criterionforum.org

HistoryProf wrote:I guess I should be shocked that the reaction is so overwhelmingly negative here, considering I think it's absolutely stunning....but then again what would this thread be without all the grousing?

I think people just dislike gimmicky covers that pretend to be another format which Criterion seems to be a recurring trend lately. The Fugitive Kind looking like a novel, Stagecoach looking like a screenprint, Mystery Train looking like a letterpress print. For the record, they have been doing it a long time though, and some great covers have come of it. Videodrome and the Doinel boxset come to mind.

I really like it, but I think the idea could have been used better for something else. Just that image is stunning enough.

Stuff like Videodrome makes perfect thematic sense, though.

This one... ok, the movie's based on a book -- aren't maybe 75% of all films? Is this film any more "literary" than others? No, I'd say it's almost purely a film. Is the book it's based on unusually well-regarded? No, it's good, but no better than countless superior books made into films whose DVD designs don't reflect their source material.

I don't mind the letters "collapsing" into the crease/line, though I think it would have been better treated flatly, without the illusion of depth. I also think the hill and figures at bottom could have been flipped on the axis of the line, creating a symmetrical image that might have been more striking and meaningful.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:This one... ok, the movie's based on a book -- aren't maybe 75% of all films?

No.

Is this film any more "literary" than others? No

Actually yes. It's a highly literary film since it features reams and reams of interior monologue.

Is the book it's based on unusually well-regarded? No

Are you kidding? It's one of the most seminal and acclaimed American war novels ever published. And in Amazon's review (first place I went to pull quotes from): "One of the most significant explorations of male identity in American literature."

Fantastic cover.

jaredsap wrote:

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:This one... ok, the movie's based on a book -- aren't maybe 75% of all films?

No.

Is this film any more "literary" than others? No

Actually yes. It's a highly literary film since it features reams and reams of interior monologue.

Is the book it's based on unusually well-regarded? No

Are you kidding? It's one of the most seminal and acclaimed American war novels ever published. And in Amazon's review (first place I went to pull quotes from): "One of the most significant explorations of male identity in American literature."

Fantastic cover.

"Reams and reams" of interior monologue? 1000 script pages? Nor do the presence of words or dialogue = literary any more than shooting a stageplay with a camera equals "cinematic".

As for the novel (and all of Jones' work, for that matter) -- I was unimpressed. A lot of war novels are highly acclaimed but I still think they're garbage: Mailer, Hemingway, Remarque all ring false to me, suffer stylistic problems, etc. I wouldn't rate Jones as poorly as those efforts, but I'd still prefer Vonnegut, Heller, Robert Stone, Michael Herr, Stephen Wright, even Tim O'Brien instead.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:"Reams and reams" of interior monologue? 1000 script pages? Nor do the presence of words or dialogue = literary any more than shooting a stageplay with a camera equals "cinematic".

Words and dialogue do not make a film literary. But lots of interior monologue, a literary conceit, does. This isn't a qualitative judgment. Obviously THE THIN RED LINE also features lots of visual poetry, but in the continuum of adaptations, it hews more closely to its source material and a novel's form than many other book-to-screen translations. Criterion is acknowledging that with their cover.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:As for the novel (and all of Jones' work, for that matter) -- I was unimpressed. A lot of war novels are highly acclaimed but I still think they're garbage: Mailer, Hemingway, Remarque all ring false to me, suffer stylistic problems, etc. I wouldn't rate Jones as poorly as those efforts, but I'd still prefer Vonnegut, Heller, Robert Stone, Michael Herr, Stephen Wright, even Tim O'Brien instead.

Your opinion of the novel is irrelevant and stands outside of its reputation. You claimed above that Jones's book is "not unusually well-regarded" hence Malick's film is unworthy of cover art that pays homage to its literary roots. I guess what you meant is: "I don't like the book so Criterion shouldn't care about it either."

Are they publishing the book or the DVD? Should the book cover for newer editions reflect the film?

TMDaines wrote:I thought I was in the Fake Covers thread at first.

Ditto!

I wish they'd flipped the image and centered the text and done "Terrence Malick's" so it would be a very close companion piece to Days of Heaven.

OK, it's a book cover, whatever, but can anyone name even one actual book where the title is placed on the inside, centered right over a crease? People who make books are surely conscious of the fact that you can't read stuff there!

I'm actually not put in mind of the novel so much as a wartime Life magazine layout.

Matt wrote:I'm actually not put in mind of the novel so much as a wartime Life magazine layout.

If memory serves, magazines like that opened flat. So you might see a line down the center, but you wouldn't have the text disappearing into the line like it's passed beyond the event horizon, as you would with a novel that has a bound spine.

jaredsap wrote:

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:As for the novel (and all of Jones' work, for that matter) -- I was unimpressed. A lot of war novels are highly acclaimed but I still think they're garbage: Mailer, Hemingway, Remarque all ring false to me, suffer stylistic problems, etc. I wouldn't rate Jones as poorly as those efforts, but I'd still prefer Vonnegut, Heller, Robert Stone, Michael Herr, Stephen Wright, even Tim O'Brien instead.

Your opinion of the novel is irrelevant and stands outside of its reputation. You claimed above that Jones's book is "not unusually well-regarded" hence Malick's film is unworthy of cover art that pays homage to its literary roots. I guess what you meant is: "I don't like the book so Criterion shouldn't care about it either."

I know you're addressing another person, but I'll ask it anyway: what makes your opinion more relevant than other people's?

swo17 wrote:OK, it's a book cover, whatever, but can anyone name even one actual book where the title is placed on the inside, centered right over a crease? People who make books are surely conscious of the fact that you can't read stuff there!

Plus if they're going to go goofy with the fonts again, why is it so difficult to use the same font size for the entire title?

The Red Shoes.

The Thin Red Line.

Ishmael wrote:

Matt wrote:I'm actually not put in mind of the novel so much as a wartime Life magazine layout.

If memory serves, magazines like that opened flat. So you might see a line down the center, but you wouldn't have the text disappearing into the line like it's passed beyond the event horizon, as you would with a novel that has a bound spine.

True, but a novel with a bound spine would not have it's cover printed on the inside of the book let alone have a title that falls into the crevice unless their head of design had had too many shandy's. If we are looking at what is supposed to be a novel-type cover, there should be a convex bulge and the text and part of the image should be pushed outward / trail around the outward spine. I'm more inclined to go with the wartime magazine layout, but that's just my opinion.

bigP wrote:I'm more inclined to go with the wartime magazine layout, but that's just my opinion.

Me too. That's what I assumed they were going for. I think it's a perfect and inspired choice for the film. They might be overdoing the text in the crease thing a little bit, but if they eased up on that - just a little - it would be perfect.

HOW DO YOU NOT PUT MONICA VITTI ON THE FUCKING COVER... =;

Seriously though, lame cover. I'm buying the movie so I can live with it, but to be constantly reminded of how good it could have been every time you reach for it will aggravate my nerd pride to no end.

I like it. It's the words melting into the image. A bit too literal in that sense i suppose, but it still gets the beauty down right.

Spielbergo wrote:I know you're addressing another person, but I'll ask it anyway: what makes your opinion more relevant than other people's?

You have to read the entire exchange. Both their opinions are irrelevant: jaredsap was merely disputing MyNameCriterionForum's assertion that the novel is not well-regarded (i.e., by the critical mass or the public at large). One person's opinion is indeed irrelevant to whether or not this statement is true.

Spielbergo wrote:

jaredsap wrote:

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:As for the novel (and all of Jones' work, for that matter) -- I was unimpressed. A lot of war novels are highly acclaimed but I still think they're garbage: Mailer, Hemingway, Remarque all ring false to me, suffer stylistic problems, etc. I wouldn't rate Jones as poorly as those efforts, but I'd still prefer Vonnegut, Heller, Robert Stone, Michael Herr, Stephen Wright, even Tim O'Brien instead.

Your opinion of the novel is irrelevant and stands outside of its reputation. You claimed above that Jones's book is "not unusually well-regarded" hence Malick's film is unworthy of cover art that pays homage to its literary roots. I guess what you meant is: "I don't like the book so Criterion shouldn't care about it either."

I know you're addressing another person, but I'll ask it anyway: what makes your opinion more relevant than other people's?

he never says his opinion is more relevant, he merely restated the conventional wisdom/reputation of the novel, which 'mynameis' purposefully disregarded because HE doesn't like it. Neither opinion is relevant, that's the point.

THE LITTLE RED LINE

I really like that we get packaging photos, but I wish they had better lighting. China balls are dirt-cheap. Even a couple lamps bounced off white cardboard would look better.

Why don't Criterion just venture into book publishing.

Is it National Ingratitude Day or something?

Matt wrote:Is it National Ingratitude Day or something?

Isn't it always when it comes to this thread One way or another after all they can't please em all.

fdm wrote:THE LITTLE RED LINE

The Thin Red Spine