criterionforum.org

By far the worst cases ever were the Polygram "slider" cases colloquially known as "scratch-o-matic." I think that Polygram only used them through 1998, but I had several at that time. Back then, almost all discs were dual sided. You slid a plastic drawer out from the bottom, and you could hear the case physically assaulting your disc. I've long since replaced all of them with keepcase versions.

Jeff wrote:By far the worst cases ever were the Polygram "slider" cases colloquially known as "scratch-o-matic." I think that Polygram only used them through 1998, but I had several at that time. Back then, almost all discs were dual sided. You slid a plastic drawer out from the bottom, and you could hear the case physically assaulting your disc. I've long since replaced all of them with keepcase versions.

Wow. Sounds awful. Thankfully, I've never even seen one.

Jeff wrote:By far the worst cases ever were the Polygram "slider" cases colloquially known as "scratch-o-matic." I think that Polygram only used them through 1998, but I had several at that time. Back then, almost all discs were dual sided. You slid a plastic drawer out from the bottom, and you could hear the case physically assaulting your disc. I've long since replaced all of them with keepcase versions.

I never bought those early Polygram titles specifically because of their cases. Terrible.

I couldn't find a picture online, someone post pix plz

I have to admit that I fall on the digipack side of the debate. More surface area means more room for art.

While I like the Salo packaging design quite a bit, they took it in a decidedly different direction then I might have expected. I do find it kind of strange that a film that spends most of its time indoors would include an outdoor picture in its packaging. I guess there's still hope for an image of the orgy room set on the inside of the digipack. Or maybe they are trying to put emphasis on the three circles using each of the three surfaces on the inside, and basing the outer part on the "antechamber" segment.

Also, is it just me or does the packaging itself look a little strange? Usually the Criterion tags are shown on the inside digipack cover itself, while they are noticeably absent here. Also, usually the digipacks don't have three flaps unless one of them is the pocket for a booklet. However, Salo seems to come with a book which would not fit in that sort of pocket.

I apologize for my (in this case possibly morbid) over-enthusiasm, but I’ve been excited about seeing the packaging design of this release for quite some time.

domino harvey wrote:I just got a box of digipaks in a flimsy cardboard "box" from Amazon.co.uk and they're all in perfect condition. If I can get digipaks in perfect condition from across the ocean shipped with almost no protection, maybe your mailmen just hate you

Actually, my amazon.co.uk shipments usually arrive fine too, although recently that seems to have taken a turn for the worse. I think it's pretty pathetic I can get stuff from overseas to arrive in better shape than stuff shipped from Illinois or Pennsylvania or wherever amazon decides to ship their bubble bags from.

Why tf can't they figure out how to pack a box right? Cramming cardboard digipaks and what not into the corner of a box is just asking for it to get damaged; shipping 3 cardboard criterions in a bubble bag (thanks amazon boneheads), duh, what the hell are they thinking?

Considering that I get shitty banged up digipaks from DVDPlanet fairly often, I begin to wonder if it's just their warehouse workers or package stuffers. If I lived anywhere near a Border's I'd do the same as mentioned above - take the price hit to know that I'm not getting a damaged product.

StevenJ0001 wrote:I never let anybody borrow my DVDs, and all my digipaks are mint.

Hate to sound like I'm kevyipping, but what's the point in buying a ton of DVDs if you don't lend them to people? I could hardly justify my measly (for the Internet, not for my region or pocketbook) 275 DVD collection if I didn't try to expand other people's taste as much as my own.

Highway 61 wrote:I hear you on the damaged digis. I've stopped ordering them online altogether. Instead, I visit every local Borders with my weekly 30% off coupon until I find one in a condition I'm satisfied with. I still take a hit on the price, but when you factor in online shipping costs, it's not that bad.

Done that in the past, but not much local availability of newly-released Criterions lately. Or you beat me to them...

kaujot wrote:

rwaits wrote:I hate the digis so much--if Criterion insists on making them I wish they'd just package each film both ways and give the buyer the option.

That is the among the silliest financial decisions Criterion could make.

Actually, wish they'd have done this with the Furies and Vampyr. And bagged those books too.

StevenJ0001 wrote:Whenever people complain about digipaks being too easily damaged, I wonder what on earth they are doing with their DVD boxes. Hurling them around the room?

Keepcases are not aesthetically appealing, IMO; Blu-Ray cases are much worse, though!

Are you just looking at the blu-ray cases, or do you own some? Take them over cardboard any day. (Actually I preferred the dark red hd-dvd cases, but the blues are okay.) "Aesthetically appealing"?

I treat whatever cardboard I do keep with lots of care; pretty much stays in the same shape as received; don't hurl anything around. If it arrives damaged, I usually (98.6% of the time) send it back for a better copy or give up altogether getting it -- aside from the few gotta-haves. [At least that keeps my spending down some, plus I tend to avoid buying cardboard in general.] Don' t find cardboard appealing at all... makes me wanna hurl sometimes I suppose...

Klaylock wrote:While I like the Salo packaging design quite a bit, they took it in a decidedly different direction then I might have expected. I do find it kind of strange that a film that spends most of its time indoors would include an outdoor picture in its packaging.

? Are you referring to the original cover or an image on the back of the digipack? The cover image is clearly indoors

Spoiler

in what I'm pretty sure is the shit-eating scene

.

cardboard digipaks own. end of story. the only packaging decision worth complaining about is those horrible bulky old two-disc cases, which they stopped making some time ago.

i kind of wish they'd make more with reversible cover art, but that's a really minor thing.

Hate to sound like I'm kevyipping, but what's the point in buying a ton of DVDs if you don't lend them to people?

I buy dvds to watch them, not all of my friends enjoy the same movies I do.

Svevan wrote:Hate to sound like I'm kevyipping, but what's the point in buying a ton of DVDs if you don't lend them to people? I could hardly justify my measly (for the Internet, not for my region or pocketbook) 275 DVD collection if I didn't try to expand other people's taste as much as my own.

I'm always trying to expand my parents' interest in film, so I'll often buy a film that I think they'll enjoy (Brute Force, among others in the DD sale) often ones that I've long wanted to see (Bergman film trilogy).

Tootletron wrote:the only packaging decision worth complaining about is those horrible bulky old two-disc cases.

The Eclipse slipcases are also worth complaining about.
I still view all eclipse artwork and packaging as simply being deliberately bad, bland and uniform, so it doesn't get too close to Criterion branding.

Which is a poor aesthetic decision however you justify it, Criterion.

Tootletron wrote:the only packaging decision worth complaining about is those horrible bulky old two-disc cases

The old double alpha cases that criterion used prior to the wacky "c" are some of my packages in my collection. Was there anything as special as picking up a new criterion with a double alpha case? I'm having nostalgic visions of picking up Le Cercle Rouge and Tokyo Story on the same day.

yes the digipaks suck,. But I hate more the vertical eclipse slip covers. so stupid. I feel like I should try to make better eclipse covers, but since dvdcoverart.com went kaput years ago, I lost a lot of my interest in custom covers.

Groundhog Day?

movielocke wrote:yes the digipaks suck,. But I hate more the vertical eclipse slip covers. so stupid. I feel like I should try to make better eclipse covers, but since dvdcoverart.com went kaput years ago, I lost a lot of my interest in custom covers.

This is turning into the .com board, fast. There's a thread over there with people bemoaning multiple commentaries on one release, too. #-o

The digipaks are beautiful ways of presenting films, no matter how you slice it. Opens things up for cover art, spine art, interior art galore, and more extensive booklets/companion books/etc. Vampyr or Mishima are perfect examples from the last few months.

I've just bought my first Eclipse set and the package is much more pleasing in hands. It's the Silent Ozu I got, and with only three titles the vertical slip isn't much problem, even if the dvd cases tend to slip down when I pick up the set. I guess it can be a problem with the bigger sets though.

Saturnome wrote:I've just bought my first Eclipse set and the package is much more pleasing in hands. It's the Silent Ozu I got, and with only three titles the vertical slip isn't much problem, even if the dvd cases tend to slip down when I pick up the set. I guess it can be a problem with the bigger sets though.

I think that was the dumbest idea that Criterion choose, just pick up the set and all the movies fall out.

Cinephrenic wrote:I think that was the dumbest idea that Criterion choose, just pick up the set and all the movies fall out.

Leave the plastic on and cleanly cut the top open and 3 sides and fold the plastic wrap in. The box will appear sealed, dvds won't be able to fall out the bottom, and your slip cover will be protected.

tholly wrote:Leave the plastic on and cleanly cut the top open and 3 sides and fold the plastic wrap in. The box will appear sealed, dvds won't be able to fall out the bottom, and your slip cover will be protected.

Since this the eightieth time we've had this argument, let me reiterate: The consumer shouldn't have to do arts and crafts

And why would you want a box on your DVD shelf to appear sealed?

Looks like Criterion have reconsidered using the wacky C on the October re-releases:

You guys are worse than Rusty Brown!

These are not re-releases, but modified existing releases. The artwork wasn't expected to change.

Yes, it was. This was the artwork when these releases were originally announced a couple of weeks ago: