J-Dubya

It's a boring idea to have a slipcover if it's exactly the same as the dvd cover art. For instance, I was looking at The Hills Have Eyes Unrated and other than the raised blood on the outer slipcover(ooooo...scary), the picture was the same. At least on titles like Twin Peaks and The Usual Suspects, it's creative and interesting. What gives? And yes, I thought of scott19whatever when I was thinking of posting about this.

dvd_luver

Not to me, they are for protection of the dvd case. I have purchased used dvd's from places like Gamestop, etc and the slipcovers when taken off of the cases on the inside are in very good shape. Not used quality or damaged in any way. It especially helps if the cases are 2 disk cases. So that boring slipcover serves a purpose sometimes.

joliom

Yeah, and they can absorb all the sticker shrapnel too. Leaves me with less crap to clean off the actual case.

darkhawk

I don't care about slipcovers. I put them aside.

hiccup

I actually quite enjoy them, even if the majority are simply the same picture of what is on the actual case. One I really enjoy for some reason is the The Warriors which came out last year. The Daredevil Director's Cut is also quite nice and really adds to the DVD IMO for some reason.

zekeburger1979

The only slipcovers I keep are the ones that are different from the DVD cover itself.

DonnachaOne

It's easy to duplicate a DVD case. It's not nearly as easy to dupe a slipcase or insert.

Since inserts are inside the case, slipcases are a quick way of saying "this isn't a bootleg" to the savvier shopper. To the unsavvy shopper, it says "hey, this DVD's important", when it's just any old crap but this time IN A SLIPCASE!

Admiral7

Slipcovers (as intended by the studios) are not there for the purpose of protecting the DVD case, as generally, DVD cases don't really need much protection. Slipcovers (as intended by the studios) are there is one more obstacle to DVD theft in the store.

gryffinmaster

Since slipcovers usually only go with first pressings of DVDs, it also pushes early sales when the product is at full list value.

"Oh man, $19.99 is a lotta cash to drop on that. I'll wait until it gets lowered in price. Wait, it comes with a slipcover? Crap. Well, better spend the extra or I might not get the slipcover later down the line".

nhljeepdude

I would never buy a DVD now for $19.99 verses later for say $9.99 just because it has a slipcover. I suppose some people do but not worth $10.00 IMO.

They are there for security purposes for those theives that like to cut open the DVD case and slip out the disc. With the cover they have to fully open the plastic and take the cover off.

They are on the first pressing because that is when the DVDs are at their highest "hot" new release" value.

mzupeman2

Even though the movie was pretty much crap in my opinion, the slip covers that are truly pretty cool are the ones like with Resident Evil: Apocolypse. Stuff that's transparent in some parts and fit with the normal case, like the Flintstones sets even, even though those aren't really the kind of slipcases we're talking about. We're talking about those 'extra' goodies, a TV on DVD box set normally has an outer shell. But even then, I don't really give much of a hoot about slipcovers. If it comes with one, fine, if it doesn't, it doesn't. It doesn't really burn me. I used to use DVD towers a long long time ago, that had individual DVD slots. Once in a while, a slipcover would JUST be a bit too much for it to squeeze into a spot comfortably. Now I try and just use things like bookshelves, things that aren't limited to the size of an individual DVD. The only things that DO bother me about slipcovers, are when studios are inconsistant. When a series is released over time, some may have slipcovers, some may not. To me, that's bothersome only because I like consistancy. Other than that, again, I definitely couldn't care less. I buy a DVD right away, it's because I like the movie and I want it, or I haven't seen it and figured buying it on release day for DVD was cheaper than seeing it in the theaters. It's not because of a slipcover.

darkhawk

Change what I said about slip covers. The only 2 I kept are the Criterions "The Royal Tenenbalms" and "The Life Aquatic".

Mike Adams

I like to have slipcovers when there is one, but I agree that sometimes they're superfluous. With some of the PIXAR films, I want to have the slipcovers because that's how they were originally released. Unfortunately, if I miss it the first time around, they're pretty beat up by the time they hit the "used" shelves. Obviously it helps when there's something special about the slipcase like holofoil, raised areas, or something, but having the same artwork on the slipcase as the cover underneath isn't always a bad thing. For films like "My Cousin Vinny" that now has that ugly gold thing over it with the crappy new artwork, the slipcase doesn't appeal to me at all, since the key art that's always been associated with the film is hidden behind this 21st-century Photoshop atrocity.

Of course there are other cases where a slipcover might be attractive, but it comes so late in the game that it's not really worth re-buying a title (even at less than $10) to get the slipcover. One example is "Family Guy: The Freakin' Sweet Collection", which has what I consider a pretty attractive new slipcover at WAL-MART. Since I bought it long ago, and have always seen it "naked", so to speak, I'm not terribly motivated to pick up the slipcover version. I'm tempted to pick up the reissue of "Wallace & Gromit in 'The Curse of the Were-Rabbit'" with the new "pumpkin" slipcover, but I'd have to get it pretty cheap, and I actually need to re-watch that movie just to make sure I want to keep the copy I already have. Also, as I've mentioned before, films like "Independence Day" that have been released repeatedly with umpteen different slipcovers just kind of put me off them because its just a cheap marketing ploy instead of being an integral part of the packaging.

Speaking of Will Smith movies, "I, Robot" had a really nice-looking clear slipcase, and I'd imagine that's very much in line with what the OP thought made a good slipcase. It was kind of neat to see Will with all these robots behind him, and then when you take the slipcover off, you realize that there's robots RIGHT behind him, and it echoes the plot of the film nicely. For me though, I was more concerned with having the cover art as one cohesive unit instead of having Will on the clear slipcover and just a bunch of robots on the main cover insert, so I opted for a previously-viewed copy from Hollywood Video, which had an insert that combined both elements. Once I put that disc and the bonus disc from the All-Access edition into a clear 2-disc Scanavo box, it looked as good as the stock retail version with the slipcase, albeit without the interactivity.

I did REALLY like the slipcover for "Beavis & Butthead Do America" though, because it tied in nicely with the "Mike Judge Collections". I'm actually surprised they added that extra detail just to give a nod to the boxed sets, although I guess they figured it'd increase sales. Funny that it seems to be gone in the "Ultimate Collection" or whatever that big gold box is. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, though.

One more slipcover note. I recently bought ALF Season Two simply because I found a copy with a slipcover and all I'd seen recently were "naked" ones, so I thought I'd better jump on it when I could. I only did that because I'll probably collect them all, and I'd go nuts if I was missing slipcovers for some and not others, but of course tossing the ones I did have wouldn't be worth it just for the sake of consistency.

Lastly, if anybody's got slipcovers for "Finding Nemo", "Family Guy: Freakin' Sweet Collection", "Wallace & Gromit" or "Ray (Widescreen 2-disc)", let me know, thanks.

Living Dead

Same here. If the images are the same as the cover, I throw them away. I find it amusing that studios have stopped making inserts for the most part, but they offer slipcovers identical the case artwork. Waste of money.

tylergfoster

If there's a slipcover I really want and I see it at the store later, I just slip it on whatever DVD I'm buying at the moment since most of them have holes punched in the UPC slot now anyway.

I think the best reason to differ the art from the slipcover to the inside cover is because then you can make the inside cover look as cool as you want. Doesn't have to list features, contain the title, anything.

Mike Adams

Yeah, and when the DVD scans as something completely different than what the cover shows, they'll look at you like some kind of thief... which isn't far wrong.

tylergfoster

People at my Fred Meyer don't care because oftentimes the slipcovers get torn up and then the clerks just throw them away anyway. To them it's just a piece of cardboard.

waylonsmithers

Most slipcovers now have the UPC area cut out so this kind of switching cannot occur.

zombeaner

Unless the slipcover is different art from the regular case and cool, it gets thrown in the trash in my house.

Mike Adams

I know, that's what droidguy was talking about. I don't mean they'll think he's trying to get a different DVD for the price of the one the slipcase belongs to, just that putting a slipcover from another DVD onto the one you're buying is stealing the slipcover.

I agree that many employees just regard it as a piece of cardboard, but I think one incident where they don't look at it that way would be enough to make it uncomfortable for me to go back to that store. I guess it all boils down to whether a piece of cardboard is worth looking like an opportunistic cheapskate. Remember that not all employees will realize you're not getting anything more than a piece of cardboard, since they may not think about the fact that they're still scanning the right barcode in spite of the slipcover. All it takes is one employee who's concerned enough about it to call the manager, and I'm pretty sure the manager won't be very pleased with people trying to pull a stunt like that.

planetaire

I definitely keep all my slipcases. But in the overall, they don't seem to add much to the experience. Wait, are companies re-releasing DVDs now with no real differences save for a new slipcover? That's weird.

SLIPCASE IMAGE should not equal DVD CASE IMAGE. That's just weak. But in a world of big-headed Val Kilmer covers...?

Mike Adams

People keep saying this, but I don't think it's that simple. I agree that if the two images complement each other (like "I, Robot" for example) it's great, but if it's just a completely different cover image it seems weird to me. It's especially annoying when the image on the slipcover is the one I associate with the film, but the actual cover insert has some other artwork -- it sucks because I don't always keep slipcovers. Luckily, it's usually the opposite.

An example from my own collection would be that I've consolidated the SUPERBIT edition of "Spider-Man 2" into the regular packaging. Since the image on the SUPERBIT slipcover is the same as the one on the cover insert for the regular edition, it works well. Of course before I did this, the SUPERBIT disc was stored in the case for an, ahem, "import" version, which had one of those really cool sparkly covers, but it was a completely different image. It just bothered the hell out of me that there was the regular cover image on the SUPERBIT slipcover, but when I took it off, the artwork underneath was completely different.

Again, if the two complement each other it's fine, but for me, having two different covers for the same DVD is annoying. Examples I've given before are "Independence Day" (undisputed king of pointless re-releases just for the sake of a new slipcover) and "My Cousin Vinny". Stuff like the new "Wallace & Gromit" slipcover doesn't really bother me, because it's very similar.

Just my two cents, folks.

Mike Adams

Speaking of slipcovers, does anybody know what Barnes & Noble has against them? I assume it's just a theft/switcheroo deterrent, but with the aforementioned barcode opening, that shouldn't be much of a problem, should it? I've even seen boxed sets ("The Simpsons" seasons, etc.) with no slipcover, which really sucks because a lot of those are integral to the look of the packaging. I guess if anybody's looking for spare slipcovers, ask a B&N employee, unless of course the slipcovers are removed at the warehouse level.

tylergfoster

That's what I said. I pay for the DVD on the inside, not the one on the outside.

Mike Adams

Yes, but then somebody has to buy a DVD that's missing part of the packaging because you stole it. I'm sorry, but I think this is a really low thing to do. I know that many people don't give a rat's ass about slipcovers, but you should really find one of those people and ask them to give you theirs rather than stealing one and slipping it over a different DVD. Regardless of whether someone's gonna throw the slipcover away or not when they get it home, that "naked" DVD will probably be the last copy sold because even the most casual DVD buyer will grab the one that looks like all the others instead of the one that's obviously missing something.

You might as well open a box of Cheerios and put some of that cheap bagged cereal in it, leaving the inner bag full of Cheerios on the shelf. As long as you have the cashier scan the bag instead of the Cheerios box you're paying for the right item, but that bag full of Cheerios is just gonna sit there until the store has to throw it away. Forgive my rant here, but I just can't handle the rationalization of such a cheap move, all for the sake of a piece of cardboard. If it's so unimportant, do without it!