What's new

Studios in contest for ugliest biblical cover (1 Viewer)

MatthewA

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
I'm tempted to start going the custom BD cover route. Like anything, Photoshop isn't evil, it's how it is used. And in this case it's used horribly.


That commandment about "graven images" should have had an addendum about butt-fugly "art" like this. Maybe there was something about it in one of the other five commandments?
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
20
Originally Posted by ahollis

With Fox releasing THE BIBLE this spring, I was surprised that they did not get with MGM and give us THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD also, Then I remembered the MGM/Fox DVD deal is almost up and it will be interesting to see what the new MGM is going to do. Also two pictures about the life of Jesus battling it out on the Internet and store shelves would be pretty non-partisan. While I like both films, each at on different level, if I had to pick between them, it would be KING OF KINGS.

Canada is getting The Greatest Story Ever Told on Blu-Ray, March 29...
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce
The reason that the original poster art often isn't used, is because the studios didn't own the copyrights to the posters. National Screen Service created and produced the posters and held the copyrights. This started in 1920 and ended sometime in the mid 1980s. When National Screen Service folded it was bought by Technicolor which now holds all of those copyrights. You may notice that the "original" art work for the TC on the DVD is actually modified from the original poster to get around the copyright issues.


Doug
 

ahollis

Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
8,853
Location
New Orleans
Real Name
Allen
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

The reason that the original poster art often isn't used, is because the studios didn't own the copyrights to the posters. National Screen Service created and produced the posters and held the copyrights. This started in 1920 and ended sometime in the mid 1980s. When National Screen Service folded it was bought by Technicolor which now holds all of those copyrights. You may notice that the "original" art work for the TC on the DVD is actually modified from the original poster to get around the copyright issues.


Doug


I am sorry, but I have to disagree with NSS owing the artwork. The producers and distributors have and had control over the art work. NSS along with Donald Velde Company were the distributors of the posters, trailers, ad slicks and other material. NSS was to make sure the material was printed and in stock as needed for theatres. At first it was an exchange where the posters and stills were returned when a film was over and they were then sent to another theatre. As wide releases became the fashion this practice ended.


NSS and Velde held the copyright on the still and poster as a physical item and not the artwork. This was to insure that some else was not using the material without their consent.


NSS was associated with Film Inspection and they shared the same warehouses across the country. Velde shipped all the material by mail.
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce
The studios owned the original material, ie still photographs and such, but the final product, the posters and lobby cards themselves were owned by NSS. Again this is why the TC poster art was modified for the DVD release. They can't use the posters in their original form with out paying a fee.


However honestly I don't think these ugly covers are a result of this situation, but rather the feeling in the home video departments that the cover needs to stand out, not only on a store shelf, but as a thumbnail on websites such as Amazon. The original art work was designed to be seen as a poster 27" x 40". That doesn't show up too well as a thumbnail. Hence you get large headshots of the major character, and bold fonts that stand out in a small format. Ugly, but effective.


Doug
 

Scott Calvert

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 2, 1998
Messages
885
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

The studios owned the original material, ie still photographs and such, but the final product, the posters and lobby cards themselves were owned by NSS. Again this is why the TC poster art was modified for the DVD release. They can't use the posters in their original form with out paying a fee.


However honestly I don't think these ugly covers are a result of this situation, but rather the feeling in the home video departments that the cover needs to stand out, not only on a store shelf, but as a thumbnail on websites such as Amazon. The original art work was designed to be seen as a poster 27" x 40". That doesn't show up too well as a thumbnail. Hence you get large headshots of the major character, and bold fonts that stand out in a small format. Ugly, but effective.


Doug


Yes I think a lot of us know the perceived marketing issues but, so what? I couldn't care less about the internal working of a studio marketing department. Besides, there are actually some good looking packages that don't use the exact original poster art. So we know it's possible. The Bridge On The River Kwai, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, How The West Was Won, Gone With The Wind, and Poltergeist are good examples. There are many more. Those are great looking packages that inspire pride of ownership. We should be praising that and demanding more of it, not making excuses.
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce
You should care about internal working of a studio marketing department, because if the discs don't sell, we won't get any others.


I'm not saying that its not possible to have quality art that shows up well as a thumbnail, just that much of the original poster art might not. They could surely do a better job with these things than what we are seeing. For instance I LOVE the cover of the new Blowout blu-ray!


Doug
 

johnSM

Second Unit
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
439
Real Name
John
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce ...the feeling in the home video departments that the cover needs to stand out, not only on a store shelf, but as a thumbnail on websites such as Amazon. The original art work was designed to be seen as a poster 27" x 40". That doesn't show up too well as a thumbnail. Hence you get large headshots of the major character, and bold fonts that stand out in a small format. Ugly, but effective.
Doug


I respectfully suggest if this is their reason it makes no sense at all simply for the reason that so much cover art now looks the same these days, so it isn't going to stand out is it. The proper cinematic artwork was often unique and stood out. With all due respect however if I want a film I search for it on Amazon, and buy it - I don't go through looking for films based on their thumbnail images!(?)


If studios MUST use different artwork due to costs (and how cheap of them is that with the resources at their disposal?!) then at least task the designers (or - as may be the case - let them off the leash!) with coming up with something imaginative which is at least a valid & eye-catching alternative to the original design. Something which is a work of art in-of-itself. I think the worst cover-art for a release I have seen in the last decade must be the Star Wars DVD - terrible cutting and pasting of images, no thought to the lighting direction being uniform across each character, pre-production photos being used of Harrison (so shorter hair!) and so on. Ironically the original posters are on the back of the covers and look soooo much better! Slightly better (technically) but still devoid of much imagination are the James Bond bluray designs - again just cut out images from publicity shots and a rather unimaginative background for each release. Personally I prefer a painted poster to the almost complete usage - these days - of photoshop'd images. I have nothing against photoshop, but the had painted posters of yore just looked more exciting and had that 'wow' factor (you knew someone had painted it from scratch).


As someone else pointed out Close Encounters is a good example of how altered artwork can still look great - I love my set. In general I think I'll start making my own custom covers (again as someone else suggested) as standards have dropped so low. The original artwork IS part of the film as far as I am concerned.


- John
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,713
It would be very costly and not exactly financially rewarding to release TGSET to Blu-Ray so with the current state that MGM is in this would be a huge surprise!

Therefore I have a hard time believing that they will release TGSET and especially only in Canada, probably some kind of error somewhere at Amazon or MGM. I would be pleased though to be proven wrong if they actually did the movie justice with a quality Blu-Ray [/url]




Canada is getting The Greatest Story Ever Told on Blu-Ray, March 29...
 

Douglas R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
2,941
Location
London, United Kingdom
Real Name
Doug
Originally Posted by OliverK /forum/thread/308365/studios-in-contest-for-ugliest-biblical-cover#post_3776670




Canada is getting The Greatest Story Ever Told on Blu-Ray, March 29...



MGM made a HD master of TGSET some years ago, as stated on the DVD package. I've seen the film in HD on broadcast TV and it looks very good.
 

Joe Caps

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2000
Messages
2,169
Yes, butMGM claimed their dvd was a restoration of the roadshow version. It wasn't. It was the general release version.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,713
Interesting. The US broadcast from the master that was also used for the DVD certainly did not look very good although it obviously was a significant improvement over the DVD:


http://cinerama.topcities.com/gsetdvdhd.htm


The difference between the current HD version and a proper Blu-Ray could be about the same as the one between the DVD and the HD broadcast.



Originally Posted by Douglas R





MGM made a HD master of TGSET some years ago, as stated on the DVD package. I've seen the film in HD on broadcast TV and it looks very good.
 

Douglas R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
2,941
Location
London, United Kingdom
Real Name
Doug
Originally Posted by Joe Caps


Yes, butMGM claimed their dvd was a restoration of the roadshow version. It wasn't. It was the general release version.


Why do you say that Joe? The DVD was 199 minutes - that wasn't the general release length.
 

Joe Caps

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2000
Messages
2,169
Yes, 3 hrs and 19 min.


the roadshow version ran theree hours and 40 min.


the current dvd is the general release version that plyayed everywhere. this is the second run version that I saw several times in New York City, and Syracuse, N.Y.


I also saw the roadshow version several times in New York City.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,713
The premiere version ran 3 hours 45 minutes according to imdb:


199 min (edited version) | USA:141 min (re-issue version) | USA:225 min (premiere version)

From what I read the edited version was shown in most roadshow engagements.


Originally Posted by Joe Caps


Yes, 3 hrs and 19 min.


the roadshow version ran theree hours and 40 min.


the current dvd is the general release version that plyayed everywhere. this is the second run version that I saw several times in New York City, and Syracuse, N.Y.


I also saw the roadshow version several times in New York City.
 

Douglas R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
2,941
Location
London, United Kingdom
Real Name
Doug
Originally Posted by OliverK

The premiere version ran 3 hours 45 minutes according to imdb:


199 min (edited version) | USA:141 min (re-issue version) | USA:225 min (premiere version)

From what I read the edited version was shown in most roadshow engagements.


Originally Posted by Joe Caps


Yes, 3 hrs and 19 min.


the roadshow version ran theree hours and 40 min.


the current dvd is the general release version that plyayed everywhere. this is the second run version that I saw several times in New York City, and Syracuse, N.Y.


I also saw the roadshow version several times in New York City.


Thanks. I saw the film two days after it premiered in London in Cinerama and I'm sure it wasn't 3 hours 40 (or 45) mins. I assume it had already been cut down to the 199 minute version.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,713
Originally Posted by Douglas R





Thanks. I saw the film two days after it premiered in London in Cinerama and I'm sure it wasn't 3 hours 40 (or 45) mins. I assume it had already been cut down to the 199 minute version.


Must have been very very cool to be able to watch these on the huge Cinerama screen!

I take it you also watched Khartoum that way?


It always saddened me that the ultrawide aspect ratio of Ultra Panavision was not used for more epic productions - imo it works nicely with a gently curved screen and wide vistas.
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce
Originally Posted by johnSM ...the feeling in the home video departments that the cover needs to stand out, not only on a store shelf, but as a thumbnail on websites such as Amazon. The original art work was designed to be seen as a poster 27" x 40". That doesn't show up too well as a thumbnail. Hence you get large headshots of the major character, and bold fonts that stand out in a small format. Ugly, but effective.
Doug


I respectfully suggest if this is their reason it makes no sense at all simply for the reason that so much cover art now looks the same these days, so it isn't going to stand out is it. The proper cinematic artwork was often unique and stood out. With all due respect however if I want a film I search for it on Amazon, and buy it - I don't go through looking for films based on their thumbnail images!(?)


If studios MUST use different artwork due to costs (and how cheap of them is that with the resources at their disposal?!) then at least task the designers (or - as may be the case - let them off the leash!) with coming up with something imaginative which is at least a valid & eye-catching alternative to the original design. Something which is a work of art in-of-itself. I think the worst cover-art for a release I have seen in the last decade must be the Star Wars DVD - terrible cutting and pasting of images, no thought to the lighting direction being uniform across each character, pre-production photos being used of Harrison (so shorter hair!) and so on. Ironically the original posters are on the back of the covers and look soooo much better! Slightly better (technically) but still devoid of much imagination are the James Bond bluray designs - again just cut out images from publicity shots and a rather unimaginative background for each release. Personally I prefer a painted poster to the almost complete usage - these days - of photoshop'd images. I have nothing against photoshop, but the had painted posters of yore just looked more exciting and had that 'wow' factor (you knew someone had painted it from scratch).


As someone else pointed out Close Encounters is a good example of how altered artwork can still look great - I love my set. In general I think I'll start making my own custom covers (again as someone else suggested) as standards have dropped so low. The original artwork IS part of the film as far as I am concerned.


- John

[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that the logic was good, or well executed, just that that was the thinking behind the designs.


Doug
 

Douglas R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
2,941
Location
London, United Kingdom
Real Name
Doug
Originally Posted by OliverK





Thanks. I saw the film two days after it premiered in London in Cinerama and I'm sure it wasn't 3 hours 40 (or 45) mins. I assume it had already been cut down to the 199 minute version.


Must have been very very cool to be able to watch these on the huge Cinerama screen!

I take it you also watched Khartoum that way?

[/QUOTE]
Yes I saw Khartoum on the Cinerama screen as well, along with everything else shown in Cinerama from 1962. The frst Cinerama film I saw was HOW THE WEST WAS WON which was a wonderful experience but I was too young to have seen any of the Cinerama travelogues.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,710
Messages
5,121,135
Members
144,146
Latest member
SaladinNagasawa
Recent bookmarks
0
Top