RyoHazuki

I'm no Moore-lover but I don't think he has control of the dvd coverart. Its probably a studio decision.

TOPDAWG

I got a great idea's for some covers. One could be bush playing with a Simon and Say that game where you hit the color buttons. Well the one red button could be that one that will launch a nuke. Also he could be playing darts that look like missiles and he hit Iraq on the map. I think this would make nice covers. One cover also could be bush playing chess but the piece's are solders to show he is playing with our troops lives.

Hell I like bush but I could down him like no man you have ever seen. I wish I could drew I could make Kerry cry too.

ThatGuamGuy

But isn't he using all of that attention to single-mindedly drive home the message of the movie? I mean, if you make a movie which is anti-Bush and you go on a bunch of political shows bashing Bush, isn't that promoting the movie?

But he's the star of the movie. And also, his face isn't that prominent in this poster. I mean, 'Roger and Me', you could see his face (and body) ... 'Bowling For Columbine' you could see his face (and body) ... and in the early teaser poster art, you could see his face (and body). Seems pretty consistent to me, I don't see how you can say he's changed (though, looking back, he has gotten a bit fatter since 'Roger'), unless you're saying that this is *more* about the movie and *less* about him, since you can't even see his full face, let alone the rest of his body.

Aside from that, though, from the View Askew forum discussions of the cover art to 'Jersey Girl', it seems that Harvey Weinstein (who I have to assume still has some leeway over the advertising and cover art here) truly believes that putting the director's face on the cover can help the sale of the film. His specific evidence was the "Quentin Tarantino Presents ..." series of kung fu films (naturally, Tarantino didn't direct these, but the point was, his face helped the sales; obviously, in my mind, it seems more likely that his face helped sell these because they wouldn't have sold otherwise, and that there's a difference when it's the actual director like, say, Kevin Smith on 'Jersey Girl' ... but, regardless, that is, apparently, how Weinstein feels).

majorjoe23

The Bush ideas may not be feasible due to federal election laws. I know I've heard that advertising will probably have to focus on the war and not Bush, it's quite possible that with the release this close to the election, they just can't use Bush's picture.

MarkAtHome

Note sure if anyone caught this, but DVDFile shows: ... I love it... :-)

Josh Z

Thread crapping, and then saying that what you just did wasn't a thread crap, doesn't make it not a thread crap.

ThatGuamGuy

ha!

That was much better than my response.

TOPDAWG

Where did I thread crap? I just said why I think the cover is bad and the reason behind it. If I wanted to thread crap I could just post what I think of MM. However I see no reason why anyone would care what I think of him. Also being as I don't see a mod note on my post I take it they don't think I thread crapped.

The thread was about the cover I stated why I think the cover is bad and the reason behind it. No idea how that is a thread crap.

PS. The reason I said this is not a thread crap is cause I've fans of MM fans on here go nuts on folks cause they don't like his stuff. I gave a option on the cover not his films or the man himself. Well I did gave one on him but that was based around the cover so it was on topic.

new2theplace

"I think MM is getting full of himself."

"I don't think he gives a crap about movie making "

"It's no longer about the message of his films anymore it's about how much attention he can get"