criterionforum.org

Narshty wrote:I don't like the lack of a CC logo either - that banner gave their covers balance somehow.

You're right on the money Narshty. I think that many of us dislike the cover because of this. It looks empty and mediocre.

The A CANTERBURY TALE specs are astounding... but I think the cover is a joke, and - worse things happen at sea and all that - but the loss of Criterion's established footprint from the cover, is a tragedy. Surely a close cousin to:

It doesn't feel like a Criterion.

Simply the worst Criterion cover I could imagine. What are they thinking.

This is worth a letter campaign, I'd say.

I don't see what is so bad about it. Not the greatest cover, but not the worst.

Narshty wrote:Why is her right arm covered in random blotches of pink, and why is her left one purple?

Aren't all british people pale and blotchy?

I'm with everyone on the Christian romance novel thing but I think the logo removal is a classy move. Cover blurbs are hackneyed, shilling to the talent is sycophantic and watermarks and watermark-related things are to be frowned upon. We're all used to the logo so maybe it's hard to lose it but this will bring Criterion closer to the CD and LP level, where it's almost entirely about the art. They're not off to a running start with Canterbury Tales but I approve. Plus, not to be a cad... but underlining things is a bit "80s."

I'm not a big fan of how the C is molesting the A... as if we wouldn't notice!

The cover just doesn't say "Michael Powell." If you took away the "a film by" part and didn't know this was a Powell and Pressburger film, after looking at the cover, would you honestly believe this was a film by the same people who did The Red Shoes or A Matter of Life and Death? It looks like A Little House on the Prairie. But, many people believe I am always wrong, so I could be wrong here too.

You're not wrong.
I'm with Domino on this one.
That is a Criterion cover I never would have imagined in my whole life. #-o

What the hell is Criterion doing? Are they trying to destroy their brand image? That cover of CANTERBURY TALE looks like shit. Plain and simple.

Maybe the new logo should just be a middle finger. A painted middle finger.

I agree that the A Canterbury Tale cover sucks ass.

With respect to the missing logo: to my eyes, the cover doesn't appear to have the proper--for lack of a better phrase--aspect ratio. It looks like the top portion of the cover has been excised, perhaps so that it won't spoil the great unveiling of the new logo. Otherwise, the title is placed too close to the top edge of the case. So I think there will be a logo on the front cover, it's just under wraps for now.

I think it'll look right at home in my vault of DVDs and inspirational fiction:

pzman84 wrote:The cover just doesn't say "Michael Powell." If you took away the "a film by" part and didn't know this was a Powell and Pressburger film, after looking at the cover, would you honestly believe this was a film by the same people who did The Red Shoes or A Matter of Life and Death? It looks like A Little House on the Prairie. But, many people believe I am always wrong, so I could be wrong here too.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I shall now forever think of A Canterbury Tale as Nancy Drew and the Case of the Glue Man.

I'm not one to typically gripe about cover art, but that Canterbury cover just gave me an unpleasant flashback to my frosh year of art school. It's awkward and inept in a "high school art fair" sort of way. I'm assuming it's an attempt to look like it was done in pastels, but the "MS Paint" style blotches on the dress are a dead give-away (as well as the absolutely horrible thing happening to the figure's left arm). Don't even get me started on the proportions of the figure, either.

here's the thing, the cover probably wouldn't look AS BAD if it had the Criterion Logo... but it's not too late for them to scrap their horrible, misguided idea to change logos. this is the equivalent of McDonalds losing the arches, Wendy's losing the red-haired daughter, Dr Pepper no longer having an orange-red stripe, 7-Up without the dot, Penguin books without the penguin, so on and so forth. Criterion is the most easily recognizable boutique DVD label in history, and you could look instantly at a cover and know who it came from. Now, as I said earlier, I'll have to sift thru the Fox Lorbers of the world to find Criterion, and I am one of the ones who pays attention, feel sorry for the casual consumer who will think Criterion merely ceased to put out new films.

This is a label-ending mistake, and the higher-ups at Criterion would be wise to remember that Coca Cola waited less than a year to halt New Coke and apologized for their blunder. And that was the highest--selling soft drink manufacturer of all time. For a boutique DVD label with limited sales, I'd say it's time to reintroduce the old logo/asthetic... oh, how about now?

I don't blame Criterion from removing their name from that cover, it's simply heinous.

They've changed design and logo before, we all got used to it, and now love it so much we can't bear to see it go. Change in the marketplace is good, sez some.

Great. They have take a much beloved film from one of the most respected filmmakers and turned it into "Pure retro-reactionary camp." Can't wait for the Battleship Potemkin cover art, if they get around to it.

But, seeing as how I have been wrong before, maybe I am wrong here.

i bet $10 they change the CT cover.

gubbelsj wrote:They've changed design and logo before, we all got used to it, and now love it so much we can't bear to see it go. Change in the marketplace is good, sez some.

the McDonalds logo used to be a single arch, they changed to a double. then they got global. they did not then change it again. apply this to the current situation.

All right. I'm guessing plenty of people here probably hold the opinion that any time Criterion deviates from a McDonald's-sanctioned course of action, that's OK. Maybe even a really good thing. Or are you eagerly awaiting a "Hot Side Hot, Cold Side Cold" re-release of Seven Samurai?

According to the newsletter it says that a new look and new line is coming this Fall. Since when would Criterion be so ahead of schedule that they are starting their new look and new line in July???

Also...... any chances of giving the lady on the cover a Samourai hat?

I bet that's why A Canterbury Tale took so long to turn up on the site. They've probably been umm-ing and ahh-ing over whether to make the switch now or later, and eventually decided "what the hell".

Anthony wrote:What the hell is Criterion doing? Are they trying to destroy their brand image? That cover of CANTERBURY TALE looks like shit. Plain and simple.

Wait, I can't see this on the Criterion site? Are they serious??