Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:50 pm
Deal.Lets ban people posting covers that don't meat mbalson's criteria.
Page 4 of 41
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:55 pm
hehe. i would laugh fully but i dont know if i'm allowed too. :OThe Invunche wrote:Lets ban people posting covers that don't meat mbalson's criteria.
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:59 pm
Looks like a newspaper clipping on a bad wallpaper.
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:19 am
wow, thats bad. the designer must have been completely color blind as well.
i need to dig up some more "sticky fingaz" masterpieces at some point.
i need to dig up some more "sticky fingaz" masterpieces at some point.
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:01 am
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:54 am
That's the most unfortunate cover of all because (a) it's very bad, as you say, but also (b) it goes to the best film mentioned on this thread so far. (Although Hi Mom, Eureka, and The THing are really great too.)snucker wrote:
the headless yves montant and bad 70s graphics?[/url]
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:59 am
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:38 am
I don't mind that cover at all. The blue VHS cover from HVE was better though.
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:08 pm
It's amazing. Just looking at the More cover actually gave me a seizure. Incredible!
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:20 pm
I think one of those news reports shown in the 'how news scares people for no reason whatsoever' section of Bowling For Columbine had that same tagline!zedz wrote:Even at a barrel-scraping bargain-basement price I didn't dare buy this. The film looks to be just about as bad as the cover.
What you can't see . . . can kill you!
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:31 pm
is that kevin dillon with the numchuks?manicsounds wrote:
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:50 pm
I gotta admit, the CITY DRAGON cover definitely fits mbalson's criteria of a cover so bad it's funny. I love the shot of the guy with the dopy look on his face while 2 practically naked chicks hang all over him. Why is he looking at the camera and not at them?
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:57 pm
He's amazed at how well his new haircut worked in getting hot bitches.
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:29 pm
...while they fondle his man-boobs.oldsheperd wrote:He's amazed at how well his new haircut worked in getting hot bitches.
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 4:19 pm
In keeping with that sentiment, here's another unfortunate cover for a great movie (and a pretty good all-around DVD, too). It's not as bad as some others in this thread, but it's still potentially off-putting if you don't know how good the movie is. There's just too much going on here. Less would definitely be more.cbernard wrote:That's the most unfortunate cover of all because (a) it's very bad, as you say, but also (b) it goes to the best film mentioned on this thread so far. (Although Hi Mom, Eureka, and The THing are really great too.)
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:26 am
Shame because this is an excellent film...
Best,
Best,
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:22 pm
"Hey look everyone! Just got Adobe Illustrator!"
pathetic
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:39 pm
Whoever designed that doesn't seem to know that "leaves" means "pages," thus the falling maple leaves on the cover. I guess poor Satan needed a hobby to make the thousands of years go by faster and pressing autumn leaves in the pages of books is a good one.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:57 pm
The Brute Force cover is awesome. I want a tapestry of that for my living room!!!
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Another vote for the awesomeness of the Brute Force cover.
Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:04 pm
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 11:20 am
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 12:24 pm
Good lord, and the title cracked me up as well, how on earth could a movie like this be done?
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 3:52 pm
I think we need to distinguish between a bad cover and what appears on its face to be a questionable movie. (I have not see it - perhaps it is a corker...) I mean, how would you propose we make this cover any better? What is the appropriate packaging for "Funky Monkey"?
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 4:54 pm
Oh my god, the chimp is smiling.