criterionforum.org

willoneill wrote:

Can someone explain to me what this is all about?

The agreement they had with the rights holder (probably) stated that the credit block on the back of the DVD had to be a certain percentage of what the title was on the front. So, the bigger the front title, the bigger the credit block had to be. At the size the title was on the original cover, the credit block would have had to fill the page. To avoid this, they had to reduce the size of the title on the front cover, which led to them having to change the cover entirely, for aesthetic reasons.

What a strange clause, why would the rights holders do this? Wouldn't it be simpler just to state "We need a big credits box, thanks"?

kidc85 wrote:

willoneill wrote:The agreement they had with the rights holder (probably) stated that the credit block on the back of the DVD had to be a certain percentage of what the title was on the front. So, the bigger the front title, the bigger the credit block had to be. At the size the title was on the original cover, the credit block would have had to fill the page. To avoid this, they had to reduce the size of the title on the front cover, which led to them having to change the cover entirely, for aesthetic reasons.

What a strange clause, why would the rights holders do this? Wouldn't it be simpler just to state "We need a big credits box, thanks"?

It's not strange at all. It's par for the course in the world of movie marketing. Every movie poster you see is regulated by these kinds of clauses; the home video art follows suit.

To follow up on jaredsap's comment, while it is not a DVD cover the best example of contractual wrangling in titles is this:



Note that to keep the two stars happy that reading the cast list from top to bottom Paul Newman's name comes first, while reading from left to right Steve McQueen is the principal named actor. A nifty (and shifty) bit of manoeuvring by the layout artists!

Also note the exact mirroring and size of the 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. logos so that neither company in the co-production has primacy. Sure, this is an extreme situation but it happens all the time in different ways.

I still think it would have been better if they'd used the image and title treatment from the original poster for the White Dog cover, but maybe that's a legal hornet's nest all its own.

cdnchris wrote:

zedz wrote:Re: Monterey. I haven't got it at hand, but doesn't the DVD box set come with a much more substantial book?

I haven't done a full "side-by-side" yet but the booklet in the Blu-ray Monterey Pop case is rather thick (45-pages or so, though the DVD set's is 63-pages) but is missing the reprinted Rolling Stone article by Jann S. Wenner and the intro by Pennebaker. The Jimi/Otis BR case comes with a very slim booklet that contains an essay by David Fricke, which isn't in the booklet that comes with the DVD set (though came with the individual DVD.)

Here is my problem with the Blu-Ray packaging of Montery Pop set:

1. We don't get the original custom cases for the individual discs. I realize there are 2 discs on the BR and 3 on the existing DVD. I can understand how that would present a design problem. However, that could be solved by combining the film and the out-takes (and drop the cover for the out-takes but include the artwork in the booklet). This would let the BR box and covers all have that consistent bill-boardy matte finish that the DVD set has.

2. The booklet does indeed cut the Jann Warner piece, is printed on slick paper, and drops entire pages of photos. I understand the slick paper, cut photos, and Warner piece make it fit into the plastic case. However, if it were printed on the same stock as the DVD booklet and placed separately into the box next to the two custom cases for Montery and the Jimi/Otis, then BR owners would get an as-close-as-possible representation of the DVD.

I am sure that it all comes down to money and I understand that. However, that said, I still believe that Criterion would serve itself and its buyers best by giving them a classy representation of the original rather than a cheaper knock-off. Now, I have to sell the DVD, which I really like the esthetics of to help defray costs of wild buying sprees and am forced to keep the BR version.

Still believe that CC should put their best foot forward on the BR editions, instead of giving the BR buyers a lesser packaged product. And, yes, I do remember and am thankful that they are keeping the prices the same, that the economy is down and that they are a business. And that is why, although I am bitching I will continue to buy and upgrade, and hope in the future the DVD and BR will be presented in very similar packaging. This is their best attempt yet. At least we didn't loose an entire novel (The Man Who Fell To Earth). Perhaps they are on track to get where I am hoping them to go.

Packaging for Dusan Makavejev Free Radical

I'm looking for decent resolution cover art for the individual DVDs in the Imamura Pigs box to use for DVDPedia. The google is singularly unhelpful.

I'd get them for you but my scanner didn't survive my last move and I haven't picked up a new one (when I plugged it in it started smoking under the glass. It was actually pretty cool.)




On another note:
DVD Packaging for Monsoon Wedding

Oh, Criterion. Wasting a cool digipak on this movie is salt in the wounds.

I don't understand, does someone at Criterion think they're going to sell copies of this?

I'm holding my copy of Science is Fiction and sobbing.

domino harvey wrote:I don't understand, does someone at Criterion think they're going to sell copies of this?

You, and I, and the other members of this forum may not buy a copy, but I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it doesn't end up being one of their best selling titles of the year. There's no accounting for taste. Who would guess that McDonald's would sell "billions and billions" of orders of the shit they peddle? There is a demographic out there that made Howard's End the most voted for movie on the Amazon Blu-ray poll. Who's to say those people won't show up to buy Monsoon Wedding too?

At least the food at McDonalds is cheap and tastes pretty good.

Since I prefer keepcases to digipaks, this doesn't upset me one bit, but I sure would like to know what their reasoning is regarding their packaging choices.

The digipack itself is gorgeous.
Makes me actually like the cover art.

What's with the hate on McDonald's!? Their 10-piece McNuggets are currently $1.99! $1.99!!!!!!!!!!!

cdnchris wrote:What's with the hate on McDonald's!? Their 10-piece McNuggets are currently $1.99! $1.99!!!!!!!!!!!

Holy shit, is this national?! \:D/

See, it's like I said. There's no accounting for taste.

Dadapass wrote:The digipack itself is gorgeous.
Makes me actually like the cover art.

Agreed, and I detested the cover art.

Hides.

Wait, really? $1.99 for a 10-piece? Ah, McNuggets, the perfect side dish... for revenge.

Moving further off-topic, yes I believe it's national. I don't know how much longer it is but it started a few weeks ago. (If it turns out not to be national I apologize in advance.)

As to the packaging I'm actually not sure I like it all that much but it is better than I envisioned.

cdnchris wrote:DVD Packaging for Monsoon Wedding

I realize I am in the minority on this one, but I think this is wonderful. I remember the film being colorful and the cover and content reflects that without using a photo from the film. I do notice that bright colors tend to upset most members and film stills tend to please this crowd more often than not. Is the fact that the packaging consists of major color and lacks a recognizable picture the main beef here?

cdnchris wrote:Moving further off-topic, yes I believe it's national. I don't know how much longer it is but it started a few weeks ago. (If it turns out not to be national I apologize in advance.)

As to the packaging I'm actually not sure I like it all that much but it is better than I envisioned.

I think they prefer to call it "breading," not "packaging," despite what it tastes like.

....we are still talking about McNuggets, right? 8-[

so lightly here wrote:

cdnchris wrote:DVD Packaging for Monsoon Wedding

I realize I am in the minority on this one, but I think this is wonderful. I remember the film being colorful and the cover and content reflects that without using a photo from the film. I do notice that bright colors tend to upset most members and film stills tend to please this crowd more often than not. Is the fact that the packaging consists of major color and lacks a recognizable picture the main beef here?

I think some people probably find the cover misleading...it's an arty cover for a low-brow film that would be more accurately represented by something like this: http://i37.tinypic.com/2qujjo5.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Too bad they are wasting a digipack on this... Now you`ll see that Wings of Desire is gonna end up in a keepcase

Matango wrote:

cdnchris wrote:DVD Packaging for Monsoon Wedding

I think some people probably find the cover misleading...it's an arty cover for a low-brow film that would be more accurately represented by something like this: http://i37.tinypic.com/2qujjo5.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Come now! Had they used that (and I assume you jest) you would be up in arms wondering why they didn't take that wonderful little line drawing detail on the poster of the two heads and run with it!