Worst DVD Covers...ever! (Part 3-D)

[dx23]

Technically, the cover isn't that bad, but the packaging is utterly expensive and ridiculous. MSRP is $999.99 and Amazon is selling it for a cool $700.99.

[Ashirg]

It's for rappers!

[knives]

You know that somebody is going to buy that at MSRP. Some stupid, stupid guy.

[Murdoch]

I think spending $700 on a DePalma movie justifies the phrase "careless with money."

[domino harvey]

Buying this is the new burning money to show you don't give a fukk

[matrixschmatrix]

Gonna buy the hell out of that when it's $14.99 as an Amazon Deal of the Day, though

[Gregory]

If Pablo Dylan is good this year, I'll bet he'll get it for Xmas.

[bigP]

[colinr0380]

I've just received the Nicholas Philibert Collection - strangely the photo of Philibert on my copy is not garish fluorescent green with a colour photo of a smiling Philibert, but instead a more easy on the eye sky blue background with a grey and pensive Philibert in the circle - i.e. this is the final one:



However unfortunately the back cover of the copy I have received repeats the description of La Ville Louvre in the space under Back To Normandy! And gets the date of production for Back To Normandy (saying 1990 rather than 2007) and Un animal, des animaux wrong (saying 1990 again, rather than 1996). Though in both cases the running times of the films are the correct ones, so it presumably cannot be something just as simple as a copy and paste error.

[bigP]

Even worse than the cover is that the back cover of the copy I have received repeats the description of La Ville Louvre in the space under Back To Normandy!

Oh dear, what a goof! Is the text at least more legible on the set than it is in the image here? I'm not sure what happened with this one; I felt AE had been recently putting some thought into their artwork of late and not just taking random screencaps, but I can't work out what they were thinking here. It's probably the least appropriate box artwork to director match I've yet seen.

Edit: Ah, just seen your update colinr0380, that does look far less nauseating now.

However unfortunately the back cover of the copy I have received repeats the description of La Ville Louvre in the space under Back To Normandy! And gets the date of production for Back To Normandy (saying 1990 rather than 2007) and Un animaux, des animaux wrong (saying 1990 again, rather than 1996). Though in both cases the running times of the films are the correct ones, so it presumably cannot be something just as simple as a copy and paste error.

I'm guessing this was a rush job then. Am I right in thinking that the set was advertised for a long time as being without Back to Normandy? I don't remember this being listed before so may at least part explain why things went haywire if artwork had and to be re-jigged etc.

[colinr0380]

Yes, the Wally Hammond quote is much more legible when not on top of an eye searing green background!

[Feego]

Not a great movie, and not really a travesty of a cover either, but I hate how EVERYTHING that has anything to do with vampires is immediately TWILIGHT-ized.

[dx23]

Not a great movie, and not really a travesty of a cover either, but I hate how EVERYTHING that has anything to do with vampires is immediately TWILIGHT-ized.

Funny you say that because while at Barnes & Noble I noticed that they have now a huge section named Teen Paranormal Romance, which is Twilight and everything other copycat or shitty book that have a cover similar to the series. Really, Teen Paranormal Romance is a genre?

[Gregory]

Yes, and its an extremely big genre in the young-adult market. I noticed that section at B&N last holiday season. It's hilarious and sickening at the same time. It'd be different if they also had a decent selection of literary and independent press stuff in addition to that stuff.

[matrixschmatrix]

I saw copies of Romeo and Juliet and Pride and Prejudice with Twilight-esque covers at B&N one time. The Romeo and Juliet had the play and also a novelization of the play.

[Murdoch]

Someone posted those in this thread, but I'm too lazy to look them up

[HistoryProf]

Apparently, the three were chosen because they are "Belle's favorite novels!" puke.

[Mr Sausage]

Looks like a series of gardening books.

Oh well. There are worse things than tricking teenagers into reading Emily Bronte and Jane Austen.

[Peacock]

Serious deja vu here.....

[David M.]

Apparently, the three were chosen because they are "Belle's favorite novels!" puke.

I'm far from the most literal person ever (most of what I read is technical manuals, not fiction)... but there is something really despicable about that.

[domino harvey]

[Feego]

Warner Brothers has been updating the covers on several of their classic releases, replacing the terrific original poster designs with this really tacky photoshop dreck. Here are a few others:

[tarpilot]

Howard Hawks's The Upside of Anger

[dx23]

So Warner Brothers has become the new Paramount with these cover changes?

[AALFW]