Criterion & Eclipse Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol.3

Message

jt · #576 Post by jt » Mon May 21, 2007 7:31 am

Jem wrote:
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?

Well, I did clearly state that it was a guess, so the stat came straight out of my ass.

domino harvey wrote: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.

What exactly is your point here? That lots of pretentious art magazines use difficult-to-read fonts? That all CC customers are avid culture magazine readers and vice-versa and hense will have no trouble reading the title?

I'm not sure why you would compare the design of a DVD with anything other than existing DVD covers and I don't recall ever seeing one as difficult to read as this. I'm sure there are countless magazines/ books/ underground jazz-club signs etc with equally baffling fonts but that really has nothing to do with this DVD cover does it?

If "John Ford - The Searchers" was written like this, I don't think it would be much of a problem but this is a film/ director combo that lots of people will not have heard of. Factor in the foreign title in a cultured font and I just don't think Criterion are doing themselves any favours.

sidehacker · #577 Post by **sidehacker** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:43 pm

justeleblanc wrote:1955?

This seems to be a default year they put on designs. The same mistake happened with Sweet Movie.

Daze73 · #578 Post by **Daze73** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:57 pm

From the official site:

justeleblanc · #579 Post by **justeleblanc** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:00 pm

I love the interaction in the upper left hand corner. Like the snake and baby youtube video.

TheGodfather · #580 Post by **TheGodfather** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:06 pm

That`s pretty awfull...

Cinesimilitude · #581 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:17 pm

I doubt Skillman had anything to do with that. the arrows and the text alone, but with a different font, would be much better.

sevenarts · #582 Post by **sevenarts** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:21 pm

That's better than the initial version, anyway. Still, far from good, and the text is definitely a big part of the problem. I'd place bets on that not being a Skillman design, he seems to err on the side of caution/simplicity more than anything.

I'd get it anyway, of course, if I didn't already have the fine Optimum box set. It's a great film, although my least favorite of the trilogy.

justeleblanc · #583 Post by **justeleblanc** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:27 pm

sevenarts wrote:although my least favorite of the trilogy.

It's part of a trilogy?

Gigi M. · #584 Post by **Gigi M.** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:27 pm

That cover is by far the worse in the entire collection. Is even worse than the pink Viridiana cover and it doesn't say anything about the film since those arrows are a complete mess. At least some folks here liked the pink Viridiana mess. I'll bet no one here likes this piece of shit.

justeleblanc wrote:
sevenarts wrote:although my least favorite of the trilogy.
It's part of a trilogy?

It's supposed to be an informal trilogy with Discreet charm and Phantom of the liberty.

toiletduck! · #585 Post by **toiletduck!** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:38 pm

Gigi M. wrote:I'll bet no one here likes this piece of shit.

-Toilet Dcuk

#586 Post by **domino harvey** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:40 pm

the cover is now marginally better, but the weird black fill where the arrows meet still sucks and the overall concept still blows. But it's a D instead of an F, and I guess thank heaven for tiny miracles

justeleblanc · #587 Post by **justeleblanc** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:41 pm

Never heard of that trilogy. I typically group the Pinal titles in one trilogy, that's it.

And I like the cover. I think the arrows are funny and very much on the same page as the humor of the rest of the film. Of course, the picture is dull and uninspiring, certainly now would have been the time to have drawn animated characters on the cover. But I far from hate it.

thechallenger · #588 Post by **thechallenger** » Mon May 21, 2007 9:46 pm

I think I like the new cover

. It reminds me of a Spy novel on some dusty-old bookshelf (maybe it has to do with the arrows working as a mask, covering one eye but going around the other).

Cinephrenic · #589 Post by **Cinephrenic** » Mon May 21, 2007 10:10 pm

Looks like one of those puzzles where you have to find the wacky C.

tavernier · #590 Post by **tavernier** » Mon May 21, 2007 10:18 pm

Cinephrenic wrote:Looks like one of those puzzles where you have to find the wacky C.

Not much of a puzzle....the arrow points right to it.

rebelswede · #591 Post by **rebelswede** » Mon May 21, 2007 10:34 pm

Cinephrenic wrote:Looks like one of those puzzles where you have to find the wacky C.

I'd much prefer if the C was in the same color as the criterion collection bar.

CSM126 · #592 Post by **CSM126** » Tue May 22, 2007 12:51 am

If they removed the stupid arrows, it would be better. Sure, just a screencap is sorta played out, but the pic they chose has pleasing colors, at least.

jon · #593 Post by **jon** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:55 am

I'd give anything to see a pink Viridiana-style final art (or fan art) of that still.

Derek Estes · #594 Post by **Derek Estes** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:57 am

I like the cover more than I like the film. The colors in particular are very nice. I agree that the black fills are still a mistake, but other than that I don't know what everybody is complaining about, at least it's not as bad as the Heaven Can Wait cover, which is positively the ugliest cover in the collection, not to mention the one that has the least to do with the film.

Jean-Luc Garbo · #595 Post by **Jean-Luc Garbo** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:03 am

I can live with that cover, but can't they do better?

souvenir · #596 Post by **souvenir** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:11 am

Derek Estes wrote:I like the cover more than I like the film. The colors in particular are very nice. I agree that the black fills are still a mistake, but other than that I don't know what everybody is complaining about, at least it's not as bad as the Heaven Can Wait cover, which is positively the ugliest cover in the collection, not to mention the one that has the least to do with the film.

I like the Heaven Can Wait cover a lot. It and the cover Caitlin Kuhwald did for Amarcord both stand out as colorful, unique breaks from the Photoshop madness that's the trend with Criterion covers. I like most of the Criterion covers, but it's nice to see something a little more imaginative on occasion.

#597 Post by **domino harvey** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:34 am

I'm with you, Heaven Can Wait is one of my all time fav covers

Ashirg · #598 Post by **Ashirg** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:35 am

Speaking of Amarcord...

jon · #599 Post by **jon** » Tue May 22, 2007 9:30 pm

I just received my copy of Sansho and the packaging is among the best in the entire collection. Absolutely beautiful. I am glad they were able to keep the same style of packaging/material/digi that Ugetsu had, which is my favorite packaging in the collection.

The Third Man is kind of boring, not much going on. Lots and lots of black on a glossier material. Needs more texture in my opinion.

And sadly, Army of Shadows is worse in person. I was hoping for a digi for this release (which would have made for quite an attractive package, especially if they used the same material as the Ugetsu digi). Aside from that, it's literally a very solid package. It feels complete and the booklet is nice.

Now...to actually play these discs...

Cosmic Bus · #600 Post by **Cosmic Bus** » Wed May 23, 2007 3:01 am

I don't see why they can't just use one of the original posters for the Milky Way:

Internal Resources

External Sites

Specialty Labels

Site Menu

Criterion & Eclipse Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol.3