Every once in a while, there are posters that come along that are just perfect. Then, the DVD comes out, and that perfection is now some bland, cluttered and gross DVD cover. Here's a look at some truly bad DVD covers.
(For most of them, the movie poster is on the right, and the DVD cover is on the left)
This one gets me the most. The poster on the right is one of the most perfect posters ever, I think. It rivals the poster for the original funny games (which you can see
here), but, in my opinion, is somehow better. Although the original poster from the original movie is more indicative of the movie, it almost pales in comparison to naomi watts' face. But the DVD cover--what does the movie look like, Caddyshack 3: The Reckoning?
Say what you will about the movie (although don't try and defend it), that poster on the right is frightening. The dvd cover makes it look like the guy is holding fake boobs made of power tools.
I wasn't planning on using tv DVDs here, but come on...really? They've continued this trend for 4 seasons now. I love the show, and I love patricia arquette, but all these dvd covers do is make me want to give her a flattering haircut.
Jeremy Irons makes one hot girl, right? But really, I know people hate Sienna Miller, but don't feature her face and not her name. Unless she's represented by the pig. That might be more fitting. Those could be her legs though, but why is the pig staring down her crotch?
oh i see you there, clive owen!
This is another case of "what's wrong with simple?" The poster on the right is perfect and fitting for the movie. It draws such emotion out, yet the dvd cover makes me overwhelmed...with actor's names.
what the fuck is going on with javier bardem's face on the left
Both suffer from the floating head syndrome, but the movie poster is pretty creative with the flag ripping into the NYC skyline. Although, couldn't someone have done something about that thing in Cameron Diaz's face? I know it's her shoulder, but it looks like someone's knee.
The original (right) series of posters were just plain creepy (and creepier than the movie itself), so...did they feel that showing Josh Hartnett and Melissa George's face would really scare some people into buying it?
The poster on the right is iconic now. The one on the left? Not so much. The poster seemed to capture the essence of the film (violent and over-the-top) but the DVD cover is just boring.
The poster (on the left) is trippy and mind-bending. So is the movie. The DVD cover on the right has a disappearing Scarlet Johansson. I'd rather her do that disappearing act in real life, not on a DVD cover.
The poser on the right is very attractive and interesting. The DVD cover on the left has a shanty looking Guy Pearce and a bunch of writing in the sky. How annoying is that?
The DVD cover on the left has since been changed to something a little better. Thank God.
WHY? The poster was clever and well-done. The DVD isn't bad, and it fits the with first DVD's cover (which was 10 times better), but still. Perhaps they just didn't want so many words on the DVD cover. It's bothersome, though, how the DVD cover is so unbalanced.
The DVD cover on the left is not bad (except for Naomi Watts, whose mouth looks in mid-whistle), but the poster on the right is just stunning. Why does Naomi Watts seem to get good posters, but bad DVD covers?
These are both DVD covers. The one on the right is the Criterion edition and so much better than the one on the left. What's going on with DDL's mouth on the left? He looks constipated.
The Brick series of posters with the cut-out silhouette was genius. The cluttered DVD cover is campy and just plain bad.
The incredible Lord of War poster on the left is one of the most memorable posters of the past few years. Not only is it creative, but it looks astonishing. The DVD cover, though has a picture of a melting Nicholas Cage.
and the worst:
what?
