Cover Artwork - Poster or Original - Blu-ray Forum

adamclark83 · 02-16-2015, 09:38 AM

I've noticed many movies on Blu-ray that get released either have original artwork designed for the covers or just having the theatrical poster. So how do distributors decide?

I KEEL YOU · 02-16-2015, 10:00 AM

I like what Arrow are doing, they almost always include some new artwork on one side of the cover and the original poster on the other.

But if I have to go with one, then it would be the theatrical poster. Even if the poster is ugly and terrible, it's at least the part of the movie's history.

Blu MacReady · 02-16-2015, 10:24 AM

^ ^ 100% agree

Batmon77 · 02-16-2015, 11:01 AM

Theatrical posters should be a requirement.
If you have trailers, and commentaries, the promotional posters should be included as well.
Unless theres some tie up, or missing image.

lolwut · 02-17-2015, 12:09 PM

Poster art almost 100% of the time is better. There are too many examples to list of shitty Photoshopped Blu-ray art. Most recent example is the Batman: The Movie steelbook.

Guydowood · 02-17-2015, 12:47 PM

I'm no insider to how it actually works, but more or less it probably comes down to two variations marketing of the product and comping the artists who created the original theatrical marketing of the product.

Hands down the best theatrical poster art came outta the 70's & 80's. Each one was hand drawn. When we reached the 90's we had the floating heads art which was dominated by the lead actor or entire cast.

In the birth of the home video market a good amount of Laser Disc's/VHS and Beta featured the original art. With the invention of DVD things shifted and you got original or alternate art (some of which was good) but a majority was horrid and still is with some bluray releases.

Rights issues is most likely the biggest issue of all. Each release and re-release goes through some sorta negotiation on who's getting "their cut" of the home media release pie and for artists who created original theatrical prints are part of that. Its nice to see a lot of the independent studios like Shout Factory, Olive, Kino etc. do their best to retain original art and or reversible art since fans like that over the often floating heads or just god awful stuff they tend to use these days. I for one appreciate the custom cover artists out there who take the time to make awesome BD covers for those of us who cannot stand what the studios put out.

02-16-2015, 09:38 AM	#1
adamclark83 Blu-ray Guru Top contributor Member since:Nov 2011 Location:Melbourne, Australia 4K collection:61 Blu-ray collection:1423 DVD collection:1245	Cover Artwork - Poster or Original I've noticed many movies on Blu-ray that get released either have original artwork designed for the covers or just having the theatrical poster. So how do distributors decide?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-16-2015, 10:00 AM	#2
I KEEL YOU Blu-ray Samurai Top contributor Member since:May 2011 4K collection:67 Blu-ray collection:458 DVD collection:42	I like what Arrow are doing, they almost always include some new artwork on one side of the cover and the original poster on the other. But if I have to go with one, then it would be the theatrical poster. Even if the poster is ugly and terrible, it's at least the part of the movie's history.

02-16-2015, 10:24 AM	#3
Blu MacReady Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Dec 2011 4K collection:105 Blu-ray collection:2037 DVD collection:735 Blu-ray reviews:1 Trading Score:1	^ ^ 100% agree

02-16-2015, 11:01 AM	#4
Batmon77 Blu-ray Baron Member since:Oct 2011 Location:New York City 4K collection:13 Blu-ray collection:428 DVD collection:1	Theatrical posters should be a requirement. If you have trailers, and commentaries, the promotional posters should be included as well. Unless theres some tie up, or missing image.

02-17-2015, 12:09 PM	#5
lolwut Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Dec 2011 Location:Virginia, US 4K collection:383 Blu-ray collection:1640 DVD collection:445 MA collection:257 Digital collection:292 iTunes collection:347 Prime collection:210 Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:202	Poster art almost 100% of the time is better. There are too many examples to list of shitty Photoshopped Blu-ray art. Most recent example is the Batman: The Movie steelbook.

02-17-2015, 12:47 PM	#6
Guydowood Blu-ray Ninja Top contributor Member since:Aug 2008 Location:Guydowood 4K collection:1434 Blu-ray collection:3250 DVD collection:74 MA collection:1256 Digital collection:1623 iTunes collection:1514 Prime collection:1267 Blu-ray reviews: 4292 Trading Score:53	I'm no insider to how it actually works, but more or less it probably comes down to two variations marketing of the product and comping the artists who created the original theatrical marketing of the product. Hands down the best theatrical poster art came outta the 70's & 80's. Each one was hand drawn. When we reached the 90's we had the floating heads art which was dominated by the lead actor or entire cast. In the birth of the home video market a good amount of Laser Disc's/VHS and Beta featured the original art. With the invention of DVD things shifted and you got original or alternate art (some of which was good) but a majority was horrid and still is with some bluray releases. Rights issues is most likely the biggest issue of all. Each release and re-release goes through some sorta negotiation on who's getting "their cut" of the home media release pie and for artists who created original theatrical prints are part of that. Its nice to see a lot of the independent studios like Shout Factory, Olive, Kino etc. do their best to retain original art and or reversible art since fans like that over the often floating heads or just god awful stuff they tend to use these days. I for one appreciate the custom cover artists out there who take the time to make awesome BD covers for those of us who cannot stand what the studios put out.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals