Criterion & Eclipse Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol.4

[toiletduck!]

Quai des Orfevres
Pepe le moko
Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne
Hiroshima mon amour
Le cercle rouge
Le corbeau
Touchez pas au grisbi
Tout va bien

Well that's not helpful at all. Of course Saturnome didn't skip those.

Armageddón

There you go.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Cinephrenic]

I always like Nuit et brouillard...sounds good on the tongue.

[Thomas J.]

Throwing a huge red "X" onto a cover just makes it look like rejected cover art that accidentally made its way through the pipeline.

Or is that the point?

[domino harvey]

I wonder if all the objections are coming from people who haven't seen the films and thus find the X/O use arbitrary in relation to what is shown

[Thomas J.]

Part of the intention of cover art is to get people who haven't seen the film to buy the DVD anyway. If people here who haven't seen the film, like me, are thrown off by the cover art, then that impedes the DVD's saleability.

That is, if your assumption is true, Domino, which it very well may be, then shouldn't those objections be taken at face value and considered to be relevant objections? If not, Criterion better have good reason to believe that there's enough of a built-in fanbase for these releases that their risk of shunning blind-buys via what could be considered alienating cover art isn't much of a risk at all.

[domino harvey]

No.

[toiletduck!]

Haven't seen the films. Refer to my comment on the last page. Assuming the world shares your opinion is comfortable and always incorrect.

-Toilet Dcuk

[arsonfilms]

There is little on this forum that bugs me more than people who have never worked in the industry, have no knowledge of its workings yet love spouting off about marketing strategy and sales. Here's a fun game: if you don't like the cover art used on any given release (by anyone, not just Criterion) and you don't buy it, you win. If you buy it in spite of the cover art you lose. With niche titles, part of the strategy is just piquing someone's interest long enough for them to flip the box over and read the back. Issuing pairs of movies with similar packaging themes subtly encourages the consumer to buy both as part of a set. I think on all accounts the strategy employed by Criterion on these releases is a success, and I even happen to like the design work. I think they will both look very handsome on a shelf.

It's one thing to say you like or dislike a DVD cover, but remember that the only failed cover is one that actually prevents you from buying it.

[HerrSchreck]

There is little on this forum that bugs me more than people who have never worked in the industry, have no knowledge of its workings yet love spouting off about marketing strategy and sales.

As much as dudes who hang out on chat sites thinking a dream and a self-image and a bit of working on the fringe of industry gives them a right to form up a team with The Criterion Collection vs the rest of the world?

Cover art-- as lite & silly as the subject is-- is for consumers, not the folks who produce them. And consumers have the right to say whatever the hell they want about anything, since there is no right or wrong when it comes to aesthetics.

[arsonfilms]

Go back and re-read what I said. My issue isn't at all with criticism or praise of cover art; in fact I agree whole heartedly with your statement. My post was directed at Thomas J.'s analysis of Criterion's marketing strategy. He wasn't talking about aesthetics, he was making authoritative statements about business. Those statements weren't from the perspective of a consumer, they were from the perspective of a backseat marketing director. Its always been a pet peeve of mine when non-professionals comment on the WAY professionals do their jobs, when the product itself is all thats really open for discussion.

I don't know, maybe I'm just being cranky. I've been reading a lot of comments on political blogs lately that seem to epitomize my theory that the less someone knows about a subject, the louder and stronger their opinions about it are.

By the way... those are some pretty serious assumptions about who I am and what I do for a living. Or are you just helping me prove my theory?

[HerrSchreck]

Marketing strategy doesn't play into cover art? I thought Tom originally said "Throwing a huge red "X" onto a cover just makes it look like rejected cover art that accidentally made its way through the pipeline.

Or is that the point?" (I agree with him incidentally, I think the X-O motif is pretty dopey and does in fact look like some sort of self-reflexive/referential "covert art" version of Covert Art, which is almost like ending your script and having it all turn out to have been a dream because you can't end it).

If someone wonders why such a dumb idea was used for cover art, they're going to wonder "why" such a dumb idea was used for cover art. Right? I don't think Tom was saying "I'm smarter than all those idiots who work in marketing,".... but he was wondering aloud what the hell prompted such a flumpy decision. So he said:

"Part of the intention of cover art is to get people who haven't seen the film to buy the DVD anyway. If people here who haven't seen the film, like me, are thrown off by the cover art, then that impedes the DVD's saleability...."

I just don't get down with the idea "leave this discussion to us professionals.. only we know what's," (buffs nails on lapel, examines cuticles in the light... raises eyebrow significantly) "ahem involved."

Regarding your idea that the people who talk the loudest are those who know the least: oftentimes the folks who seem know the least are those who've studied the most. The MFA'ing of the arts are most responsible for it's downfall if you ask me. Dumb fricking greeneyed college grads sitting in positions that were held by a cross section of strange characters from hugely variegated backgrounds (rarely involving a college degree) a generation ago.

In life there are those know seem to know the score and those who don't. Oftentimes the severest impedence to common sense on a given subject is a lifetime stuck in the muck on it. Being a professional is no guarantee for common sense or talent any more than avoiding college is a remedy for it's absence. In the service road of human relations, low budget insight tending towards egotistical idiocy is always the norm... triple this on the web. So youd better make your peace with web forumworld, or at least identify the conversational deficiency that enrages you and try to correct it (like me viz CC transfers vs those of labels trafficking in more marginal titles).

Regarding your background-- are you saying you do NOT work in the zone of film in some way? Or did you, a nonprofessional, exclude nonprofessionals from the conversation, then break your own rule and jump right back into it?

[jbeall]

Wow, could they have done a lazier job on those Malle covers? I guess they got the idea from Les Enfants Terribles that you could just throw a splash of red on a b&w photo and call it a day.

Not thrilled with Thief of Baghdad either (too derivative of the Amarcord cover), but at least it looks like somebody, somewhere, put some fucking effort into the job.

I don't know, maybe I'm just being cranky. I've been reading a lot of comments on political blogs lately that seem to epitomize my theory that the less someone knows about a subject, the louder and stronger their opinions about it are.

And you've been paying attention to Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity.... why, exactly?

[arsonfilms]

Well dear Schreck, as a matter of fact I DO work within the realm of film as a professional, but my argument doesn't hinge on that fact. In fact, my argument would be just as valid if I washed cars for a living. I don't claim to know the inner workings of Criterion as a company because I used to oversee art direction and marketing strategy for another niche DVD label (and besides, I now work in film production rather than distribution). In fact, I'm the last guy in the world who would even pretend to know how Criterion does things, for the simple reason that I don't actually work there, and different methods produce different results for different people. This is particularly true of Criterion, who consistently goes against the conventional wisdom of marketing.

Tom's statement that "Criterion better have good reason to believe that there's enough of a built-in fanbase for these releases that their risk of shunning blind-buys via what could be considered alienating cover art isn't much of a risk at all" assumes a level of knowledge about both broad-based consumer mindset and marketing goals that frames the whole discussion inaccurately. The common-sense goals of the general public don't always translate to sales, and I'm pretty sure that by now Criterion has tried and failed enough times to know what works for them. It would be one thing to complain about the cleanliness of the restrooms at Exxon's gas stations, but it's another whole sack of potatoes to say that such a thing hurts business irreparably while mountains of cash continue to roll in at record pace. My point is simply to stick to hypothesizing and critiques unless you have a wider stool to stand on, whatever that stool may be.

Philosophically though, I agree completely. In fact, we may be arguing from mostly the same position. As other events on other threads recently have proved, one can be very thoroughly educated and still be an idiot. I'm of course not saying that Tom is an idiot (because I really have no way of knowing, although I'm sure he isn't) but elevated discourse handled carelessly can have them same result as lowered discourse executed well.

And you've been paying attention to Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity.... why, exactly?

The comments in question were actually responses to Wolf Blitzer from CNN. When Clinton was the front-runner, her supporters were happy, but now that she's behind, suddenly CNN has a bias against her. Is it biased to say that someone is ahead if they've received more votes? Is it intelligent discourse to simply parrot campaign talking points? I hate to admit it, but sometimes the left can be just as bad as the right.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

I wonder if all the objections are coming from people who haven't seen the films and thus find the X/O use arbitrary in relation to what is shown

I have seen the film and I don't like the cover to The Fire Within at all. It seems inappropriately ugly to me. The cover to Jubilee was appropriate in that regard. For The Fire Within, I'd prefer something like the Pickpocket or Hiroshima Mon Amour covers. Or if they had just left it to a boring cover like Mouchette. The X seems very arbitrary, but also rather dumb considering how the film ends. I think a photographic cover with a split visage like Miss Julie would have been much better. Or even something where the lead had his back to us.

[domino harvey]

You say "dumb," I say "appropriate."
You say "ugly," I say "gorgeous."
Tomato, Tomatoh
Potato, Potatoh
Let's call the whole thing off!

[Thomas J.]

Let's see, arsonfilms doesn't like my argument against the cover art, so he goes off on some ad hominem attack against me as well as fascistically declares that I shouldn't question Criterion's motivations because I'm just not qualified (or so he assumes) to do so. How dare I ponder the reasoning behind Criterion's cover art! That's for blogs like Mr. Skillman's to explain, and arsonfilms since he's qualified, thank you very much.

It's the same old, same old, in that if someone doesn't like the message, then his/her kneejerk reaction is to attack the messenger.

And praise the Lord Almighty -- HerrSchreck was sorta kinda coming to my defense???

Ok, I take back my Passion of Joan of Arc post now. Hope you can forgive me, because that was absolutely contrived on my part, which I admitted at the time. Hopefully this buries the hatchet (as new ones are taken out by mr. arsonfilms). I understand that if you disagree with me, you are going to say so.

As for playing the role of the "ad hominem attacker" arsonfilms wants that one badly, apparently...

One more thing: I think it's good to get opinions about cover art from both those who have and have not seen the film in question.

And yes, if we must distill this conversation to such elemental terms, I am as interested in DVD as a business as DVD as an access-provider to movies, so these kind of thoughts naturally enter into my mind. I mean, naturally if cover art seems egregious to me, I am going to ask myself, "What were they thinking?" and go from there. Doesn't everybody do this?

[arsonfilms]

My point of issue wasn't what was said or who said it, but simply the way that it was said. Pondering is one thing, stating is very different. I never said (and I want to make this very clear) that I am somehow more capable of offering up business analysis than anyone else; in fact I tried to make it clear that I was simply expounding on a pet peeve of mine that the business of the matter was even being discussed at all. I still feel as though any discussion regarding sales or business plans for a company that employs none of us and does not make internal figures public is doomed to be shortsighted. This is what I'm arguing against, and I think that Schreck's attack on my original comment may have drawn me out a bit further than I otherwise would have gone. The original premise got a bit twisted up and we wound up off track.

Anyway, I want to clarify that I never made any personal attacks against anyone, and I'd like to humbly apologize if any offense was taken.

[Thomas J.]

I still feel as though any discussion regarding sales or business plans for a company that employs none of us and does not make internal figures public is doomed to be shortsighted.

By that same logic: "I still feel as though any discussion regarding all cover art for a company that employs none of us in its art department and does not necessarily explain the motivations behind each one of the DVD covers it creates is doomed to be shortsighted."

But yet, that's what we DO in this thread, lack of "qualifications" notwithstanding. Is this thread one great big example of shortsightedness?

[arsonfilms]

As was said earlier, artwork is something that is made for the consumer. Now if we were discussing brush strokes and technique, I'd probably take issue with that, but my ENTIRE point was that we can only intelligently discuss anything we're actually aware of. What irritates me now is you know that your last argument makes no sense, but you made it anyway to be petty.

[bunuelian]

My point of issue wasn't what was said or who said it, but simply the way that it was said.

That's how I see it, too. The point that consumers don't understand marketing, but comment on it like they do, is made over and over again on the Internet. Congratulations, you have made it again. It's a point worth making.

You also made it in a condescending (i.e., rude) tone, which is why you're getting flamed in this absurd way by a few folks who love to take every badly worded generalization stated using "you" instead of "one" as a personal attack. There's a lesson to be learned here about having adult conversations between intelligent people, somewhere.

[toiletduck!]

There's a lesson to be learned here about having adult conversations between intelligent people, somewhere.

Pish. Who comes to teh internets for learnin'?

-Toilet Dcuk

[Adam]

As was said earlier, artwork is something that is made for the consumer. Now if we were discussing brush strokes and technique, I'd probably take issue with that, but my ENTIRE point was that we can only intelligently discuss anything we're actually aware of. What irritates me now is you know that your last argument makes no sense, but you made it anyway to be petty.

I'm having a great time reading both sides and agreeing with you both, except I think Thomas has you on this one. His point makes perfect sense. In short, this is a public BBS in a forum about Rumors in a thread asking for feedback and speculation on caver art. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that there will be a mix of intelligent and less intelligent feedback and random speculation in such a thread, for people to vent their opinions on things upon which they have no real knowledge, and so forth. Of course the comments will be shortsighted, but what does that matter? The random speculation & diversity of opinion is what is of interest, ideally with some intelligent support & conversation mixed in.

Personally, I think the Malle covers are ugly, but I've never bought or not bought a film based on the cover art, so it doesn't matter to me. and I doubt any random consumers in stores will be buying them. Indeed, I doubt they will even be in popular stores such as Wal-mart for people to even have the choice.

[arsonfilms]

Although I agree with you in theory, Adam, I think that some of the ideas that are being attributed to me were assumed by HerrSchreck in his initial responses. It isn't speculation or feedback that I was responding to, I was simply venting frustration at an authoritative tone, which I still believe to be a legitimate point once you strip away the vitriol from the conversation it sparked. One needs absolutely no qualifications (or even average intelligence, quite frankly) to have an opinion, and there is certainly nothing wrong with this. One does need those things to speak authoritatively though, and I think that my opinion on that matter is a valid one. Whether or not my opinion is correct though is up for anyone to decide. My point and Thomas' are not at all mutually exclusive, becausewe are saying completely different things. It just seems that we are at odds because he is attacking ideas he assumes I have and not comments I actually made.

By the way, the final point I chided Thomas for in my previous post was with regard to his taking my argument about one thing and attributing to me a different set of opinions altogether. Try swapping nouns within the structure of any logical argument and one will come up with any number of goofy statements. This was simply a sloppy argument and he knew it.

My initial post though did mention a fairly basic marketing practice that was my golden rule back when I was doing this for someone else. I've never cared to any significant degree what any given cover looked like, as long as it was intriguing enough to pick up and flip over. It was then the job of the back of the box (copy, special features, etc.) to really sell the product. This is just what I did, and thus informs my own opinions about cover art. Now, I want to reiterate that I have no idea how Criterion's marketing strategy works, but in my own opinion, the artwork they've used on the Malle titles accomplishes this, and to that extent I believe them to be a success. The fact that I happen to like the art is in addition to this previous point, but by no means does the one have anything to do with the other. Many of the DVD covers in the Worst Cover Art Ever thread are successful on the same level while not being at all pleasing.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I wonder if all the objections are coming from people who haven't seen the films and thus find the X/O use arbitrary in relation to what is shown

The X seems very arbitrary, but also rather dumb considering how the film ends. I think a photographic cover with a split visage like Miss Julie would have been much better. Or even something where the lead had his back to us.

The film also starts with this X... But I really don't like this cover of The Fire Within... with this red stabylo TM pencil...
Perhaps the idea could have been used in the context of a new Louis Malle's box set... I like the Pickpocket cover, and generally all artwork which use an original arwork/cover for the movie (this cover was used at the time of its release in theatres...)

[dadaistnun]

As a confirmed digipak lover, I was initially disappointed that Pierrot is in plastic. However, I have to give it to the design team: the clear case works beautifully with this release, the booklet looks wonderful, and this is the first figure-8 case I've bought that isn't a royal pain in the ass when it comes to removing the actual discs.