criterionforum.org

late Goyaesque manner

Wow, that was the first impression I had in mind when I saw it. Afterall, the designer might have had that in mind while designing it. Goya was a Spanish painter.

Yeah, and Antonio Gaudi was a Spanish architect, but putting up a picture of La Pedrera would've been inappropriate too.

I'm not saying it's not an aesthetically interesting cover, but everything about it seems to contrast heavily with the actual form and content of the film itself.

DRSchwarz wrote:For what's it's worth, I think both covers are great. I've never seen either of the films but these covers make me interested in checking them out, which is what I think a good cover should do.

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. The Cria cover says nothing what so ever about the film. How does it make you want to check it out? Because the design is good? No offense. I'm just surprised so many people like this cover.

Pinakotheca wrote: How does it make you want to check it out? Because the design is good?

Well, I think obviously that's the case for several of the posters in this very thread, including myself. Viridiana argument 2.0

It looks like the Cria cover is satisfying those who have not yet seen the film, but is unsatisfying to those who have seen it.

I'm in the latter camp: that's a horrible cover.

Yeah, and Antonio Gaudi was a Spanish architect, but putting up a picture of La Pedrera would've been inappropriate too.

I'm not saying it's not an aesthetically interesting cover, but everything about it seems to contrast heavily with the actual form and content of the film itself.

I was referring to the design itself, not appropriateness to the film.

Pinakotheca wrote: How does it make you want to check it out? Because the design is good? No offense. I'm just surprised so many people like this cover.

Yes, the reason I do want to check it out is because I like the design (and don't worry, I take no offense for liking the cover). Maybe the cover doesn't directly relate to the film itself (I don't know, I haven't seen the movie) but like I said before, it does make me curious about the film underneath. If it turns out, that when I finally do see the movie and if I enjoy it, I seriously doubt that I'm going to like the film any less because the cover doesn't exactly match the film inside. At that point, I'd just be happy I saw a great movie.

tavernier wrote:It looks like the Cria cover is satisfying those who have not yet seen the film,

Then the cover is a success!

Toro, Toro

I don't get the Cria cover at all. I personally find it messy and don't like it but I appreciate that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.

It seems that it is liked by enough people on this board that it has just about done its secondary job of looking good on the shelves of the CC fanatics who were going to buy it anyway, regardless of what the cover looks like.

What I do think it will fail at though is its primary purpose, ie. to make people in a store pick it up and buy it. I'd guess that about 30% of casual buyers won't even hold this in their hand for long enough to read the title because of its crappy font.

jt wrote:I'd guess that about 30% of casual buyers won't even hold this in their hand for long enough to read the title because of its crappy font.

Funny, by my calculations 70% of casual buyers would hold the Cria cover long enough! Where are you getting your statistics?

jt wrote:What I do think it will fail at though is its primary purpose, ie. to make people in a store pick it up and buy it. I'd guess that about 30% of casual buyers won't even hold this in their hand for long enough to read the title because of its crappy font.

I don't even know how to argue with someone who thinks this, but I would say you should probably walk through the art/culture magazine section at your local newsstand to see how far off the path you are.

this is on the criteriondvd.com site

1955?

What the hell is that?
Why not an illustrated map to Santiago de Compostella?

That's clearly a fan cover. I can't even begin to describe to you the many things that are wrong with it.

domino harvey wrote:

jt wrote:it's a crappy font.

I would say you should probably walk through the art/culture magazine section at your local newsstand to see how far off the path you are.

come on now. that doesn't even make sense.

Matt wrote:That's clearly a fan cover. I can't even begin to describe to you the many things that are wrong with it.

Besides Crispin Glover?

Matt wrote:That's clearly a fan cover. I can't even begin to describe to you the many things that are wrong with it.

I thought so too but then I went Here and Here.

thechallenger wrote:

Matt wrote:That's clearly a fan cover. I can't even begin to describe to you the many things that are wrong with it.

I thought so too but then I went Here and Here.

I'm suddenly reminded of Viridiana's cover......

thechallenger wrote:

Matt wrote:That's clearly a fan cover. I can't even begin to describe to you the many things that are wrong with it.

I thought so too but then I went Here and Here.

Then it's a temp cover. Or maybe Criterion have struck a new tradition of creating appallingly amateurish covers for Buñuel films.

Gigi M. wrote:What the hell is that?

My exact sentiments. I hate the irony of preparing to bitch about a cover after I've laid out a well-trodden defense of another August cover, but seriously, that Milky Way cover is the worst piece of shit cover we've had from Criterion in years.

"All over the place" has found a new meaning.

Ok, I didn't even think Viridiana was all that bad, but this is ridiculous! It would be better (but still bad) if the picture in the background were simply not there (just arrows and director/title).

someone should probably email criterion with a note saying "if thats the official cover, you'd be better off not posting anything until its changed, if only for your inbox's sake."

Is that a alien cosmic map to the The Milky Way galaxy with Qui-Gon Jinn as the alien?