Oh no!! Fox have made a change to the appearance of their Studio Classics series!! (1 Viewer)

[Douglas R]

I really like the look of the Fox Studio Classics on my shelf. The white background gives them a distinctive, smart look quite unlike all my other DVDs. But.. horrors of horrors....not content to leave well alone, Fox have made a change to the spine!! Nos 1 to 6 in the series include the standard DVD logo at the bottom of the spine but Nos 7, 8 and 9 (I've just received ANASTASIA) don't have the logo! So the whole set no longer has a clean, exactly the same appearance. Why do Studios do this. Every time they start a series with a consistent look, half way through they decide to change it!!

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Ughmm! Fools!


Gordy

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

That is disappointing indeed. Conformity is the key to creating collectability.

 

[oscar_merkx]

yep a shame indeed

 

[Jeff_HR]

Perhaps the Fox rep can enlighten us as to their artistic decision.

 

[Craig S]

Ehh... not THAT big a deal. I'm up to number 7 (Love Is A Many Splendored Thing) and have had it several weeks. Frankly, I hadn't noticed the change until this thread pointed it out.

The important elements are still there - the white background, the stylish lettering, the little still from the film, the classic Fox logo, and most importantly the spine number - and they're all in the same place, so everything lines up.

 

[TonyD]

i didnt notice either and wish i didnt see this thread and read.

i don't care if the little logo at the bottom is missing. the quality of the dvd itself is what matters.

this is just not all that important.
so what if a minuscule little logo isnt there.

sooner or later in this thread someone will say "bah, i'm not buying it until they put the logo back on."

what i expected to see here was that fox completely changes the entire design of the package. changing it from a white backround to another color. that would not be good.

i wouldnt be thrilled with a move like that but wouldnt get upset about it.

 

[Douglas R]

I started this thread but before things get out of control I should explain that I was actually being tongue in cheek, as I thought the heading would indicate. I don't really think it's that big a deal but clearly others have taken it more seriously than I expected!

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

ARGH! I'm gonna have someone's job for this screw-up. I may even hire a hitman.





Gordy

 

[TonyD]

doug sometimes it is hard to read tongue in cheak.

especially when we already have so many posts about things that are much like yours. from people who actually take what they are saying seriously.

your header might be tongue in cheak but your post does read to be a serious tone.

 

[Jon Robertson]

Well I, for one, saw the funny side.

Not quite as funny, however, as Gordon's attempt to make it look as if he got the joke all along.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Ah.... shit! :b


Gordy

 

[Rain]

 

[Dave Mack]

Man, we all (and this INCLUDES me), need to get out more...)

 

[oscar_merkx]

I could not have it said this better

 

[TonyD]

ugh.:frowning:

 

[Jim Peavy]

There is a retail concept known as "perceived value", which basically means the value of something to a customer regardless of the actual, objective value of the product being purchased.

Seems I could make a case that you all (and I'm guilty of it, too) are getting a little too worked up over the "perceived value" of the DVDs you're purchasing.

Relax. The film is the thing. Don't worry about the packaging.

Just my $.02.