New blechy JP blu-ray covers

[SomeRandomPaleoNerd]

I was looking around through the jurassic park franchise and i found these new blu-ray covers for the trilogy.....i do not know all of your opinions but i really don't like these new covers. So i decided to try to post them on here (if the admins and moderators grant it) to see what everyone else thought of it.

[ITdactyl]

I like them.  They depict action scenes from the respective movies, with the creatures manacing the/a character/s.  The franchise is a collection of "monster movies"* after all, in the same league as Jaws (and these remind me of the posters for the Jaws trilogy).

[Joey]

Jurassic Outpost talked about the cover art and they summed it up pretty well in their article.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

they're ok, first and second work well,  the last prob should have been the spinosaurus but the pteranodons were featured as heavily.

[Jose S.M.]

I like the one for the second, the scene with the Stegosaurus was my favorite of that movie along with the one where Ingen captures several dinosaurs. Herbivores don't get much action scenes by themselves, they are more often used for peaceful scenes or prey for the carnivores as in the case of the Ankylosaurus in JW.

[stargatedalek]

Let's just be glad Trevorrow didn't design these or they'd all just be Tyrannosaurus.

Pteranodon needed more love after being shafted so hard in JW.

[WarrenJB]

Jakers, it's almost as bad as what they did to Star Wars.

The cover for the original film especially gets to me. It's so badly composed and seems so badly photochopped that it makes the film seem like some crappy, no-budget "we're being ironic, no really" Syfy film. It actually makes the tyrannosaur look like one of the countless apathetic knockoffs of it's own design that've appeared between 1993 and the present day. What shape is it's torso meant to be!?

The original Jurassic Park logo, in red, yellow, black and white, on a plain black background, was wonderfully simple and iconic.* This thing with it's dirty-metal and dropshadowpalooza look, slapped onto 'junior's first wacom' background (I can't decide if the designer's terrible understanding of composition is a curse because the logo is placed so haphazardly over the tyrannosaur, or a blessing because it hides a lot of the tyrannosaur) seems more about dragging it into compliance with the latest popcorn-munching, popcorn-brained offering. (Re: Star Wars) Making JP out to be the poor hanger-on sibling of Jurassic World, rather than vice versa. Almost as if to make it appeal to Transformers fanboys too. Argh... Michael Bay is not the filmmaker we need right now, but he's the one we deserve...

The other two I care less about, because they were not very good movies, but that doesn't stop my eyes bleeding a little from the Lost World cover. Take a publicity still from the film**; stick in a couple of stegosaurs and some trees that are so out of proportion, out of scale, out of focus, out of whack; and think that a bit of airbrushed mist will help hide the joins. It's such a terrible mishmash collage, you'd think they were taking art tuition from Luis Rey.

TL;DR: a display of laziness, apathy, and lack of skill. I've been taking in articles about how the art of movie posters (and by extension, home media) has gone down the pan - this lineup could be exhibit A. They could be... the poster children.

* This is where I dispute with ITdactyl - the Jaws poster was also a bold, simple and iconic composition, and well-rendered too.

** Edit: the one good thing I'll say is that they edited out Vince Vaughn.

[Takama]

Those boxart covers look like ****

Nuff said from me

[HD-man]

Jakers, it's almost as bad as what they did to Star Wars.

The cover for the original film especially gets to me. It's so badly composed and seems so badly photochopped that it makes the film seem like some crappy, no-budget "we're being ironic, no really" Syfy film. It actually makes the tyrannosaur look like one of the countless apathetic knockoffs of it's own design that've appeared between 1993 and the present day. What shape is it's torso meant to be!?

To add to what WarrenJB said, compare them to the awesome collector's edition DVD covers.

[Jose S.M.]

That collector's edition of the first one is great. To me the best cover would be all black and just the logo hehe.

[Faelrin]

They honestly look fan made, and not in a good way.

[Joey]

Also the Stegosaurs are 30 ft tall at the tallest back plate.

[Jose S.M.]

Also the Stegosaurs are 30 ft tall at the tallest back plate.

In the movie the look huge when they are CGI, but when the characters release the one that was caught, the head was very low and the body was shorter too, more like real size.

[Joey]

Also the Stegosaurs are 30 ft tall at the tallest back plate.

In the movie the look huge when they are CGI, but when the characters release the one that was caught, the head was very low and the body was shorter too, more like real size.

Even with the CGI the Stegosaurus seems smaller, but the cover makes them ridiculously huge even for JP standards.

[Jose S.M.]

Also the Stegosaurs are 30 ft tall at the tallest back plate.

In the movie the look huge when they are CGI, but when the characters release the one that was caught, the head was very low and the body was shorter too, more like real size.

Even with the CGI the Stegosaurus seems smaller, but the cover makes them ridiculously huge even for JP standards.

Oh yeah the ones of the cover look like a sauropod or something.

[Brontozaurus]

Good god, it's a double whammy of both bad photoshoppery and poor composition. TLW works the best out of the three because the two stegos balance the overall image. Slapping the logo over Rexy just looks messy. And why on earth did they decide to tilt the angle of the ground on the cover for III when the straight lines in the logo go at a different angle?

If I ever own these I'm designing my own covers and inserting them over these ones. What a mess.