Sticking the silhouette of Alfred Hitchcock at the edge of a cover design is one thing, but dropping in a full-color photo of the director that is actually larger than the SUBJECT of the FILM isn't particularly appealing or tasteful. Indeed, coupled in this configuration with the little Oscar statuette, it's downright hilarious! I'm not the biggest fan of this film, but it certainly has its place in movie history, and I was interested in at least checking out the extras on the set to see how those involved reflect upon the experience now that they're nearly a decade away from the hype. The original design indicated a restrained and classy package. The new one is garish and downright pompous. If Cameron didn't approve it (and I'd like to think he didn't), I'll bet he's embarrassed.
I don't normally get caught up in DVD cover artwork but this really needs to be changed back to the original design. The new art is an embarrassment. It cheapens the release.
Maybe it would be more acceptable if they Photoshopped period clothing onto Cameron and blurred out Jack and Roses's faces so that they don't appear on the cover twice.
Then the only thing missing would be a quote from the New York Times, such as "Easily the best romantic comedy of the year..." or "This movie is about the Titanic."
I like the new cover. It's clearly implying that this edition is different. Cameron poured himself into this movie and I'm sure he poured himself into this DVD. I think if fits perfectly.
Lots of people bought the original version and I think the studio is keenly aware of the "double-dip backlash". Too many new versions of movies with hardly any changes have been released. Who can blame them for wanting to show that this is not the case this time.
This release definitely deserves better than the revised art. Personally I'd love to see a very bold and simple box, a al the LOTR EE sets, with title over riveted panels. Barring that, the originally announced design is very clean and elegant, and different enough from the old DVD's cover that it won't cause confusion.
To the powers that be at Paramount, PLEASE revert to the earlier announced design. The new one is not only visually less attractive, but as others have said it also sells the film short by spoiling the magic.
Doug, I hear you, and I have an idea of where your coming from, but that is nowhere near enough to warrant the magnitude of change were talking about with this. Nothing could explain or excuse it sufficiantly or satisfyingly enough IMO.
Again, this thread should be FOR the change, as requested by the author, Nicholas Martin.
Something just occured to me, considering that we're getting ever closer to the release, don't you think that we may be too late and they are already printing out those covers? :frowning: I hope not.
Look, let me just say I love this film, and find the cover as distasteful as everyone else, and in a perfect world I DO support changing it back the original design. But frankly, I can only attribute this art change to one thing...James Cameron. As has been pointed out, his ego, and temprement and desire to control every aspect of his flims are legendary in Hollywood. Though I could certainly be wrong, I strongly suspect that he was involved in this decision, just as he has been involved in EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF THIS DVD'S DESIGN. I really cant see any other explanation for this other than Cameron specifically "requesting" the design change. As such, I think it is what it is. Why would the studio change it again, and risk annoying Cameron? Certainly no one is going to boycott the disc (and if they are...well, thats insane), and I cant see it having any impact on sales.
Let's just be happy that only the cover has been changed to this wonderful film (i.e. it could be worse, ala Lucas as Star Wars)...despite its garishness, we can still enjoy the magic of the movie. At the end of the day, while I would have prefered the original cover, this will become a non issue the second this disc slides into the player and James Horners score begins.
But there is one flaw in your theory, Rick, why isn't the artwork changed on the other regions covers? If it is Cameron's doing, wouldn't he surly demand that he be on every cover?
The reason this thread is just for requesting a cover change is because what we write here will be sent to Paramount. And while Mr. Hunt warned me that Paramount is not the most consumer-friendly company to deal with, it certainly doesn't hurt to give it a try.
I can't stand this cover. To me, it's just another step in the disturbing trend where extras are overshadowing the feature film.
Let the film be the main attraction, and allow the extras to be just that--extra. I'll be purchasing this DVD for the improved presentation of the film foremost.
If they've already printed the cover, but have not cut it yet, there's time to reprint the covers on the back side of the paper stock, then they can have both covers. So one could slip the artwork out of the case and flip it over to the other cover. Cameron on one side, and original cover on the other. Of course this assumes the paper stock can tolerate printing on both sides with no show through.