criterionforum.org

Andrew Garfield seems like a relatively popular actor, so it doesn't look surprising if he gets pushed to the foreground instead of using a more abstract visual.
I'd also argue it's actually not a bad revamped design at all : only one quote, relatively simple design, they managed to keep the palm trees in here (though it is obviously photoshopped). I'm just surprised they didn't include a "By the director of It Follows".

Technically the reversible art, but yikes:

I never knew I wanted to see what Patrick Nagel combined with Mort Drucker would look like. Now I know I never ever want to again

I like the concept, but the execution does give Ringwald a bit of a Pennywise look.

This looks like a 70s French teen-sex comedy.

Arrow's new art for 16 Candles makes it look like a slasher

This is how you do it

Wow, that may be the worst cover I've seen for a mainstream studio film in a long time. It's been so horribly photoshopped to death that it doesn't even look like Bette Midler. Here's the original image, which granted wasn't the most flattering one to begin with:

I love how they stuck a pixelated red rose awkwardly between her arms

Stumbled across this eyeful on IMDB...



And yes, co-written by Ethan Coen and directed by the Coens' regular storyboard artist(!)

Here's the trailer

Can someone refresh my memory on what these films have to do with... spraypaint? It seems like such a bizarre choice, and these covers look bad.

I don't think these look terrible, although I agree the backgrounds are a weird choice. Still, the character models themselves look fine.

The ones not way in the background behind a sheen of transparent paint, sure!

This one kind of raised a smile. A release for the mini-series Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years

Johnny Depp goes direct-to-video

Sony went from this:



to this:



¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That, uh, looks like a fine cover. Am I missing something?

I guess the first one is a bit more atmospherical, but other than that...

Well they are awfully photoshopped, including Wheaton's non-existent leg tripping him on the rail line

domino harvey wrote: Fri May 24, 2019 3:58 pm That, uh, looks like a fine cover. Am I missing something?

They went from a great cover based on the original poster to a generic "characters moving towards camera while looking down" photoshop that's rather awkwardly put together.

We really need a “Most Mediocre DVD Covers...ever!” thread.

Better order your "Limited Edition Slip Cover" before it sells out.

eerik is right: as he walks, Wheaton is putting his right leg forward, but somehow it's his left foot that's stepped across the rail (possibly occupying the same physical space as it). Great example of bad photoshopping creating things that are like Escher's "impossible objects," only stupid-looking.

I know the Blu-ray forum was pretty merciless to that Just Before Dawn cover too, but I don't mind it. I think the artist was going for the art style of the period's young adult paperback novel covers. Compared to the gross/gruesome covers slashers typically get, with flesh ripped asunder and bloody organs oozing out, I'll take this YMCA tract look any day