What's with the atrocious WARRIORS cover art? (1 Viewer)

[Jon Hertzberg]

I don't if this has already been discussed here, but this is something that's bothered me for some time. Why did Paramount feel the need to alter the cover art for THE WARRIORS on last year's DVD release? They replaced a familiar, almost iconic image--the original poster art-- with a ghastly, blurry hodpodge of images that makes for one of the worst DVD covers I have seen.
It's just a hunch, but I think that the original artwork would have lured a lot more potential viewers than the new cover. The original poster art is beautiful--it's what drew me to the movie. I have kept my 1981-issued laserdisc for the artwork. I apologize for the rant--not something I normally do
Was anyone else bothered by this or am I alone in my sentiments?
Jon

 

[Mark Edward Heuck]

I must agree. But all the studios have been guilty of ignoring the beautiful, original poster and ad artwork of their catalog titles in favor of boring head shots and new title treatments. I guess they worry that if it looks remotely old, none of the "new"-minded consumers will want to look at them.

Thankfully, most of the smaller companies recognize the value of history, and try to replicate the original art on their packaging.

 

[Brian E]

Ugh, I hadn't seen the cover art yet. Makes me want to puke. The original poster is what this release deserved.
Current cover art
Original poster art