criterionforum.org

Feego wrote:I like the re-vamped Charade cover, but I do sort of miss the multicolored text from the original. I thought it really captured the playful tone of the film.

I had the exact same thought yesterday.

Agree about fun of the original. I do think the new white works better for its purpose. It stands out with the credits. Differentiates image and text and makes both better at grabbing the eye.

I liked the quotes around "Charade" too. They've obviously still got some work to do on the cover, since they haven't bothered to remove out the hastily cut out blob of blue background behind Grant and Hepburn yet.

[img]http://criterion_production.s3.amazonaws.com/release_images/2836/57_BD_box_348x490.jpg[/img]

It is good that they changed the midsection. Before it looked like a espionage thriller, reminescent of Bond.

Well, this looks to be incomplete, and temporary, but this is what was in the sell sheets for The Thin Red Line. At least it's technically not a floating head...

Spoiler

Crazy. I never would have guessed that. Looks very much like the work of Neil Kellerhouse to me. I'll wait until the final version comes out to pass judgment. Weird that there is a faint, partial Criterion Collection tab on the side but no Wacky C. If this is Kellerhouse, I wouldn't be surprised if he has several different complementary designs, and this one ends up on the booklet or something.

Yeah, I noticed the faded banner and the lack of a wacky C so figured it was at least a temporary thing or incomplete. You're probably right that this will end up being the booklet cover.

Even though it's temp so any sort of judgment is pointless that font is extremely bad.

That's the first good font in months and months

Get it? A bunch of thin red lines? And some other lines that are thin? These covers practically design themselves!

I kind of like it though, actually. :-$

Either my eyes are playing tricks on me or there actually is a very faint wacky C there. Maybe there's going to be some kind of clear slipcase with the Criterion branding and title a la the original Rules of the Game packaging.

I don't see the C. The bar just looks like a mistake from that overlay technique he used.

I think the possibilities are great though. It does indeed look like Kellerhouse's work, which is great news. Should be a lovely package.

That's a nice cover.

Though I think the best image they could use is the initial bombing of the hill, or any image where the hill is paramount.

That, or the scene where Woody Harrelson says "I BLEW MY BUTT OFF!"

The frequent literalism on Criterion's covers really bothers me. Taking fonts as one example, there were the Powell and Pressburgers with a red "RED" and a black "BLACK," and now, sure enough, thin lines spelling out "THE THIN RED LINE."

Hoping that font is not the final one.

StevenJ0001 wrote:The frequent literalism on Criterion's covers really bothers me. Taking fonts as one example, there were the Powell and Pressburgers with a red "RED" and a black "BLACK," and now, sure enough, thin lines spelling out "THE THIN RED LINE"! :-k

Hoping that font is not the final one.

It's not like the visual puns are new- take a look at the Short Cuts cover- and I actually really like the font on this for its own sake. If the puns were ugly or didn't fit in, they would bother me, but I don't inherently mind them existing.

The still with Caveziel is excellent so if this ends up being the final cover I'd be quite happy regardless of what font ends up being used.

I was hoping for something more Malick-like, maybe a nice landscape shot with a few soldiers visible. I'll reserve judgment till I see the final cover tho

That's a very unexpected cover (and font), but I quite like it. It's a difficult film to evoke without making it look like something it's not, but the combination of elements in that image make a decent attempt at it.

It's nothing short of hideous: the asinine superimposition of the tree onto Caviezel's shoulder and chest is enough in itself to dismiss the cover entirely, but, taken together with the limp font, that obnoxious spark in the eye ("a thin red line in the vision of the poet-protagonist; oh my, what metaphorical eloquence!" - utter bollocks; pseudish nonsense), the redundant corona of birds around Malick's name and the incongruous, sallow light on Cavaziel's face and throat (evidence of an explosion to his left, or a symptom of careless image clipping and placement? A Malickian imponderable, truly), this cover has enough piss-poor ideas dreadfully executed that it beholds us to post it in the 'worst DVD covers ever' topic and then lock the thread, allowing it to serve as a monument to this surpassing triumph of troglodyte design.

Seriously, even the Fishing with John cover is superior to the malformed horror above. Besides, where's the cover for The Thin Red Line (the aforementioned abortion appears to be for something called The Thin Rred Line)?

that font is atrocious, and the super imposed tree is in Swimming Horses territory. Just awful.

You hate love everything nothing

I would have preferred this.

That's a disaster! Can't be real. Surely.

I don't think calling the designer a Troglodyte is going to fix the problem, But hey, you never know.

In any case, considering there's no wacky c on the cover, this may not even resemble the final. Kellerhouse did design one of the best posters of 2009, so give him a little credit.

One can only hope the thin red line is a beautiful digipak, but given Criterion's recent obsession with the clear Keep cases this seems unlikely.