007-logo

Uncovered: Bond 50, Debonair

The big news this week is that we’ll finally be getting a complete Blu-ray collection of all the James Bond movies later this year. Personally, I’m a fan of the box set artwork. Are you?

New Cover Art

‘Bond 50′

Here it is, in all its glory. At the moment, it’s hard to tell how big the box will be, because we aren’t given any scale to go by. It’s also possible that this art could change by the time the set is released. However, if it were to stay this way, I’d be more than happy to display this set for all to see. The gold and black are very classy. The addition of each Bond actor on the front totally makes the entire look. I look forward to owning this set.

art bond Uncovered: Bond 50, Debonair

‘Immortals’

The ‘Immortals’ Blu-ray will have two different versions of the cover art. First is the Blu-ray/DVD combo pack, which I think looks the best, but also has that very generic “period action movie” look. How many times have we seen a strapping dude running on movie posters and cover art?

art immortals1 Uncovered: Bond 50, Debonair

Next is the ‘Immortals’ 3D cover, which I think looks a little cheap. The fire swirl is neat, but the cutout of Theseus looks cheaply done and doesn’t jive with a stark black background. What do you think? Which one is your favorite?

art immortals2 Uncovered: Bond 50, Debonair

‘J. Edgar’

I’m always a fan of using clever or nice poster art for the Blu-ray’s cover art image. This upcoming cover art was lifted directly from a poster for the film. It looks fantastic and has a nice artistic feeling.

art edgar Uncovered: Bond 50, Debonair

Worst Cover Art of the Week

‘Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Part 1′

This is just so cheesy. Yes, it’s ‘Twilight’ and that’s to be expected, but if you’ve seen the movie, you’ll know how excruciating that wedding sequence is and how much you never want to be reminded of it again. Plus, Taylor Lautner’s “I’m totally a werewolf” stare isn’t doing this cover art any favors.

art twilight Uncovered: Bond 50, Debonair

13 comments

  1. Alex

    The last three Twilight movies all have virtually identical cover art. Three floating heads, random scene in miniature at the bottom. The movies themselves are impossible to distinguish one from another. Does it have to be that way with the cover art too?

    • Alex

      Anybody else feel like that first Immortals cover, with a minor costume change, could make a pretty good poster for the new Superman movie?

  2. The TWILIGHT books are also impossible to distinguish from each other, so I guess they got that part “right”.

    I disagree with William about J. Edgar…I thought it was good (although not “great”). I liked it a lot better than Michael Mann’s Public Enemys, that’s for sure.

    Can’t wait for the Bond set…word is it isn’t coming until October, though. :(

  3. Alex

    So, out of curiosity, how are you HDD guys going to review the Bond 50 set? Are you going to be reviewing all of the movies in one review? Breaking it up by Bond Actor? Just review the ones that haven’t been released yet? I’m really kinda curious.

    • Alex

      It’s always been that way. They’ve released what seems like dozens of collector’s sets of Bond movies over the years, usually right before they release a new film whose art style doesn’t match the others.

      On the plus side, Amazon’s pre-order is only US$199, so that’s less than $10 per flick (which is about all I would pay for “License to Kill”).

  4. Otis52

    Agreed on the Immortals 3D cover. The 2D Is generic but at least doesn’t look cheap. Anyone know whether the 3D is another bad post-conversion money-grab, or was it filmed natively in 3D?

  5. Otis52

    Thanks, Josh. I’m kind of surprised at some of the titles in the “fake” list, e.g. John Carter, Men in Black III. You’d think studios would be going the native route on the blockbusters by now. Of course, if it’s planned for post-conversion from the start, the results are usually acceptable.

    • I’m also surprised about John Carter. I had thought that was a native 3D production, but IMDb says that it was shot on 35mm film, not 3D digital. I guess the budget for that movie ballooned so high, they couldn’t afford to shoot in real 3D! :)