That's not great, but there have surely been worse covers. Except for the color, I would find it passable. Did you see the cover of "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" on this forum? Now that's bad!
I agree with those who don't think it's bad. C'mon folks - with all the atrocious covers on the market - hello, Real Genius! - we're running a thread to bitch about one that simply modifies the original art a bit?
Hey, listen, there is a big damn difference between Real Genius and The Untouchables, notably the fact that The Untouchables is a hell of a movie! And having some terribly color-schemed borded AND bullet holes is NOT a simple modification of the original.
Jeez, I thought this was a DISCUSSION forum where people can express their opinions about things! And what does fiber have to do with anything, Juan?
Well, I was going to buy this disc, but not anymore. I hang all of my DVD cases on my walls, but this is just too ugly to be hung in my home. Paramount has lost my money.
Add another person who thinks that this cover would be pretty acceptable if it weren't for the red border. I've seen far worse.
So is Real Genius, and on the average night, I'd probably choose Real Genius over The Untouchables.
But, that's my personal taste. That's why that shouldn't come into this discussion. All movies deserve good cover art, no matter what people's opinions on the movie itself are.
I agree that the color scheme might require a tab or two of dramamine but IMO the art, bullet holes aside, is close enough to the original poster art for me to accept...now show me a lousy transfer or crappy sound and then I'll bitch but cover art is the least of my concerns with a DVD release.
Come to think of it, why do studios feel the need to come up with new cover art in the first place? Most times the movie poster, which they already spent oodles on in designing, is perfectly acceptable, and would make a fine cover. Do they really think it necessary to make yet another promotional piece of artwork to distinguish the DVD?
Many of the changes required have to do with package readability and title placement. Like it or not DVDs are retail products.
A poster is designed from the get-go to be a larger size and to be seen on a wall. A smaller DVD cover on the other hand has to jump out at you from a rack. You need to be able to see what it is as you flip past it in a bin.
Once you start enlarging type and moving it to the top of the box layout to be more easily read, it can play all sorts of havoc with the original poster design.
Add a few critic's quotes, research/box office data that may indicate audiences prefer a different actor/feature than what was originally chosen for the one sheet, and a lot of director/actor/producer/marketing types gut reactions, and you very likely will end up with a whole different design.
It would be nice as a rule of thumb if we could at least see the original theatrical poster somewhere on or in the package - but with many studios now even eliminating the once standard keepcase insert or booklet, we may only get it on a stills section on the disc itself (if they bother to even do one).