NEW Star Trek Cover Art

[Dotpattern]

Doesn't matter to me, I'm getting THIS case!

http://www.amazon.com/Limited-Replic...=2R4H1V5E7TFO0

[jk1138]

I like the other one, but this will not stop me from picking it up

[wnicholas76]

Well, I kind of figured that Paramount would revise the artwork...but not like this! I guess this is a bad time to say that now I actually prefer the original artwork. But whatever, I'm still gonna get Star Trek on November 17 regardless of the cover art.

[P@t_Mtl]

Neither one of them look amazing but all I truly care about is that they do a top job on the BD, the box I don't truly care

[RocShemp]

So they took a teaser poster of Kirk and they cut it up into the title? Meh. The earlier cover was fuglier but I wouldn't call this an improvement. It's more of a latteral move.

[Harlock415]

Wow, people complain about a cover, studio changes it for the WORSE.

Can I put in a request for a custom cover now?

[MAPdead]

The movie is great and it isn't the worst artwork I have ever seen and it's not gonna stop me from picking it up the first day its out.

[space-monkey]

I don't get this. The art is understated, super-retro/pulpy, and stylish.

No floating heads, no bad collage. What's the problem? Can someone articulate why this is bad art?

I LOVE understated art.

For example...

GOOD art:

http://www.currentfilm.com/images3/t...ondvdcover.jpg

BAD art:

http://images.bidorbuy.co.za/user_im...105TheRock.jpg


The first Trek art was good, but nowhere near as stylish and yet understated as the revised art.

[BoomerKS]

It would be ok if Kirks face wasn't in the wording. really looks like some advertising trainee came up with this design. I'd rather have the other one. But it really doesn't matter---if it was covered in mud, I'd still buy it.

[Lepidopterous]

Guys calm down, nothing changed. This is the box art, and the previously shown one has been the slipcover art all along. So we get both!

I do like the slipcover much better though. I agree with what space-monkey said.

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by space-monkey

I don't get this. The art is understated, super-retro/pulpy, and stylish.

No floating heads, no bad collage. What's the problem? Can someone articulate why this is bad art?

I LOVE understated art.

For example...

GOOD art:

http://www.currentfilm.com/images3/t...ondvdcover.jpg

BAD art:

http://images.bidorbuy.co.za/user_im...105TheRock.jpg


The first Trek art was good, but nowhere near as stylish and yet understated as the revised art.

I like what they were going for. I just don't like the execution.

Oh and I love that criterion cover to The Rock. I wish that was the BD cover.

[Lord_Stewie]

the cover art is simple and genius as well.

[RiseDarthVader]

They should of used this one

[RocShemp]

Had they used that as the basis for the coverart they went with (rather than simply using the Kirk teaser onesheet) I can maybe see that working.

[Blurayfan88]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Doesn't matter to me, I'm getting THIS case!

http://www.amazon.com/Limited-Replic...=2R4H1V5E7TFO0

You do know that the box just the outer case for the limited edition steel ship model, inside will just be the normal 3 disc star trek bluray case tucked in the side.

[Lord_Stewie]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

They should of used this one

Well the movie involves Kirk, Spock and the crew at the time. Since it lives up to the spirits of the original one I think they at least honor by going simple on the cover arts. Since the series were simple as well.

[RocShemp]

I get keeping it simple. But the first coverart was simply crap. It was just a shot of the Enterprise and someone going nuts with the photoshop blur tool.

The second coverart is better, yes. I especially like the font chosen as it is evocative of the old series. However, I disapprove of the use of the Kirk teaser poster. Had they used the poster RiseDarthVader posted (or a variant thereof) as the basis for the second coverart, I feel the end result would be better.

As I said before, the second coverart is an improvement but it still feels unfinished. Also, I'd drop the godawful "3-disc digital copy special edition" text. That can be left out and placed on a sticker that can be affixed over the shrinkwrap. Nonesense like that clutters the coverart and goes against the simplicity for which they're obviously aiming.

[Lord_Stewie]

Originally Posted by RocShemp

I get keeping it simple. But the first coverart was simply crap. It was just a shot of the Enterprise and someone going nuts with the photoshop blur tool.

The second coverart is better, yes. I especially like the font chosen as it is evocative of the old series. However, I disapprove of the use of the Kirk teaser poster. Had they used the poster RiseDarthVader posted (or a variant thereof) as the basis for the second coverart, I feel the end result would be better.

I can't see the first one since the link doesn't work. I am cheering for the 2nd one.

Cover art or not, the movie is worth owning.

[Foggy]

I think it looks ugly, why didn't they just go for this poster:


I wasn't a fan of the old one either, but this is worst, never mind I'll still buy it, I loved this move

[RocShemp]

Something about that onesheet Foggy posted rubs me the wrong way. It isn't just the floating heads. I think it's the shot of Kirk on the bike. I know he rides it in the movie but I get a Cool As Ice vibe from it on the the onesheet.

Originally Posted by shadblz

Cover art or not, the movie is worth owning.

Oh, heck yeah. They could change the coverart to a picture of a brown paper bag and I'd still buy it day 1.