New Kubrick SE's (1 Viewer)

[Jon Baker]

Interesting coming from someone whose avatar features the Vertigo poster art

 

[Craig Beam]

I agreed with a poster who was prioritizing the FILM over the advertising materials, and didn't feel "gyped" by Warner for not using the original poster art on the DVD covers. I stand by that sentiment, as I consider the film to be vastly more important that the materials used to promote it, and by association I'm much more interested in the contents of a DVD disc versus whatever cover the studio decides to put on it. It doesn't mean I don't value (even LOVE) film posters, lobby cards, magazine ads, and any other related promotional materials. It should also be mentioned that Warner's earlier Kubrick releases DO feature the original poster art, so I for one am happy they tried something different this time. Christ, if you (or anyone else) feels the need to look at the original poster art for a film before you watch it on DVD, do an image search on Google and browse to your heart's content.

With regards to the avatar, Vertigo is my favorite film. I have the poster in question hanging in my office at home, along with several other 11x17 alternate Vertigo posters alongside it.

 

[Richard--W]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Or just mischievous?
You know very well that nobody suggested the poster should be prioritized over the film itself. Nobody suggested, implied, hinted or stated any such thing.
When consumers go to the store to shop for DVD's, they should see the promotional designs that Stanley Kubrick worked so hard on for the reasons that I described. His promotional campaigns are proven, established, and familiar, if not as unique as the films themselves. It is important how promotional art represents a Kubrick film, which is not the same thing as oogling over souvenirs or memorabilia.

 

[rich_d]

After the movie The Shawshank Redemption, the word 'obtuse' becomes a bit more dangerous.

I went to DVD Profiler to see what all the fuss is about. Those covers ... they are very weak.

Having said that, Craig has a point. I mean, in the future, if movies were electronically send me and they looked great, I have no real concerns. But, if they are going to do packaging, why not make it look great?

I seriously doubt most people would prefer the box set art version of 2001 or A Clockwork Orange compared to the HD versions. I don't even think it would be close.

Moving to the positive, with the news that Full Metal Jacket is a new, anamorphic version, the boxset then becomes better than what I originally wrote about it.

 

[David_B_K]

As one who has bumped heads with Richard--W before, I have to say I am in complete agreement with him re: the poster art. If you were around at the time of the release of A Clockwork Orange, as I was, it seems inexorably associated with the film. No, the poster art does not outweigh a beautifully remastered version of the film; but it should have been an obvious slam-dunk to include the original poster art for this release. It is not a deal-breaker that they did not include it, but it is a serious lapse on someone's part that they underestimated its importance.

To suggest that he was implying that the lack of the original art negated the re-mastering is blatant fanboyism, IMO.

 

[widescreenforever]

Has there been any threads on the missing commentaries of the Eyes Wide Shut discs of this special edition.?? Just read on Digital Bits, from last week (23rd) of these missing pieces. Is this to be another 'Superman' fiasco such as what happened last year at this time when Warners ( again ) screwed up, and then decided to reship the corrected Discs??

So I was looking to see if any of this has been mentioned here at HTF ..

??

 

[Josh Steinberg]

WB released updated specs about a month before the box set came out taking the commentary off of the list of special features. I have no idea if they never actually got around to recording it, or if they didn't like the results, but it's not "missing" the way that the Superman 3 bonus features were in the Superman set -- a decision was made not to include it. The only mistake on the EWS packaging is that it claims to have both the "R" and "Unrated" versions on the disc, when in fact the disc only has the unrated version. Future repressings of the title will have the cover art amended to reflect this.

For what it's worth, I thought Warners handled the Superman problem with a lot of care and effort. They announced there was an issue before it even came out rather than leaving it as a surprise for fans to discover, and had a disc replacement program set up the day the set came out -- I had new discs within a few weeks I think. Sure, it's a mistake that shouldn't have happened, but for all of the outstanding material on the set in the first place, I wouldn't have gotten around to the extras on Superman 3 until long after I got my replacement anyway.

 

[pitchman]

As someone who actually likes the new cover art on the individual cases in this set, I wonder if Warner will make available the same style cover inserts for The Shining and A Life In Pictures that were supposed to be used according to this promotional shot. It seems like it would be fairly easy to facilitate this on their end...

 

[Bill:N]

My box set actually has the cover with the new artwork for The Shining, but not for A Life in Pictures. I bought it at Futureshop in Canada so this may be specific only to the Canadian release.

 

[Frank@N]

I just followed the DVDTalk link to see the boxset covers...wow, those covers are terrible.

They look simplistic to the point of being child-like.

I have an unopened boxset coming to me for Christmas, but now I know why people were talking about buying the individual releases (I though they just wanted slipcovers).

 

[Travis Brashear]

Enough with the pissing contest between the minimalists and maximalists! As a formalist artist, my guess is that Kubrick would have liked the boxed set covers--who knows? I like 'em, but I guess that puts me in the minimalist camp, so who gives a rat's? I just wish those griping about the covers would quit acting like the Warners marketing team was on crack, or utterly lacking in imagination--they chose a perfectly viable, quite creative in its own manner, minimalist approach and it just ain't your thing. Boo-hoo...I hate cluttered floating head movie posters, but they must do the trick for some segment of the audience...build a bridge and get over it.

 

[rich_d]

And what exactly does your post do but add to the pissing contest?

What we are doing is stating opinions and clearly these covers have struck a nerve with some people here. But, please don't serve yourself up as an artist and expect anyone to give a rat's ass about that credential. I sweat to God that I was at the Tate Modern with people studying a large round bin and a vacuum cleaner before the janitor came back into the room to get them.

To each his own, but I note that Warner sure as hell didn't use these covers for the ones that people actually SEE when buying them. Nope, they kept these babies for the ones unseen (at purchase) in a boxset. Wonder why?

 

[Douglas R]

So it's all right to state an opinion that you don't like the covers but it's not all right to say you like them?

Personally I think they are very stylish. To suggest, for example, that they are childish and that Warner Bros gave little thought to them is just silly.

 

[Travis Brashear]

I flat-out told you in my post what my opinion was, but that it didn't matter, none of them do and "who gives a rat's?" Reading only parts of the whole isn't conducive to my frustration level or your intellectual one. The only germane point I wanted people to start considering was that, whether you like the covers or not, they are not lacking increativity or validity. If you don't like them, you just apparently don't enjoy minimalist art. I wish people would simply grant that and move on, rather than dramatically and pathetically lament on and on about how brain dead the marketers at Warner Bros. are.

 

[rich_d]

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, other than you inability to just state your own case but instead having to put down other opinions as "silly." Unlike you, I haven't put anyone else's opinion of the art down, but just made my own points.

Myself, I don't think that taking some image and putting in some shadowing and softening the edges with some air brushing and putting them on a black background makes it appear as if WHV gave much thought to them.

I guess I'm just being silly.

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/0/08/htf_imgcache_15441.jpeg] [/url]

 

[Craig Beam]

Post Deleted.

 

[Travis Brashear]

To a degree, yes, you are. I don't mean to question your intelligence, but you are now routinely avoiding the point that we are dealing with artisitic minimalism, not apathetic simplicity or a childish lack of creativity. I don't care that you don't like the covers any more than you care that I do; we're both entitled to our subjective preferences--the more critical point is, if you are not willing to concede that minimalism is a valid form of artisitic expression, and that it is thematically in line with Kubrick's formalist aesthetic, then yes, I'd say "being silly" would be the correct description. Add "prideful" and "obstinate" while you're at it.

As a side point, it's ironic that you sampled A CLOCKWORK ORANGE's cover--it's the only one I'm a little unimpressed with. I'd have preferred (and found it to be more thematically aligned with the others) a glass of milk to the eye.

 

[rich_d]

Name-calling? You cut me to the quick. Obviously since you resort to that, you must be right.

Oh, I see. Minimalism is what I need to concede about? Funny, I thought we were sharing opinions on the artwork of the Kubrick SEs. Silly me, yet again, I must have stumbled into the art forum by mistake. And somehow, there is no good art or bad art but we need to concentrate on what you define as "minimalism" ... because that thematically lines up with what you say is Kubrick's "formalist aesthetic" because ... you say it does.

Got it.

 

[Travis Brashear]

Wow. Just...wow. Do you hate scientists this much when they dare to impress upon you that the Earth is round? I mean, how dare it be so just because they say it is...

 

[Douglas R]

Someone with expertise is usually making an informed opinion which carries more weight than someone who's opinion is based on prejudice and/or ignorance.