MoC Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on

Message

#101 Post by **kinjitsu** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:13 pm

Gordon McMurphy wrote:In my opinion, the certificate should only be next to the bar-code on the back cover. That's the only place that the chashier looks at when you buy/order the DVD.

I think it's meant for the consumer, but agree entirely Gordon, it belongs on the back cover, which is where they stick MPAA ratings on discs this side of the pond.

AZAI · #102 Post by **AZAI** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:37 am

This hasn't been mentioned yet but I'm curious about other people's opinion on this:

As of yet all MoC's are beatifully put together. And what is maybe even more important is that the sober black spines with only a change of fonts from title to title really work. But the same spine is IMO debased by that huge and obtrusive EUREKA! logo. I think on the main cover it is ok, but on the spine it is far too big and often clashes with the modest typography of the title/director. The fact that it fills the entire width of the spine doesn't help either.

I think there should be some research into a more modest branding, maybe slightly more towards CC. Although just making it smaller/adding a little border would already make it much better.

BertoltNietzsche · #103 Post by **BertoltNietzsche** » Sun May 14, 2006 9:09 pm

Shoeshine took #33

I, for one, could do without that Oscar comment, but I like the cover.

godardslave · #104 Post by **godardslave** » Sun May 14, 2006 9:59 pm

yeah i too could lose the oscar wording.
seems fairly redundant.

Jem · #105 Post by **Jem** » Wed May 31, 2006 11:23 am

At least its not a starburst. Whatever helps sell the product and keep MOC alive is ok with me.

CSM126 · #106 Post by **CSM126** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:25 pm

F for Fake!

peerpee · #107 Post by **peerpee** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:33 pm

It's not final. We're looking for something better.

denti alligator · #108 Post by **denti alligator** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:01 pm

I think it's pretty great.

indiannamednobody · #109 Post by **indiannamednobody** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:50 pm

I'm sure it doesn't mean much, but i think that cover is awesome. If it isn't finished, then it's off to a good start. Happy I sold my CC.

souvenir · #110 Post by **souvenir** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:59 pm

I love the cover as well. I feel silly for already wanting to buy the dvd based on that cover alone since I own the Criterion. I especially like the gold at the top.

godardslave · #111 Post by **godardslave** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:54 pm

peerpee wrote:It's not final. We're looking for something better.

I agree with Nick, i think that cover is poor.

peerpee · #112 Post by **peerpee** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:45 pm

artfilmfan · #113 Post by **artfilmfan** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:15 pm

Haha! The cover is a little misleading, in more than one ways, I think. But I'll take whatever I can get.

And what do all those Japanese characters say, peerpee? A translation would be nice.

Michael Kerpan · #114 Post by **Michael Kerpan** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:59 pm

I don't seem to see star Ken Uehara on the cover!

godardslave · #115 Post by **godardslave** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:25 am

bright colors on that cover! interesting design though. I'll put on my sunglasses for now at least, and see how/if it grows on me. 8-)

htdm · #116 Post by **htdm** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:29 pm

Peerpee
Are you aware that the black Eureka logo cropped off all of the last names on the top horizontal row (and Uehara's photo)? From right to left the missing names are Uehara, Hara, Shimazaki, Sugi, and Kazami - as it is, only the first names appear.

peerpee · #117 Post by **peerpee** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:06 am

Here is the poster that Toho provided us with:

Michael Kerpan · #118 Post by **Michael Kerpan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:49 am

Peerpee

You have vastly better design sense than Toho's publicity department. Any chance that you might whip up something yourself? Sometimes "original artwork" is pretty uninspired -- and this is one of those cases.

htdm · #119 Post by **htdm** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:57 am

Great work, Toho. Did they imagine that just because it was an overseas release no one would notice?

Arcadean · #120 Post by **Arcadean** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:13 pm

That's a terrible poster. I sure hope there'll be a brand new cover.

Gropius · #121 Post by **Gropius** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:45 pm

Sorry, what's wrong with the poster? It fits in well with MoC's preference for historical 'authenticity', and the use of original titles rather than Anglicised ones.

Michael Kerpan · #122 Post by **Michael Kerpan** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:55 pm

What's wrong?

One -- it doesn't depict one of the two stars of the film.

Two -- it doesn't show a scene that is either significant or visually interesting -- just a random puiblicity still (as far as I can tell)

Three -- the inset mug shots aren't very good in their own right -- and add nothing positive to the overall design

Four -- the copious super-imposed text doesn't accomplish much

Five -- this looks like it is just the bottom half of a two-piece poster set -- witness the incomplete names at the top -- and what looks like a slice of another picture (with red backing) at the top of the column of photo insets

Six -- taken all together, this poster (partial poster) is just plain ugly

godardslave · #123 Post by **godardslave** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:18 pm

i like the cover/poster. its different and original.

to balance micheal's post:

one - i like it.

two - i like it.

three - i like it.

four - i like it.

five - i like it.

six - i like it.

Matango · #124 Post by **Matango** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:09 am

I really like it. Side pics are fine...I can recognise two of them straight off as Ozu regulars.

peerpee · #125 Post by **peerpee** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:53 am

Michael Kerpan wrote:What's wrong?

One -- it doesn't depict one of the two stars of the film.

Toho are sending us a complete poster, so it will do.

Michael Kerpan wrote:Two -- it doesn't show a scene that is either significant or visually interesting -- just a random puiblicity still (as far as I can tell)

If we made a cover up ourselves, it would just be from a random publicity still, and they're all pretty dull, unfortunately.

Michael Kerpan wrote:Three -- the inset mug shots aren't very good in their own right -- and add nothing positive to the overall design

Nevertheless, this was the original Japanese poster and, in our eyes, is important.

Michael Kerpan wrote:Four -- the copious super-imposed text doesn't accomplish much

See previous point.

Michael Kerpan wrote:Five -- this looks like it is just the bottom half of a two-piece poster set -- witness the incomplete names at the top -- and what looks like a slice of another picture (with red backing) at the top of the column of photo insets

See my response to your first point.

Michael Kerpan wrote:Six -- taken all together, this poster (partial poster) is just plain ugly

We disagree, see my reply to your point three.

---

Having said that. We're constantly re-evaluating everything, and it may change.