Uncovered: Hollywood, We Have a Problem

This fad of so-called “pop art” Blu-ray covers really must stop. Why is it that every graphic designer who works for a home video studio suddenly thinks he’s Roy Lichtenstein or Andy Warhol? Fellas, none of you is as talented as Roy Lichtenstein or Andy Warhol. The work you’re churning out is U-G-L-Y.

The following atrocities were recently spotted at Best Buy. You can also find them on Amazon, though the confusing search results on that site require some digging. The pricing is all over the map as far as which retailer is cheaper on any individual title.

‘Apollo 13’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $9.58 (Amazon) / $9.99 (Best Buy)

Apollo 13

‘Weird Science’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $14.98 (Amazon) / $9.99 (Best Buy)

Weird Science

‘Animal House’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $19.98 (Amazon) / $9.99 (Best Buy)

Animal House

‘Scarface’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $14.02 (Amazon) / $14.99 (Best Buy)

Scarface

‘Sixteen Candles’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $14.98 (Amazon) / $9.99 (Best Buy)

Sixteen Candles

‘Pride & Prejudice’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $14.98 (Amazon) / $9.99 (Best Buy)

Pride & Prejudice

‘Psycho’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $19.98 (Amazon) / $14.99 (Best Buy)

Psycho

‘The Birds’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $19.98 (Amazon) / $14.99 (Best Buy)

The Birds

‘The Big Lebowski’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $11.39 (Amazon) / $14.99 (Best Buy)

The Big Lebowski

‘Lucy’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $19.98 (Amazon) / $14.99 (Best Buy)

Lucy

‘King Kong’ (2005)

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $14.98 (Amazon) / $9.99 (Best Buy)

King Kong

‘American Graffiti’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $8.88 (Amazon) / $14.99 (Best Buy)

American Graffiti

I suppose that, comparatively, the Warhol knockoffs below are the least offensive of this new batch of releases. I wouldn’t call that an endorsement. They’re still pretty ugly.

‘The Breakfast Club’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $14.98 (Amazon) / $9.99 (Best Buy)

The Breakfast Club

‘Bridesmaids’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $19.98 (Amazon) / $14.99 (Best Buy)

Bridesmaids

‘Dazed and Confused’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $14.98 (Amazon) / $9.99 (Best Buy)

Dazed and Confused

‘Wet Hot American Summer’

Available at: Amazon or Best Buy
Release date: July 12, 2016
Price: $14.98 (Amazon) / $9.99 (Best Buy)

Wet Hot American Summer

Thanks to Tyler from DVDTalk for the find.

16 comments

  1. Timcharger

    If you spend more than 5 seconds,
    looking at the Apollo 13 cover art, you’ll know
    what Kevin Bacon is thinking…

    (Go, scroll to the top, be back in 10 seconds.)
    .
    .
    .
    …”Why is the crotch opening in my suit, so
    much smaller than Hanks’ and Paxton’s?”
    🙂

  2. HuskerGuy

    Some aren’t bad actually, but most are just terrible. Uggh at that Apollo 13 one especially. Who okayed something like that?

  3. Thulsadoom

    Gawd… they’re awful!! And when so many of those movies (mainly the older ones) had PROPER original artwork for their posters, why not just use that? It doesn’t make any sense. And if they want to start having artwork for the covers of more recent films (mainly 90s on that need it), get someone to do a proper painting (even if it’s digital).

    Half of these guys are just using the bloody ‘cutout’ filter on photoshop…

    A nice recent example: for Stranger Things on Netflix, the creators obviously wanted someone to paint them a Struzan-esque poster, and whether it’s painted traditionally or digitally, it looks so much more interesting than your standard photo composite.

  4. Bolo

    A lot of this stuff (and the posters from Mondo) just don’t work for me. Half of them are ugly, but more importantly, they just don’t evoke the movie. And to me, that’s what a poster is supposed to do.

  5. I can live with King Kong and The Birds (as in I would rather have something else, but I can live with those), but the other caswe artworks are AWFUL! I don’t know why this has become a trend – NO ONE likes them, so why pay a graphic artist to do them? Fire whoever is doing these, and just plaster the original theatrical poster on the disc – it will be cheaper for the studios (unless there is some weird copyright with the original theatrical posters) and make fans happier.

  6. At the end of his professional career, Drew Struzan was treated like crap by the suits of the movie studios. Seeing these attempts at ‘art’ makes me wonder why they no longer want to hire a true artist like Struzan.

    • Thulsadoom

      It’s fascinating to read “The Art of Drew Struzan”, when he talks about how things went (between all the pictures!). Basically, he talks about how the suits love photoshop posters, because they can a) be produced quickly, and b) they are in complete control. They see having an artist do something as not being under their control. They want to be able to say “Move this actor to the front because, they’re a bigger name… shift this one to the left a little because they’re not as big a star…. Put more of these in… Make that person smaller…” All as if they have a damn clue about composition, design or art.

      The last nail in the coffin, so-to-speak, was with Guillermo Del Toro for Hellboy 2. Guillermo Hired Drew to do a poster for him, but the studio didn’t want that. Guillermo even got it printed up for taking to Comic-Con, and then to prove them wrong, the studio even did an on-the-street poll asking people which they preferred. In the end, it got possibly the highest approval rating for any test like that. But even then, the suits didn’t use it.

      • I know! I have his book, it’s a fascinating read. Regarding ‘Hellboy 2’, when asked (at a con) why they rejected the Struzan artwork, the suit replied: ‘Because it looks too much like art’.

        • Thulsadoom

          It’s scary… But look at even the new Star Wars movie. They got Struzan back because, lets face it, fans would be seriously POed if they didn’t, and Disney were all for every bit of nostalgia they could milk from the fans, but they STILL sidelined the poster in favour of that over-crammed piece of Photoshop junk for 99% of the advertising (And I’m saying that as someone who loves Photoshop).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.