Anyone Else think recent Cover Art Stinks?

[Alkaline]

Collateral, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Minority Report and to a lesser degree Pandorum are revolting. That said, I'll happily tolerate even the vilest photoshop hack job cover if it means having the best available version of a film, or if quality/features are equal between releases and the "hideous" one can be had for significantly less. ANOES may not count since it just ports the art from the previous infinifilm dvd.

[Sir Platypus]

I keep seeing ANOES brought up, and I gotta say I much prefer the US cover to the original Canadian release.


Canada


Recent Release

[eiker_ir]

i don't see the problem with the ANOS BD either, sure it's not the amazing original poster art but it's a pretty nice simple design.

This comes from a huge fan of the series btw.

[seigneur_rayden]

Originally Posted by Nielsb90

Come to think about it I actually do like the UK covers, BUT the ratings are all over the place including the spine which sucks! Here are a couple of cool covers, if it wasnt for the damn ratings:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Day-Dead-Blu...1605658&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/House-Devil-...1605729&sr=1-2

Yeah, the UK ratings are a big turnoff for me. Biggest reason why I never import from UK.

[Jezza]

Originally Posted by seigneur_rayden

Yeah, the UK ratings are a big turnoff for me. Biggest reason why I never import from UK.

I know I have already asked someone about this, but why do they turn you off, I've never seen anything wrong with them. True I live in the UK, but what is the fuss with BBFC rating logos? They are designed to advise consumers the kind of film it is.

[P@t_Mtl]

I usually look at the movies, not the covers

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Clone Trooper

I know I have already asked someone about this, but why do they turn you off, I've never seen anything wrong with them. True I live in the UK, but what is the fuss with BBFC rating logos? They are designed to advise consumers the kind of film it is.

Because the ratings are visually useless and could be placed on the back cover in smaller type, like it is done in the U.S. The only reason those logos are on there in the U.K. are packaging regulations. If the law changed tomorrow, you can bet the companies would drop them immediately.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I usually look at the movies, not the covers

Yep, 95% of me doesn't care about the artwork; I rarely give it more than a passing glance.

The other 5% wishes that they wouldn't make them bilingual, for the simple reason that I find it adds clutter. I liked how the old dvd Buffy & Angel sets included both separate French and English slipcovers so that the consumer could choose. But overall it's a minor complaint.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Yep, 95% of me doesn't care about the artwork; I rarely give it more than a passing glance.

The other 5% wishes that they wouldn't make them bilingual, for the simple reason that I find it adds clutter. I liked how the old dvd Buffy & Angel sets included both separate French and English slipcovers so that the consumer could choose. But overall it's a minor complaint.

The 5% that sort of bug me is the spine, I wish I was good enough in making my own covers, that way I could have al lthe spines looking the same way but it's really a small thing

[Fighter]

It's not going to sway me not to buy it...but I still like to look at some good graphic design on blu-ray covers! It's not too much to ask for as a bd buying consumer.

[Cortiz]

Originally Posted by 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.

May I ask where you picked up Minority Report? It is suppose to be release tomorrow!

Thanks
Jr.

[kaypo]

Cover art to me is the same thing as disc art, or eco cases, or slipcovers, or flippers: IT DOESN'T MATTER. The only thing that matters is the contents of the disc itself.

[SpaceDog]

I think it might be a decent idea to make all cover art be the original theatrical poster, and use the slipcover to do something "new".
Alternatively, a reversible cover would work. Put your marketing cover in front, but when you buy it, you can flip it over and have the original poster instead without a bunch of bobbleheads or word bubbles.

[Skorpius]

They absolutely suck. Poster art should always be used, and without the useless accolades by an unknown movie critic. Why in hell would they not use the original poster for Nightmare on Elm Street instead of some cheap black and red motif?

[PrivatePixel]

Originally Posted by Clone Trooper

I know I have already asked someone about this, but why do they turn you off, I've never seen anything wrong with them. True I live in the UK, but what is the fuss with BBFC rating logos? They are designed to advise consumers the kind of film it is.

The BBFC rating logos detract from the aesthetics of the cover art. It's akin to replacing Cindy Crawford's mole with a wart: not only is it noticeable, but a turn-off as well.

For me, the lower prices are difficult to resist, so I'm willing to overlook the logos and I placed a couple of orders (12 films in total) through Amazon UK in the past week.

[Skorpius]

This is how a cover should look.

[seigneur_rayden]

Originally Posted by Clone Trooper

I know I have already asked someone about this, but why do they turn you off, I've never seen anything wrong with them. True I live in the UK, but what is the fuss with BBFC rating logos? They are designed to advise consumers the kind of film it is.

They are too big and ugly; moreover they make the artwork look really ugly.

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Because the ratings are visually useless and could be placed on the back cover in smaller type, like it is done in the U.S. The only reason those logos are on there in the U.K. are packaging regulations. If the law changed tomorrow, you can bet the companies would drop them immediately.

Originally Posted by PrivatePixel

The BBFC rating logos detract from the aesthetics of the cover art. It's akin to replacing Cindy Crawford's mole with a wart: not only is it noticeable, but a turn-off as well.

For me, the lower prices are difficult to resist, so I'm willing to overlook the logos and I placed a couple of orders (12 films in total) through Amazon UK in the past week.

Originally Posted by seigneur_rayden

They are too big and ugly; moreover they make the artwork look really ugly.

The funny thing with these logos is, after a while, you never notice them. Cannot remember a time when I have looked at any of my covers and thought, "my god that looks ugly". Even with my American imports, I never notice that they do not have them.

As for recent cover art and packaging as a whole, styles change. Next year we may get overtly arty covers. Some I like and some not so much.