Everyone's so negative. It's a good cover, not the same old artwork they always use, but still similar enough to work, and it's attention-grabbing. Good marketing, which I'm sure we can all agree, is just what it needs.
I am really surprised ! We get a 2 disc version, a feature length documentary, audio commentary, deleted scenes, musical performances and MORE, we get it really early and almost nobody comments on these. Yet, most of you, bitch for 3 pages, about the cover and the bloody SPINE ????? God, some people really have to bitch about everything, don't they ? Would you prefer a single bare-bones disc with the movie poster then ? Of course not, you would prefer a 3-disc, full of every feature imaginable, with the highlights CD cover and a personal delivery by the cast. And even then, I am sure, some of you, would find something to moan about !
As soon as I saw that cover for the Rent dvd, I immediately thought about how Kids looked. Thank god I'm not the only one who saw/realized the similarities.
I actually like the cover of the 'highlights' CD the best. It's kind of gray and darker looking, very 'grimy/grundgy'. I don't think Rent should look so colorful unless the colors are really faded and blended like the original add campaign.
I also don't like the rainbow-esque title colors. Yuck. So terrible. I'm very unhappy with the cover. And I agree - the best logo for the movie was the highlights CD. Also, the FYC ad for RENT woulf have been better.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."-Charlie Manson
Greek, I couldn't agree more. The negativity here is nearly overwhelming. We're given all these awesome things and people ignore that to bitch over the DVD cover. Jesus. We're getting a DVD packed with extras THREE months after the movie was released in theaters! No wonder the movie didn't do well. This is the whiniest and most ungrateful group of "fans" I've ever seen. There is no way to satisfy you.
Grow up, people. Didn't your parents teach you anything about respect? Say thank you and be grateful for what you're given.
meh, I'm not crazy about it. It's kind of... busy. I guess I'd hoped for somethign more simplistic. And honestly, I half expected to see 8 character versions. But in the end, it's what's inside that case that matters.
The reason I'm upset about the artwork isn't because it won't look nice in my collection. It's not because I had a better idea. It's because that's not the way the film should be marketed. That cover will hurt sales. That cover will make people LESS interested in the film - atleast in my opinion.
"If you are going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy."-Charlie Manson
For the record, people here have had a fairly good idea of what the special features would be for a while. You're not going to get an overwhelming reaction to something people already knew. The cover art is new. People are going to react to it. Deal with it.
I don't think the cover is very representative of the movie's tone and stuff. It looks a little cartoony. The bright colors just don't do anything for me.
I think the cover was probably made that way to appeal to a younger audience because of the brightness. They probably also don't want the movie to seem dark to people who don't know about it. Who knows if it will affect sales or not. On the one hand, I personally agree with those that said it looks cartoony. But on the other hand, the bright colors may attract more people when they see it on a shelf next to other movies. Hopefully it will do the latter.
The artwork looks alright in my opinion, but I think they should kept it similar to the CD covers, posters, etc.
But other than that, can't wait to see the deleted scenes!!!
"Now I may not have much, but I have more determination than any man you're likely to meet." - Big Fish
"Misdirection. What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes." - Swordfish
Well, truth be known, I think that they already made the movie less dark and grungy and more cartoony than the stage version. It's already brighter in many ways, designwise, than the stage play, so I guess it would stand to reason that the DVD art would reflect that. Plus, the marketing thus far has been happy, bright, and friendly. It's not a good indicator of the actual story, but it's the sort of things that gets butts into seats (or not, in this case) and people to buy/rent DVDs. Though the thing I've heard from those who've seen the movie without knowing the play/musical beforehand is: "Don't believe the advertising."
my God people....are you buying it for the cover? or the movie and features? You all sound like a bunch of children, upset because you want a blue toy and all they have is red.......
people who want RENT will buy RENT......and anyone who is silly enough to NOT buy it due to a cover, didn't want it in the first place. Marketing does not play here......RENT already has it's loyal fans, and that is who will buy it.
People looking for a movie to buy will NOT just pick up and buy RENT.......bad or good cover......it's not that kind of movie. People who want RENT will buy it, no matter what
It is ridiculous to set a detective story in New York City. New York City is itself a detective story...
AGATHA CHRISTIE, Life magazine, May 14, 1956
I've been sitting on this for a few days hoping that the cover would grow on me. It hasn't.
Yuck. It's so busy and cartoonish. They definitely should have stuck with something similar to the full movie soundtrack cover art, or (best-case-scenario) the much more attractive highlights CD art.
Edit: And of course, it's not THAT big a deal. The people who were going to buy it before are in all liklihood still going to buy it. It's just not as pretty as I'd have liked.
Updated On: 1/10/06 at 11:04 AM