Sub-Zero

Does anyone know why DVD/Blu-ray cover art is sometimes different than the original theatrical movie posters? I often find the artwork created for movie posters much more interesting and imaginative than the artwork used for DVD/Blu-ray covers, which tend to be the big star "floating head" collage. I understand that sometimes certain artwork intended for 27 x 40 movie theater posters might be too small on a standard DVD/Blu-ray cover, but when the DVD/Blu-ray cover art is the same as the movie poster, I think that most of the time it still looks very nice despite the size difference. So, does anyone know why there is often a change in artwork? Thanks to anyone that replies.

canaryfarmer

Studios figure that head collages of the main stars will sell more units in-store than a concept-based poster image.

hindolio

exactly. which, if you ponder it, is ironic...

you make a "teaser" poster to create and stir interest in the mass public in order to have it on their minds (to look for it online, to think about watching it, etc). but after its out in the movie theaters and onto dvd/blu-ray, heck, just slap the head of some guy or gal. yeah thatll do.

orangerunner

I often don't like when they change-up for original artwork for DVD as I tend to associate a film with its original poster artwork.

They often change it for a number of reasons:

1. If there's more than one version of the film, they will use new artwork to help avoid confusion mixing up the different versions.

2. If a film failed in theatres they often blame the marketing. DVD gives them a chance to re-market the film trying out different artwork for the cover in hopes of appealing to a wider audience.

3. Older films that have "out-dated" artwork are changed because they feel it won't connect with the younger buyers. By up-dating the cover art, it will apeal to a wider audience.

4. Older films may have a huge star that had a small role in a film. They want to capitalize on the actor's larger star status and make them the focus of the marketing by putting their face and name on the cover.

Personally I wish they would just stick to the original cover art. Why try to convince people a film from 1974 is a new movie? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, for example, had a great poster that was a parody of the Breakfast Club. The DVD comes out and the cover art looks like its trying to be SAW XII.

tylergfoster

A poster is big, and people can spot it from a distance and have it make an impression. Studios probably figure that the art should be altered for DVD since the space is smaller and it still needs to be bold and eye catching. In some cases, I agree, and at the very least this logic makes sense. That said, it doesn't make up for the fact that much of what is created for DVD covers is just bad. I mean, seriously -- how are people getting jobs? There are probably more talented Photoshoppers doing cheap gags on the internet than there are working at movie studios.