criterionforum.org

aox wrote:I wish they had done a little more for the Fear and Loathing BD package. The original DVD packaging was very unique and interesting.

I'm not surprised that they didn't. They eventually ditched the transparent plastic sleeve for the DVD of Rules of the Game, and I'll bet they do so for the DVD version of Fear and Loathing before long. Those things have got to be relatively pricey, and having yet another one made in Blu-ray size probably didn't make sense.

You can't put a price on sexiness.

I swear, whenever I see the Sweetie cover I always think it says Suzette.

Anyway, I think the Fear and Loathing packaging didn't translate well to the BD version.

Jeff wrote:I'm not surprised that they didn't. They eventually ditched the transparent plastic sleeve for the DVD of Rules of the Game, and I'll bet they do so for the DVD version of Fear and Loathing before long. Those things have got to be relatively pricey, and having yet another one made in Blu-ray size probably didn't make sense.

They ditched the sleeve? What does it look now? Does it come with a different sleeve, or simply a digipack with no sleeve?

thatobscurecharm wrote:I swear, whenever I see the Sweetie cover I always think it says Suzette.

I always read Suzette, as well.

felipe wrote:They ditched the sleeve? What does it look now? Does it come with a different sleeve, or simply a digipack with no sleeve?

It's in a boring figure 8 case now.

More of a loss when they did this to The Rules of the Game.

To clarify...Rules of the Game is in a standard figure-8 now, Fear and Loathing Blu-ray is in the standard Criterion blu-ray case, Fear and Loathing DVD is still in it's original double-amaray with the clear plastic sleeve. I'm guessing that future pressings of the DVD might lose the sleeve and get the title treatment printed directly on the cover art.

Smiles of a Summer Night
Fat Girl (More than likely not safe for work)

cdnchris wrote:Smiles of a Summer Night
Fat Girl (More than likely not safe for work)

They really didn't beat around the bush with Fat Girl did they.

ccfixx wrote:

felipe wrote:Kes has no interior art? What color is the spine?

The spine is the same color green as the majority of the back cover.

And it has no interior art?

felipe wrote:And it has no interior art?

Correct, only a chapter list (behind the booklet).

So I've seen the pictures and heard the rumors, but could somebody give it to me straight - does it have any interior art?

ricochetguro wrote:

cdnchris wrote:Smiles of a Summer Night
Fat Girl (More than likely not safe for work)

They really didn't beat around the bush with Fat Girl did they.

And "more than likely"? In what work environment would it not be definitely? The Bang Bros. office?

I dunno, I worked in an office for a few years where that wouldn't have been a huge deal ... small office (4 people) for a start-up software company. Internet monitoring just wasn't part of the atmosphere. I doubt it's all that uncommon.

med wrote:And "more than likely"? In what work environment would it not be definitely? The Bang Bros. office?

A bathhouse? Maybe the front desk at an upscale house of ill repute? Oh, I know! The Playboy offices! This is a fun game.

It's been a couple years since I've seen it (and I'm in no rush to rewatch, to put it mildly), but isn't the pictured older sister supposed to be underage as well? I can (barely) entertain the artistic merits of letting the two leads disrobe within the confines of the film, but putting that shot in the packaging just strikes me as being at-best a vulgar misstep on Criterion's part.

In the context of the DVD I don't really think it's intended as a sexual thing. Plus I believe the actress was already twenty when she made the movie.

Note: This isn't intended as an excuse for the movie which is bad in completely other ways to the extant that any moral qualms probably don't even need to be addressed for a good take down.

I think her character in the film is 15, which is the age of consent in France, isn't it? And FWIW, yes the actress was over 18.
I'm really not sure what the designer was trying to achieve placing that shot so prominently in the package, but I'm personally not ready to condemn it either.

Not having seen the movie- devoid of context, the shot seems evocative but not overly exploitative. It definitely says 'art film' more than it does 'OldShepard bait' to me.

Somewhat related, I learned long ago that I cannot visit Jonathan Rosenbaum's blog while at work.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Not having seen the movie- devoid of context, the shot seems evocative but not overly exploitative. It definitely says 'art film' more than it does 'OldShepard bait' to me.

Well, it's gotta have a selling point, right? After all, the film is about

Spoiler

sex

med wrote:And "more than likely"? In what work environment would it not be definitely? The Bang Bros. office?

I totally did not expect to see someone name-drop the Bang Bros. in this thread!

Wanted to get in before oldshepard got here.

And that's two digs at oldshepard on this page.

med wrote:And "more than likely"? In what work environment would it not be definitely? The Bang Bros. office?

[hyperbole]Any office where everyone is under 50, since they won't recognize a woman with pubic hair? (which apparently includes the Bang Bros)[/hyperbole]