criterionforum.org

Can't get enough, huh? Here some others. I particularly like the Johnny Depp stand-in.
I think that's most of the good ones, but if you want to browse: http://www.redbox.com/Titles/AvailableTitles.aspx

dx23 wrote:

Oh...Oh God...it's staring right through my soul.

Funny that on the redbox site, no problem with the Steven Seagal DVD covers....

Holy shit

That looks like somebody realised they'd completely forgotten to design a cover until ten minutes before it went to press. "Get me a still! Any still!"

It was just announced and is coming out on March 9th so I think you might be right, zedz. It unfortunately reduces the chance that this is just some cruel joke and the cover will be changing before release - it's probably already being pressed.

AHAHAHAHA! That looks like a redbox cover

Why didn't they use this?



Is simple and it has the main star.

dx23 wrote:Why didn't they use this?

http://www.moviepostr.com/img/movie/442 ... large.jpeg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is simple and it has the main star.

There's your answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lii-bsDi7I8#t=5m45s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dx23 wrote:Why didn't they use this?
Is simple and it has the main star.

That's the cover used in China (which is usually correct for new/not-yet releases).

The redbox rental service seems to need to make mock-up covers for some of their choices. I'm not clear if it is a rights issue, or what.
In any case their images are more amusing than offensive. In fact I appreciate the highly minimalist neutered look

Actually the INGLORIOUS BASTERDS cover is pretty damn good. The others ...meh.
(Althought HANGOVER gets points for having a tiger...)

Those are horrid. I know the design firm that did their rebranding and there's no way they did these. BFI must have done them in house.

For as wonderful a company as they are (are they a "company?") - BFI consistently underwhelms with their DVD artwork...it's consistently very blah. bums me out.

Those banners are too big and too stupid looking.

dx23 wrote:

Those banners are too big and too stupid looking.

I'm pretty sure that those banners (as well as most of the others that have been decried on this forum) will not be on the actual packaging, or at least will be more subdued. I think they just use those large ones for the advertisements. You know, to really get their point across.

That said, the picture is still just sort of blah. I think I will always prefer Criterion's cover.

dx23 wrote:

God, you'd think at some point they'd realize that Willy doesn't want to be freed.

I'm dying to see Little Big Foot to see what kept it from being "Family Approved."

Is it just me, or is that bigfoot suit in the above image the same one used in Harry and the Hendersons?

bamwc2 wrote:Is it just me, or is that bigfoot suit in the above image the same one used in Harry and the Hendersons?

Was thinking the same.

Trying to imagine the consumer who actually made it through something called A Boy Named Woof and felt the need to subject themselves to a sequel. I assume it's some sort of Catholic penance thing