Why does Blu-ray have superior cover art?

[linkgx1]

I've always noticed DVDs had less than stellar cover art. But the Blu-ray versions seem to have high quality box art. Has anyone noticed this? Is there a reason? Look at the Harry-Potter Deathly Hallows Bluray cover vs the DVD?

[Al_The_Strange]

For new releases, they want to sell the BDs over the DVDs, so they give them the better higher-quality cover art.

For catalogue releases, I thought the cover art for some movies look pretty iffy at times, or unremarkable.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

I've always noticed DVDs had less than stellar cover art. But the Blu-ray versions seem to have high quality box art. Has anyone noticed this? Is there a reason? Look at the Harry-Potter Deathly Hallows Bluray cover vs the DVD?

Most do, but not all. Look at this crap!:



It reminds me of "bargain-bin" VHS style.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

I've always noticed DVDs had less than stellar cover art. But the Blu-ray versions seem to have high quality box art. Has anyone noticed this? Is there a reason? Look at the Harry-Potter Deathly Hallows Bluray cover vs the DVD?

Because Blu-ray is the superior format. Therefore, it deserves the superior package presentation.

In all sincerity, I believe that it is a marketing technique. Maybe the people in marketing realize that better cover art will create better sales for the Blu-ray format. Mind you, cover art on the effect of sale differences between formats would be very small in percentage numbers. But, even if that fact sells 100 more copies of the Blu-ray, that still means more profit for the studio.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

That's not always the case.

The ony trend that I did notice for a while was that sometimes there would be 2 editions of a DVD (a single disc 'movie only' version, and a 2-disc edition with more bonus features), and one version of the Blu-Ray which would have the same contents has the 2-disc DVD. The 2 different DVD editions would have different cover art, and most of the time the Blu-Ray would have the same cover art as the 2-disc DVD edition.

Mind you this isn't a 100% rule and some things have changed since then, but this was a trend for a while and might still be to some extent.

There have been a handful of times where I wished the Blu-Ray cover art would be more similar to the 1-disc DVD.


At any rate, not only is this subjective, but even if we were to take a general average of opinions, I think that you would find many people pointing out time where the DVD cover art is/was better than the Blu-Ray cover art for the same movie.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by sc1957

Because the Blu-ray cover art is 1080p and the DVD cover art is only 720p, of course.

Actually, DVD cover art is 480i.

[dg5150]

I actually don't like a lot of the cover art for blu rays. I remember buying vhs or seeing them in the store to rent and liking them more because it had the movie poster for the box art. Maybe it's too simple, but I like having the movie for the cover art just for recognition. You see the poster outside the theater when you go to the movies, you would think having the cover art for the home release would make it easier for the consumer to recognize.

[alphadec]

Cover art on bd discs is something I don't like at all. All seams to be photomontage, almost never do they use the orginal movie artwork something I think is very sad.

Just take the the james bond films not one of them did use the orginal artwork, here is one of the them with maybe one of the greatest movie artwork:

http://www.jamesbondmm.co.uk/posters...posters?id=002

and what did we get.....

http://www.dvdtown.com/moviedatabase...lu-ray/26169/0



hmmmmm wish we could have the orginal artwork.

[BStecke]

Moat of the time I find that, especially with catalog titles, Blu-ray cover art sucks a fat one. A lot of them look like Paint hack jobs where someone just cut out pictures of the cast and slapped them on the cover. I echo the sentiment that poster art would be a million times more desirable than most of the junk out there. Plus they wouldn't have to pay an "artist" extra to create a new cover that is in most cases far inferior to the original poster. I think the DVD is the same, but have you seen the cover art for Hancock? Seriously, wtf is that?!

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

For new releases, they want to sell the BDs over the DVDs, so they give them the better higher-quality cover art.

I seriously doubt any graphic artist for a DVD cover was told "Whatever you do, make it crappier than the Blu-Ray cover."

It's all too subjective anyway. I like the artwork for the 1-Disc DVD loads better than the Blu-Ray cover for Inglourious Basterds. Of course, by the same token, I'm sure there are that many more that prefer the Blu cover. All too subjective.

[Show spoiler]

[DBLN8]

Originally Posted by Variable_Star

I seriously doubt any graphic artist for a DVD cover was told "Whatever you do, make it crappier than the Blu-Ray cover."

It's all too subjective anyway. I like the artwork for the 1-Disc DVD loads better than the Blu-Ray cover for Inglourious Basterds. Of course, by the same token, I'm sure there are that many more that prefer the Blu cover. All too subjective.

[Show spoiler]

In this case I prefer the Blu cover, each individual will have a different opinion on what they like and don't like. It's all good at the end of the day.

[beckmen]

Yeah, it's subjective. I think I actually prefer VHS cover art, myself. Mainly because for the most part, it predates photoshop. IMO photoshop has ruined cover art.

Though there are some good covers for BD, as well. It just seems to be getting more and more rare. Unless you are The Criterion Collection, which have always (going back to LD) excelled.

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by beckmen

Yeah, it's subjective. I think I actually prefer VHS cover art, myself. Mainly because for the most part, it predates photoshop. IMO photoshop has ruined cover art.

Though there are some good covers for BD, as well. It just seems to be getting more and more rare. Unless you are The Criterion Collection, which have always (going back to LD) excelled.

I'd say so. I actually liked the Special Edition Independence Day box. Oooo, and I sooooo loved the Indian and the Cupboard box. It came with a key and a reversable cover!

[linkgx1]

I've also noticed, too, that the Blu-ray art tended to be better when Blu-ray FIRST came out compared to today. I think it was because of the whole HD-DVD battle. I loved the artwork. Especially the silver/rainboy cut through of the box art. I guess it is subjective. But I loved the HD-DVD battle because it seemed like you had to have the best of the best. Nowadays....not so much.

[P@t_Mtl]

Do they? I am surprise to hear this since I haven't seen one thread of new releases without tons of comments how the covert art is bad for the three years I have been here.

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Because Blu-ray is the superior format. Therefore, it deserves the superior package presentation.

Actually, I think some of the best cover art went to the LaserDisc and the LP. Lots of room for creativity. Howerver, when it was bad, it was really bad as in Black Sabbath, Born Again.

[mywhitenoise]

It differs from movie to movie. I've seen some AWFUL blu-ray cover art (these new Pixar releases look stupid! As do the first few waves of Disney blu's), I've also seen some great blu-ray covers. Most of the time they're the same as DVD.

[lucjan]

Superior cover art for a superior product