criterionforum.org

I wonder why is it every time Criterion announces new releases 1 or more titles don't have covers ready? Do they try to see what people write in forums about possible covers that they want or does it take longer to make a cover than make a DVD transfer?

imiba wrote:I wonder why is it every time Criterion announces new releases 1 or more titles don't have covers ready? Do they try to see what people write in forums about possible covers that they want or does it take longer to make a cover than make a DVD transfer?

Most likely waiting on the slacker artist delivering the, er, art.

Just when you think they can't get any more wrong-headed... Even I know that Kerry Fox, borderline boiler that she is, would sell more copies than some chubby ginger kid with weird legs. Get it together, Criterion.

They should have faced her the other way.

That pose is better but I really think face forward was the right way to go. And, lessee... people like dogs, maybe add a dog... and... ah yes, the coup de grace: a tiny bald man.

The Angel at My Table still is the iconic image of the movie, so it's hardly surprising that they went with it.

Zielske wrote:also, im not quite sure about An Angel At My Table, but im really bothered by the writing in the sky. It looks a litlle like a novel that would be popular with older houswives. idn

im still not sure about it though.

Are you talking about the original poster art (on this page) or the Criterion cover art (on the previous page)? I ask because, to me, the writing on the original poster art looks more like the font used on the cover of a novel that would be popular with older housewives

zedz wrote:The Angel at My Table still is the iconic image of the movie, so it's hardly surprising that they went with it.

Yes, and Sam Neill made a very good case in the BFI Century of Cinema documentary relating to New Zealand for the road and idea of travel being one of the central motifs of the country's cinema. It has been a long time since I last saw the film so I'm not sure whether Kerry Fox is associated with the road image as much in the latter part of the film - is it not more associated with the character when she is younger?

The problem with The Angel at my Table cover is that it is too predictable. There is absolutely no imagination in there. And the worst thing is that this seems to be a trend in recent Criterion covers. Sigh.

I think the Angel criterion cover is exceptional. I have the R2 french collection, which includes it, but never saw it. So the image is new to me, and one of the best criterion covers I've seen in a long time. This thread is so silly.

exte wrote:This thread is so silly.

I think you just made Matt's day.

Sometimes I think the only cover that would please the people who post on this thread would be one of those ridged motion gimmicks, you know, like they use on the covers of TV Guide a lot, the kind that present three or four different images depending on the angle -- so you get the effect of, say, Anakin Skywalker lifting his lightsaber or something -- except on the Criterion covers they'd use a highly sophisticated form of this technology to portray about 150,000 different images, one for each frame of the whole goddam film, each individually and meticulously restored. Of course, stores would have to wrap the boxes in brown paper to keep people from standing in the aisles for hours at a time, twisting the boxes back and forth to watch the films. But hey, that's a small price to pay for keeping the posters on this thread from bitching.

It would only last a few days, though. "The DVD image is fine but the box for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls is unacceptably misframed to 2.25:1. We the undersigned demand a free recall/replacement program of this item. What do we want? A free recall/replacement program for the box to Beyond the Valley of the Dolls! When do we want it? NOW!"

Yet this was the signature image of the film - the younger Janet Frame...

Everybody certainly has a strong negitive opinion about the "Angel" cover. I remember seeing this movie and loving it and this cover reminds me of that film. The girl was awkward as she is shown here and a writer (it even looks like a book cover.) I think this and the Bowie cover are two of the more striking covers this year (except for the pulled River Phoenix alone cover that CC had originally posted). After a rather dull year with a few surprises I think these two really work.

I don't know much about the film, nor will I let the silly looking cover keep me from a blind buy of the film, but the cover does look silly to the uninitiated.

DVD EMPIRE has (rather uninteresting) covers up for NAKED and MASCULINE FEMININ. I don't know how to post them, but maybe someone else can.

Masculine Feminine



Naked



From Dvd Empire

Masculin Féminine can't possibly be for real. The cover is blurry, ugly and show no compositional merit what so ever. It's really awful.

Naked is okay. A bit boring, though.

So has DVD Empire gotten into the habit of making their own covers for stuff they don't have actual covers for yet? Neither one of those looks real to me.

naked cover is just fine [although not spectacular].

the dvd empire mystery is however, unsolved! F for fake anyone?

I LOVE the M/F one...I think it's one of the most origional co ers Criterion's ever done...

I'm sorry, but with the Naked cover all I can say is "what the fuck!?" It looks like a fanboy cover. The laserdisc cover was WAY better, and all it was was a UPC code. I feel dirty for being one of those who bitch about the cover art, but damn, it's safe to say I hate that cover.

I'm still going to buy it, of course. But I have to say I am greatly disappointed if that is the cover.

I didn't know Bono was in Naked?

actually the more i look at that m/f cover the more i like it.

Full credit to criterion for being brave enough to do something different. =D>