That's quite a bit of Photoshopping. They changed the color of her scarf and repositioned her, and they put his head on an entirely different body! See that? His whole body is different. What the! Is she wearing two scarves now?

One of these days, maybe, they change the actual contents and not tell anyone. You'll see a movie in the theater, buy the DVD, and everything will have changed: alternate takes of scenes that completely alter the subtext, a different ending.

This is something I've been meaning to do an essay of sorts on, that being unnecessary alterations from a film's original poster to it's DVD cover. The Zodiac DVD image is a hideous downgrade from the original, creepy poster image from the Golden Gate bridge, while the little period piece Sweet Land had a lush, understated poster they traded in for a gaudy facial shot. This, however, is a whole new level of offense. And I haven't even seen the movie yet.

I saw that at the video store. The only thing I noticed immediately was the hands, but I knew it was off and it was more than that. It's not the worst I've ever seen, even recently, but it's still pretty bad. (Check out the box for "Interview," which makes it look like a frothy romantic comedy where Sienna Miller and Steve Buscemi Tango the night away)

The whole presentation of the dvd is a bit off too. The store I went to had one copy on display, among the giant wall of Simpsons Movie dvds. I can't really see it making any difference other than to confuse and dissapoint people.

Wait. Here's the best misrepresentative cover of all time. A cover from a bootleg of Good Night and Good Luck promotes it as a hard-core porno. http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=11812

Also, look how the walls in the center-background building have turned from a pallid gray to a smokey red. If that doesn't do enough to suggest sex, perhaps they should photoshop in Catherine Deneuve's eyes from the "Belle du Jour" poster.

OH MY GOD! I ordered the DVD weeks ago. I'm hoping it's in my mail today when I get home. I actually printed out the PDF of the original poster and framed it and put it on my wall -- that's how much I loved this movie. I am APPALLED that they did this to the DVD cover. Jim - you are dead on in your own displeasure. UGH!!!!!

That out of the way, let me just say that I agree that saying it's "charming" does it a disservice. Just like I hate the term "chick flick." It's either a great movie or it isn't - I don't care if you're male or female.

The scene you mention, of him teaching her one of the songs, is perhaps the most romantic thing shot in years. It's all in subtext. They fall in love through that process, even if they don't know it yet. Great stuff. I hate musicals, generally - but this didn't seem like one.

This depresses me.

Maybe they want to lull the audience into thinking the movie's about something it's not. Maybe this way they'll find their expectations not being met doesn't mean it's not a great movie. Maybe the...

Ah, who am I kidding. This rots.

And that's Futura—speaking of clean, elegant fonts. :)

I dunno. I mean, the purpose of a DVD cover is to get your to buy or rent it, or in any case, pick it up and read the text on the back. It's not supposed to be something you frame and hang up to admire on it's own. It's advertising.

For people who don't know the film, this seems like a good cover: the elements are a man, a woman, and a guitar. And considering that it has one second to convey this information to a potential buyer/renter, that's a good, simple message to convey.

To put it another way, how would you convey what this original, unconventional story is like in a way that would make people rent it? Remember, this is for people who know nothing about the movie, and are literally walking past it in a long row of other DVDs.

Am I being crass or just partisan when I say that anything that gets more people to watch this movie is fine by me? OK, not _anything_ but it's better than describing as the best film about buskers in years.

I agree with Jim's point about the movie being so much more than "charming." It's one of the better films about the creative process (in this case, music) that I have seen in quite some times. It's difficult to depict the act of creating art on film; so many filmmakers rely on cheap shortcuts such as those magical epiphanies artists have that transform them overnight into geniuses. "once" avoids all of that. I also liked the fact that were clearly NOT watching musical geniuses at all, just some pretty talented "neighborhood" artists with a passion for what they do. This one's definitely one of the best films of the year.

Ouch. Still, though, not as depressing as what they did to A History of Violence. The original poster was stark and slightly ambiguous, while the DVD cover makes it look like a $9 action movie. Same for The Matador.

Well, I feel like they've always been trying to play it off as a chick flick. Ever looked at the tagline? They're trying to play it as a love story and if that is your definition of a chick flick then...oh well.

There are much worse examples of this kind of deal, like the Good Night and Good Luck cover mentioned previously.

It all has to do with the studio marketing hte movie they wish they'd made (or bought), rather than the movie that ended up being made (or bought). Usually when studios do this, it is a result of the movie that ended up getting made being a glorious masterpiece, when they wished it would be a predictable piece of crap. That said, as long as the DVD still contains the movie I fell in love with, I can't be bothered too much.

What was wrong with the original? Why do this to the art when the original poster captured the tentative connection and soaked Irish background so perfectly?

However, it did amuse me to see that they buffed up the guy's body and left the girl's pretty much alone, instead of giving her a huge rack and pounds of flowing hair. Progress?

Marketing, Marketing, Marketing. The first poster already got you guys!
Now they are going for the people who didn't see the movie because the previous marketing didn't work on them.

Yes, it's sad when such a great movie gets the treatment but I'm pretty far beyond surprise. I've paid little attention to video boxes since the beta days figuring it's just the marketing department taking the low road again, which, face it, is probably the most likely road on which to meet those who make their judgment based on a cover. It seems kind of minor compared to something like the recent TV ads for "Charlie Wilson's War". I haven't seen the film yet but if Mike Nichols made a flag-waving, feel-good romantic comedy about *that* guy I will be pretty well flabbergasted. I don't see how one could interpret the commercial any other way. What are the odds that just any Hanks/Roberts fan is going to be fascinated by political wheeling-dealing regarding the mujahadeen? (Did I spell that correctly?)

Ken: I'd totally forgotten about A History of Violence, one of these worst examples lately. Same thing with Munich; the poster, echoing The Color Purple (among other things), was this wonderful representation of violence as a dichotomous necessity/evil. The poster makes it look like it aspires to Die Hard (a great movie in my book, but totally removed in tone from Munich, and thus offensive to the latter's moralistic slants).

A remote tangent, the DVD cover of Bend it like Beckham received a "treatment" as well.

The original poster had Keira cheering, but then they had to photoshop her into a weird smile. What a shame.

Another recent example of marketing to an untapped audience--the case for bobby deerfield makes the film look like some nascar potboiler whereas the original poster was a moody closeup of al pacino.