Criterion Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol.1

Message

kevyip1 · #301 Post by **kevyip1** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:20 pm

Kudzu wrote:The woman's face isn't dismembered or discolored but they made up for it with the chest groping.

Yep, it's shocking to see her whole face, for a change, as opposed to the blatant facial dismemberment on the old design:

...and on the L'avventura cover:

Criterion must be reading this thread.

(Btw, is "dismembered" the correct word to use here? Doesn't "dismembered" apply only to limbs?)

jorencain · #302 Post by **jorencain** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:07 pm

kevyip1 wrote:(Btw, is "dismembered" the correct word to use here? Doesn't "dismembered" apply only to limbs?)

I don't know if you really want an answer to that, but...saying her face is dismembered would mean that her face isn't attached to her body. That's not the case in these covers. But, I still knew what you meant.

kevyip1 · #303 Post by **kevyip1** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:50 pm

But part of her face is indeed not attached to her body, because it is not visible on the cover due to the designer's penchant to chop it off. Perhaps "decapitated" is more correct, but it only means the entire head being chopped off. There really is no word to describe a partially chopped-off head that we are witnessing here. "Dismembered", on the other hand, pertains to a wholly cut off limb or just a portion being cut off. Whether you lost a whole arm, half an arm, 1/4 of an arm, you are still "dismembered."

There is indeed a term called "partial dismemberment." But it only pertains to a limb that is *almost* severed from the body and is still "hanging on" by a little bit of flesh.

Matt, feel free to dismember this post from the body of this thread if you find it too irrelevant...

Cinephrenic · #304 Post by **Cinephrenic** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:48 pm

You guys are surely weird.

godardslave · #305 Post by **godardslave** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:28 am

i liked the old l'eclisse cover better.

hammock · #306 Post by **hammock** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:28 am

Just a weird question that has been buggin me for some time:

Should the cover artwork ALWAYS reflect the age of the actual film or is it OK for Criterion to make modern artwork (like The Sword Of Doom) that will lure some unaware buyers to believe they are buying a new cool movie, but obviously ends up with an old cool movie? I would not have guessed that movie was from 1966! Yes, one should flip the cover and read but my feeling is that many people takes chances when they see a cool cover and there is nothing else "new" in the store they want.

pmunger · #307 Post by **pmunger** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:57 am

I'm not sure but are there that many people who take guess based simply on a cool cover with the usual criterion collection price tag?

jorencain · #308 Post by **jorencain** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:15 am

pmunger wrote:I'm not sure but are there that many people who take guess based simply on a cool cover with the usual criterion collection price tag?

Although they say "you can't judge a book by its cover," I read a couple years ago about what a HUGE impact book covers actually have on book sales. People DO judge a book by its cover, and a large percentage of book sales is based on that. I would bet that the same is true of DVDs. If you throw in a great description, which includes words like "landmark film," and it's a part of the "elite" Criterion Collection, I imagine that it all helps their marketing a great deal.

scotty · #309 Post by **scotty** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:52 am

The practice of cropping faces has also been a trend in literary fiction and biography covers over the past few years to the point of cliche. I guess it is about postmodernism's sense of indeterminacy--the impossibility of representation or something. Most troubling is a book on Lincoln featuring a full seated portrait of him cropped right across the face below the eyes. Unsettling in this case and verging on the sadistic.

souvenir · #310 Post by **souvenir** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:45 am

May 10th according to this thread at DVD Talk: http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=410510

Narshty · #311 Post by **Narshty** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:27 pm

That looks precisely like one of those lame fan-art covers where some lazy bastard has done nothing more than slap a Criterion banner on the poster. What's that page-turn corner thing on the bottom right?

#312 Post by **Jeff** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:48 pm

The thing in the corner indicates that the cover is reversible and that the reverse image is Eric Chase Anderson art. You can bet that the two-disc version has the poster art on a cardboard sleeve and the Anderson art underneath, just like Royal Tenenbaums. You can see larger versions the single and double-disc versions here:

http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?r=0 ... &n=1&burl=

justeleblanc · #313 Post by **justeleblanc** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:28 pm

What's with the UltimateDisney.com??

Pinback · #314 Post by **Pinback** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:51 pm

JusteLeblanc wrote:What's with the UltimateDisney.com??

It'll be the site that souvenir got the cover art from...

Steven H · #315 Post by **Steven H** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:52 pm

That is godawful. I hated the poster for this film, and it's a shame it's what Buena Vista stuck with. I'll be buying the double disc of this, if anyone wants the cardboard outer shell you can dig through my trashcan for it along with the plastic wrap it's sold in (same place the Royal Tenenbaums cover is). Good riddance. I'm looking forward to seeing the Eric Chase Anderson version.

The Digital McGuffin · #316 Post by **The Digital McGuffin** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 2:07 pm

The cover's certainly not up to the usual Criterion standard. The House of Mouse was probably very much behind the wheel on this one.

It looks like with the single disc they're trying to lure in the casual viewer by zooming in to get images of the cast as large as the poster allows. To hell with the fact you end up with a cramped composition or the yellow Criterion banner becoming indistinct over the sub. I suppose it makes some commercial sense.

hammock · #317 Post by **hammock** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:31 am

Excellent. The cover though is very commercial as stated above and at the buttom of my list. How wonderful life would be if "Groundhog Day" was #301.......!?

denti alligator · #318 Post by **denti alligator** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:24 pm

The Wajda covers seem to be in the process of going up RIGHT NOW.

ola t · #319 Post by **ola t** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:36 pm

They're all up, but they've got some kind of image format problem -- my browser at least (and probably Denti's too, I take it) refuses to show the covers for the individual titles but I can download them and convert them to an apparently working format just fine. So, as a service to mankind, here they all are:

EDIT: Well, they fixed that pretty quickly, didn't they. (Posted images removed)

oldsheperd · #320 Post by **oldsheperd** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:46 pm

Those covers are NEAT-O!

godardslave · #321 Post by **godardslave** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:48 pm

wajda covers = good.

Lino · #322 Post by **Lino** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:01 pm

Okay! This is what I call cover ART! Yes! Definitely among CC's best covers and this is the kind of thing that makes you grab it from the shelves and marvel at it in complete geekiness drunken reverie! Job well done, guys!

#323 Post by **cdnchris** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:47 pm

I want this set, but was probably going to hold off just because it's $80. It's sad because it should be on the weight of the films, but damn, after seeing those I REALLY want this set now. They're all awesome covers.

Sai · #324 Post by **Sai** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:57 pm

Gorgeous covers. I've only seen Kanal, and loved it. Since this is going as a pre-order for about $60, I'll definitely pick it up.

Napoleon · #325 Post by **Napoleon** » Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:26 am

Those Wadje's are off the chart great. I like the Life Aquatic as well. Captures Anderson's deadpan humour.

If only the CC had a poster subsidiary. Sigh.