Worst DVD Covers...ever! (Part 4K)

[colinr0380]

This is original poster art, but still, I can't stop laughing:

I wonder if that had any influence on the Beyond Bedlam cover from around the same time?:

[spectre]

That back-cover description is quite something.

[McCrutchy]

I'm guessing that this may have been posted in one of the earlier threads, but since it was just announced for Blu-ray (with the far superior original art), I thought I'd take a look at the original DVD:



I know there is a disheartening practice of lightening dark-skinned people in commercial imagery, but somehow, MGM made Fred Williamson look like a wax doll Chevy Chase with a tan.

[mfunk9786]

[domino harvey]

Great Don't Look Now cover though

[Brian C]

I don’t see a problem with the Schindler cover?

[domino harvey]

Me either, actually. It's at the very least better than the original poster art with the hands and the list overlayed on top

[Cremildo]

Me either. The girl in red is arguably the most indelible image from the film.

[mfunk9786]

There's something very chintzy about the way it's utilized there, IMO. That's the reason I put it here. Stripped of its context it seems a little bizarre to me.

[Skrmng Skll Th Thd]

Looks like a Christmas movie... Santa Claus is a Jew named Schindler? That little girl better be good if she wants any presents! Okay, sorry.

Me either. The girl in red is arguably the most indelible image from the film.

I think it's the most facile and gimmicky image from the film, which otherwise does have many more memorable images which don't necessarily play on our misguided sympathies for the notion of childhood.

[McCrutchy]

Building on this, I suspect many won't have a problem with this cover, but I just got my copy and I'm realizing that the more I see it, the more I dislike it:



One of the huge problems with this image in the first place is that Elvis had blue eyes, not brown, although it seems that he wore brown contacts for Flaming Star and I guess that's when the image is from. But I think what bothers me most is that Sony is using this one image, worldwide, for all forms of media for and related to this documentary. So, the ads use it, the CD editions have it, the DVD editions have it, the Blu-ray has it, the limited edition bundles have it, and so on. After a good while of seeing this image, which I also assume has some level of modern digital fuckery going on, Elvis begins to look smug and rather apathetic to me, as well. Obviously, there are myriad photos of the man, so it's very difficult to believe the production didn't select this one carefully and deliberately.

[mfunk9786]

Looks like a Christmas movie... Santa Claus is a Jew named Schindler? That little girl better be good if she wants any presents! Okay, sorry.

Definitely appreciate the baked in apology - please no more of this sort of thing here, thanks

[Feego]

The Elvis one looks like a mugshot.

[tenia]

There's something very chintzy about the way it's utilized there, IMO. That's the reason I put it here. Stripped of its context it seems a little bizarre to me.

I suppose it's like some Criterion covers : they're meant for people already knowing the movie and aren't actively looking to get people to discover these but instead aim at evoking specific memorable elements to people already knowledgeable about the titles. Here, it seems to be kind of the same : it is stripped of the context but it is very likely to be evocative to most people looking at it, and they will be the one remembering the context.

What seems surprising here is that this comes from the studio rather than an independant, which is pretty rare, but otherwise, that's my guess about this.
Still, I think it makes for a better cover than what has been used on video, like domino wrote.

[McCrutchy]

I'd be surprised if the Schindler's List cover is entirely down to Universal. Even if they came up with it--which is not necessarily the case, considering they would probably prefer to put at least Neeson, if not also Kingsley, Fiennes, and possibly even Embeth Davidtz or some or all of the actors playing the Schindler Jews on the front cover--I have to believe that Spielberg had final approval, so what you're seeing there is in all likelihood how Spielberg wants the movie to be sold at this point.

Personally, I have no problem with the cover, though I probably would have preferred the traditional art instead. I'm sure it's very difficult to find art that will both fit on a Blu-ray cover and appropriately advertise this film.

[Skrmng Skll Th Thd]

Looks like a Christmas movie... Santa Claus is a Jew named Schindler? That little girl better be good if she wants any presents! Okay, sorry.

Definitely appreciate the baked in apology - please no more of this sort of thing here, thanks

No more apologies? Not a problem.

[mfunk9786]

Alright, take a seat for a day. A nonzero amount of other users were concerned about the questionable tone of your original post and then you went ahead and doubled down on it after being asked politely to stop. Hopefully after that 24 hours you'll reconsider posts like this unless you want that to be longer.

[mfunk9786]

[Brian C]

Man, you’re three for your last three on cover art that looks just fine to me.

[mfunk9786]

I'm losing it

[McCrutchy]

That looks less like a guitar and more like a fat genie bottle. In fact, as soon as I saw it, I thought of them trying to do some modern take on I Dream of Jeannie, and I immediately heard this in my head, as well.

[Murdoch]

I'm not a fan of the title text color but the rest looks fine to me.

[bottled spider]

Bates' Bitchez

[mfunk9786]

I know bilingual covers start out a bit behind the 8-ball since they've got a lot to cram in, but this still made me chuckle:

[Boosmahn]

Couldn't they have placed "Sicario" in the middle and put the two separate subtitles on either side of the skull?