Anyone Else think recent Cover Art Stinks?

[haphilli]

I am looking at the Minority Report and Collateral covers and man do they look absolutely awful. What goes behind designing these covers. Are they that concerned about distinguishing between the DVD and Blu-Ray that they need to change it entirely? So what do you guys think? Have you resorted to custom covers? Or do you not really even notice?

On the other hand Criterion cover art consistently rocks.

[Moefiz]

In my opinion most covers in the US are weak compare to the covers the overseas market gets.

[FlipperWasIrish]

No.

[YodasFootPowder]

This is what the custom cover thread is for. LOL!

[kdo]

If I could have it my way, all cover art would replicate that of the original posters with which the films were advertised when they were initially released...

[RyRyMcNizzy13]

i just picked up minority report and i think it looks great, specially with the lenticular cover. collateral on the other hand does look real bad. but it's hit and miss with covers and it always have been for as long as i can remember. the Avatar cover looks great as did sherlock holmes and such so there still is hope.

[Atreyu]

I think cover art should look great after all if you are browsing in the store it's the cover art that's going to catch your eye.
With that said I must add that I love great cover art , but if you really want to get technical you are buying the disc for the movie not for the cover art.

[BStecke]

Ultimately it really only bugs me until it ends up on my shelf. Then I don't really think about it again until it comes back off the shelf. When the spines are hard to read is when I get annoyed.

If I had my choice, original poster art would always be used. I really liked what they did with There Will Be Blood, which gave you the choice between the original poster and a semi-decent alternate.

[hardtosayx]

I definitely prefer cover art from other regions, like the UK. I love 'The Hurt Locker' and 'In Bruges' (even though I haven't seen that movie) I prefer it to the one shown for the US. I find some of them to be kinda boring. But like someone else said, you buy it for the movie and not the cover art, hopefully.

[Captain Morphus]

Yes.

I just bought Ninth Gate, and the cover art is awful.

Most box art in the US is awful for VHS, DVD or BR, it looks like the same guy photoshops them over and over.

[Batman1980]

The worst cover art I've seen to date is for Nightmare on Elm Street but even that didn't really bother me.

[manicsounds]

Couldn't this have been a "Tom Cruise Cover Art" thread?

[Sir Platypus]

Cover art sucks because they are way more interested in showing the actors/characters in a movie rather than an interesting piece of art that catches the eye and reflects the tone of the movie.

A great example would be Up. Look at the first posters released vs cover art. Same goes for Wall-e. Then look at older movies like the Star Wars series: They've pretty much gone from beautiful painted styles to "lets photoshop some cool stuff around some heads."

And then there is the terrible sin of SHOUTING AT THE CONSUMER HOW DAMN AWESOME THIS MOVIE IS. CHECK OUT ALL THESE AWARDS. DON'T YOU WANT TO BUY IT NOW?!

And for this I will show one of the best examples. Cloverfield had a great poster. It was minimalistic, immediately captures your interest, and (at first) only gave you the DATE that it was released.

And once it came to home media they decided that you should know how awesome it is with a WALL OF TEXT.

[EricJ]

A great example would be Up. Look at the first posters released vs cover art. Same goes for Wall-e. Then look at older movies like the Star Wars series: They've pretty much gone from beautiful painted styles to "lets photoshop some cool stuff around some heads."

Although, as mentioned before, much of the bane of recent poster art has been the increasing agent-clause requirements about how many actors "deserve" the rights to have their face on the final design of the poster--
(Which also includes marketable animated characters, as with "Princess/Frog" and "Up".)

Pick any cool pre-release "concept" art in the last ten years for any big-studio title that had a major star, and then see how the final-release poster was turned into a group prom class-photo...

[AxlVanHagar]

Originally Posted by kdo

If I could have it my way, all cover art would replicate that of the original posters with which the films were advertised when they were initially released...

This. 1000 times this. It drives me crazy when they abandon the perfectly good poster art that was originally used to advertise the film in favor of the slop that finds it way onto BD/DVD covers. Especially on older titles where as someone else pointed out they were beautiful illustrated pieces of art.

[sfmarine]

I do agree..UK CA> US coverart. They should keep the original theatrical artwork instead of changing it.

[DetroitSportsFan]

I agree that U.S. cover art hasn't been good lately.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by kdo

If I could have it my way, all cover art would replicate that of the original posters with which the films were advertised when they were initially released...

i'm for this!!! biggest wish for this was the incredible hulk w/banner and the hulk back to back......just awesome!!!

[Chiyo_chichi]

Originally Posted by Sir Platypus

And then there is the terrible sin of SHOUTING AT THE CONSUMER HOW DAMN AWESOME THIS MOVIE IS. CHECK OUT ALL THESE AWARDS. DON'T YOU WANT TO BUY IT NOW?!

I brought that up in another thread, I couldn't agree with you more. I truly hate that. Though for me it's a real pet peeve. I really hate any review text on my box period.

Like the cover of Surrogates...."High Octane Action"- Matt Goldberg. Thanks for the info there!

[Sussudio]

They are paper covers...on a plastic case....that sit on a shelf in my home...that I do nothing with.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest .