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

[Radioman970]

Good call on Nightmare on Elm Street. Those posters are among the best ever produced if you ask me.

 

[TravisR]

Good call on Nightmare on Elm Street. Those posters are among the best ever produced if you ask me.

I'd rather see the original poster but I think the Freddy silhouette on the Nightmare Blu-ray is pretty cool looking.

 

[GMpasqua]

Originally Posted by Cinescott
How cool would it have been had they used this for the West Side Story cover?

That art is much better than the UK art. I hope they don't use the UK art, but since the UK art is sooo bad, they probably will

Who are these art directors and where did they come from?????? Time for a re-haul

 

[TheHutt]

I have read somewhere (from a rep from a DVD label) that painted poster motifs on DVD/BluRay don't sell well.

Also, I think the usage of original posters is sometimes limited by the BluRay cover height/width ratio. The old VHS format did have a ratio rather close to the original theatrical posters (so they often were used for video covers); on DVD the height was reduced compared to the width; and on BluRay it got even worse yet. In order to use an original poster art, you'd have to crop it heavily from top/bottom to fill out the horizontal.

This doesn't excuse badly photoshopped covers though.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I'll always be a champion for using the original poster art for DVD covers, but I also perfectly understand WHY the companies alter them. They're trying to make the image leap out to prospective buyers, and sometimes that includes the "photoshop" technique of putting the star of the movie really large on the cover. Surely it's understandable in that reagrd, isn't it?

For example, I think the image of Christopher Reeve on the SUPERMAN cover is much more eye-catching to a casual browser than just the generic "S". Likewise, the photo of a grinning Jack Nicholson on THE SHINING immediately catches the eye of a shopper, and they know immediately what movie this is, whereas the original poster is rather drab for a cover.

Again - if I had the choice I'd PREFER they used original poster art only -- I'm just saying I understand why they do what they do.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Yes but focus groups rule, and focus groups show that understated cover art doesn't sell units. We are talking about marketing not athletics.
Doug

EXACTLY. And that's really the end of the story. I think a great compromise would be to include the original poster art inside, as a "reverse cover" option for those of us purists who want to change the cover to the original poster art. But this would be unlikely to happen on a regular basis because it'd be too expensive and because most buyers wouldn't care.

 

[TheHutt]

Likewise, the photo of a grinning Jack Nicholson on THE SHINING immediately catches the eye of a shopper

In case of Warner's Stanley Kubrick releases, the German cover art was in fact much better (even though they were not using original art). Minimalistic and slick, almost on Criterion's level. (http://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?__mk_de_DE=%C5M%C5Z%D5%D1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=kubrick+blu&x=0&tag=imzwielde-21&y=0

However, the concept was totally ruined after the new FSK age rating logos were forced upon it.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Originally Posted by 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)


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.

Sure, but that's just you. The companies have to sell TONS of these. I don't think 95% of the general population is searching for the original poster art when they're browsing for their discs. Not that I can't sympathize with you, but surely you can understand that the companies want to sell a lot of these? We all want Blu-ray to do well and sell many copies and stay out there, right? As much as I love original artwork, if a more catchy generalized cover ensures more sales, and thus the longevity of the BD format, that should be a good thing, yes?

 

[WinstonCely]

Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
Sure, but that's just you. The companies have to sell TONS of these. I don't think 95% of the general population is searching for the original poster art when they're browsing for their discs. Not that I can't sympathize with you, but surely you can understand that the companies want to sell a lot of these? We all want Blu-ray to do well and sell many copies and stay out there, right? As much as I love original artwork, if a more catchy generalized cover ensures more sales, and thus the longevity of the BD format, that should be a good thing, yes?

Maybe what's at the root of this discussion is why does it seem like the focus groups (general public at large) prefer what is arguably terrible cover art design?

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by TheHutt
Also, I think the usage of original posters is sometimes limited by the BluRay cover height/width ratio. The old VHS format did have a ratio rather close to the original theatrical posters (so they often were used for video covers); on DVD the height was reduced compared to the width; and on BluRay it got even worse yet. In order to use an original poster art, you'd have to crop it heavily from top/bottom to fill out the horizontal.

I don't think this is quite correct. Standard one sheets have a width-to height ratio of about 0.67, but VHS cases were much taller than they were wide; their w/h ratio was about 0.54. DVDs are a lot closer at 0.71 (a little wider than a one sheet, rather than a lot taller, as VHS cases were), and Blu-rays come in at 0.86.

 

[Charles Smith]

I don't think anyone is saying that the one-sheet layout, specifically, without modification, needs to be the rule, or that it ever was the rule on home video covers. (Don't forget the square laserdisc format, too.) For most films, there were any number of layout formats that could be adopted.

I also remember some pretty shitty covers in the VHS/laserdisc days, as well as the stunning ones.

As long as the principal iconic design elements of original art were to be incorporated as a common practice, I for one would be delighted. Anything would be better than what we normally see now.

 

[David Weicker]

Unfortunately, bad cover art didn't start with Blu-Ray. I can never forgive the original DVD cover for Planet Of The Apes. It was worse than the WSS mock-up. (and they perpetuated it on the DVD menu and disc)

David

 

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Chas in CT
Second only to the abandonment of original poster art, I find the most depressing thing about today's covers to be the mind numbing sameness. It's as though each film genre has one look that every poster and disc cover must now fit into.

[SIZE= 12px]It's all just a part of [/SIZE][COLOR= #0000cd][SIZE= 22px]THE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA![/COLOR][/SIZE]

 

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Chas in CT
I don't think anyone is saying that the one-sheet layout, specifically, without modification, needs to be the rule, or that it ever was the rule on home video covers. (Don't forget the square laserdisc format, too.) For most films, there were any number of layout formats that could be adopted.

I also remember some pretty shitty covers in the VHS/laserdisc days, as well as the stunning ones.

As long as the principal iconic design elements of original art were to be incorporated as a common practice, I for one would be delighted. Anything would be better than what we normally see now.

I see that the 1967 Blu-ray of CASINO ROYALE did at least preserve the wonderful graphic of the nude woman. By and large, some of the great poster art is gone, gone, gone. I am especially frustrated that some of Jack Davis' great work (IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD, BANANAS, BAD NEWS BEARS, etc.) or that of Frank Frazetta (WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT?, CONAN THE BARBARIAN, FIRE AND ICE, etc.) has been replaced by the most utterly exerable DVD covers imaginable. For shame!

 

[Ruz-El]

The original poster art:

The ugly DVD:

And the even worse Bluray

Ugh.

 

[CraigF]

^ The BD art "attracts" me much more than the original poster art. I wouldn't have even looked at a disc with the original poster art on the cover, being that I'd never even heard of this film before the BD announcement here...that art turns me off, whereas the BD art makes me at least curious...different strokes, know your market, etc. etc.

 

[Douglas Monce]

The original poster art:

The ugly DVD:

And the even worse Bluray

Ugh.

This makes the point very clearly right here. The poster art is designed to be seen at 27" x 40". When you reduce it down to the size of a DVD or Blu-ray box, it just becomes a blur of brown when viewed from a distance of anything more than about 3 feet. The "big head" shot, and the "big title" shot both jump out at the potential buyer.
Remember that this thing has to compete for the attention of the buyer with hundreds of other covers that will be right next to it. Poster art was NEVER intended to do that. While I agree that the original art is more aesthetically pleasing, the other two covers are going to move more units.
And that is really all it comes down to.
Doug

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Craig, I think you've just summed up my reasoning for why BD/DVD art is what it is. If you're a fan of "Better Off Dead", you're buying it no matter what the cover is. If you've never heard of it before, or if the original poster art didn't stop to make you see it years ago, the BD is a big, bright, loud way to attract a new consumer's attention. I think that's the most significant, if not only, factor in deciding what cover art to use on a disc these days.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Maybe what's at the root of this discussion is why does it seem like the focus groups (general public at large) prefer what is arguably terrible cover art design?  

I think this is the misunderstanding here. Its not a matter of people liking the DVD or blu-ray art better, its a matter of it getting their attention. No one likes the sound of an alarm clock, but it gets your attention. The new art on these discs is designed to say one thing. BUY ME!Doug

 

[WinstonCely]

I don't disagree, but that's not an excuse to have bad art. Having no clue how they design these things, it just seems lazy to have such bad art work. Surely grabbing peoples attention doesn't mean they have to use bad art to do so.