Criterion & Eclipse Cover Art & Packaging Babble-on Vol. 7

[FrauBlucher]

I never understood why Criterion never listed what kind of packaging on films’ pages

[swo17]

[acroyear]

Pinocchio, simply... wow!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Contrary to what I could expect from what I can see at criterion.com (which shows a different artwork for each movie), the Bo Widerbergs box et turned out to be a big Scanavo box not a digipack.

https://www.criterion.com/boxsets/6737- ... ish-cinema

[CSM126]

Contrary to what I could expect from what I can see at criterion.com (which shows a different artwork for each movie), the Bo Widerbergs box et turned out to be a big Scanavo box not a digipack.

https://www.criterion.com/boxsets/6737- ... ish-cinema

They’ve made a habit in recent years of creating individual art for titles that are packaged that way. It’s usually just for the website but I think a few have had the individual artwork used in booklets or inner spreads.

[barbarella satyricon]

...

[RPG]

Pinocchio, simply... wow!

Seriously. I was underwhelmed by the movie, but that artwork is top notch.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Contrary to what I could expect from what I can see at criterion.com (which shows a different artwork for each movie), the Bo Widerbergs box et turned out to be a big Scanavo box not a digipack.

https://www.criterion.com/boxsets/6737- ... ish-cinema

They’ve made a habit in recent years of creating individual art for titles that are packaged that way. It’s usually just for the website but I think a few have had the individual artwork used in booklets or inner spreads.

oh ok, thanks. So I'm afraid that would be the same for the Tod Browning box set even though there are some individual art/front cover for each movies at Criterion.com (and I liked the Unknown artwork).
And in the Bo Widerberg booklet there is no reproduction of the artworks as seen at Criterion.com.

[Walter Kurtz]

And in the Bo Widerberg booklet there is no reproduction of the artworks as seen at Criterion.com.

That's not correct. The Widerberg booklet has repros of the Criterion.com artworks.

[Rupert Pupkin]

And in the Bo Widerberg booklet there is no reproduction of the artworks as seen at Criterion.com.

That's not correct. The Widerberg booklet has repros of the Criterion.com artworks.

oh. I have it; I will re-read it.

[cdnchris]

I completely flaked on adding the Janus Contemporaries to the database, so until I add it here are pics of the first batch, hosted on Facebook (you shouldn't need an account to see them):

Fronts
Spines

[Matt]

Nice identify branding on the spines. They should look good on a shelf together, if one would choose to shelve them that way.

Again, glad they didn’t go with spine numbers for these. I’ve come to think that’s just been a bad idea all around.

[FrauBlucher]

Yes, I'm a big fan of the packaging. Especially the spine

[cdnchris]

Nice identify branding on the spines. They should look good on a shelf together, if one would choose to shelve them that way.

Agreed, I thought they looked pretty sharp.

Also worth mentioning is that each one comes with a single-fold insert featuring an essay by Michael Joshua Rowin.

And here are more pics:

EO
No Bears
The Innocent

Spoiler

I like that the disc art is simply the Janus logo.

[tenia]

I'm not so fond of the Janus background on the discs. It looks like a bit much in terms of branding design (in the sense that it gets bigger than the movies' titles themselves), but is also implemented in a way where they could have totally have done without it.
It's not too intrusive because it's a transparent-enough background, but it also means it's a huge-ass logo that feels like the discs' backgrounds could have just been blank instead.

[Walter Kurtz]

I agree with the boss on the Janus logo. Reminds me of the good old days in film school when I had the time for repertory cinema-going. Then... LIFE. And budgets. And locations. And casting. And fifty other things from production design to shooting to editing to scoring to blah blah blah and how I miss the times before.

[barbarella satyricon]

...

[swo17]

[ryannichols7]

Akerman looks slapped together in about 5 minutes. Lone Star is really good and makes me very curious about the movie

as a huge Trainspotting fan I would've been annoyed had they gone with anything other than the iconic imagery and orange. but what does "glow in the dark packaging" entail??? the orange stencil part is gonna glow? cause that'd be pretty cool...surprised to not see Boyle/Welsh/Hodge/Macdonald credited on the cover

[aox]

"Masterpieces"?

I like Ackerman's work and even admire it, but isn't that determination up to the viewer? It just seems like unnecessary editorialism.

[dwk]

Here is the Trainspotting cover glowing in the dark

[ryannichols7]

oh duh, it's right there on the page. that's brilliant! and appears to be a legitimate slipcover too

"Masterpieces"?

I like Ackerman's work and even admire it, but isn't that determination up to the viewer? It just seems like unnecessary editorialism.

just as ridiculous as "Essential Fellini" but leaving out City of Women and such

[Finch]

Lone Star looks excellent though I have no idea how representative it is of the film. The glowing-in-the-dark cover for Trainspotting is hysterical.

[Red Screamer]

Fans know that Akerman wanted to become a filmmaker after seeing Pierrot le fou, but the bold, rhetorical Godardian font they chose doesn't really fit these films. Oh well.

[Boosmahn]

Lone Star is fantastic, the Akerman set is dull, Trainspotting is great, and Mudbound is okay.