Worst DVD covers... ever! (Part Deux)

Message

#976 Post by **cdnchris** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:23 am

Reds looks so hip and fun now!

#977 Post by **domino harvey** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:34 am

I can't wait for the reaction Children of a Lesser God gets at the 80s slumber party

dx23 · #978 Post by **dx23** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:18 pm

That's synergy for you!! Paramount and VH1 working together so that you remember the 80's for what it was: poorly designed things!

LQ · #979 Post by LQ » Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:37 pm

Seeing all these awful dvd covers in the thread is extremely funny...but unearthing this particular cover in a friend's collection? Priceless.

Quot · #980 Post by **Quot** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:41 pm

I wonder if they even realize that there's a ton of people out there (apart from myself) who are saying "no way in hell would I desecrate my DVD collection by adding one of those "I love the 80's" monstrosities"? What kind of market research yields this trend? (see Cult Classics series) What the hell are these people thinking?

Tom Hagen · #981 Post by **Tom Hagen** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:11 pm

I am usually not a grammar fascist, but for some reason I find the most irritating thing about those '80s covers to be the use of "80's".

#982 Post by **swo17** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:48 pm

Tom Hagen wrote:I am usually not a grammar fascist, but for some reason I find the most irritating thing about those '80s covers to be the use of "80's".

I was thinking the same thing...

And the only one of those covers that comes even close to working is Pretty in Pink.

Kinsayder · #983 Post by **Kinsayder** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:04 pm

Tom Hagen wrote:I am usually not a grammar fascist, but for some reason I find the most irritating thing about those '80s covers to be the use of "80's".

I think what they're saying is that they love the 80s' King David as opposed to the 90s' version with Spock as Samuel:

myrnaloyisdope · #984 Post by **myrnaloyisdope** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:09 pm

George Carlin in a biblical epic? Sweet.

HerrSchreck · #985 Post by **HerrSchreck** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:53 pm

kidc85 wrote:

On top of being a stupidly boring cover that looks like it was assembled Clip Art-style, the advertising text in the scroll is the icing on the cake.

"Full-Length Classic Original Film" translates into the ground-breaking practice of "We've Included The Movie"

"Lyric Book" translates into "We've Printed The Subtitles And Stapled Them Together"

With extras like that who hasn't rushed out to buy "Disney's 31st Animated Classic"? That's the text on the back cover incidentally, for those people who didn't realise that every single movie Disney have ever produced is a certifiable "Animated Classic"?

Well in all fairness, Aladdin, and most of their animated films up to (but not including) The Lion King, are pretty damned awesome and indeed classics. Especially vs the glop that comes out nowadays. Each Cartoon, from Little Mermaid, Great Mouse Detective, Aladdin, Beauty & the Beast, Jungle Book, Pinnocchio.. christ you could just go on & on-- Dumbo, Bambi, Sleeping Beauty, not to mention mixed-action features like Poppins-- all the way back to Snow White, these are all bona fide classics with brilliant song books and composing and animation. They truly were indeedy.

Today, however, starting w Lion King and working thru to today, Pocahontas, Hunchback, so many of the disgusting pieces of sequeldom, signaled a change in corporate ownership & ideology so profound it's practically not even the same company. Toon's like Aladdin, Beauty /Beast, Jungle Book, etc, they (perhaps all did) integrated lily-whiteness and contemporary themes & dialog into the characters, narrative, and songs, stemming from source material that had a specific ethnic origin (thus Aladdin talking like some upper east side Brad-dy prep-in-training) and this was of course inevitable. But the drek they make today is indeed utterly vapid, as totally formulaic as a squirt following a stroke. Whereas the older feature toons were utterly independent of one another, thematically, visually, and aesthetically.

Aladdin absolutely is an animated classic.

whaleallright · #986 Post by **whaleallright** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:16 pm

Oggilby · #987 Post by **Oggilby** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:11 am

jesus the mexican boi · Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:11 am

All right -- THAT one was funny.

Svevan · #989 Post by **Svevan** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:18 am

HerrSchreck wrote:Aladdin absolutely is an animated classic.

I thought Aladdin's fourth-wall breaking and silly gags put it quite a few notches below Beauty and the Beast, or The Little Mermaid, which sustain a more serious tone while integrating the humor into the story. Better than the modern stuff? Maybe, but put next to The Jungle Book, Snow White, Peter Pan, Pinocchio...meh.

dx23 · #990 Post by **dx23** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:14 pm

Antoine Doinel · #991 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:24 pm

Well, the tagline is accurate.

pianocrash · #992 Post by **pianocrash** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:03 pm

#993 Post by **domino harvey** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:41 pm

dx23 wrote:

I don't know why exactly, but I feel oddly compelled to see this film

kidc85 · #994 Post by **kidc85** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:33 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:Well in all fairness, Aladdin, and most of their animated films up to (but not including) The Lion King, are pretty damned awesome and indeed classics. Especially vs the glop that comes out nowadays. Each Cartoon, from Little Mermaid, Great Mouse Detective, Aladdin, Beauty & the Beast, Jungle Book, Pinnocchio.. christ you could just go on & on-- Dumbo, Bambi, Sleeping Beauty, not to mention mixed-action features like Poppins-- all the way back to Snow White, these are all bona fide classics with brilliant song books and composing and animation. They truly were indeedy.

Aladdin absolutely is an animated classic.

Fair enough that you think that (personally, I love Aladdin but possess wild hatred for every other Disney movie I've ever come across, save perhaps Fantasia) and if they quoted your opinion to advertise their movies then that would be absolutely fine. But they're not giving it as opinion: they're stating as fact that every single one of their movies is an "Animated Classic" and this is just arrogant bollocks.

Floyd · #995 Post by **Floyd** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:41 pm

fiddlesticks · #996 Post by **fiddlesticks** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:11 pm

I'm glad that box specifies that Kurupt and Spyder are rappers. That way, people who think the film stars the Nobel-prize winning microbiologist Kurupt, and Spyder, the three-term mayor of Escalante, Utah won't have an unpleasant surprise when they get home.

myrnaloyisdope · #997 Post by **myrnaloyisdope** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:27 am

What the hell does "domed" mean?

SoyCuba · #998 Post by **SoyCuba** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:03 am

myrnaloyisdope wrote:What the hell does "domed" mean?

This.

Or actually it apparently doesn't mean that in the movie but causing head injury or something, or at least someone in the IMDb message board for the movie said something like that. Must be pretty funny for someone who is familiar with the slang word to see the title.

Cold Bishop · #999 Post by **Cold Bishop** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:08 am

SoyCuba wrote:Must be pretty funny for someone who is familiar with the slang word to see the title.

No... No it is not.

miless · #1000 Post by **miless** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:09 am

accidental fellatio is the best kind.

Internal Resources

External Sites

Specialty Labels

Site Menu

Worst DVD covers... ever! (Part Deux)