 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That looks nice for the image. But, the text is hard to read.
The image is 1874 x 1604 px. Open it in a new tab or window for full size.
True. But, that won't change the size of the CD back cover, or increase the contrast between the font and the background image.
Oh, I won't disagree. The only viable solution would be to lower the saturation of the image and opt for a more vibrant text color as such:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rear artwork seems an extraordinary thing to get agitated about. Unless it's something like Varese's Cruel Intentions compilation of John Ottman, where the text is blue on a very slightly different shade of blue, it's way down on the list of dealbreakers. The new Lionheart rear cover, as pictured several posts earlier, is fine: it's functional, it does exactly the job it's supposed to do. Because we never look at the rear inlay across the full width of a computer monitor, I just shrunk that "new" alternative artwork down to the size of an actual CD rear inlay and the text is entirely illegible, rendering it entirely useless for its sole practical purpose.
I've just had a look at the back of the original Lionheart Volume 2 and it's similar to the back of Volume 1 except it's dark text on white.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just as a reminder, the official:
If optimum legibility is what is sought, optimum legibility is what is pursued. So, no room for the likes of a Mr. Stoltz, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plus, Mr. Stoltz is by far the worst part of the movie so I’d rather not be reminded of him, thank you very much. His Little Women costar Gabriel Byrne as the Black Prince (who as the antagonist is probably the best part of the movie) would have been more acceptable to me. 
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodness. We've made it to 32 pages of misery here on FSM and this 1500 or 2000 edition Goldsmith still hasn't sold out.
Having never seen the film, I fell in love with this score from the Philharmonia Orchestra Suites & Themes disc. Then maybe 15 years ago I managed to find a used copy of the Volume 1 album, and the beauty of it got me to hunt down the film. I got a cheap laserdisc off ebay. I was aware of the low reputation it had, and it was everything I'd been warned about
Watching the movie actually lessened my enjoyment of the score back then, but now I've forgotten most everything about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watching the movie [Lionheart] actually lessened my enjoyment of the score back then, but now I've forgotten most everything about it.
Lionheart's motley medieval mess always had me wondering what that presumptive Verhoeven/Goldsmith "Crusades" might have looked and sounded like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rear artwork seems an extraordinary thing to get agitated about. Unless it's something like Varese's Cruel Intentions compilation of John Ottman, where the text is blue on a very slightly different shade of blue, it's way down on the list of dealbreakers. The new Lionheart rear cover, as pictured several posts earlier, is fine: it's functional, it does exactly the job it's supposed to do. Because we never look at the rear inlay across the full width of a computer monitor, I just shrunk that "new" alternative artwork down to the size of an actual CD rear inlay and the text is entirely illegible, rendering it entirely useless for its sole practical purpose..
Yes, I prefer the actual back cover too. The one with the picture looks tacky. And as you point out, not very legible behind a plastic jewel case and shrunk and printed to size. I like the new Varèse back cover the way it turned out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yavar, consider how perfect the product these days has become.
It used to be:
lists all the mixed messages from every spectrum under the sun
This is EXACTLY why companies don't and shouldn't listen to "fans". 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fan-cover with the back picture looks interesting, but a bit too 1970's in styling (colors, fonts, and photography (staring down the lens)), and the text size is too small.
The actual back cover is fine, it just uses 8+ different fonts, all of them serif fonts, so it makes it look a bit chaotic. A simple fix would have been a plain black background or gradient using the dark blue and red from the front cover, so the background doesn't have so much competing texture with the serif fonts.
But it's fine. The cover looks great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL. Once more unto the breach…
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe you mentioned that "The Future" was not used in the film (hope I'm not mistaken). Do you know what scene that cue was written for?
Chris, most of the data we got to look at placed it as coming between "Children in Bondage" and "Gates of Paris," where it falls on the new CD. That puts it between 37:10 and 42:11 in the film. It likely should also come before the little cue Saracen Ride, further limiting that zone to between 37:10 and 39:37. There is a scene around a campfire at night in that area where I laid in the music, and it works well, tonally. The scene is about what they will or won't do (in, you know...). It's a good option.
The other option is that, like the last 2/3 of the cue The Dress, it's for a scene cut from the final movie.
Much less likely is that it goes somewhere else in the film altogether. As much as is wacky about this score and film, the sequencing of the cues across data sources is pretty consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL. Once more unto the breach…
I'm not so on board with these issues with the back cover, but that is pretty striking in its own right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
