pages, but when you click on it for the full sized version, it's the black and white cover.

criterionsnob wrote:Oh, how Criterion likes to toy with us. The pink cover is back up on the Coming Soon and DVD Synopsis/Special Features pages, but when you click on it for the full sized version, it's the black and white cover.

Try refreshing the windon (F5). I only see the b/w cover in all sections!

I sincerely doubt Criterion makes any decisions based solely on what people in this forum say.

I am positive it is thanks to this forum that the cover got changed, no question.

It's certainly no Throne of Blood.

matt wrote:

domino harvey wrote:wow, they took the already pretty bad black and white cover and made it even worse. it's this forum's fault, you know, all the bitching made them second guess.

Didn't you die? I thought you died.

Matt, who is this guy? why is he trolling? why dont you ban him?

I decided to make a little tribute to the new cover. All parts are from Criterion's Bunuel covers, I just mixed them a little different! I'm still waiting for Mulvaney's answer but I guess it takes time to make up a good story!

i think its time for a padlock to appear on this thread, dont you moderators?

godardslave wrote:Matt, who is this guy? why is he trolling? why dont you ban him?

godardslave wrote:i think its time for a padlock to appear on this thread, dont you moderators?

Dude, I went to high school with someone like you. Not that that's a bad thing.