criterionforum.org

Why can't they just stick that stinkin' logo on the BACK cover?
Idiots. Is this a new thing in Oz for all DVDs?

devlinnn wrote:

Everyone like the non-removable rating logo?

Archie, have you seen the upcoming cover for The Virgin Spring? It's quite beautiful....but destroyed by the ratings logo.

No, but I have now, and I'm not sure I appreciate seeing it. I don't think I want to see the cover for The Seventh Seal either.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:Why can't they just stick that stinkin' logo on the BACK cover?
Idiots. Is this a new thing in Oz for all DVDs?

Yep. Check out this linkfor the explanation.

From that OFLC site:

Why change?
Research conducted by the OFLC, as well as feedback it has received from consumers and industry, has consistently indicated that the old classification markings often suffered from being hard to find or hard to read because they were too small or not obvious enough against the background. Research also revealed that there was low awareness that computer games carried classifications, low understanding of the meanings of M and MA 15+ and low usage and understanding of consumer advice.

Bollocks!

Research sounds plausible to me. Still looks like shit tho.

I've seen much worse covers, but still, what terrible clutter!

Is that a pimple below Matt Damon's nose?

my attention tended to be more focused on Monica Bellucci.

godardslave wrote:my attention tended to be more focused on Monica Bellucci.

Those are the best things about that cover.

That Piper Perabo ABC family movie had a worse name: Slap Her, She's French, before it was recut and re-titled after the French - Freedom Fries debacle. There has to be some promotional spots somewhere for that movie with it's original title.

There is nothing wrong with Signs of Life's cover. New York does not make incredible covers but a decent image and a silly font doesn't place it in the realm of really bad.

Nihonophile wrote:There is nothing wrong with Signs of Life's cover. New York does not make incredible covers but a decent image and a silly font doesn't place it in the realm of really bad.

I think it's bad enough to list here. The quote seems pretty silly too, and I think that mediocre covers for good movies is a worse offense than mediocre covers on bad films.

Found at DavisDVD.com: The Cover Gallery Hall of Shame

Blatant Thievery!
Giant Heads!
Half-Faces!

...and many more...

Those cover galleries are hands down the best ones I've ever seen. Very perceptive, hilarious and clinical in their approach. Of course, the guy has way too much time on his hands but they're great nonetheless.

BV's DVD sleeve could've been based on BOTD's theatrical poster. Do we know that BV's theatrical poster was the same as BV's DVD sleeve? Do we care?

There's some other covers in the "Blatant Thievery" gallery that don't strike me as blatant thievery -- the presence of a giant reptilian monster is the only common element of the Godzilla and Reptilian covers, The Doll Squad and Mulva 2 (?!) are obviously meant as parodies and don't really count as thievery IMO (and "Kill Chiba" is such a shameless cash-in it would make less sense if they didn't rip off the Kill Bill design), and there's not much resemblance between Tomcats and Go other than the use of a high-angle group shot, which I'm pretty sure didn't originate with Go. Other than that, nice pages, although I wish they had something larger than thumbnails.

I used to work in a video store and I can't tell you how many times someone would rent something whose cover was meant to look like a bigger, more popular film's. They inevitably come back complaining. Stuff like Mulva 2, Shark Attack 2, etc... are using that imagery for that very purpose, to piggy back on the more recognizable covers of more successful films. However, stuff like Tomcats, is just laziness.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:There's some other covers in the "Blatant Thievery" gallery that don't strike me as blatant thievery -- the presence of a giant reptilian monster is the only common element of the Godzilla and Reptilian covers.

Check the font on the reptilian cover

Not so much bad, more freakin ridiculous!

Oh, Jesus!

Oh my effing god. This is a new low for New Yorker.

Whatever happened to 'woodcarver Steiner'? If they changed it to 'sculptor' just so that it would fit on one line then that is a new low!

meanwhile wrote:Whatever happened to 'woodcarver Steiner'? If they changed it to 'sculptor' just so that it would fit on one line then that is a new low!

I've seen it presented both ways over the years, it didn't originate with New Yorker. Though after that "In-Flight magazine reject" cover art, we should all start spreading the rumour that New Yorker is to blame anyway. Hell, even just superimposing Herzog's face over Gallager's on that watermelon would've been an improvement.

gallagher = werner herzog with slightly longer hair.

More weird-looking Buster DVDs - these being the upcoming R4s.