Little Darlings 4K UHD (1980) Vinegar Syndrome

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

I'm curious what the "archival elements" are. VS is usually clear re: whether they scanned the negative or IP. This wording is rather vague.

Chris

The back cover is pretty clear.

[ronnie21]

thats a horrible cover btw, glad fans are getting this.. no tv spots or trailers?? wow. didn't really care for this one even back then. Meatballs and the Burning were much better!!
basically, richie goes to camp!!! (if anyone gets this)!!!

[GooniesGirl]

This aired on the WE Women’s Entertainment channel about 20 years ago with the original music. I still have the tape. It really is a good film if you haven’t seen it. I always heard it was pretty sleazy, but it’s actually quite a touching film. I have the paperback novelization.

[MifuneFan]

Do we know who did the cover art for this release? I don't think VS mentions that on their back cover.

[Telemachus]

What an unfortunate looking cover, looks like a Wish.com greeting card

[surfinhank]

Originally Posted by Gosszilla

Ordered! Have to admit that I'm NOT crazy about the collector packaging due to the Actors faces all being intentionally covered by splotches. Is this a cost savings to Vin Syn (not having to pay for Actor likenesses)? I can live with it, it's just a bit of a let downs for this release. I much prefer the original theatrical artwork to this commissioned art. Very happy VS is giving this film a proper release!

I'm still dumbfounded by this decision. I mean, how bad were the other concepts that they actually decided to go with this?! If you're unable to use the actors likeness for legal reasons then go with something completely original - plenty of examples out there that use designs that don't feature actors (numerous steelbook, Criterion covers, etc). If that choice had anything at all to do with the movie that would be different, but here it just seems lazy.

[Dragun]

Of all the costs involved in producing a 4K UHD, is securing actor likenesses for the cover prohibitively expensive???

[BobSimms]

Sounds like maybe the actors would’ve had to sign off on their likenesses being used, and due to the SAG-AFTRA strike, they were prohibited from doing anything like that? That’s my best guess from what JaLaLibs has said. But yeah, the splotches are … something, all right.

I also wonder if either lead actress would’ve participated in interviews if the strike hadn’t prohibited it. Tatum’s stroke from a few years ago likely would’ve prevented her, as someone else pointed out, and McNichol—national treasure though she is—seems to not do that sort of thing generally, from what I can make out.

[seamus11]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Do we know who did the cover art for this release? I don't think VS mentions that on their back cover.

Nicole Rifkin

[By_His_Strypes]

The cover is not nearly as bad as having a hairy belly like eXistenZ does.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by By_His_Strypes

The cover is not nearly as bad as having a hairy belly like eXistenZ does.

I actually could do without the hairy belly as well, but the regular slip underneath the hairy belly is what I like to have.

[Basic Judy]

Originally Posted by surfinhank

I'm still dumbfounded by this decision. I mean, how bad were the other concepts that they actually decided to go with this?! If you're unable to use the actors likeness for legal reasons then go with something completely original - plenty of examples out there that use designs that don't feature actors (numerous steelbook, Criterion covers, etc). If that choice had anything at all to do with the movie that would be different, but here it just seems lazy.

Originally Posted by Dragun

Of all the costs involved in producing a 4K UHD, is securing actor likenesses for the cover prohibitively expensive???

Originally Posted by BobSimms

Sounds like maybe the actors would’ve had to sign off on their likenesses being used, and due to the SAG-AFTRA strike, they were prohibited from doing anything like that? That’s my best guess from what JaLaLibs has said. But yeah, the splotches are … something, all right.

I also wonder if either lead actress would’ve participated in interviews if the strike hadn’t prohibited it. Tatum’s stroke from a few years ago likely would’ve prevented her, as someone else pointed out, and McNichol—national treasure though she is—seems to not do that sort of thing generally, from what I can make out.

Owner Justin has been answering many questions over in the label thread.

Originally Posted by JLaLibs

It was not known “from the jump”, unfortunately. While this was being worked on, a major SAG strike happened and certain things were effected as a result. I still stand by the work this artist did but the intention was originally to use likenesses.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

The back cover is pretty clear.

Gotcha. I just read the release announcement. They should probably edit that to make it clear.

Chris

[MTRodaba2468]

Originally Posted by whiteberry

Filming Locations - Then And Now:
Little Darlings (1980) Filming Locations - Then and Now - Hollywood's Hallowed Grounds - Teen Comedy - YouTube

I know he's got them all on YouTube, so they can be watched whenever anyone wants to, but honestly, I do kinda miss HHG episodes being included on disc as extras.

[HuggyBear73]

So the original poster art couldn't be used for this release cause of the SAG strike?

Gimme break.

[hungrywives]

Originally Posted by HuggyBear73

So the original poster art couldn't be used for this release cause of the SAG strike?

Gimme break.

From the Cinématographe Films thread:

Originally Posted by JLaLibs

We will not be releasing a separate slipcase with original art but when the standard editions release later on, they will have reversible art like VS releases do. You can always wait for that if you'd prefer.

So I guess the original art wasn't a problem. Look, I'm am ecstatic for this and very grateful for them putting it out, ordered it immediately, but I can't think of a single case... of any movie, from any company... where I've liked the newly commissioned art more than the original poster. I wish more companies would follow the lead of the majority of Shout's UHDs. Again, love that they're putting this out and it's the movie that matters not the cover. But I do have to find something to complain about or I wouldn't be me.

[BobSimms]

Originally Posted by hungrywives

So I guess the original art wasn't a problem. Look, I'm am ecstatic for this and very grateful for them putting it out, ordered it immediately, but I can't think of a single case... of any movie, from any company... where I've liked the newly commissioned art more than the original poster.

Dude, saaaaaame. In every instance where the original poster art was at least made available on the reverse, I’ve flipped it around immediately and tried to forget that there’s new art on the other side, where it always feels like the aesthetic is always just so wrong for the film.

I wish more companies would follow the lead of the majority of Shout's UHDs.

And Kino Lorber, and Indicator/Powerhouse, and Imprint… there are probably a few others I’m forgetting. Of course Arrow and VS produce the very best discs and restorations in general, it’s just a shame that the reverence for film ends where the art department comes into play. Frankly it’s bizarre. But I’m guessing it’s something to do with the aesthetic inclinations of the customer base.

[hungrywives]

Originally Posted by BobSimms

I’m guessing it’s something to do with the aesthetic inclinations of the customer base.

I'm sure that's what they're thinking but I bet if someone were to put a poll at the top of the page for every release ever the original poster art would win by a overwhelming majority every single time. Or maybe these companies are trying to create some kind of brand recognition? You'd think it would be cheaper to go with the original art too, over paying a new artist. Or maybe I'm wrong all around and they know something I don't. I'm sure they do their homework.

[Darren75]

Originally Posted by hungrywives

So I guess the original art wasn't a problem. Look, I'm am ecstatic for this and very grateful for them putting it out, ordered it immediately, but I can't think of a single case... of any movie, from any company... where I've liked the newly commissioned art more than the original poster. I wish more companies would follow the lead of the majority of Shout's UHDs. Again, love that they're putting this out and it's the movie that matters not the cover. But I do have to find something to complain about or I wouldn't be me.

Originally Posted by BobSimms

Dude, saaaaaame. In every instance where the original poster art was at least made available on the reverse, I’ve flipped it around immediately and tried to forget that there’s new art on the other side, where it always feels like the aesthetic is always just so wrong for the film.

I'm 100% with you guys. I do not plan on buying 8k's or 16k's. 4k is the endgame for me. I've bought too many films too many times.

Even when the new artwork is good I'd rather have the original. Lets be honest the new covers for some 4k's are total shit and that's what I'm gonna be stuck with forever.

[hungrywives]

Originally Posted by Darren75

Even when the new artwork is good I'd rather have the original. Lets be honest the new covers for some 4k's are total shit and that's what I'm gonna be stuck with forever.

I hate to keep harping on this because I am very, VERY excited someone finally found a way to put Little Darlings on disc but I just can't imagine anyone showing up at the office and looking at some of these things and going, "yep, this is better than the original artwork." How can they have such good taste in movies but such lousy taste in art? And honestly, Little Darlings isn't even the worst offender. I don't love it but it's mostly the choice of color for the splats covering their faces that I find questionable.