Black Christmas (1974) (Collector's Edition)

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

Ultimately, yes, but before they did, they linked to an article that went on about how people should stop complaining about the covers because art is subjective. It seems like they're flip-flopping a bit. My response to the whole thing is, well, what did you expect? When you make slipcovers and posters a huge selling point, people are going to voice their opinions on the art and you need to listen. But I am glad that there's some discourse going on, which is preferable to just ignoring the customer.

As soon as companies start changing stuff because some people want it changed, then all integrity goes out the window, unfortunately. Too bad they didn't stick to their guns.

That article was excellent and pretty on point.

[Damonstein]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

As soon as companies start changing stuff because some people want it changed, then all integrity goes out the window, unfortunately. Too bad they didn't stick to their guns.

That article was excellent and pretty on point.

Im pretty sure most companies will change "stuff" based on customer demand.

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

When asked if they bowed down to criticism, they replied, "Not that black and white. We're major fans of the film ourselves and we saw where some of the criticism had merit so we adjusted."

I think this has a lot of truth. They saw the criticism and saw it as justified as fans. It wasn't a cosmetic change arbitrarily asked... it goes to the spirit of the film.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

I assume you're being pedantic for the sake of being so, but he's referring to the usual Scream Factory style where practically every character's face from the movie is arranged around a central image, which has been referred to as "floating heads." Sticking half a torso on them doesn't exactly change things, as many of the past ones labelled that are the same deal.

To be pedantic right back, wouldn't the EXACT OPPOSITE of floating heads be pictures of feet on the ground?

I wasn't being pedantic at all. I see tons of "floating head" covers, usually photoshopped garbage. This cover isn't what I would consider a "floating head" cover. Nothing pedantic about it.

[tardif]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

As soon as companies start changing stuff because some people want it changed, then all integrity goes out the window, unfortunately. Too bad they didn't stick to their guns.

How can there be anything wrong with a company listening to the feedback of the people who pay their hard earned money on their releases?

If there is a general consensus from the consumer, I think it shows integrity if they listen to fans and actually make the effort to make a change, rather than being inflexible.

Thumbs up to Scream Factory for doing this

[ThisKid]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

To be pedantic right back, wouldn't the EXACT OPPOSITE of floating heads be pictures of feet on the ground?

I'd love to see that done to a Quentin Tarantino film.

[Zillamon51]

vs.

I really don't see what the fuss is about. They darkened the face, so what? The film never shows the killer's face, or reveals anything about his identity, so it's not a spoiler. You can't spoil what isn't in the movie!

The modified art IS unquestionably better, because it better reflects the iconography of the film. So it went from 'meh' to okay as far as I'm concerned. It's pretty much the same old Scream floating heads design. Any collector with a bit of design skill, who is familiar with horror films and Scream Factory aesthetics, should be able to whip up facsimile covers as soon as titles are announced, and be pretty close to the final product. Would make a fun ongoing game for some artistic fan.

It's really sad and predictable for Scream when a new show set in the'80s goes straight for the "SF Collectors Edition" art:

[nousefouraname]

Originally Posted by tardif

How can there be anything wrong with a company listening to the feedback of the people who pay their hard earned money on their releases?

If there is a general consensus from the consumer, I think it shows integrity if they listen to fans and actually make the effort to make a change, rather than being inflexible.

Thumbs up to Scream Factory for doing this

Yes. A company listened to the jusitifed concerns of their consumers. I see nothing wrong with that. It should be applauded.

That's just sound business sense and any thoughts of "integrity going out the window" are nonsense.

[captainjoe]

People complain about artwork. They change the artwork. People complain they changed the artwork. People are annoying.

[nousefouraname]

Originally Posted by Zillamon51

The modified art IS unquestionably better, because it better reflects the iconography of the film. So it went from 'meh' to okay as far as I'm concerned. It's pretty much the same old Scream floating heads design. Any collector with a bit of design skill, who is familiar with horror films and Scream Factory aesthetics, should be able to whip up facsimile covers as soon as titles are announced, and be pretty close to the final product. Would make a fun ongoing game for some artistic fan.

It's really sad and predictable for Scream when a new show set in the'80s goes straight for the "SF Collectors Edition" art:

It's like I said in another thread, the floating head "art" is art in the way a Bob Ross painting is art. It takes some skill, but in the end, it's just mass production. "let's put a scared little victim over here. wonder what she's so worried about. Now, let's put an angry killer right here in the middle. Let's give him a shiny machete to do his work with. wonder what he's gonna do with that little guy..."

Not that there is anything wrong with that. We don't need these things to be works of art that will stand the test of time. Still, a little more creativity would be nice. I've really liked some of their recent covers. Some are very creative...but, then you see the ones that have floating heads and, you're right, someone with a little bit of art skill could almost predict what we are going to get even before it's released.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by tardif

How can there be anything wrong with a company listening to the feedback of the people who pay their hard earned money on their releases?

If there is a general consensus from the consumer, I think it shows integrity if they listen to fans and actually make the effort to make a change, rather than being inflexible.

Thumbs up to Scream Factory for doing this

While I do think the darker face is better, I do bristle at the idea that a handful of loud people on the internet have such an ability to make change. We see it all the time, and I really don't think loud people on the internet actually represent some massive but quiet section of society.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

As soon as companies start changing stuff because some people want it changed, then all integrity goes out the window, unfortunately. Too bad they didn't stick to their guns.

That article was excellent and pretty on point.

I thought the article had some good points, but overall was sort of embarrassing. I think a company should approach it one of two ways. They could be like Arrow or Criterion and just say, "This is the artwork. Take it or leave it." And don't join in on the discussion. Or they could engage the fans and take their opinions into consideration, which is ultimately what SF has done. My problem with their approach though is that they sort of flip-flopped between the two. Either your fans' opinions on the matter are important to you or they're not. Don't engage them and then scold them. And don't scold them and then ultimately use their suggestions. Again, I think SF has put themselves in the latter category by using posters and slipcovers to entice customers to buy from them directly. The artwork is part of the package. If people don't like it, they can get it off Amazon for cheaper.

I suppose there is a third option, which is listen to your customers and take their opinions into account on future projects, but not the one at hand, and they could easily just state that: "The artwork is set, but we're listening to your comments." They're apparently not doing that though. After the Exorcist III complaints, they went and put a pivotal scene right in the center for Black Christmas.

Anyways, I just appreciate the communication on SF's part. Even with the flip-flopping, they're at least engaging their customers, which in my opinion demonstrates a company with integrity. If they hadn't posted that article, I wouldn't have had a problem with their approach.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

While I do think the darker face is better, I do bristle at the idea that a handful of loud people on the internet have such an ability to make change. We see it all the time, and I really don't think loud people on the internet actually represent some massive but quiet section of society.

No, but they probably do more closely reflect the collector that these limited editions and collector's editions are geared towards. They have a fan base they want to keep happy, and there's financial incentive in the direct sales they get from these fans.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by Zillamon51

I really don't see what the fuss is about. They darkened the face, so what? The film never shows the killer's face, or reveals anything about his identity, so it's not a spoiler. You can't spoil what isn't in the movie!

As I just said yesterday, it is a spoiler,

[Show spoiler]since the movie is trying to make you think it's other characters throughout, especially the crazy boyfriend, so having a picture of the killer shows it ISN'T him. So, you won't know how the killer is, but you'll know who it ISN'T,

which is just as big of a spoiler with this particular movie.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

As I just said yesterday, it is a spoiler,

[Show spoiler]since the movie is trying to make you think it's other characters throughout, especially the crazy boyfriend, so having a picture of the killer shows it ISN'T him. So, you won't know how the killer is, but you'll know who it ISN'T,

which is just as big of a spoiler with this particular movie.

But the opening scene pretty much sets up

[Show spoiler]that there's a crazy guy in the attic. The idea that Peter might be sitting up there and sneaking back out again to do his piano recitals seems a bit much. Besides, his "craziness" comes out later in the movie in response to Jess's pregnancy. Why would he start out the movie stalking and killing the girls? I think it's clear that Peter is being set up as a red herring for the police, not the audience. This allows for the creepy ending in which the killer is actually still in the house.

Anyways, that's my take on it.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

But the opening scene pretty much sets up

[Show spoiler]that there's a crazy guy in the attic. The idea that Peter might be sitting up there and sneaking back out again to do his piano recitals seems a bit much. Besides, his "craziness" comes out later in the movie in response to Jess's pregnancy. Why would he start out the movie stalking and killing the girls? I think it's clear that Peter is being set up as a red herring for the police, not the audience. This allows for the creepy ending in which the killer is actually still in the house.

Anyways, that's my take on it.

Well, I've only seen it once, but I didn't put together that stuff about the opening and thus the ending was a surprise. As with many spoilers, I guess it only applies to the first-time viewer. I'm sure all that will be obvious on second watch!

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

Well, I've only seen it once, but I didn't put together that stuff about the opening and thus the ending was a surprise. As with many spoilers, I guess it only applies to the first-time viewer. I'm sure all that will be obvious on second watch!

Truthfully, I can't remember the first time I watched it, but I think I had the realization at the time. At the very least, I think it can be classified as spoiler-ish. My initial reaction to the original artwork was that it just didn't represent what was in the movie. But upon further reflection, I think my main issue with the whole thing is that it's too significant a moment from the film, like the Exorcist III cover. While watching the movie, you should be totally engrossed in these iconic scenes, but instead, the new viewer is going to be taken out of the experience, thinking, "Oh, that's the thing on the cover!" In these cases, it really doesn't matter if it's a spoiler or not.

[schlock]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

Truthfully, I can't remember the first time I watched it, but I think I had the realization at the time. At the very least, I think it can be classified as spoiler-ish. My initial reaction to the original artwork was that it just didn't represent what was in the movie. But upon further reflection, I think my main issue with the whole thing is that it's too significant a moment from the film, like the Exorcist III cover. While watching the movie, you should be totally engrossed in these iconic scenes, but instead, the new viewer is going to be taken out of the experience, thinking, "Oh, that's the thing on the cover!" In these cases, it really doesn't matter if it's a spoiler or not.

Agreed. I always considered most Scream covers as a "Table of Contents" of the film inside the case. Every character, many of the crucial scenes or moments, etc. Some may like that, but the last thing I want to see when revisiting a film is a cover showing the entire film before I can even get the disc out of the case.

And yes, everyone always says you can just flip the artwork to the original one-sheet art and throw away the slip, which is true, but pretty much everywhere else, on-line and in-store, the image that will be 99% front and center (even when the slipcovers have sold out) are these new commissioned art covers. Every retailer only shows the new floating head covers. Almost all review sites will show the floating head cover. If you have your collection logged in at dvdaf or elsewhere, it's the floating head cover that is shown, not the reverse. Even in this thread, the floating head cover has been posted a bunch of times, and the original one-sheet is basically MIA (which is understandable because we are discussing the Blu). Like them or not, these new spoilerific floating head covers will be the final marketing image for these films on home-media for years to come, and will be the image most new viewers to any of these films will see first.

[Davidian]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

While I do think the darker face is better, I do bristle at the idea that a handful of loud people on the internet have such an ability to make change. We see it all the time, and I really don't think loud people on the internet actually represent some massive but quiet section of society.

And what if it were the lack of original Mono audio they were up in arms about?

[Jlouisbarrett]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I wasn't being pedantic at all. I see tons of "floating head" covers, usually photoshopped garbage. This cover isn't what I would consider a "floating head" cover. Nothing pedantic about it.

If you've seen a ton of "floating heads" covers, then you should know it's sort of an accepted term for the general style of "floating heads" in home media cover art these days. I was using the term in reference to the style of the Black Christmas cover, not being completely literal. Yes, I know there are arms and shoulders showing, but that doesn't mean it's not a "floating heads" cover.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Davidian

And what if it were the lack of original Mono audio they were up in arms about?

I think that is a poor comparison, one is people wanting artwork changed and the other is people wanting the art as originally conceived. Also one is the movie and the other is packaging. I just don't accept the comparison, sorry.