Mar 26 2009
The Curse of Bad DVD Cover Images
Originally I was trying to some research on exactly who writes the copy for the Netflix slipcovers. Sometimes they’re word for word verbatim from the DVD cover and sometimes there seems to be text that someone wrote on the spur of the moment with odd comments. I figure they must have a bunch of college students typing away in a forgotten warehouse with broken windows–the kind you see used for drug deal showdowns.
But then I came across this article called: “Why Do Great Movies Get Awful DVD Cover Art?” . And the author does some interesting comparisons between the original movie poster art and the later DVD cover art. Generally speaking, the poster art is almost always better.
The author noted the issue may be the royalties requested by the designer and therefore the studio redesigns the cover using a flat fee contract to get out of paying more money for the DVD release.
That’s certainly one reason. I would say another likely reason is the marketing department gets involved in order to sell the DVD on the shelves of a variety of outlets. Each cover represents a different point of sale. The DVD cover sold at Best Buy may be different than the one sold at Walmart. It could be the difference between a target audience of single male shoppers and family shoppers.
A good example are the Bond DVD covers which have had their sexuality toned down. Remember the infamous For Your Eyes Only poster art and subsequent VHS cover? We looked up at Roger Moore from between the crotch of a Bond Babe. That’s now been edited so that we only see Roger Moore pointing his gun.
The other issue is that when movie poster art is reduced to DVD cover size it may not have the same effect. The details and symbolic imagery can be lost. Thus, the marketing department decides to sell the DVD with close-up pictures of the actors which can catch the attention of drifting shoppers.
The article also argues that some people are DVD collectors and therefore the DVD art is just as important. I have my own collection of DVDs, but I hate to burst the collecting bubble by saying that DVDs will be no more collectable than VHS in the future.
I remember back in the day when a local video shop was selling rare VHS tapes for up to 200.00 in some instances. I would hate to be the person who made that purchase only to have that rare movie be rereleased on a cheap DVD by some company who bought up all the rights to forgotten movies.
VHS cover art and some of the novelty DVD covers may be collectable in the future–it’s hard to say. DVDs in general I think will be archaic. I believe that eventually all movies will be available online and kept on servers. In other words, they won’t be tangible.
And all of those DVD collections will seem pointless and a waste of money. Already, the bonus features of DVDs are shown on TV. I don’t think there will be anything special about retaining a DVD when you can go to a website, point and click and play it on demand.
Thank you. At least there are some *reasons* why the cover art is so awful. I’ve often wondered how excellent movies, even Oscar winners, end up with DVD covers that look like some grammar school kid pasted it together with magazine cut-outs.
The best one I saw recently was an old Sarah Jessica Parker movie where it was quite obvious that all three actresses had had their heads pasted on to someone else’s bodies. I don’t know why they just can’t do a screencap from the movie. Seems like that’d be cheap and easy to do!