Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Archives > Archives > DVD Talk Archive
Reload this Page >

Why so many back-catalogue titles with inferior DVD covers?

Why so many back-catalogue titles with inferior DVD covers?

 
Old 06-12-03, 02:33 PM
  #1  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 50
Why so many back-catalogue titles with inferior DVD covers?

It seems that a lot of catalogue titles are being released these days with different -- and almost always inferior -- cover art than previous releases.

The most recent example is one of my favorite sleepers from the 80's: Slam Dance. The original cover had Virginia Madsen in that terrific dress. Minimalistic and very stylish. Gets your attention.

The DVD cover has an ugly red filter at 95% and Tom Hulce (the star) is supplanted by Adam Ant, who is not even credited on the front cover and isn't even particularly popular at the moment. Strange choice.

My question: Doesn't it take more effort and money for a layout department to dig up alternate poster / promo art than to simply use the existing and more easily identifiable art?

Not a big issue, but I can't think of an explanation.
ghlbtsk is offline  
Old 06-12-03, 03:14 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,934
The fact is they screw up all releases one way or another! Censorship, wrong OAR, cheap packaging, screw up here and there, etc etc!! Just accept the fact that none makes sense anymore.
Class316 is offline  
Old 06-12-03, 03:14 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 668
The only people who like the original art are people who like the film to begin with and are already sold on the DVD. No reason for them to go preaching to the choir.

The new cover art has the chance to attract a new audience, that may not have caught the film the first time around.

It sucks. But it makes business sense.
MrPeanut is offline  
Old 06-12-03, 05:56 PM
  #4  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 50
Originally posted by MrPeanut
The new cover art has the chance to attract a new audience, that may not have caught the film the first time around.
My point was that a lousy cover (when good art is available) can repel a new audience from (blind) buying.

Crappy product that is packaged well will sell. Everyone has fallen into that trap.
It just doesn't seem like good business sense to package a good product poorly.

And before anyone says anything about beauty being in the eye of the beholder, there are certain basic aesthetic principles that are difficult to dispute. Have you ever heard of anyone (seriously) preferring a re-released "gigantic heads" cover to the original art?
ghlbtsk is offline  
Old 06-12-03, 06:57 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a river in a kayak..where else?
Posts: 4,949
Originally posted by ghlbtsk
My point was that a lousy cover (when good art is available) can repel a new audience from (blind) buying.
I never blind buy...so I could care less about the cover. sure I'm impressed when it's a cover I really like, but whining about a big-head is a waste of energy...it's no big deal. a bad film repels me...not the artwork. I'm much more concerned about disc quality.
gutwrencher is offline  
Old 06-12-03, 07:07 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 668
Most people are far more concerned with who stars in a film, not what the box looks like.

The few people who care so much about art are smart enough to not buy films based on what the box looks like anyways, as they truly appreciate good films.
MrPeanut is offline  
Old 06-12-03, 11:03 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,204
I like the second cover better.
namlook is offline  
Old 06-13-03, 09:09 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
matome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NY
Posts: 12,304
Originally posted by MrPeanut
Most people are far more concerned with who stars in a film, not what the box looks like.

The few people who care so much about art are smart enough to not buy films based on what the box looks like anyways, as they truly appreciate good films.
matome is offline  
Old 06-13-03, 11:57 AM
  #9  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 50
How did this post, like so many others, devolve into "the film matters, the cover doesn't"? That wasn't even the question.

I'm not disputing that and would never let a cover -- good, bad or nonexistent -- dissuade me from purchasing a favorite. I own Real Genius for Pete's sake!

My original question, and the point of this post, was in the hopes that someone in the graphic design / layout profession could shed some light on why studios spend money on new art when perfectly good original art is available. This seems an unnecessary expense.
ghlbtsk is offline  
Old 06-13-03, 12:09 PM
  #10  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
A great example is the recent MGM war film covers. All the new covers try to make the films look like they're new. The covers are done in a very "contemporary" style.
Pants is offline  
Old 06-13-03, 03:57 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 641
It's because the covers are approved by "suits". Management really sucks.
masetodd is offline  
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.