Monster Zero x SciFi Japan - Archive Only

I have the CM & Criterion BluRay discs. Is there a good argument for me to get the BFI disc too?

I think it has some unique special features, but nothing's gonna beat the Criterion transfers for Godzilla '54 and King of the Monsters for the time being.

Thanks.

If they are seriously put off from releasing more Toho genre films based on that incident alone I don't know what that says about them. People complain about cover art all the time on the Criterion forums. It's just what people on the internet do, complain.
But you can criticize the packaging and still applaud the content, I couldn't be happier about that. But I would have been fine with a standard clear plastic case. It's just personal preference.

The notion that Criterion won't license any more kaiju titles because of feedback on the pop-up is a myth. We that the company never intended to go for any other Godzilla films or Toho sci-fi/monster movies after they released G'54.

Criterion got plenty of positive feedback for their Godzilla DVD/bluray that didn't even mention the pop-up, including from .

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/01/2 ... ter-movie/
http://www.dvddrive-in.com/reviews/e-h/ ... on5456.htm
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/6023/godzilla_54.html
http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/17 ... m-the-deep
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52400
http://www.latimes.com/tn-gnp-0120-dvd- ... story.html

What feedback did Criterion get regarding the pop-up beyond that one ? I'd say they must not have gotten enough inquiries about it since they still have yet to answer those inquiries directly. The closest they ever came was a single comment on that Facebook post in which they completely changed the subject to Bill Sienciewicz's cover art, rather than the pop-up photograph of the Kiryugoji suit pictured at the top of the page to which every prior commenter was clearly referring.








They never actually commented on the decision to use a photo of the 2002 Godzilla suit for the pop-up in their G'54 package.

The pop-up itself is only fifty percent of the intrigue here; the other half is Criterion's reticence on the matter. When a company provides such a topic-dodging answer to such a straightforward observation, they are either misunderstanding the subject of discussion or playing coy and pretending to misunderstand, and frankly neither possibility should be satisfying to anybody. I'm all about transparency. I majored in journalism, not public relations. I'm not about playing along with the hush-hush game when companies are obviously trying to look the other way and avoid acknowledging something, whether that something is a pop-up photo or a popsicle stick. The whole point of such diversion tactics is to get people to stop talking about something. I'm happy to make sure it doesn't work.

^To me personally, pretty much your entire post is the problem.

Who CARES that much? It's a piece of artwork.

^ Hey man, you're the one who brought it up.

To me personally, the whole "let's just keep mum about it" vibe surrounding this is the problem. I am not on board with that in any way, shape, or form on principle.

Several paying consumers, myself included, observed a very bizarre peculiarity in a company's product and the company chose to respond with misdirection and then total silence without ever addressing our inquiries. Diversion tactics like that should not work. The fact that the peculiarity in question is an anachronistic pop-up in a home media package makes no difference to me, nor does the passage of time. I can't fathom why anyone would want to facilitate such diversion ploys.

Of course, I know posting in this thread won't bring about any answers because Criterion isn't perusing this message board, but my curiosity about this has been reignited so I'm just going to write to Criterion now and ask them directly. Don't worry, I'll be sure to start out by lavishing them with praise for their really excellent G'54 DVD/bluray.

^ Jake, it's Chinatown.