The Criterion Collection

[StarDestroyer52]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

what should be my first charlie chaplin film purchase?

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Scholer

I get your point completely, but one of Criterion's key selling points is the packaging. If it was a Warner archive release, or even a catalogue Sony release (some of them have awful covers), I would feel the same way you do about them.

But for Criterion, part of the reason I'm willing to pay top dollar is because I expect the packaging to be top end with the right style of artwork. For me this also applies to other boutique labels like Arrow, Indicator and MOC, all of whom make their superior packaging a key selling point.

While I've seen a lot of reasons given for why Criterion is popular, I don't think I've ever seen the argument that the packaging is one of the "key" selling points.

Seriously, I never care whether the cover art appeals to me when deciding to buy a title. I mean, all else being essentially equal, and I have two packaging options, yes, I'd pick the more appealing option. And if a title has an especially appealing cover, I will say to myself, "That is a stunning cover". But I can't say that I have ever rejected any title because I thought the cover was awful. Doesn't matter who the label is, doesn't matter how much it costs. It's whether the movie it contains is one I want.

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by StarDestroyer52

DOH! I was looking around Criterion's site at his films that they have and overlooked this one. I think this is where I will start based on what I have read. Thanks.

[kvnbhovis]

Originally Posted by jayembee

While I've seen a lot of reasons given for why Criterion is popular, I don't think I've ever seen the argument that the packaging is one of the "key" selling points.

Seriously, I never care whether the cover art appeals to me when deciding to buy a title. I mean, all else being essentially equal, and I have two packaging options, yes, I'd pick the more appealing option. And if a title has an especially appealing cover, I will say to myself, "That is a stunning cover". But I can't say that I have ever rejected any title because I thought the cover was awful. Doesn't matter who the label is, doesn't matter how much it costs. It's whether the movie it contains is one I want.

The cover art doesn't influence me in the least when I choose to buy a disc. I would like it to have nice artwork but it is what's on the disc that is important.

[thebalconyfool]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

what should be my first charlie chaplin film purchase?

[kvnbhovis]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

What should be my first Charlie Chaplin film purchase?

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by jayembee

While I've seen a lot of reasons given for why Criterion is popular, I don't think I've ever seen the argument that the packaging is one of the "key" selling points.

Seriously, I never care whether the cover art appeals to me when deciding to buy a title. I mean, all else being essentially equal, and I have two packaging options, yes, I'd pick the more appealing option. And if a title has an especially appealing cover, I will say to myself, "That is a stunning cover". But I can't say that I have ever rejected any title because I thought the cover was awful. Doesn't matter who the label is, doesn't matter how much it costs. It's whether the movie it contains is one I want.

I totally understand where you are coming from, but surely one can also always want to own the overall nicest possible release of something that one can get their hands on? It’s not like I just generally refuse to purchase a film if the cover’s bad, in most cases I actually don’t and I had already used the example of several Sony and Warner catalogue titles I own with totally uninspired artwork.

But there are times when it’s a film I especially like that I would like to own in the best possible edition, and though PQ and extras are more key, packaging is also a factor. Of course I primarily want a blu-ray upgrade of The Lady Eve more than anything else, but with Criterion’s packaging being unappealing to me coupled with the fact that there may be some scope for another boutique label like Arrow, MOC or Indicator to release an edition with the same new transfer with more appealing packaging, their is nothing irrational about not wanting to jump at getting the Criterion yet. Though, the ideal situation would be if Criterion manages to upgrade the artwork like they had done for other titles in the past, recent examples including Some Like it Hot and Tree of Life.

Like surely for a case like say the upcoming Grand Budapest Hotel reissue, one of the key selling points is how the Criterion packaging appeals more to the kind of cinephiles who enjoy that type of film. There is nothing lacking in the current release in terms of extras or PQ, but I like many others had waited for Criterion to release their version because I was hoping for more creative and appealing artwork. It’s a bit odd for me to have to explain this, given how this tendency is nothing new and dates back even to collectors in the era of Laserdisc.

And there is also a precedent when it comes to Criterion, in that they go out of their way to bundle their amazing array of titles with the added bonus of intriguing and informative text in the included booklets plus creative and well matched covers for each release. They even have a series on their channel, where they look at the process of several of the artists they commission to do the artworks for their blu-ray era releases. So given how they are clearly still the best in the business for this kind of thing, by far, one can have certain expectations of them in this matter.

[octagon]

I haven't seen enough Chaplin films to really chime in but of what I have seen City Lights and Modern Times would be neck and neck for a recommendation.

I probably prefer City Lights overall but the roller skating bit alone almost tips the scales back to Modern Times.

Can't go wrong with either though.

[bonehica]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

What should be my first Charlie Chaplin film purchase?

Any of them. All of them. Just binge watch 'em!

[StarDestroyer52]

As many have said you really can't go wrong with any of Chaplin's silents. The Kid is my favorite because to me its Chaplin's most personal film and like the opening title card says

A picture with a smile-and perhaps a tear

.

You will laugh but it proves Chaplin is more than just another silent clown, but its also one of the few films where I will tear up when watching bits of the film.

[Stoicdelon]

Myself, I'm partial to Modern Times. I love cocaine.

-

Which Chaplins are worth getting on Criterion over the Artificial Eye releases? City Lights is one of those I believe, because of the aspect ratio, I guess?

[stvn1974]

Thanks all. I have City Lights, Modern Times and The Kid in the cart. Now I just need to get paid.

[joy-division]

Originally Posted by kvnbhovis

Just my opinion but I'm not happy with very many of the original covers though I do love the one they are using for War of The Worlds. Some of the real turkeys are

[Show spoiler]

no, no, just...no! You CANNOT list a cover by Da Clowes as a turkey!

I bought Shock Corridor just because of the cover

[joy-division]

Originally Posted by Scholer

agree with most of these, but I find City Lights and Shock Corridor to be fairly representative of the films. So similarly, even if I don't find the covers the most appealing, I am happy with them.

Yes & it was a silly idea to get the person who both wrote & drew Ghost World to also rraw the cover, right?
They should have gotten Frank Miller to have drawn the Crumb cover

[SuperFlyHighGuy]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Thanks all. I have City Lights, Modern Times and The Kid in the cart. Now I just need to get paid.

Might I suggest this, then...

[BenOswald]

Originally Posted by sacekubrick

Repo Man cover rules

The absolute best.

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by joy-division

Yes & it was a silly idea to get the person who both wrote & drew Ghost World to also rraw the cover, right?

That’s like saying a David Low style cover would have been a good choice for Colonel Blimp. Just because it’s adapted from a Clowes source, doesn’t mean a Klowes style cover suits the film. It’s as if having Stephen King decide what the poster art for The Shining should look like would be a great idea.

Originally Posted by joy-division

They should have gotten Frank Miller to have drawn the Crumb cover

No idea what your saying here, but the Criterion release for Crumb has one of my favourite covers because it perfectly suits the overall tone of a “Terry Zwigoff” film and is aesthetically pleasing as well. I like Clowes’ work for the releases for Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss for precisely the same reason, because in those cases I feel that they actually suit the style and tone of the films, regardless of the fact that he wasn’t as intimately involved with those films as for Ghost World.

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by sacekubrick

Repo Man cover rules

It even made it to the big screen with Happy Death Day!

http://www.filmsinfilms.com/happy-death-day/

[joy-division]

Originally Posted by Scholer

That’s like saying a Daniel Low style cover would have been a good choice for Colonel Blimp. Just because it’s adapted from a Klowes source, doesn’t mean a Klowes style cover suits the film. It’s as if having Stephen King decide what the poster art for The Shining should look like would be a great idea.

No it's not because along with Zwigoff, Clowes co-wrote the screenplay

Just wondering what cover you would have liked there have been instead

[joy-division]

And I'm confused
Daniel low? Klowes?

Unless you mean david low