criterionforum.org

colinr0380 wrote:I'm sorry but still feel that if any cover needs a make over after a pink Viridiana cover full scale protest it would be Fanfan!

People care about White Dog because it's a title they intend to buy, unlike Fanfan.

domino harvey wrote:People care about White Dog because it's a title they intend to buy, unlike Fanfan.

Touché, or should I say "en garde!"

colinr0380 wrote:I don't know, both covers seem fine. Considering the way that the dog's expression changes from fluffy and cute to slavering and snarling in a simple cut in the film itself (with that fantastic circular move from one to the other in a single shot as the finale) perhaps this would have been the perfect opportunity to use both of those images in one of those lenticular covers!

I'm sorry but still feel that if any cover needs a make over after a pink Viridiana cover full scale protest it would be Fanfan!

So that's one vote for, and (I would assume) everyone else in the world against*. Criterion, you have your mandate!

*I reserve the right to change my vote if this does in fact turn out to be a lenticular cover.

I'm not really sure what I think of the new cover. I like it well enough, but it's problematic for reasons folk have already stated. I love the idea of a lenticular or even a slip cover with the more fearsome image on the inside. The first is more jarring and presumably more representative of the film (which I haven't seen, but knowing Fuller and based on what others say. . .), but I could certainly live with the replacement.

=;

^^^ =D> =D> =D>

I see you've incorporated 'the Wacky BM' into your design

Got a reply from Mulvaney saying that they have no plans on changing the design back as far as he knows, but he appreciates the feedback. Write to them now or forever hold your peace!

While I like the original cover better, I don't see what all the fuss is about vis a vis the film itself. So the new cover sucks, so? If the aesthetic of your DVD shelf outweighs the aesthetic value of the films on it then, well, I don't know what to tell you.

Not really an outstanding cover, but I also don't see what the fuss is. Does the cover absolutely need to show the dog in full attack mode, with its teeth bared and/or blood dripping from its mouth? Whatever happened to subtlety? If they wanted to make it cute and fluffy, the dog's eyes would not be blood-red.

I'm personally against showing the most shocking images on the cover or film poster because it takes away something of the power of those images when they're too familiar. The old Salò cover presented an extremely disturbing moment from the film's climax and probably let people be more immune to its ability to disturb by getting comfortable with it outside the experience of the film.

mfunk9786 wrote:Got a reply from Mulvaney saying that they have no plans on changing the design back as far as he knows, but he appreciates the feedback. Write to them now or forever hold your peace!

Man, you've got to show us the actual correspondence. I'd like to see Mulvaney's explanation for this. I'd envision something along the lines of:

For a combination of reasons, some economical, some environmental, we're trying to use a little less ink going forward. We'll still be dedicating ourselves to creating beautifully designed packages. They'll just mostly look like blank white sheets of paper from now on. We think it's the right thing to do. I hope this information is helpful, and feel free to write in again if you have other questions!

Gregory wrote: If they wanted to make it cute and fluffy, the dog's eyes would not be blood-red. .

Why, a cute and fluffy dog can't have a hangover and/or be between Visine runs to Duane Reade?

I think CC holds themselves up to a higher standard because they build the expense for this packaging stuff-- design & presentation beyond extras and licensing, since other companies license materials and produce extras yet don't have such high srp's-- into their pricing structure. I'm not one of those guys who would cancel a preorder based on cover art, but I'm not above a semi-annual snicker or two when I feel that requisite "cluefulness" (opposite of "cluelessness") is not in evidence. And I don't think that any ol white dog'll do, even though every dog does doo haw haw haw.

I dunno, it's not the individual things taken unto themselves lately, it's a sense that CC is running off the rails. I pick up discs nowadays and study the booklets to check out possible eveidence major changes in crucial personnel, the gaffes and the lukewarm title factors are just ratcheting.

The White Dog cover(s) may not be groundbreaking but I would argue again that either cover is in keeping with the film itself. If there were going to be a more unconventional approach perhaps the full cover could have been a close up of the dog's white fur matted with patches of blood, but even that doesn't exactly convey the extent to which the dog itself is treated as a victimised creature as much as a purposefully trained killing machine. It would also violate Gregory's rule (which I generally agree with) that the most shocking or climactic moments of a film shouldn't be used in the cover image.

If you are having a problem with the "Snow Dog" vs "Hell Hound" qualities be assured that this dichotomy is present in the film itself. Subtlety wouldn't exactly be the best way to represent Fuller's bludgeoningly unsubtle (in a good way) film!

It is similar to the Europa cover in that you might hate the cover imagery but it faithfully represents and gives a taste of the experience of the film itself admirably without sugarcoating the lack of subtlety or layered imagery that can be an acquired taste exhibited in the films themselves.

Well the odd thing about this whole "good dog"/"bad dog" dichotomy that gregory and Colin have alluded to is that the film itself trades on this ambiguity but in a vastly different way than either of these covers would indicate. For those who have seen the film, you may recall that reoccuring image of the titular dog, running in slow motion towards the camera, teeth-bared and tongue dragging. In the film, this image often has multiple and very different consequences. The image itself is totally ambiguous - is the dog playful or preparing for attack? It is not clear. I certainly like Colin's idea of a slip-cover with both images, but the clearest evocation of what the film is all about is, well, right there in the film.

As for the change in cover art, I just don't understand it. Schreck is right - this is just one in a long litany of bizarre decisions Criterion have made in the last year (it is fitting, as Domino points out, that this is essentially the last release of '08). Why change something that was already perfectly acceptable in its original form? And to change it to something that perhaps is even less evocative of the film and with no connection to any previous promotional material. Totally bizarre.

Damn, the dog is more lovable.

Hmph. The old cover fits Fuller's pulp sensibility better. But oh well, I'm not offended by the new cover. Sold.

If that's really it, I like that one much better.

Samuel Truffaut is the greatest director ever according to IMDB!

I like the new, white artwork better now.

pianocrash wrote:

What a great way to start a Friday. Love it.

The new White Dog cover is horrible but I'll buy it anyway, as usual.

What have they done to my eyes?
The new White Dog cover is not bad, but it doesn't even come close to the old, which was absolutely fantastic and so much in the moods of Samuel Fuller and the movie itself.
I hope they're receiving plenty of e-mails complaining about this crazy decision and put the old cover back up.
Oh, and a slip-cover with one of those small digipaks (like Sansho) would be great, as long as the old cover comes on top and the new one's inside. =P~