How to Steal a Million (1966) (Limited Edition)

[jlk5844]

Originally Posted by grrrarg

Filthy Inescapably Nauseating Excrement?

Seriously though, this just brings me back to the same question I always have: Why the intense need for studios to ignore iconic poster art in favor of generic big faces?

These catalog titles aren't even going to be on a retail shelf anywhere, so there is no need to pander to the alleged love of large generic faces.

"Gosh, I wish this Blu-ray didn't have the original poster art, I'd buy it if it had generic photoshopped large faces"... said by no one ever.

I was planning on buying How to Steal A Million on day one, but at this point I am leaning towards waiting until it shows up in a $10 sale just to protest the cover art.

Overreaction much? I agree with you in general, I prefer the original poster as long as it's good artwork or iconic, and indeed this is an online-only boutique label catering to film buffs and collectors so I don't understand the decision to photoshop the actors' faces onto the cover.

BUT, I also don't agree with a cover having to be the original poster art 100% of the time. There were crappy posters back then, just as there are today. Criterion improved on In a Lonely Place vastly IMO. I also preferred the initial cover of Key Largo before WAC changed it to the original poster due to fan demand. I simply can't agree with that philosophy; I'm not loyal to what was produced at the time of release, I just like good artwork.

With How to Steal a Million, I don't find the original poster to be that great. It's fine, sure, but I'm not decrying its absence in this particular case. I like the faces of Hepburn and O'Toole, surely they're not generic? I like the image of them there. Not saying I like it better than the original poster, but it's ok to me, not offensive. It feels like people are programmed to think anything that's not the poster is crap. I'm also not blindly defending Twilight Time, they've made some questionable or crap covers.