criterionforum.org

They don't call him The Rock anymore?

For a while (2001-2005) he was billed as The Rock in movies, then as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (2006-2007), then just Dwayne Johnson (2008-present). He's still The Rock in wrestling, though.

Sorry for the image quality.

The names are correct on the final cover btw, I just used this because it's the biggest.

Mathew2468 wrote:
Sorry for the image quality.

The names are correct on the final cover btw, I just used this because it's the biggest.

But that red "C" logo is so much more cleverly incorporated into the cover design than simply slapping a colorless "C" over the artwork, obscuring it, like Criterion does.

"Look at my ass!" "Vertical lettering, so turn it on its side!" "Make Natalie's name small, and forget about Nicholas Ray or Sal Mineo's names on the cover"

Everything about that cover is awful, particularly "ALSO STARRING NATALIE WOOD"

Jesus that really is a shit cover. And no self-respecting cinephile would leave out the red in Jim Stark's jacket.

hearthesilence wrote:Jesus that really is a shit cover. And no self-respecting cinephile would leave out the red in Jim Stark's jacket.

Exactly. Is it really too much to ask to ask the designer/artist(s) to--I don't know--watch the damn film they're designing for?

This is the Wal-Mart exclusive DVD cover.

That's hilarious.

I wonder how long they searched for someone willing to attach their name to that quote before giving up.

Not familiar with this Jack Reacher guy, but this movie "Thrilling" must have quite the breakout role for him to have his name printed so much larger than an established star like Cruise.

I'm so glad people are getting paid top dollar to make a release of a half-century-old film look like an ugly handheld video game console. Also, good job getting three of the four song titles wrong, Disney.
What's up with those silhouettes? Amputee dancers?

"It is something quite atrocious!"

I'm assuming it's some kind of reflective material (like the first paperback covers of the Shining), in which case it might just be awful and not hideous. If it is infact drab gray with a blue-border, yeah, one of the worst-- though still not as bad as that Jack Reacher cover. That legitimately might be the worst big studio cover I've ever seen

That blue thing is probably an O-sleeve with a transparent window on the front. I don't understand the "theater marquee lights" title treatment, though. The Broadway run and US tour are both done, so it's not like they need to do a tie-in/cash-in release. And if they did want to tie it in to the live musical show, this image would have been a great option.

The marquee lights for the title is taken from the original Mary Poppins posters, but it's still an awful cover.

Ah, so it is. But of all the things to carry over from that poster, why that? And why not take more cues from this glorious 1973 re-release poster with Mary's sexxxy legs on display?

Unsurprisingly, Dick Van Dyke's face works waaay better on a cartoon than Julie Andrews' does- she looks like her neck just snapped.

Otherwise that is a cool poster, though.

Have a laugh at this one:

manicsounds wrote:Have a laugh at this one:

Thanks, I needed that.

Is that Tommy Lee Jones' head on Tom Cruise's body?

dx23 wrote:This is the Wal-Mart exclusive DVD cover.

I actually saw the DVD in a Half Price Books recently. The cover was still terrible, but at least it expanded "Thrilling" into "A thrilling film," and cited an actual critic.

Roadside Attractions is doing many things right these days, but cover design is not one of them. This cover for Mud isn't especially awful, but that Rotten Tomatoes "Certified Fresh" logo is actually printed directly on both the slipcover and the actual Blu-ray cover. It's not a sticker. They appear to be at it again with Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing.