New Digital Movie Covers

[Azrael]

Seen them a few months ago. My instant reaction was that these are fan made (not the good side of fan made, there are fans who do awesome work - the guy on the linked blog misuses the word "awesome" a lot).

They look crap, at least they are new and not a bastardization of the classic original logos.

Returns is a pretty standard composition of the three characters, not bad and not different than something you would see on a piece of 1992 merchandise; 1989 is awful, it looks like Batman takes a selfie with the Joker.

Also, why is he purple? Is that a tribute to the purple Batman of the Sunsoft NES game?

Batman Forever is weird. It looks incomplete, like the designer got bored and included only Batman... looking up.

The bevel/emboss on the typography is so bad, it hurts.

It's almost like someone at WB let their teenage kid do the art.

[thecolorsblend]

The B89 one is really weird since it looks like someone wanted it to appear drawn. Instead, it looks like someone used Photoshop's smudge stick on some publicity photos, slapped crappy cheap new logo on there and broke for lunch.

The Batman Forever cover is really weird. No Robin, no Two-Face, no Riddler, no Chase, no nuthin!

None of these jive-ass covers really reflect the tone, style and aesthetics of any of those four movies. People can love or hate the original franchise but shouldn't those movies be marketed as what they are instead of trying to trick people into thinking they're something they're not?

[johnnygobbs]

At least the Batman '89, Batman Returns and Batman Forever covers feature some of the distinctive buildings/backgrounds from their respective films.  But those buildings from the Batman & Robin cover could be from any generic thriller, or TDK trilogy...

[The Dark Knight]

None of these jive-ass covers really reflect the tone, style and aesthetics of any of those four movies. People can love or hate the original franchise but shouldn't those movies be marketed as what they are instead of trying to trick people into thinking they're something they're not?

It's about justifying someone's job. They slap something together on Microsoft Paint and call it a new design. I get that these movies sell, and therefore reissues are required. But they surely can do better than these lazy and misleading hatchet jobs. As I said, it's about justifying someone's job. Reusing the original poster art doesn't allow these preschoolers the opportunity to make these rush-jobs in the first place.

[JokerMeThis]

1989 is awful, it looks like Batman takes a selfie with the Joker.

This made me laugh out loud. Thank you for that.

It does look like that, doesn't it?

[johnnygobbs]

1989 is awful, it looks like Batman takes a selfie with the Joker.

This made me laugh out loud. Thank you for that.

It does look like that, doesn't it?

It's true.

The Batman Returns also looks like a selfie, except Catwoman and The Penguin aren't posing in the background.  Then again, that Joker always was a poseur.