MoC Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on

[kinjitsu]

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]

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]

Shoeshine took #33



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

[godardslave]

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

[Jem]

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

[CSM126]

F for Fake!

[peerpee]

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

[denti alligator]

I think it's pretty great.

[indiannamednobody]

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]

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]

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

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

[peerpee]

[artfilmfan]

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]

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

[godardslave]

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.

[htdm]

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]

Here is the poster that Toho provided us with:

[Michael Kerpan]

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]

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

[Arcadean]

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

[Gropius]

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]

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]

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]

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

[peerpee]

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.

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.

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.

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

See previous point.

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.

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.