criterionforum.org

I'm grateful they didn't see a need to change the High and Low cover.

pzadvance wrote: Mon Jun 16, 2025 4:43 pm spinal tap is a hard cover to fuck up, and somehow they managed to!

I would have preferred the "none more black" simple cover of the DVD, but I think they're going for a Queen II cover kinda vibe. Maybe. I don't hate it but hoping it looks better in hand.

cdnchris wrote: Mon Jun 16, 2025 6:56 pm

pzadvance wrote: Mon Jun 16, 2025 4:43 pm spinal tap is a hard cover to fuck up, and somehow they managed to!

I would have preferred the "none more black" simple cover of the DVD, but I think they're going for a Queen II cover kinda vibe. Maybe. I don't hate it but hoping it looks better in hand.

It is indeed ugly.
Is it a reference to this (spoofing the KISS solo records)?

The ideal Spinal Tap cover would be entirely black and glossy with a faint reflection of the band looking at it, but this is fine. Looks like a metal album cover, and given that the plot synopsis is in kayfabe, that makes sense. Spinal Tap would, of course, try to make themselves look legit.

the concept is fine, i just think the faces look terrible

Somehow they made Spinal Tap look like What We Do In The Shadows

pzadvance wrote: Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:52 pmthe concept is fine, i just think the faces look terrible

Exactly. It's fine as a composition and concept overall, but the visual style of the faces just doesn't look good.

I’m so lost on this, I think it looks fine

The cover for Spinal Tap looks great and is so appropriate for the film, it references one of the original movie poster designs but pares it down. I don't understand the weirdly nitpicky complaints that so many of you have about covers. You may know about movies, but not much about graphic design. The same goes for the Audiard covers I've already seen complaints about. They are so much better than the original posters.

I’ll also add that even if you find that cover not as good as the original, considering it’s a poster for Spinal Tap (a movie where one of the main gags are good concept ideas turning into disappointing flops), it still fits the film even if I admittedly still prefer the idea of a black background paired with the metallic logo.

The Curious Sofa wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:49 pm You may know about movies, but not much about graphic design.

Thanks!

Taking the existing BD cover and simply applying a weird gouache-effect does not seem like a brilliant choice, but maybe Criterion had to conform to certain rules.

domino harvey wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:31 pmI’m so lost on this, I think it looks fine

It might just be a matter of stylistic preferences, I just think this render of the cover gives the faces some kinda of slightly weird waxy aspect that doesn't look good. Maybe it's just the render, maybe it'll look better in person, maybe it's a tiny thing that catches my eye for some reason.
But I do think the overall composition and inspiration is very fine.

Zot! wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 1:21 pm

Spoiler

The Curious Sofa wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 12:49 pm You may know about movies, but not much about graphic design.

Thanks!

Taking the existing BD cover and simply applying a weird gouache-effect does not seem like a brilliant choice, but maybe Criterion had to conform to certain rules.

Spoiler

While I would never rule out AI these days, this doesn't look like a 'weird gouache-effect'; it looks like a painting based on the poster. Christopher Guest looks more straight on, and the difference in the way the hair is rendered makes it obvious that this isn't just a filter.

The Curious Sofa wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:03 pm While I would never rule out AI these days, this doesn't look like a 'weird gouache-effect'; it looks like a painting based on the poster. Christopher Guest looks more straight on, and the difference in the way the hair is rendered makes it obvious that this isn't just a filter.

Has Criterion copped to doing anything with AI? That Querelle "Tekken" abomination is a prime candidate, but it's probably just human error. I said "effect", to allow for it to be rendered in whatever manner, whether it be physical medium, software, whatever. The end result, for me, is neither funny nor handsome, just clunky looking. But then I'm not qualified to speak on this topic, so I'll tap out.

Zot! wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:27 pm

The Curious Sofa wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 2:03 pm While I would never rule out AI these days, this doesn't look like a 'weird gouache-effect'; it looks like a painting based on the poster. Christopher Guest looks more straight on, and the difference in the way the hair is rendered makes it obvious that this isn't just a filter.

Has Criterion copped to doing anything with AI? That Querelle "Tekken" abomination is a prime candidate, but it's probably just human error. I said "effect", to allow for it to be rendered in whatever manner, whether it be physical medium, software, whatever. The end result, for me, is neither funny nor handsome, just clunky looking. But then I'm not qualified to speak on this topic, so I'll tap out.

Querelle was not AI, says the artist. He says he has worked with AI textures on some things, but his entire body of work is exploring the uncanny. In Querelle’s case, it was a 3D computer sculpt that he used as a basis for a traditional painting.)

The Spinal Tap cover makes me think MAD Magazine vibe, slightly exaggerated. (In a good way, to me.)

The Querelle cover was great!

Not that I've loved every single cover but on the whole Criterion know what they are doing when it comes to design. They keep up with what's happening in current graphic design and they hire talented people.

tenia wrote:I just think this render of the cover gives the faces some kinda of slightly weird waxy aspect that doesn't look good. Maybe it's just the render, maybe it'll look better in person, maybe it's a tiny thing that catches my eye for some reason.

It's a drawing, isn't it? That's probably why (unless I'm mistaken).

The Spinal Tap cover is fully illustrated. All you have to do is go look at the other heavy metal illustration work of artist Dan Goldsworthy.

DRW.mov wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:25 pm The Spinal Tap cover is fully illustrated. All you have to do is go look at the other heavy metal illustration work of artist Dan Goldsworthy.

No judgement implied, but for clarity, the artist fully admits his workflow is 100% digital. So in this case, he no doubt digitally "painted" over and tweaked the existing portraits seen on the previous cover.

Why would a digital workflow necessarily imply that tracing or “painting over” was used as a method?

Guido wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:54 pm Why would a digital workflow necessarily imply that tracing or “painting over” was used as a method?

See the existing BD cover I posted above. Quite clearly the same images with some minor adjustments. Again, no judgement applied, I wouldn't even rule out that the studio had some stipulations for the design, for what is a perennial cash-cow.

cdnchris wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:00 pm

tenia wrote:I just think this render of the cover gives the faces some kinda of slightly weird waxy aspect that doesn't look good. Maybe it's just the render, maybe it'll look better in person, maybe it's a tiny thing that catches my eye for some reason.

It's a drawing, isn't it? That's probably why (unless I'm mistaken).

Yes, and I'm fine with this in general, I suppose it's this style of drawing that gives a look to the faces I don't find very appealing to me (which isn't dis-similar to the faces' look on the older BD cover linked by Zot, which I'm not fond of either).

They commissioned an artist who has specialised in metal album covers for decades to design the cover of a parody about a metal band. When you look at these type of album covers, 'appealing' is not the first word that springs to mind. Yes, they look slightly distorted and weird — that's the point.

Zot! wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:10 pm

Guido wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:54 pm Why would a digital workflow necessarily imply that tracing or “painting over” was used as a method?

See the existing BD cover I posted above. Quite clearly the same images with some minor adjustments. Again, no judgement applied, I wouldn't even rule out that the studio had some stipulations for the design, for what is a perennial cash-cow.

Using a photo for reference and "painting over"/tracing are two wildly different things.

DRW.mov wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 6:57 pm

Zot! wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 4:10 pm

Guido wrote: Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:54 pm Why would a digital workflow necessarily imply that tracing or “painting over” was used as a method?

See the existing BD cover I posted above. Quite clearly the same images with some minor adjustments. Again, no judgement applied, I wouldn't even rule out that the studio had some stipulations for the design, for what is a perennial cash-cow.

Using a photo for reference and "painting over"/tracing are two wildly different things.

I might be missing your point, but if I was a purely digital artist, I would never try to reproduce an image freehand...what would be the point in that? Why eyeball your already digital source image on a separate monitor so you can then try to approximate that freehand with a digital brush?