Blu-rays With the Worst Cover Art (1 Viewer)

[Cinescott]

Part of what has made movies so cool for me over the years (granted a small part) has been the artwork associated with the marketing. There are so many iconic print images that go with the movies that it's a shame they're often not used. The John Travolta/Karen Lynn Gorney (sp?) image from Saturday Night Fever is one, the illustrated Grease poster (which I clearly remember in my local theater lobby) is another. Superman has several beautiful posters; I wish any one of them had been used.

It seems VHS had a lot of original artwork and DVD as well. Not sure why they've gotten away from it with Blu-ray.

Consider some of the images that have been used properly. The "road to the horizon" image on the Close Encounters boxed set, the Blade Runner cover, etc. Then there are the new discs where really nice new artwork seems to have been commissioned, ala The Ten Commandments and the Alien Anthology. (The Star Wars set is up for debate; at least it's different).

My major point is that it seems to slightly diminish the contents of the box when the cover artwork looks like a third grader slapped it together. If I could easily do it on my 5 year-old PC, then it doesn't take too much skill. I know there's more to it than that and that Photoshop isn't to blame, but it's certainly made it a lot easier to make really crummy looking covers.

Note to studio execs: People who love and buy movies love cool artwork! It's part of what makes physical ownership so enjoyable, so please try to maintain some dignity in future releases.

 

[David Sal]

The cover for Minority Report is awful!!!

 

[FanboyZ]

Gets me every time.

 

[TravisR]

^ They should have just gone all the way and had a quote saying "If you love Twilight, you'll love Near Dark!"

 

[FanboyZ]

Yeah, the intent is so transparent.

 

[Tim Glover]

the new cover art for The Hunt For Red October Blu-ray is HIDEOUS!

 

I really hope that for the next release of The Wizard of Oz, they can come up with something different. I'm so sick of seeing the same photoshopped pictures on Oz merchandise. A company is making a new Oz pinball machine and the art they created for the back picture blows every Oz cover out of the water. WB should hire that artist the next time! That being said, I'm not a fan of the Star Wars cover. I preferred the placeholder version better.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It's worth mentioning that sometimes the original poster art is no longer owned by the studio controlling the film - when faced with the choice of paying an extra fee or royalty to use an existing poster, or creating something new that they don't have to pay for, most studios will go the cheaper route. It's not something I usually agree with, but there it is. Then, there's also the marketing consideration - with shelf space at a premium these days, and Blu-ray cases pretty small (not that DVD was much larger), they have about half a second to grab your attention, so whatever the most famous attribute from the artwork or film is gonna get a disproportionate amount of attention. For better or worse, cover art isn't about consumer ownership; it's about marketing in the store. Though it would probably cost too much to do, it would be cool if they had the marketing picture on one side of the art, but then that artwork could be reversed in the case to get the original theatrical artwork. Or even better - for all of those releases that have the cardboard sleeve over the case - how about putting the marketing artwork on there, and the poster art on the case itself? I don't really get having that cardboard sleeve if the artwork underneath is exactly the same. Of all the Blu-rays on my shelf, most have a cardboard "o-ring", but only "The Dark Knight" has a different image on the cardboard vs. case artwork. That makes no sense to me.

I agree with Fritz Nelson about the use of the word Photoshop - it's just a tool, and can be used for good or evil. Really great covers that we like have also been done with Photoshop.

I admire some of the fan sites that have popped up with replacement artwork for releases, that reproduces the original poster art - but it's a shame that it's even necessary for them to do so.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Another reason for removing an actor or model who was in the original art, from the DVD or Blu-ray cover, is that the release documents may not be able to be found for that particular model. Rather than taking a chance that they may or may not have the rights to use that particular person's image, they just play it safe and cut the person out of the art.
Doug

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg
I admire some of the fan sites that have popped up with replacement artwork for releases, that reproduces the original poster art - but it's a shame that it's even necessary for them to do so.

I admire some of these sites as well. It's interesting how bad covers have spawned a whole underground movement. I've used some of the versions that have been posted and they are a lot better than the official versions.


For example, here is the Superman Returns cover I currently use. Waaaaaaaaaaaay better than the studio version:

 

[Tim Glover]

Whoa! that is AWESOME Josh. Dang. Way jealous!

 

[Paul D G]

(NOTE: I posted this before continuing on to read Scott's post so this seems a bit superfluous, but I'm keeping it to make my point. Odd, tho, that we both chose the same example)

Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg
Then, there's also the marketing consideration - with shelf space at a premium these days, and Blu-ray cases pretty small (not that DVD was much larger), they have about half a second to grab your attention, so whatever the most famous attribute from the artwork or film is gonna get a disproportionate amount of attention. For better or worse, cover art isn't about consumer ownership; it's about marketing in the store.

All the more reason to use the poster art, IMHO. Look, if I decided I wanted to pick up Superman Returns, for example, my eye is going to be looking for the poster art:

Not something like this:

I see the first image I'm grabbing it. The second one I'd need to double check to make sure it's the disc I want.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Totally agree. Superman Returns had one of the best posters I had seen in a long time - everything that movie was about and made me feel was captured in that poster. I used to have a copy of it, but it was unfortunately destroyed in a recent move - I may have to pick up another one and get it framed or something. I'd love to have both the posters to Superman: The Movie and Superman Returns back on my wall someday.

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by Paul D G
All the more reason to use the poster art, IMHO. Look, if I decided I wanted to pick up Superman Returns, for example, my eye is going to be looking for the poster art:

Exactly! The thing that marketers and studios don't seem to understand is that the people who buy their product in most cases are already very familiar with the film and the images associated with it. Superman Returns is a perfect example. Here's an example of a piece of art that is a perfect companion for the movie and which makes a beautiful cover for the Blu-ray (no surprise that Paul and I chose the same example).

If the studio has already lost contractual rights for the poster (which would be very short-sighted considering the movie's only 5 years old), then they should be more far-sighted in the future. Warners must have paid for this poster to be done in the first place, so why not use it? With this image on the Blu-ray, I would have bought it on sight rather than examining the box to make sure I had the right movie.

Here's another cover I use that blows the existing Blu-ray out of the water. Once again, no surprise, it's the original poster art:

Here's the cover that came with the disc:

 

[FanboyZ]

The original poster for Star Trek is such a powerful and striking images.
The tagline is so excellent.
" THE HUMAN ADVENTURE IS JUST BEGINNING..." I immediately get whipped-up into an insane fanboy fever.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Originally Posted by Cinescott

The thing that marketers and studios don't seem to understand is that the people who buy their product in most cases are already very familiar with the film and the images associated with it.

I fear that it's not a lack of understanding - but rather, that the covers aren't meant for collectors, that they're not designed for the people who are already familiar with the film. I think they figure that those people will buy it regardless. I think the (crappy) redesigns are about trying to catch the attention of people as they browse very quickly who aren't necessarily huge fans of the film, who either might be casual viewers or people who haven't even seen it. They're not about, "This looks like a great cover, I'm gonna pick up the box and look at it" -- they're about "That looks like Superman flying! I'll walk a little slower down this aisle and stop to pick it up instead of just walking by!" I don't like that mentality at all, but I think that's the real impetus behind most of these decisions - make the most familiar aspect of that film or series as big as possible to get the quickest thought recognition in the least amount of time possible, keeping in mind that shelf/display space is extremely limited these days.

In the case of "Superman Returns" specifically, I love the film, love the original poster, and think it's the best possible example for this conversation -- but I know a lot of people didn't love the film, and that some of the complaints were about it being too slow, with not enough action. I think that new cover design was meant to attract someone who maybe hadn't seen the movie before and heard it was slow or boring, and to make it clear to them that it's a film that does have action in it. Truthfully, I don't think it makes that much of a difference on sales, but I think that's the thinking behind it (when it's not a simple case of no longer having the rights to the artwork or not being able to locate the contractual release forms signed by the people whose likeness is featured in the cover).

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg
I fear that it's not a lack of understanding - but rather, that the covers aren't meant for collectors, that they're not designed for the people who are already familiar with the film. I think they figure that those people will buy it regardless. I think the (crappy) redesigns are about trying to catch the attention of people as they browse very quickly who aren't necessarily huge fans of the film, who either might be casual viewers or people who haven't even seen it. They're not about, "This looks like a great cover, I'm gonna pick up the box and look at it" -- they're about "That looks like Superman flying! I'll walk a little slower down this aisle and stop to pick it up instead of just walking by!" I don't like that mentality at all, but I think that's the real impetus behind most of these decisions - make the most familiar aspect of that film or series as big as possible to get the quickest thought recognition in the least amount of time possible, keeping in mind that shelf/display space is extremely limited these days.

In the case of "Superman Returns" specifically, I love the film, love the original poster, and think it's the best possible example for this conversation -- but I know a lot of people didn't love the film, and that some of the complaints were about it being too slow, with not enough action. I think that new cover design was meant to attract someone who maybe hadn't seen the movie before and heard it was slow or boring, and to make it clear to them that it's a film that does have action in it. Truthfully, I don't think it makes that much of a difference on sales, but I think that's the thinking behind it (when it's not a simple case of no longer having the rights to the artwork or not being able to locate the contractual release forms signed by the people whose likeness is featured in the cover).

You're probably right, Josh. I am glad, though, that with simple technology today I am able to replace a crappy cover with one designed by an artist who understands the collector mentality and the love many of us share for a film's original artwork.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

One of these days - it's gonna be one heck of a project, that's for sure - I'd love to "fix" all of the covers that I have that weren't the original artwork. I suppose some of the DVD/BD versions are adaptations that are close enough that it's not worth bothering, and Criterion releases all have a unique style to them that I might want to retain - but some of these on my shelf just deserve a lot better. It would be really neat if the studios were willing to do either reversable covers (sales pitch on one side, original artwork on the back), or instead of having that silly cardboard O-ring with identical packaging underneath, use the cardboard outer sleeve for the silly artwork and the actual DVD/BD case for the theatrical.

Besides Superman Returns, which is a perfect example of where the original poster would have been so much better (and Superman: The Movie) for that matter, just looking at the big floating heads on all of the Star Wars DVD covers is slightly depressing - those films had amazing poster artwork. Even if you don't like the prequels, you gotta admit the original posters were awesome. Universal's Vertigo cover is terrible compared to the original poster. The recent BD of the original "Tron" movie has an incredibly bad cover (and was it really necessary to subtitle it "Tron: The Original Classic"?). All of the Star Trek BDs are pretty bad (I'd almost give them an incomplete vs. an F because it seems like they didn't even try and they're in a cardboard outer case anyway, so it's not like I see them as often - but all of those original posters were true works of art), but the cover for the new movie didn't even bother to try - it's just a white sleeve that says "STAR TREK". The BD of "2001" blows the ending (not that anyone who had never seen the film who just saw the cover would know that). The list goes on and on.

 

[Cinescott]

I haven't replaced very many, since not too many bother me to the degree I feel it's necessary. When they do cross over into the hideous category, however, it's good to have the option.

 

[Worth]

I'd like to see the studios adopt reversible covers - one side can have the huge floating heads that the marketing department favours, while the other can have the original poster art.