criterionforum.org

criterion10 wrote:Because the new cover wasn't already bad enough:

It's explaining that the Cries are Bergman's own, but the Whispers are coming from somewhere else.

I am flabbergasted that they found a way to make it worse. Holy shit, what is wrong with whoever approved that?

HO.LEE. Shit. Incredible they somehow made it worse.

I can't tell if it's better or worse. I don't know what anything means anymore.

Wonder if it's the same person who did La Dolce Vita and didn't think all the words in the title needed to be the same size.

I usually roll my eyes at certain people on this board's tendency to find a cover a month to call the "worst ever," but here is a case where it's as far removed from hyperbole as it possibly can get.

Drucker wrote:Wonder if it's the same person who did La Dolce Vita and didn't think all the words in the title needed to be the same size.

This is an acceptable design practice when you want to emphasize a word (or words) over other words. In this, crying is louder than whispering!

I don't have a problem with making the image red and black, but the font size and wacky C placement... just no. And putting Bergman's name awkwardly above the "and Whispers" makes it even worse.

I usually don't get exercised about Criterion artwork, but this new "Cries and Whispers" cover is so appalling in its design that I am actually concerned about the health of their art department. This is an unprofessional embarrassment of titanic proportions.

Clearly they're doing this as revenge for all the previous criticism.

Change it back Criterion, all is forgiven!

"I don't always get exercised about Criterion artwork, but when I do I go over-the-top in attempts to one-up the other insults being hurled."

Clearly a Class IV pile-on is underway here. Probably best for everyone to take a deep breath while I consult my Southern grandmother on the best cure for the vapors.

That Odd Man Out cover is one of the best in months.

really nice match with The Third Man cover

criterion10 wrote:Because the new cover wasn't already bad enough:

Did I just roll my eyes out loud?

I'm trying to think of how they could make the cover even worse. Maybe change the font to Papyrus, add some blood dripping off the title, and a pull quote: "This 1972 film promises much and delivers..." —Chicago Reader (the ellipsis stands in for "little or nothing").

Given that it's being released on March 31, just an April Fools' joke a little ahead of the time? Otherwise this leaves me speechless, and I'm even more happy in retrospect that I somewhat defended the original 'new' cover... the latest one looks like a very bad 'Gothic' record cover from the early 80s.

Or an even worse retro pastiche of one.

Looks like they had one more final touch to add...

EddieLarkin wrote:Clearly they're doing this as revenge for all the previous criticism.

Change it back Criterion, all is forgiven!

Tout est pardonné

Je suis Ingmar

ptatler wrote:Looks like they had one more final touch to add...

I actually really like it now. Using the Wacky "C" for the 'C' is super creative!

EddieLarkin wrote:Clearly they're doing this as revenge for all the previous criticism.

Change it back Criterion, all is forgiven!

It's not just the criticism of the cover artwork. This is all because people kept complaining about the Dual Format editions.

ptatler wrote:Looks like they had one more final touch to add...

cRIES AND WHISPERS

Regarding the Cries and Whispers cover, why can't they use one of the iconic images from the film?



The straight ahead shot of that actress is unappealing.

The new cover would work if they grouped the text together (INGMAR BERGMAN'S CRIES & WHISPERS) at the very top, made it small enough to fit in the black space and restored her natural skin tones (same with the ribbon).