I'm sure this has been posted before but I can't find any thread like it so, my bad if its been done.

But anyways, Why DO the studios make horrible cover art for their releases? I mean is it intentional or what?

Are dvd cover artists that expensive to hire, that the execs would rather play with photoshop themselves and churn out a crappy cover?

I know its only a movie, but the whole reason behind the DVD craze is because their like collectibles. I don't remember myself or anyone else buying up so many VHS but with DVDs its different. Their already spending money on special features, remastering, etc, why not put out a nice cover?

On a side note, I just noticed the preview ad for LADY TERMINATOR...I gotta check that out.

Oh yea, and to the people who take time out to produce these nice ass custom covers, gracias!

$.

Quick, simple covers cost less money

Cover artists are expensive to hire

If a star sells the film, then a big floating head of the star will result

Pretty simple.

So who are the people behind the bad covers? Are they really execs or are they also artists, who just happen to be bad at what they do?

Also, I understand how studios have to make the film noticible by using big faces or titles, that doesnt bother me as much. You can still do that, and make a nice looking cover. Look at Terminator with the metallic cover, X-2, Tombstone, Enter The Dragon and others.

And how much do cover artists commission? In my opinion a great looking cover is gonna get someone to notice the movie vs a cover thats ugly.

some are inhouse graphic artists that probably get paid shite and do as they are told just to keep their job because job hunting sucks

regardless of whether they think its ugly or gorgeous - it doesnt matter - the product has already sold itself in title alone - if you dont know Title XYZ, your not gonna buy it simply because of a pretty cover that your not gonna see when teh its stacked on your shelf Spine-Out - thats why they dont put effort into it - you have already (90% of teh time) already made your decision to buy the movie before you even walked out of the house, so teh cover doesnt matter as far as they are concerned...

they only thing they need to do is slap the titles logo, or the primary character in big-head-dom on in such a way that it will be easy to spot Face-Out on a shelf.

Lets talk Lucas.....he made those ass covers for the individual movies becasue why?.....because they are hidden inside a nice pretty embossed box with decent art material on it and no one will see those ass covers in the stores....THATS how you recognized it on the store shelf, pretty SILVER BOX (screw the gold-box and may he choke on all the returns) and you locked on to it in spite of all the other material around it, also trying to scream for your attention.

Wrap some liver inside a box that says STEAK on it and it will empty out of the shelves

You guys have pretty much nailed it.

Except for one point. It costs just as much for a lousy head shot photo as it does for a great piece of key art by a top artist....less, if it's already in the vaults. The price to create the cover image is nothing compared to the cost of manufacturing, promoting, and distributing the product. Less than a percent of a percent of the overall cost.

From my own perspective, artists are ALWAYS second-guessed and dictated to by non-artistic management.

Artists are also art "directed" against their own tastes and instincts to produce an inferior product.

And if you fight the powers you'll find yourself looking for a new gig....with a "troublemaker" reputation tacked on.

I've seen time and time again, the person in charge will ALWAYS pick the least imaginitive, least artistic, least interesting, least original idea....and that's when they are provided with great stuff to use.

Don't blame the creative community because we would have things as YOU would have them.

The very proof that things are going wrong is this underground cover community. If the non-artistic studio "art directors" did the covers right in the first place, WE wouldn't need to.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that some of the legal trouble in this "amateur' cover thing is bacause you have embarassed the studios by providing superior alternates. It must be embarassing....and executive types NEVER admit when they're wrong. (Why did i just think of WMD's just now?)

Thanks must be given to artistic alternatives like the works of Zinema, Corvin, Scaramanga, Nausicaa, and of course, JupiterPrime. (among others) who see the value in covers with original key art, attractive spines, clear info, etc.

JP has an undenyable point about Lucas. Why in the hell would he have photo covers when he already has a stack of beautiful art at hand (cheifly done by Drew Struzan and Thomas Jung)?

....but Lucas has made a lot of inponderable artistic calls since his F-ing teddy bear/muppet SW film: RotJ.

He who has the gold makes the rules

or as said by Artie on Larry Sanders:

"No one should have the word "creative" in their title unless they're fucking creative!"

Risk.

Same reason the studios turn out so much pablum to begin with.

They are afraid of the risk that comes with creativity. They'd rather have staid, plain and dull because that's a known quantity and the bean-counters can measure that.

True creativity brings both the chance of producing something amazing, the kind of artwork that will cause that casual browser who has never heard of the film to buy it anyway because the box just looks so incredible. But true creativity also brings the risk of a huge artistic belly-flop that will make potential customers turn away in disgust no matter whose big name is printed across the cover in inch-high type.

As much as we all hate them, the reason they go with horrible looking, big floating head artwork so often is simple. A fan of the movie will buy it in spiteof the horrible cover anyhow. They use those covers to get people who weren't necessarily looking to buy they movie, they see an actor's face plastered on it and think they liked him in something else so they'll buy this movie too. Thankfully we have the custom ones

I know exactly what it is that Lance speaks of

decision makers need creative types to do the work that they cannot...otherwise they wouldnt need creative types

We are essentially their ability to use Photoshop

wow this could be a thread about Disney and their 2D animation practices of the last 10 years.

Lance from Lud, it could just be internet hear say, but I believe Struzan gets royalties for his artwork. Being one of the biggest dvd's of all time, that is a lot of money to shell out just for the cover art.

I work in graphics and I see it as well. I come up with a cool design, and the client wants to dumb it down. It is sad. But the truth. The customer provides my income, so I do what they want. And then sometimes there is that one or two clients that love your work, know what you are going for, and it makes it all worthwhile.

I hate many of the new covers that replace beautiful one-sheet artwork just to show the big heads of the stars in the film. I guess they think we forget titles and just look for "that one movie with Mel Gibson...".
Most of Warner's catalog titles are wonderful and are very professional with the original artworks.
Can't the same about the rest of the majors. Independent companies also use original artworks or put some serious effort in doing something else as artistic (Criterion, Synapse...)
Can't say the same about Columbia, Paramount, MGM...they have some real loser DVD covers - I almost always miss a title I'm looking for because they're so generic looking.

Why do they even go to the trouble of creating new artwork for the DVD instead of just using what they already spent $$$ on for the theatrical release? Wouldn't that save money? Plus you've already got the built in recognition from the earlier poster images.

You make some good points and of course, you're totally correct.

The thing is, you're attempting to apply reason, logic, and intelligence to these marketing people.

They don't think like us.

They don't do the logical, finacially smart, or creative choice.

They let their uninformed and shallow egos make their decisions in order to be "in charge" and ratonallize the jobs they aren't qualified to have in the first place.

Some believe that they need to make their mark on a product in order to claim responsibility (and therefore credit) for it.

Challenging the "creative" choices these people make is considered threatening and dangerous too. Pointing out that the Emperor is naked tends to get you beheaded. The only people they hire are less threatening, less knowledgable people, so it's a self-perpetuating system of idiocy.

To MC: Drew gets no more on the backend than a photographer or depicted star. In fact, it costs more to create a new photo thing than it does just to use what you have...royalties or not. The cover image cost is nothing overall....


....but since the "creative" suits can't really exert control over manufacturing or distribution costs, they have to apply their hands and satisfy their egos somewhere. The target?

Poor S.O.B.s like us.

Have a nice day, y'all!

Lance (Um...not at all bitter. Nope.)

What no one mentions the Star Trek TNG crappy silver box sets. Not to mention the "Sex and the City" cheesy plastic crap that lasts til you open it ONCE! also even the good looking ones like the "Band of Brothers" tin can that you have to pull open on the floor in order to fold it out enough to get to the last one.
(but I'm not bitter)

Could the size of the poster/artwork have something to do with it? Movie posters are designed to grab the attention of those walking by, but at 28x40 or so, they can afford to be creative with details and design knowing that it'll pretty much be looked at by anyone walking by. They probably don't have to be as "eye catching." Home Video or DVD covers are much smaller in size, and the marketing people probably assume that to catch the consumer's eye they have to put in something easily recognizable, which in most cases is an Actor's face or name.

Personally, i'd say it works. While big new releases are displayed openly for on release week or maybe the week after, a big, flashy, and obnoxious cover makes it easier for people to notice and think "oh cool, i've been meaning to get this."

LOL, off course I realize DVD art is smaller in size - i'm an artist who works in Photoshop - I'm familiar with all of that. Besides the obvious (which is why I didn't mention this to begin with) of scaling the image down (the poster size is 27 by 40), re-working text, and simplifiying some of the details (if needed) it still seems much easier than creating new artwork. That's all I'm saying.

I know that's what you're saying. I'm not talking about scaling down movie posters. I'm saying that artwork is composed knowing that the size of the print will have an affect on consumer recognition. I couldn't care less if you're an artist.

[music] money, money, money, money..........money [/music]