Goblet of Fire lenticular cover (Harry Potter) (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

Roy: This has been discussed in a number of places. The consensus seems to be that the distributors must believe that the cardboard slipcase makes the titles stand out from those without. Many slipcases are shiny or contain elements which make them catch-the-eye.

Many of us believe the slipcover would be best done-away-with in favor of a modest insert containing a chapter list.

 

[RoyWilbury]

That reasoning was my guess as well. It must make marketing sense according to the sales figures. Something like the special Harry Potter cover makes sense, or something like the "Office Space" special edition "with flair", which had completely different graphics on the slipcover. The recent special edition of "Tommy Boy" had the same graphics on front and back, but it at least had a gatefold attached with velcro that made it different (this is the example I've seen of a release that I've subsequently seen without the slipcover). Even just an embossed look or something makes it look different.

But some of the slipcovers are literally identical, to the point that if you set a slip cover and the actual case next to each other and looked at them from the front, you could not tell the difference.

But as I mentioned, as long as the slip cover is an addition rather than a change, I have no problem with it. At least they don't simultaneously issue versions of DVD's with and without the slipcover and charge an extra buck or two for the "special edition packaging."

 

[todd stone]

anyone get the lithograph from circuit city? kicks butt