criterionforum.org

I may just have to grab zitherstrings' or doinel's and slip one of them into the case.

a few minutes for a template, a few seconds for an image, and a few more minutes with my severely limited photoshop skills:




i would have played with the info if i had the font. a bit bland, but hey

HistoryProf wrote: I find all of this quite hilarious, but the fact that Criterion green lighted the cover they did is hard to understand. It's just lazy, sophomoric photoshop garbage. anyone could do it. there is nothing remotely inspired about it, it rips off A Clockwork Orange, and shows extremely limited graphic design comprehension. I'm not a designer, but I know what good designs look like, and this ain't it. It's flat out boring. I can only pray they don't make it a template for future covers using the same spare theme and overwhelming blankness.

You criticize the actual cover for being "lazy" but then praise a fan cover in which someone has slapped a font over a screenshot. You may know what you like but there's no accounting for taste. I can guarantee that the designer put more thought, time and effort into his cover than anyone here. Most people have taken official art and made a minor tweak. Say, changed the font colour, or lightened or darkened the image somewhat. And many qualified their effort in saying that it only took them 15 minutes, perhaps attempting to evade the worst criticism by implying that they could do better but, y'know, couldn't be bothered. The only one that looks like it took any time is what I'm assuming is an original drawing. And it is a good drawing but perhaps more appropriate to the anime remake.

I don't mean to come across too aggressively but you've hit on two pet peeves in one paragraph. The idea that simple is bad or lazy. And that anything that resembles something else is a rip off. Just because you can count the number of elements in an image on one hand does not mean that your kid could have done that. If your kid can paint like Pollock, why aren't you a bloody millionaire? And Burgess probably ripped off the hat and cane from Chaplin. Why is it theft when you don't like something but an homage when you do? Even the amateurs in this thread knew to hit on Chaplin and the gears. That's how you're going to identify and sell the movie. It resembles a 40-year-old book cover? Well, alert the authorities. Anyway. End rant.

The Burgess cover is a very very famous image

Doctor Sunshine wrote:I can guarantee that the designer put more thought, time and effort into his cover than anyone here. Most people have taken official art and made a minor tweak. Say, changed the font colour, or lightened or darkened the image somewhat. And many qualified their effort in saying that it only took them 15 minutes, perhaps attempting to evade the worst criticism by implying that they could do better but, y'know, couldn't be bothered.

Of course Sam Smith put more effort into his cover than anyone here. That's his job, which he got paid to do, and he also had access to visual source materials that few, if any, of us have. And he had the luxury of taking his time with it. None of us are paying our bills making cover art for Criterion, so 15 minutes might be all we can spare on something so inconsequential.

Sam's execution is not at fault--he did an excellent job of realizing his idea. It's his idea that people have taken issue with, even if they may not be saying that with the utmost clarity.

Every time I look at his cover I think: http://www.instantrimshot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

domino harvey wrote:The Burgess cover is a very very famous image

Chaplin's is a very, very famous hat. Point being?

Werewolf by Night wrote:Of course Sam Smith put more effort into his cover than anyone here. That's his job, which he got paid to do, and he also had access to visual source materials that few, if any, of us have. And he had the luxury of taking his time with it. None of us are paying our bills making cover art for Criterion, so 15 minutes might be all we can spare on something so inconsequential.

So, time, money and resources are the excuses proper? I'd argue that the fundamental problem with all of these fan covers is the lack of a design concept and/or execution. But sure, time money and resources always help. I'm pretty sure artistry requires a few more ingredients than that though. I'd love to hear the "ideas" behind any of these covers. It looks to me like everyone's stuck so close to original artwork that to critique any of them would be to critique Chaplin, the producers, designers, et al.

Okay, but what's so original about Smith's cover?

Doctor Sunshine wrote:I'd love to hear the "ideas" behind any of these covers. It looks to me like everyone's stuck so close to original artwork that to critique any of them would be to critique Chaplin, the producers, designers, et al.

Sounds like they're doing exactly what a DVD cover should do, then. Sorry but I think that nine bad covers out of ten fail because they're trying to do something of their own rather than represent the film - remind you of anyone we used to know?

Werewolf by Night wrote:Okay, but what's so original about Smith's cover?

Well, I guess my point is that nothing's original. Or more precisely, I've heard said that there are roughly six new ideas in the graphic design field per year. And that's six new ideas across the planet, not just one market. But he took two, in my opinion, necessary images (Chaplin and the gears) and did something interesting with them. Whereas in this thread, when Chaplin and the gears are present, they're just sort of there. Spelling it out in words, it may seem too obvious to some, but that's just personal preference.

Also, I realized after that last message I may have muddied my point by referencing the age of the book cover. If it wasn't clear, essentially I'm saying "Good Artist Borrow, Great Artists Steal".

Sloper wrote:Sounds like they're doing exactly what a DVD cover should do, then. Sorry but I think that nine bad covers out of ten fail because they're trying to do something of their own rather than represent the film - remind you of anyone we used to know?

In graphic design, the point of your idea or concept is usually going to be to sell something and capture an audience's attention but I can't condone sleepwalking through a project either. I think we're just mixed up on the definition of "idea" here but personal style isn't necessarily a bad thing. But sure, sometimes it can be subdued. Mm, I'm not sure I see what you're getting at.

Can we all agree the Modern Times cover needs more nudity?

You know, I've always thought it wasn't enough to have a thread where we could bicker about Criterion's cover art. We needed a thread where we could bicker about our own substitutes for the Criterion covers we're also bickering about.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:

HistoryProf wrote: I find all of this quite hilarious, but the fact that Criterion green lighted the cover they did is hard to understand. It's just lazy, sophomoric photoshop garbage. anyone could do it. there is nothing remotely inspired about it, it rips off A Clockwork Orange, and shows extremely limited graphic design comprehension. I'm not a designer, but I know what good designs look like, and this ain't it. It's flat out boring. I can only pray they don't make it a template for future covers using the same spare theme and overwhelming blankness.

You criticize the actual cover for being "lazy" but then praise a fan cover in which someone has slapped a font over a screenshot. You may know what you like but there's no accounting for taste. I can guarantee that the designer put more thought, time and effort into his cover than anyone here. Most people have taken official art and made a minor tweak. Say, changed the font colour, or lightened or darkened the image somewhat. And many qualified their effort in saying that it only took them 15 minutes, perhaps attempting to evade the worst criticism by implying that they could do better but, y'know, couldn't be bothered. The only one that looks like it took any time is what I'm assuming is an original drawing. And it is a good drawing but perhaps more appropriate to the anime remake.

I don't mean to come across too aggressively but you've hit on two pet peeves in one paragraph. The idea that simple is bad or lazy. And that anything that resembles something else is a rip off. Just because you can count the number of elements in an image on one hand does not mean that your kid could have done that. If your kid can paint like Pollock, why aren't you a bloody millionaire? And Burgess probably ripped off the hat and cane from Chaplin. Why is it theft when you don't like something but an homage when you do? Even the amateurs in this thread knew to hit on Chaplin and the gears. That's how you're going to identify and sell the movie. It resembles a 40-year-old book cover? Well, alert the authorities. Anyway. End rant.

the bolded part is kind of the point. it's not that spare=lazy (and I don't recall anyone here saying that), it's that this particular effort appears lazy and uninspired, and if he truly did put a lot of time and thought into, then that does not speak well of his design skills. The fact that quicky screen grabs w/ text posted here ARE better than his painstaking bland rip-off of Clockwork Orange merely reinforces the complete lameness of the cover. I know that you didn't mean to, but you proved my point perfectly, so thanks.

This "criticism" of the actual Criterion cover (which, face it folks, ain't going anywhere) is starting to sound...what are the words I'm looking for? Lazy? Uninspired? Look, the fact is that it wouldn't matter how much time and/or effort went into it, or if it were ripping off A Clockwork Orange, if you happened to like it. Which the designer, the guys in charge at Criterion, and presumably at least a few people on the internet, do.

Keep in mind that Sam Smith also did the Everlasting Moments artwork. I'm sure the actual cover that made it to print for that release only took him ten minutes or so to complete. But if you take a look at his process post for that cover, you can see that there was a lot more work that went into it than just that. I would imagine the process to come up with the Modern Times cover was similar. There are likely earlier drafts of the cover that resemble some of the work in this thread, and some that more people here would have liked. We'll know more when the designer publishes his process post (as promised) for the Modern Times cover. Until then, I don't see what good it does to keep disparaging the cover art with the same insults, over and over again. Thread closed.

[Our hero slowly realizes he does not have the power to close threads, lets slip a Chaplinesque half chortle, and retreats waddlingly into the night.]

I would just like to say that the fact that anyone believed my fake Twitter cover says more about the quality of the actual design than anything else

You guys are crazy.

I thought this might actually go somewhere interesting. Even seeing some complainers get a taste of their own medicine would have been kind of amusing. But you gone and sillied it up.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:You criticize the actual cover for being "lazy" but then praise a fan cover in which someone has slapped a font over a screenshot. You may know what you like but there's no accounting for taste. I can guarantee that the designer put more thought, time and effort into his cover than anyone here. Most people have taken official art and made a minor tweak. Say, changed the font colour, or lightened or darkened the image somewhat. And many qualified their effort in saying that it only took them 15 minutes, perhaps attempting to evade the worst criticism by implying that they could do better but, y'know, couldn't be bothered. The only one that looks like it took any time is what I'm assuming is an original drawing. And it is a good drawing but perhaps more appropriate to the anime remake.

I don't mean to come across too aggressively but you've hit on two pet peeves in one paragraph. The idea that simple is bad or lazy. And that anything that resembles something else is a rip off. Just because you can count the number of elements in an image on one hand does not mean that your kid could have done that. If your kid can paint like Pollock, why aren't you a bloody millionaire? And Burgess probably ripped off the hat and cane from Chaplin. Why is it theft when you don't like something but an homage when you do? Even the amateurs in this thread knew to hit on Chaplin and the gears. That's how you're going to identify and sell the movie. It resembles a 40-year-old book cover? Well, alert the authorities. Anyway. End rant.

I agree with your perspective, Dr Sunshine. None of the alternates put forward is anywhere near being a viable option, with the possible exception of Alphonse's. It's interesting that the criticism comes from people who aren't designers - or if they are designers, they aren't saying so. Nor would any self-respecting designer do so, at least not in the terms used around here. For me, it's not one of the best Criterion covers, but I am prepared to try and see it's merits - I think simplicity and a harkening back to the sort of collage art of the dada-ists are in its favour. I'm familiar with the Clockwork Orange book cover image, but I never thought of that when I saw the new Modern Times cover - I immediately thought "hmmm... retro-dada...not bad". I think the typography is quite nice too.

swo17 wrote:This "criticism" of the actual Criterion cover (which, face it folks, ain't going anywhere)

This board is still riding the high of having chased two "A Christmas Tale" covers out of town... We just have to bitch some more!

It's not too late for Criterion to call up Kate Beaton, he says knowing it will never happen

People aren't taking this thread seriously, are they?

At least one of us is, which makes the self-righteous indignation all the sweeter

When is the deadline to submit these so Criterion can consider which will be the new cover?

August 16th.

See, that's how you close a thread