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

[warren oates]

I see your point, though, if it were a cover for Mud Ado About Nothing, then I'd definitely need its RT freshness rating to be embossed.

[The Narrator Returns]

[Cash Flagg]

Strangely enough, my facial expression when I saw that cover was virtually identical to Mr. O'Dowd's, whoever he may be.

[Mathew2468]

A blast of joy

[bamwc2]

Oddly enough The Sapphires crept onto the most recent S & S poll with a single vote. I've been mildly curious about seeing it ever since. That cover might be enough to turn me away.

[Professor Wagstaff]

I saw it in theatres and thought it was a pleasant though entirely unmemorable movie. Until I saw it at the store the other day I'd forgotten it existed.

[manicsounds]

Here's a very positive review of the US BD, but in a news report, from how "awful" the cover is, The Sapphires DVD cover may change in the US

[CSM126]

That cover is a lot of things, but "sexist and racist" aren't among them. That's just stupid. Putting an actor from a popular (Academy Award-nominated, for better or worse) flick like Bridesmaids in front is just marketing.

[knives]

Still racist though as it suggests that marketing black leads will result in less purchases. There are existing posters out there for the film highlighting this white actor, who I've never heard of, that don't racistly keep the actual leads as literal background.

[MichaelB]

That cover is a lot of things, but "sexist and racist" aren't among them. That's just stupid. Putting an actor from a popular (Academy Award-nominated, for better or worse) flick like Bridesmaids in front is just marketing.

Indeed. In Britain, the three white actors in Attack the Block got more prominence than the actors from ethnic minorities for the simple reason that they were known quantities. No matter how good John Boyega's performance was, he was a complete unknown at the time, and Nick Frost's name on the marquee would clearly do a better job of selling tickets. Just as Frost is all over the trailer, even though he's only in the film for ten minutes maximum.

That's not racism, that's good marketing sense.

Not least because the success of that film means that Boyega has now become a known quantity, or at least known enough to ensure that the marketing of any future film of his will feature his name pretty prominently alongside a reminder that he was the guy from Attack the Block.

As for The Sapphires, I recognised Chris O'Dowd immediately - but then I would, because before he hit the big time with Bridesmaids he starred in a very popular British sitcom. So I suspect the UK marketing will similarly stress his involvement - and for exactly the same nakedly commercial reasons.

[manicsounds]

this white actor, who I've never heard of

Looks like someone's never watched The IT Crowd...

[knives]

Correct, I'm only vaguely aware of it. Never been much of a television person.

[colinr0380]

Chris O'Dowd has certainly got a "Shia LaBeouf who has just had someone step on his foot" look going on there.

[The Narrator Returns]

[knives]

That's awesome.

[CSM126]

Still racist though as it suggests that marketing black leads will result in less purchases. There are existing posters out there for the film highlighting this white actor, who I've never heard of, that don't racistly keep the actual leads as literal background.

Again, it's not racist, it's just marketing. If they erased the girls from the cover altogether and refused to acknowledge them in the back cover credits area, then maybe you'd have a case. But to give you an example of why I think this whole "racist" thing is idiotic, let's try reversing it. Is it racist that Pam Grier is more prominent on Jackie Brown posters than Robert Forrester is? Is it racist that Criterion left Danny Aiello off of their cover for Do the Right Thing? I mean, don't those decisions suggest that marketing white actors will result in less purchases?

The answer of course is no. Pam Grier and Spike Lee are more famous and bankable names/faces than Robert Forrester and Danny Aiello are. Looking for racism in everything is unhelpful and it diminishes the seriousness of actual racism, so stop it already.

[HJackson]

Again, it's not racist, it's just marketing. If they erased the girls from the cover altogether and refused to acknowledge them in the back cover credits area, then maybe you'd have a case. But to give you an example of why I think this whole "racist" thing is idiotic, let's try reversing it. Is it racist that Pam Grier is more prominent on Jackie Brown posters than Robert Forrester is? Is it racist that Criterion left Danny Aiello off of their cover for Do the Right Thing? I mean, don't those decisions suggest that marketing white actors will result in less purchases?

The answer of course is no. Pam Grier and Spike Lee are more famous and bankable names/faces than Robert Forrester and Danny Aiello are. Looking for racism in everything is unhelpful and it diminishes the seriousness of actual racism, so stop it already.

1/2 - 'You cannot be racist to white people'
2/1 - 'Marketing is racist'
4/1 - 'Giving Grier prominence empowers women'
8/1 - 'The Criterion logo is itself racist'
100/1 - An admission of error

[JakeB]

WOW! Are you just trolling?

[CSM126]

Again, it's not racist, it's just marketing. If they erased the girls from the cover altogether and refused to acknowledge them in the back cover credits area, then maybe you'd have a case. But to give you an example of why I think this whole "racist" thing is idiotic, let's try reversing it. Is it racist that Pam Grier is more prominent on Jackie Brown posters than Robert Forrester is? Is it racist that Criterion left Danny Aiello off of their cover for Do the Right Thing? I mean, don't those decisions suggest that marketing white actors will result in less purchases?

The answer of course is no. Pam Grier and Spike Lee are more famous and bankable names/faces than Robert Forrester and Danny Aiello are. Looking for racism in everything is unhelpful and it diminishes the seriousness of actual racism, so stop it already.

1/2 - 'You cannot be racist to white people'
2/1 - 'Marketing is racist'
4/1 - 'Giving Grier prominence empowers women'
8/1 - 'The Criterion logo is itself racist'
100/1 - An admission of error

If anyone puts forth the "you can't be racist to white people" argument they should, at a bare minimum, be banned. And preferably shot.

[Shrew]

The problem with the cover isn't that it highlights O'Dowd, but that it highlights O'Dowd to the exclusion of everything else. The various posters for the film aren't masters of the form by any means, but they all do a pretty good job of putting emphasis on O'Dowd while also giving a clear idea that these other girls are probably The Sapphires of the title. Even this one, upon which the cover is clearly based puts everyone on roughly the same plane, and O'Dowd's red jacket both makes him stand out (marketing!) and makes clear that he probably isn't a member of the blue-clad Sapphires.

By changing the jacket to blue and pushing the girls firmly into the background, the cover totally rewrites the film as a white guy making it as a singer, leading a group called the Sapphires, and maybe he has these girlfriends or backup singers or little blue fairies as inspiration or something? Having O'Dowd's name be the only one up there or having his face be the biggest, brightest, central part of the cover is perfectly fine marketing, but this this goes beyond that.

[Gregory]

Again, it's not racist, it's just marketing.

False dilemma. A lot of marketing, including "good" marketing, shows all kinds of racial and sexism-based biases.

But to give you an example of why I think this whole "racist" thing is idiotic, let's try reversing it. Is it racist that Pam Grier is more prominent on Jackie Brown posters than Robert Forrester is? Is it racist that Criterion left Danny Aiello off of their cover for Do the Right Thing? I mean, don't those decisions suggest that marketing white actors will result in less purchases?

Of course not, but your analogies are poor because Grier plays the main character, while Robert Forster is in a supporting role. Same with Aiello in Do the Right Thing. The Sapphires are not supporting roles in The Sapphires; the film is about them. So a better example involving Jackie Brown would be if the studios had insisted that Pam Grier be put in the background and Robert De Niro far more visible in the foreground. That wouldn't make any real sense, but the same "It's just good marketing because he's a bigger draw than she is" arguments would still apply. Would it be racist or sexist to do so? Hard to say, but given how tough it is for black women to sustain careers as lead actresses, it's not hard to see how someone could call this out as another example of discrimination (Hollywood has a long history of making sure there is a white character front and center).
One quick final point: there are many effective marketing tactics, and putting the most recognizable actor in the foreground with others obscured or eliminated is not only one. I think it's insulting to intelligent viewers because it assumes that the important thing to them is familiar stars and all they need is a closeup of someone they've seen before. Familiar names and faces obviously are important, but showing all the leads and giving some kind of image that actually indicates what the film is about is better marketing. That image of O'Dowd is hardly compelling, to say the least, which is likely why the cover ended up in this thread in the first place.

[jindianajonz]

I'm pretty sure they could have addressed everybody's concerns if they had just put O'Dowd in blackface.[/sarcasm]

[manicsounds]

Highlighting the manager character more than the group? Where did they get such an idea? Oh wait...

[Matt]

Or they could have just not shown anybody's faces.

[CSM126]

I think it's insulting to intelligent viewers because it assumes that the important thing to them is familiar stars and all they need is a closeup of someone they've seen before.

Marketing of movies is almost literally never aimed at intelligent viewers. It's aimed at the dumbasses who make up 99.99 percent of the population.