criterionforum.org

Oh, they're certainly all dreadful, but I think the Oldham cover is the only one quite as awful as the new one, and that's not really an official album in the same way as the others are.

Listening to "Hungry Eyes" on spotify the other day and I noticed this album cover:

Not to get away from movie covers by posting that album, here is what I think is a fairly good poster of Paterson and a fairly bad version of attempting it for a blu ray cover (as for the US cover, I like it)

http://www.impawards.com/2016/posters/p ... r2_xlg.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.actualite-dvd.com/images/upl ... 123839.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not a bad cover per se, just a complete and misleading ripoff from MillCreek

I love they chose a number that could be mistaken for a two.

That's very similar to what Kino did a few years ago after the release of The Artist:

Spoiler

In addition to Sofia Boutella looking very little like she does in the movie, the shot in the corner is the very end of the movie (one of the things I liked about the movie was the design of Cruise as the Mummy in this one sequence, which I thought was clever and intuitive.)

Hey guys, remember how people ranted because we absolutely misled them about what the movie actually was like ? Let's do it again !

A24 seriously needs to change up their home video distribution; the art's always horrid and the transfers never really pop.

I'm not one to jump to conclusions of racism, but man, it seems like it some concentrated effort to not include even a mention of Carmen Ejogo on that cover.

Also, great job spoiling the climax but getting around it because

Spoiler

the positions of the characters are reversed.

The Narrator Returns wrote:I'm not one to jump to conclusions of racism, but man, it seems like it some concentrated effort to not include even a mention of Carmen Ejogo on that cover.

Nah, I think that cover (in which Joel Edgerton defends his lily-white family from an unseen threat) is definitely casually, idiotically racist. Who was the main character of the film again?

The Narrator Returns wrote:I'm not one to jump to conclusions of racism, but man, it seems like it some concentrated effort to not include even a mention of Carmen Ejogo on that cover.

Don't forget Kelvin Harrison, Jr., who is arguably the protagonist of the film, as zedz alluded to. There are five actors of consequence in the picture, and the three white ones are credited. Might as well throw the little boy in before the title too, why not

This isn't a new thing nor is is US centric. Behold these posters for 12 Years a Slave in Italy.



Blake people and women are usually removed or relegated to a position in the back. But you all knew that.

That was racist how you misspelled the word black.

swo17 wrote:That was racist how you misspelled the word black.

In penance I will self flagellate myself while crawling on my hands and knees to a religious site of the forums choice.

Here's another release with a cover that betrays the tone of the film.

"A Sharply Funny Comedy"??? Did the designers actually watch this movie?

Seems like it’ll get it in the hands of the people who’d benefit from seeing it the most, at least.

I'm guessing wine has something to do with the film? Even the cover for Sideways didn't feature as many glasses of the stuff!

I never thought I'd visit 'Worst DVD Covers... ever!' for movie suggestions, but Beatriz at Dinner looks really interesting. I hadn't even heard of it, but it may not have reached the hinterlands of Canada yet.

But I wonder, do designers typically watch the movies they design covers for? Maybe knowing too much -- or indeed anything -- about a movie just inhibits their artistic process.

The designers of covers and posters like the one in this thread have a lot to answer for, but when it comes to text, they don't write the stuff or choose pull quotes as part of what they're hired to do. They use the text provided to them, and there'd be no real need for them to have seen the film.

The review that "A sharply funny comedy" came from wasn't describing the film as that, really, but rather saying that it starts out as a sharply funny comedy but then transforms into something totally different.

I've sometimes politely pointed it out when I see some kind of pull-quote distortions or elisions about to happen on promotional materials, and the label rep would just shrug it off with something like, "For better or worse, this is a widespread practice in the industry." When it's done in a particularly misleading way, it can invite derision like what's been seen periodically in this thread, but on the whole few seem to notice or care about this, perhaps unless it happens with a major blockbuster (and those I wouldn't think would need any cheating to get decent blurbs).

colinr0380 wrote:I'm guessing wine has something to do with the film? Even the cover for Sideways didn't feature as many glasses of the stuff!

Yes, Hayek's character starts the film sober and as she drinks more and more glasses of wine, she starts to prod her hosts more with sociopolitical barbs. Supposed to be a pretty good film but it looks like it's only getting a DVD release, so that's lame

Off topic, but one of the cheekiest abuses of selective quotation I've seen is the blurb on the back of a recent translation of Madame Bovary:

"Davis is the best fiction writer ever to translate the novel... [Her] work shares the Flaubertian virtues of compression, irony and an extreme sense of control."
-- Julian Barnes, London Review of Books

Seemingly high praise coming from a Flaubert scholar -- except the review from which this sentence is taken flatly condemns her translation and recommends the superiority of a couple earlier ones.

On topic, one of the covers for Forsyth's Housekeeping subtitles it 'A Tidy Comedy', and the old cover of Kieslowski's Blue blared in large font "Mysterious... Sexy!".

Mysterious Sexy was one of the more obscure boy bands of the mid to late 90s. Either that or a too touchy-feely white rapper.