digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why Do Great Movies Get Terrible DVD Cover Art?

nomorequo.blogspot.com — Why do good films with great movie posters get awful DVD Cover Art? This post discusses the question and compares some recent examples of this disturbing trend.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • OneManArmy, on 10/12/2007, -120/+14Seeing that most of DVDs have the actors/actresses faces on them, I think this is done on purpose. The only reason I can think of is for casual people shopping for DVDs, they can immediately determine whom is in the movie; "aaah, a movie with Al Pacino. I better see it". On the other hand, movie goers already know what they are going to see in the theater.

    Just my two cents.
    • BrienD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+78That's exactly what the post says.
    • agjimenez, on 10/12/2007, -8/+304DVD's have covers? I thought they all came in those little red envelopes.
    • diulei, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53Yea, I bet it's basically required from the management to have huge shots of the main celebrities' faces on a DVD cover.

      I found this article quite funny actually. Some of those DVD covers do look like someone just downloaded a copy of Photoshop though.
    • Cleanlyness, on 10/12/2007, -73/+6lame article. Also, those covers aren't lame and some are even better than the actual movie (children of men for example)
    • deezp1, on 10/12/2007, -20/+165DVDs have cover art? I thought movies only come rar'ed
    • ryodoan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+39But remember folks. It aint our crappy marketing, extreme arrogance, or even a general rehashing of old material that is causing a drop in movie sales, no.

      Its those damn video pirates!

      /Stupid single mothers with 5 kids, ruining our profits...
    • HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18DVD covers redesign the poster artwork simply because most poster art, when resized, makes the title too small or the art too hard to make out. They're all competing against other DVDs either on the shelf or at the video store, so the faces become more prominent (especially if they're A-List actors) and the titles get bigger.

      That, and the fact that posters are big ads, so the more eye-catching they are the better. You see the art and *then* look at the title, whereas when shopping or renting you're usually looking for something specific either because you've seen it or want to see it, so they make them easier to pick out. Simple as that.

      The Children of Men redesign isn't bad so much as dull.
      Blood Diamond and The Departed aren't bad redesigns.
      The Prestige do-over is pretty by-the-numbers, emphasizes the competition nature and puts the hottie in the middle.
      Casino Royale IMO could've probably stayed mostly the same although the redesign is decent.
      Last King redesign... meh. Boring. Makes it look like a TV Movie Of The Week flick.
      The Fountain... the poster is too abstract for the average renter, but the redesign is fugly.
    • pixelbender, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9The story is 100% correct. As a movie store manager it amazes me how the mostly idiots that pass as customers can't even figure out the damn things are in alphabetical order. Hell they still pass up a movie and when I grab it for them its always "Oops I walked right past that."

      Not only that - but a word of advice:
      If there are no actual photos or screenshots on the box (back) along with a lack of praise from even the tiniest of small-town newspapers, STAY AWAY!
    • sldSquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19@cleanlyness: Are you serious?

      poster: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a0/Children_Of_Men_3.jpg/404px-Children_Of_Men_3.jpg
      US cover: http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000N6TX1I.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V43649434_.jpg
      EU cover: http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000J4P9YO.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V45319778_.jpg
    • harperjs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15And this is another reason why "Snakes on a Plane" is brilliant.
    • tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5harperjs: Snakes On A Plans is no different, since they still managed to get the two main stars on the cover.
    • rookkoss, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3@pixelbender

      Until you stop working at a video store, you can never criticize anyone for anything again.
    • bryan4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@duilei... I think you meant it is required from the Marketing department not Management.
    • ThreeDee912, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I notice a lot of DVDs don't actually have an actual summary. They just have things like "This award winning movie is starring this award winning actor with another award winning actor, who won 2 awards for Best Supporting Actor" and blah blah blah with no detail as to what the movie is actually about.
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Thank god that LOTR Extended Director's Cut Edition does not fall into this category.
    • jake8689, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3inaccurate Casino Royale in not a great movie nor is it a good movie
      /sarcastic
      Casino Royale does suck
    • MasterGrief, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4This guy really liked The Fountain.

      His opinion has no value whatsoever.
    • Konrad9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Only thing worse than The Matrix: Revolutions was its cover art...
    • Alchemeron, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Dear agjimenez,

      You are so hip and cool. How can I be more like you?

      Your biggest fan,

      -Alch
    • bat-21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Worst DVD cover ever: Planet of the Apes (1968). It gives away the ending!
    • sych0, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Are you kidding me?

      http://www.digg.com/movies/Actual_Borat_DVD_is_made_to_look_like_a_DVD_R_Picture

      hilarious!
    • glxyjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I thought the exact same thing when I saw the Children of Men box art. Compared to the movie poster it is horrendous. However, I believe it's quite simple why dvd box art is usually lacking in comparison...

      FOR COLLECTORS EDITION RELEASES!!!

      Seriously, the best dvd box art is usually reserved so that in a year or two they can screw the actual collectors (who already bought the original dvd) into buying a beautiful looking collectors edition of their favorite movie. If you want to replace that ugle dvd on your shelf, well you better buy the BRAND NEW COLLECTORS EDITION for only $29.99!!!! Limited edition to 1,000,000!!!!!
    • mikesbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"The DVD was a must-have purchase for me until I saw the DVD cover:"
      what a douche. he was going to buy a movie that he had already seen, but the cover pissed him off so much that he forgot about how much he liked the movie.
      what do you expect from blogspam - i mean blogspot
    • cazoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it breaks my heart to see classic movies too being butchered this way. just look at any old title from Fox or MGM.
    • iFrikkenR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A Sharpie counts as cover art right?
    • dopplerdog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@onemanarmy
      "can immediately determine whom is in the movie"

      This is just for info purposes - I don't intend to be a grammar nazi, but perhaps some people could benefit from this (or, you can all just bury me to hell if you want).

      It's bad enough that people say "who" when they should say "whom", but saying "whom" when they should say "who" comes across very awkwardly.

      "Whom" should be used when the pronoun stands for the direct or indirect object of a phrase/clause/sentence - e.g. "Whom did I correct?" and "Whom did I give the grammar lesson to?"

      "Who" should be used when the pronoun stands for the subject of a phrase/clause/sentence - e.g.
      "Who buried me to hell?"

      In this case, the pronoun is a subject in the clause, so it should be "who is in the movie".
  • caddyalan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8There's a quote in one of Roger Ebert's books about amusing/dumb things in movies which I don't remember, but I believe it was about how caricatured images of actors on movie boxes are a bad sign.
    • ross., on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Case in point, every Chevy Chase movie ever made.

      In fact I only just realised Chevy Chase is a real person, and not a cartoon character, after watching Funny Money the other day.
    • RobbyDigital, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well - its pretty much the same deal with album artwork. Usually... and I know there are some exceptions... but usually, when album artwork has the band's picture on the cover, that CD will suck balls. Of course, the majority of people in the world will think otherwise, because the majority of people in the world listen to absolute ***** music. Its all for pushing the image to the brainless masses.
  • sally00, on 10/12/2007, -27/+6I don't see how you think CHILDREN OF MEN and THE PRESTIGE have bad covers.

    You must be on drugs or something.


    (I don't give a crap about the other movies).
    • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -23/+3agreed, this is the biggest bitchfest blog post i've seen all day

      the covers for these boxes are fine, who the hell wants to see a ***** optical illusion on the prestige's box?

      movie posters: make you want to see the movie
      movie boxes: make you want to buy the movie
    • wolfboyZ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ImTheDarkcyde

      Gee, I don't know...maybe because the whole movie revolves around ILLUSION?
    • SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I agree 100%. I think this guy was wrong on almost every count.

      The guy who wrote this article is a tool.
  • flashboy131, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Two different designers, Two different art directors.

    I imagine studios and distributors have different internal staff, agencies they work with.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I'd say they paid the poster artist a premium fee, and the DvD cover guy gets minimum wage, or thereabouts, instead of shelling out to the first artist for a second use.

      Just a theory.
    • gaiden2k5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@flashboy131

      It's a bit long, sry...

      That and the fact that 'one-trick-pony' method just doesn't work with most of the movies out there nowadays. Posters are different, new posters are mostly used to capture people's eyes and curiosity - with so many movies wanting to be 'original' the story lines have become inevitably more complicated over the years, so by going with the 'shockingly simple' design is usually a sensible introduction to the new audience and presents a nice contrast between the advertisement and the movie (people love irony), but for the better part it still depends on the conditions of the movie being advertised (simple vs complicated story line, popular work vs new and original, genre of the story, etc. etc.). For the post-theatric release of the DVD's, from my point of view, it is most likely a compromised effort of both marketing and design department (or, more likely - like someone mentioned "from two different agencies") but naturally it makes sense to me even though i hated most of the DVD covers out there. The reason is that people who seen the movie simply can not record the details of the movies they seen after roughly 6-7 months and a DVD cover with illustrations/pictures of the movie/signature characteristics displayed on its cover can certainly help the potential consumers to revive the 'good parts of the movie' and therefore, helped produced more sales.

      The writer of the article only presented a few of what people would have remembered about after months, but i doubt everyone could record how good it was or the storyline at all if they solely look at a 'cool' layout on a DVD release. But there are also exceptions: Spider-Man, LOTR, Matrix, Shrek, and Pirates... these are the Nikes and Adidas on movies, meaning they either got REAL STRONG storylines or VERY WELL KNOWN, or both. And it doesn't really matter how their DVD release looked like - it's gonna sale. But for those others, it's more info on DVD cover or low sales.

      well thats my two cents

      typing's over *cheers*
  • broXc, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4I don't see anything wrong with any of the DVD boxes posted there.
  • knuvue, on 12/05/2007, -2/+9So how is this any surprise?

    The promotional artwork and movie posters for these hollywood films are designed specifically to fit with the marketing campaign of the film and to attract the attention of people that see them. Once the movie has been out and people want to buy the DVD because they know it's a good movie, they will buy it regardless of what's on the covor. Therefor the stars of the movie are usually put as big as possible to whore their image to get as many extra sales based on their image as possible.
  • DarK1217, on 10/12/2007, -48/+7The person who posted the blog is just EXTREMELY picky. As a graphic designer let me tell you: you are my worst nightmare.
    • gruk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+62as a consumer let me tell you. he's absolutely right.
    • powerpants, on 10/12/2007, -13/+0...and your wildest dreams.

      (space moose, anyone?)
    • dignation, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7hide behind people who don't give a ***** about how it looks to cover for up your inadequacy, nice going there.

      truthfully though... I would fall under those people who don't give a *****, but who gives a ***** anyways.
    • Schug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@dignation
      Wait, so are you giving a ***** or not?
  • lucaskiker, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7Does it really matter? I don't buy DVDs to look at the box art. I buy them to watch the movie.
    • redrighthand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Of course the design matters, Design always matters. Seeing the differences in the design between the poster art and Box art makes it very apparent and the consumer who can obviously see a difference between the better thought out movie poster art meant to grab your attention and the ho-hum DVD art that is just there to cover the disc. I for one would prefer the same art be used for both but I'm sure market research has proven that the box art re-design must have an affect on sales?
    • SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9It does matter. If it didn't, why do 75% of mp3 player buyers get an iPod rather than a cheaper, more flexible player? I don't think it's because of the software. iTunes ain't all that, and what's with a player that is one way only? I can't move my music back to my computer? What the hell?...

      Personally, I am saddened by the increasingly poor attitude towards DVD cover art. I've built a pretty substantial DVD collection over the years because I love movies, I like to support those who produce quality films, and yes, the cover art is a big part of that for me. If you buy movies, it matters, because it's a collection. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't buy, you'd rent from Netflix in a paper sleeve. It's the same reason people lamented the death of the 12" vinyl LP. Did you ever spend hours staring at an amazing album cover? No? Do you even know what an album cover is? If you're under 25, probably not, and that is sad because cover art used to really enhance music and movies. Music became a commodity when the artwork went away. The same is happening with movies.

      I've had this discussion with my gf a few times over the past six months or so, and even pointed out many of these same releases as examples of how the movie industry is starting down the same slippery slope the music industry forged: they care less and less about their customers and it's showing.
    • BevansDesign, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Oh, SanTe, you said something bad about not just ONE Apple product, but TWO! You're going to get buried so fast you won't even know what happened.

      But I'll defend you with a digg. It's the best I can do.
  • MediaShipper, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4Yeah, this guy is a bonehead. In Children of Men, most of the time the characters are hiding behind walls, running from bullets. The dvd art makes much more sense than that poster. The baby is black in the movie for one thing.
    • knuvue, on 12/05/2007, -1/+16I don't think the OP cares if the cover of the movie accurately depicts the film. I think he is just wondering why the Posters and promo art is always better (artistically) than the final covers for the DVD box. I don't agree with all of his comparisons, but I do have to say, The Fountains original poster was ***** awesome...and the DVD makes it look so retarded. Also Blood Diamond and Children of Men both would have looked WAY better with the poster as the DVD as well. My 2 cents.
    • tenken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@MediaShipper: Can I join your "completely misses the point" club?
    • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4ha, dugg up for "bonehead"

      I havn't heard anyone called that in years
    • MediaShipper, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2poster art is to get you to see the movie in the theater, when you are going to see a movie anyway. dvd art is to get you to impulsively buy a movie when you are buying toilet paper.
  • FXPooky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35Although I disagree generally about his comments, the Casino Royale box art really is stunningly atrocious, especially considering the gorgeous poster and pre-release art for the movie. Odd.
    • Crosshare, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Not to mention with that maroon stripe across the top I keep wanting to pick it up thinking it's HD-DVD then I remember "no..no..., it's that damn Blu-Ray release only crap"
    • jhnewt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I agree with you. While I also thought the Casino Royale poster was way better than the box art, other movie posters were awful. The Prestige movie poster is atrocious and I'm glad that didn't make it on the DVD box.
    • gamesector, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I have the Casino Royale DVD, it looks much better than the picture used in the article.
  • GCarden, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Wait a minute!

    You mean to say that DVD box covers are meant to sell DVDs, not be works of art?!! How can this be?

    /sarcasm
  • thatguy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4What is every body's favorite DVD cover??

    Fight Club (original release)
  • DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28Anyone who goes to the store to buy a movie they want to watch and then changes their mind because they think the cover art on the DVD case sucks probably isn't the brightest of consumers.
    • tenken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Unfortunately, that's probably most of them...
    • SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5For those of us who love film and buy movies for personal collections, some of us don't want to look at crappy art every time we pull the disc off the shelf. It's a constant reminder that the producer didn't really give a ***** about the overall quality of their product, and it makes us regret giving them $20 for a half-assed effort.

      It's the same reason most Mac fanboys buy Macbook Pros I imagine, instead of settling for a cheaper XP laptop that gets the job done just fine.
    • uberwaffle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Right, because having a crappy cover negates anything and everything positive about the part that really matters.
    • SigmaEcho, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4What kind of an idiot buys a movie he hasn't seen?
  • DigTheDoug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13The Fountain is a pretty terrible cover compared to the poster, as is Crank and a bunch of others recently. Asian movies usually fare the worst on American DVD though, I think the first release of "Infernal Affairs" on DVD is the most insulting cover I've seen in a while; with an Asian girl, who doesn't appear in the movie, in some tight dress holding a gun. Exactly what the movie is about...

    Bonus points for changing names as well as cover art. Because "Killzone" is way better than "S.P.L."
  • l3lueMage, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2If the people actually cared, they could still have the face and make it look really good ... I always noticed 'professional' photoshop peoples skills SUCK compared to those that do photoshop for fun.
  • antifolkhero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Its just another example of deteriorating quality in our culture overall. Ever notice what a piece of ***** the OS on your cell phone is? I hear Ford is going to start selling rickshaws as a green energy alternative.
  • Ndric, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Some are reasonable, but he was just nit-picking at the rest. Buried
  • benbays, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I would imagine they are different because the movie poster is designed to seem unique and jump out compared to the concurrent films, whereas the DVD box art should jump out from amongst its alphabetical competitors
  • Sanitarium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The Borat DVD wasn't mentioned.
  • night141, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3My God, the biggest whine-fest I've read all week.

    Fits in well here on digg, though. Buried as lame.
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Your little comment (in a words-to-whine ratio) is way more whiney than the story!
  • Reziarfg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17One thing popped into my head when reading this article. This person REALLY likes the word 'stark'. Just an observation.
  • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0This guy is an idiot. He is trying to say that the DVD covers should be like hte posters, which are all TEASER posters.

    That is just dumb. Teaser posts are supposed to give justy enough information to spark some interest to find out more about it. He is showing DVD covers of movies that everyone knows about now. Teasers are not necessary, nor effective anymore.
    • Spazzo54, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I disagree, a good, and I repeat, "GOOD", teaser poster should be something that you see and then look back at after seeing the movie and go, Ohhhhhh..... very clever.....
  • drewdvorak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My copy of The Departed is sweet. Metal case from Best Buy, kind of a blueish hue, the departed gun with Boston skyline on it. Its great.
    • tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I sorta wish I'd sprung for that one, but I didn't want to drop another $7 on a movie I hadn't seen before (and I only watch the special features once, if even that).
  • Supernova36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7None of those come close the MS Paint job on The Matrix Revolutions dvd cover.
  • Spazzo54, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I very much agree with this article. I'm studying to be a graphic artist, and the DVD covers are done by probably talented kids who haven't finished college just yet, so the movie companies take advantage of that and they pay them way less because they're not as experienced or they have they're own guy do the art work and it comes out very non-creative, just trying to put big famous faces on the covers... it's really sad.
  • MastaB, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14This is my favourite article of the week so far - I'm a DVD collector, and every single one of his examples would be in my collection if they didn't have such unbelievably lame cover art. Children of Men was IMHO best movie of the year - a guaranteed buy - after seeing the art I might as well keep my torrented copy and pray there's a special edition. The only movie in there that got the treatment it deserved was The Departed - but you had to go to best buy in the first couple days it was out to get the awesome steel-case 2-disc version of the film....
    • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9Goddamn OCD geeks. Watch the movie and stop obsessing over irrelevant details.
  • theseventhyear, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Gee! you'd almost think the people marketing these movies want to get as many people as possible to see the movie. what a shock! oh, and just a little note to this guy... if a bunch dvd's is the closest thing he has in his place t art, and actually considers them a central display, he might want to consider hiring a decorator.
  • thinsoldier, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I sort of disagree with some of them but I get the authors point. Like, I don't think the Blood Diamond cover was bad, but the diamond dripping blood poster was infinitely better.
    I wonder if there's enough momentum on this to spark a new community site where people try to get their hands on the original movie artwork to produce super high quality bootleg DVD covers worth showcasing in your living room?
  • dustysquareback, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4The Prestige listed as a great movie?

    Buried as innacurate.
  • tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Can it still be called a trend if it's been going on for over a decade?
  • funkywood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This reminds me of all the cool Japanese art work for games compared to the ***** that gets put on in the west.

    Is everyone really that dumb and shallow?
  • wipis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The covers are small compared to posters so they try to make it so it catches they eye. Granted some of the covers aren't beautiful but consider the fact that graphic designers and the artists who make these covers do a lot of research in what is most effective. My friend has spent 4 years of college studying this sort of thing.
  • 1ee7sauce, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4This was a great post and I think the author was spot on. I never actually noticed this before until I read it, probably because I download all my movies.

    I think that the movie posters are really something that the production companies can designate as artwork -- they hang from the walls and are exhibited in theaters as a means of promotion. DVDs, on the other hand, are a product. No longer is the movie being sold as a work of art; instead, the promoters plaster positive movie reviews, mentions of awards/nominations, and most of all, what they're really trying to sell, the faces of the stars that act in the movie itself.

    Whatever gets them the most sales, I guess. I'll keep doing my part in not buying it.
  • drewc1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You have to mention the Star Wars DVD's. You've got these beautiful Drew Struzan posters for the films, and then Photoshop hack jobs that look like they were done by my grandmother for the DVD's.

    http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000003G8Z.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
    http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B0006VIXGQ.01-A3INEY9W97IL96._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
    • xenoploid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah, the SW cover art is like insult-to-injury.
  • uberben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the last three movies were the only ones i would agree were better on the poster. the others look way better on the dvd cover art.
  • chaos7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3because a lot of those movies suck so much
  • Spartandog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Thank goodness someone's noticing. The only company that puts out DVDs with nice covers is Criterion - that's because they actually care about movies. As an illustrator, I'm sad that there are less posters and DVDs with fine illustration or clever graphic design. Now it's mostly lame photos of the stars, generally split down the middle or collaged into a jumbled mess. The worst DVD cover in my collection is Solaris. The film was filled with stunning images but the DVD? It's just a terrible shot of George Clooney with a space helmet bathed in a mess of red reflections, and it's even out of focus. Talk about lazy-assed marketing. Check out the poster for The Rocketeer, then look at the DVD. Gorgeous 1930's style art deco illustration (poster), dumbed down to a cut-and-paste 5-minute photo montage(DVD). Yuk.
  • 21.0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hell yea, I'd want that blood diamond poster as the dvd cover. Fortunately, for me, I get my movies from yellow and blue blockbuster envelopes.
  • CyberGhost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I like this poster...

    http://www.itsonlyamovie.co.uk/magazines%20and%20posters/the%20thing%20poster.jpg

    The greatest horror movie ever!
    • SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Gotta agree with you there. John Carpenter's "The Thing" is easily in the top five.
  • porterfield, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Not a single one of these DVD covers is bad.
  • ladyarcher85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because they are scrimping on the cover and not really paying an attention and dedication to their products and work.
  • SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Another tragedy:

    "A History of Violence"
    Poster: http://www.impawards.com/2005/history_of_violence.html
    DVD cover: http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/release/53/68653/cover.php

    This film's poster art is among my favorites. I thought it did a brilliant job of grabbing your attention and making you wonder what the film was about. The DVD cover looks like a marketing drone did it in Photoshop on their lunchbreak.
  • jaynecobb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Serenity had a pretty crummy cover art compared to the posters also. I think I read that the special edition coming out soon is going to have a better cover.
    • STKD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The Serenity cover art on the USA version (also on the HD-DVD) was awful beyond words. Some odd battle scene that didn't even have anything to do with the film at all. Very silly.
  • ZachRetox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3LOL... I saw the DVD cover for Children of Men advertised last nite and thought to myself, "what a ***** dvd cover."

    Even with the bloggish histrionics, I enjoyed this read.
  • SoyLocoMoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My friend works for a design company making DVD covers. The art directors on the DVD boxes are the product managers at the major studios (ie, marketers with probably no design experience whatsoever). They consistently demand big type, big *****, and fireballs. There you have it. My friend typically makes 3 or more mock-ups for the studio to choose from. For a while he tried to slip in one truly over-the-top hideous cover to try to get them to pick one that was more to his liking. He stopped doing this because they consistently chose the hideous one.
  • GrandpaShampoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2another one to be added on the list: Half Nelson.

    http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000KX0IOK.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

    horrible.
  • CodyBrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That Children of Men DVD is appalling.

    In everyway Universal has done a horrendous job getting that movie out there.

    It could have won best picture if they got it into the right hands.

    Tis a shame. Alfonso is one of our greatest working directors.
  • uberwaffle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't know if it's just that I am strange in some way, but when I buy a DVD, I buy it because I want to be able to watch the movie again whenever I want, not because I want it to sit on a shelf and look pretty.

    But like I said, perhaps I am the odd man out.
  • IslandSaint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I liked the article until he said The Fountain was one of his favorite movies of the year.
  • jaderobbins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it probably has to do also with the idea that if it's a dvd for sale people have allready seen the movie and can recognize the "ambiance" of the whole film easier.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.