criterionforum.org

Assuming that means they're doing things Sony style I'll gladly take a terrible digi instead.

swo17 wrote:Is it any different from the packaging for The Leopard?

It's a little wider...but the real problem is the actual material is just thinner and cheaper...and very slick. It falls right out of the slip case WAY too easily and the spine of the internal part slides diagonally like those early blu digis. It's just an extremely poor product - which is really hard to understand considering they charged a premium ($49.95!) for it due to the extras. Nothing about it feels premium...it feels like what Domino described.

Thankfully I only paid $18

knives wrote:How are they fitting three discs into the figure eight? Is that the first time this has happened since the adoption?

Science Is Fiction

HistoryProf wrote:

swo17 wrote:Is it any different from the packaging for The Leopard?

It's a little wider...but the real problem is the actual material is just thinner and cheaper...and very slick. It falls right out of the slip case WAY too easily and the spine of the internal part slides diagonally like those early blu digis. It's just an extremely poor product - which is really hard to understand considering they charged a premium ($49.95!) for it due to the extras. Nothing about it feels premium...it feels like what Domino described.

it sounds like it's similar to packaging for "the human condition"; would that be a fair comparison? i don't remember hearing many complaints about that.

Blu-rays:
The Night of the Hunter
Modern Times

cdnchris wrote: Modern Times

The booklet while still terrible would've at least made more interesting cover art.

For those interested in a better look at it, Sean Phillips posted a high-res version of his SSoS painting (sans text) on his blog.

knives wrote:

cdnchris wrote: Modern Times

The booklet while still terrible would've at least made more interesting cover art.

Agreed. I don't hate the current cover (when you've got it in your hands it looks better, as do quite a few of the "bad" covers) but it's got a friendly playfulness, an almost Peter Max/Sid And Marty/Yellow Submarine vibe that I really like. At the very least I guess you could scan it in and make your own cover.

It's not the appearance that bothers me, it's the lazy and derivative concept.

I actually liked the cover from the moment I first saw it. I'm probably one of the few who do on this forum, but I can see the concept behind it, and the use of avant-garde influences for the period. It's a modern film that required a modern approach. I don't see anything lazy about it. If that is true, then all modern artists are lazy compared to classical artists.

It's nice to see his thought process, but still, it looks really lazy.

I think some people conflate simplicity with laziness. It's obvious that Sam's Myth went through a lot of work to get to the simple idea they went with and I think the result is wonderful (yes, I'm also a lover of that cover). The image is hilarious to me (I laughed out loud the first time I saw it) because of the Chaplin still they chose to work from - the furrowing of his brow and slight crinkling of the lips seem to convey barely-restrained consternation at the fact that his eyes are cogs. It's simple, yes, but it conveys the message of the film beautifully (that we should be upset at the mechanization and dehumanization of society and ourselves). To me, Modern Times is one of the best covers Criterion has had in a long time and it's really great work on the part of Sam's Myth. I've been nothing but confused at how upset so many people are with it. Sure, there are more intricate things they could have done, and they could have done something intensely difficult...but why when something so perfect was so easy?

I'm sure Sam Smith's blog will be happy to know that you are so pleased with its work. Also, I secretly like the Modern Times cover just fine.

The Modern Times cover has been my favorite of 2010 since it was first announced, I was flabbergasted at the hate it got.

Alright Ashton Kutcher, come on out, you got me

Oh, where were you guys when the cover first came out? I had to fight off Domino by myself

My criticism was, and remains, that this is just the alternate A Clockwork Orange poster art reappropriated for Chaplin.

I'm indifferent to the cover, but the constant "it looks like it took 15 minutes in Photoshop" criticism it received was so lazy and done without much thought...sorta like what the Modern Times cover was supposedly guilty of. I think CSM126's post beautifully defends its simplicity.

Tom Hagen wrote:My criticism was, and remains, that this is just the alternate A Clockwork Orange poster art reappropriated for Chaplin.

He does address this, in case you didn't read through the whole post:

Sam Smith wrote:When my art director and I started talking about it though, we realized it actually worked quite well thematically as well as graphically, in that the movie is about Chaplin's Tramp becoming a part of the industrial machine and going kinda crazy in the process. I thought about the famous, amazing book cover (and later, movie poster) for A CLOCKWORK ORANGE designed by David Pelham that shows Alex with his bowler hat and eyelashes that resemble gears, but since Burgess & Kubrick's Alex owed so much to Chaplin's iconic look in the first place, I wasn't really worried about drawing the comparison. The gang at Criterion thought this was the most striking cover idea, so we proceeded with applying the famous Criterion branding and working on a title treatment.

That's even worse. "I told Criterion I was stealing this design and they were like 'Cool, bro' and then I got to leave work at ten in the morning"

Is there a 'party culture' in the Criterion offices?

They are constantly Icing each other for sure

FYI, the VIDEODROME Blu-ray packaging is similar to the DVD's. I'll post pictures once I get a chance.

I knew Criterion would come through on that. I think they've heard so much praise on the packaging over the years that they couldn't have strayed far.