criterionforum.org

I blame Sapphire for this.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:Another theory: It may well have been Loach's own request -- he doesn't have much truck for the auteur theory, and the UK posters for his recent films (at least as far back as Sweet Sixteen) have a credit for Paul Laverty in the same size as Loach's. They also use the "directed by" phrasing instead of "a film by." Perhaps Loach wanted to single out Hines' role in the original story instead of going with something like "Screenplay by Barry Hines, Ken Loach, and Tony Garnett."

I believe we have a winner. The bit about changing "a film by" to "directed by" was almost certainly done at Loach's request, and I wouldn't be surprised if he insisted the author get equal credit too.

That's certainly interesting and persuasive, though it doesn't account for the shrinking of the title (and why it maintains the same proportions with the director credit as the original design).

zedz wrote:the shrinking of the title (and why it maintains the same proportions with the director credit as the original design).

Contractual obligations. MGM has a thing about keeping the title and the names at a certain ratio to one another on covers.

Or:
See My Original Post

The Great Dictator is up for pre-order on Amazon with modified (?) cover art.

Perhaps the texture suggests that this will be a digipack with the look and feel of a leather-bound book?

When you zoom in it looks like compression artefacts from the picture file.

Pixelated version

I think that there is more to it than artifacts. On the left, there appears to be a "spine" - that seems pretty deliberate. Also, when you blow it up to full size, the text and the blu-ray sticker remain fairly sharp despite the pixelation of the red space. You would think that the edges of the blue, for example, would be impacted if it was merely a problem with the way that the image was compressed.

Or maybe i'm just failing to accept that the cover we see on Criterion's website is indeed final...

Old or new, it still looks like crap.

It's still probably the worst cover in the collection.

James wrote:It's still probably the worst cover in the collection.

ftw

I'll suppress my urge to post the new Solaris

fdm wrote: ftw

I know they make me think of lemonade; that's for damn sure.

I think so far for 2011 Criterion has unveiled not only some of their worst covers (something wild, Naked Kiss) but some of their best in the history of the company (blow out and Pale Flower)

Eh, I still find Pale Flower to be a "good concept, shoddy execution" situation.

I'm surprised the new Solaris cover is getting good marks on this forum. I personally find it hideous.

mfunk9786 wrote:

I'm sorry. Any cover that has Gabin and the gorgeous Mireille Balin on it cannot by any definition be the "worst".

It's too bad there's no hyperbole in this thread from anyone

fdm wrote: ftw

we get it. you don't like them. others do. I actually think they look pretty cool in hand. so no 'ftw' - which, btw, is one of the most annoying message board cliches on the planet. all you are missing is "they make me throw up in my mouth a little."

Calling things the "best" or "worst" things ever is the laziest form of criticism in the entire history of the universe.

swo17 wrote:Calling things the "best" or "worst" things ever is the laziest form of criticism in the entire history of the universe.

Worst attempt to cool things ever.

HistoryProf wrote:

fdm wrote:ftw

we get it. you don't like them. others do. I actually think they look pretty cool in hand. so no 'ftw' - which, btw, is one of the most annoying message board cliches on the planet. all you are missing is "they make me throw up in my mouth a little."

I reserve the right to post them whenever anyone else starts posting covers that aren't really all that bad. Adds a little perspective. Neither of those other ones came close.