30th Anniversary 4K Ultra HD Blu-Ray

[GoNerdYourself]

Keaton did do a new interview for the 25th Anniversary "Diamond Luxe" Blu-ray, but as stated above that new documentary "Batman: The Birth of the Modern Blockbuster" was not very kind to the film in terms of its legacy. They basically made it about how it shaped the modern blockbuster but acted like the film wasn't of higher quality. It was a pretty disappointing release.

I've heard about that. It sounded abysmal. When I finally chose to upgrade to upgrade it to Blu Ray, I chose the steelbook edition over the Diamond Luxe.

Please give us a release with the ORIGINAL poster on the cover, and the original font for the title. This film has one of the greatest movie posters ever made and it's disheartening to see it get replaced by a photoshopped copy.

I second this. Those "edgier" photoshopped covers are ugly as all get out. It just blows my mind how bad cover art is for classic films. 

[Kamdan]

It appears that the Burton and Schumacher films are coming to 4K this summer on June 13th, according to this German website. It's great to hear that all of the films will be available at once instead of like last year when only Superman: The Movie was released on the format, whose transfer I have mixed feelings about. None the less, I'm looking forward to the details on this release and hope that some Fantom Event screenings are in the near future.

https://www.4kfilme.de/warner-batman-filme-gremlins-4k-blu-ray/

[Slash Man]

Warner must have known this was too good to pass up, thus we have an official announcement:
https://www.batman-online.com/news/2019/1/17/batman-anthology-films-to-get-4k-release-this-june?fbclid=IwAR3uNtt3_R_oxYIBoXXke_l0LC6vEA7J7xEmihKNtd42PPRhbju5lcGxUCU

The original Batman series was due for the treatment. I had the DVD anthology for years, and held off on upgrading to BluRay. But it looks like I'll soon have an excuse. I'm not too crazy about special features, since 4K alone is incentive to upgrade. Though the special edition DVDs would be a good starting point. I'm also a sucker for deleted scenes.

Though let's talk about that cover

First misstep was the large orange title that doesn't match with anything. Next we have the DC logo taking up more than a quarter of the title space and competing for attention with the actual title. I see the trend with companies and franchises is to make a template for their back catalog so there's more continuity, but that usually comes with a cost. Like removing the background and turning the art into a ghastly Photoshop collage. You can see the others here:
https://store.hmv.com/dc/dc-films
Now notice that at least the newer films have their original font design, whereas the older movies in the Batman and Superman series' weren't so lucky. Next, the title covers up the bat symbol on Batman's chest, which is a striking detail to omit. Batman's ears being cut off is just a sloppy design choice.

It's worth noting that this is basically a re-arranged version of the 2016 Walmart re-release
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Batman-Blu-ray/178040/
And while that caught some flack, this was somehow worse in every way. There's no dimension, there's some tacky filter over the characters, and they bumped the saturation up to where Michael Keaton's eyes look unrealistic. That's my little art critic rant. The people who opposed the special edition DVD artworks didn't know what they were in for.

[The Dark Knight]

These older films have stunning poster art, and as we know, quality poster art is itself a lost art. But what do we routinely receive instead? Hatchet jobs that have ZERO historical relevance to the film in question.

[Slash Man]

I can remember when VHS covers would routinely just use the theatrical poster art and no one would think twice about it. DVD covers usually didn't look horrid, but still begged the question why they even tried to remake something that worked. Yet something about the BluRay generation just brings out the worst of the trend. I guess the motivation behind it is that using an older artwork would come across as dated when trying to sell it to a new generation (in theory). But IMHO, I'd prefer artwork that reflects the film's age rather than trying to conform to a style that misrepresents the film. Plus you'll see special edition steelbooks and limited releases that tout exclusive art as a selling point. And it's sad that having cool art is an additional feature as opposed to something that's expected.

Potentially unpopular opinion here, but none of the posters for Batman Returns on were that terrific, but I'd still prefer them to any digital collage. The original Batman on the other hand is so iconic that it shouldn't be messed with.

[thecolorsblend]

There was a time when the "art" for a film was the theatrical one-sheet. Beyond being an advertisement for the film, it was generally meant to be regarded as a piece of art itself.

If theatrical exhibition is the only way to absorb cinema, old style theatrical one-sheets are (or can be) very clever and creative ways to sell a movie while also commenting on it somewhat. Need an example? Not for nothing did Superman: The Movie's one-sheet say "You will believe a man can fly" while going to pains to NOT show a man flying. If you want to see that, you'd better buy a ticket for the movie.

Another example is the famous Goonies poster, featuring the children dangling from a stalactite. This concept literally illustrates the adventure, excitement and danger of the movie. It's a good visual expression of what The Goonies is as a film. But for those inclined to bend spoons a bit, the poster shows Brand hanging off the stalactite and the other children forming a chain hanging onto him.

Brand is the closest thing to an a grown up the Goonies have access to for most of the film. He's under orders from his mother to keep Mikey out of trouble. He's also responsible for the safety of Mikey's friends and his own friends. They're all somewhat depending on him to make smart choices. If Brand screws up one iota, everybody is dead. And he's well aware of his responsibility. The poster exemplifies the pressure Brand is under until the climax of the film. It "sells" the film at the same time that it comments on it.

I should say here that Drew Struzan had a thriving career as a poster illustrator. There's a reason for that.

Let's move into the future a bit. From a marketing standpoint, I don't think Blu-Ray covers are meant to be art commenting on a film. In many cases, they're meant to remind would-be customers a movie they have hopefully already seen. At the risk of getting too Get off my lawn, there's less artistry in that. Which is by design. Blu-Ray covers (and I assume the same holds true for latter day DVD covers) are meant to grab attention swift and quick. There's no intention for the cover to comment on the movie in most cases. It's really not necessary. And in some ways, it's undesirable.

Arguably, then, streaming is Blu-Ray covers taken to the ultimate extreme. In most cases, they're little more than thumbnails consisting of publicity photos or perhaps cheesy Photoshop collages. They're meant to be visual cues to would-be viewers as they navigate Netflix, iTunes, Amazon or wherever they choose to watch this stuff. There's literally no room for these glorified thumbnails to say much else besides "Here's a character or two, watch the movie!"

Good? Bad? Hard to say but I must admit that I do miss the old style theatrical one sheets.

[BatmanFurst]

Please don't let that be the cover art. Guess I've lost the right to complain about the Blu-Ray cover. The cover for Superman: The Movie on 4K piqued my interests for what Batman's cover could be, this is the worst case scenario. Even worse, it still carries over that terrible font from the Blu-Ray.

[DarkVengeance]

I'm hearing rumblings that Best Buy will be doing steelbooks of these releases so those upset about the artwork, there's still hope. I don't know where that artwork came from but I've also heard it may not be the final cover. It's weird WB would do this considering they gave a pretty great new cover for last years 40th Anniversary 4K UHD of Superman.

[Slash Man]

Now that you've brought up Superman, I think there's still hope. We went from this...

To this


That's a cover worthy of the Man of Steel.

Let's move into the future a bit. From a marketing standpoint, I don't think Blu-Ray covers are meant to be art commenting on a film. In many cases, they're meant to remind would-be customers a movie they have hopefully already seen. At the risk of getting too Get off my lawn, there's less artistry in that. Which is by design. Blu-Ray covers (and I assume the same holds true for latter day DVD covers) are meant to grab attention swift and quick. There's no intention for the cover to comment on the movie in most cases. It's really not necessary. And in some ways, it's undesirable.

Arguably, then, streaming is Blu-Ray covers taken to the ultimate extreme. In most cases, they're little more than thumbnails consisting of publicity photos or perhaps cheesy Photoshop collages. They're meant to be visual cues to would-be viewers as they navigate Netflix, iTunes, Amazon or wherever they choose to watch this stuff. There's literally no room for these glorified thumbnails to say much else besides "Here's a character or two, watch the movie!"

That seems to answer why BluRay covers have degenerated beyond the initial DVD era. Most DVD art would still try to somewhat explain and sell a movie through the cover, while BluRay boils it down to a few characters... which is conspicuously like a streaming platform tactic. It's dumbed down marketing, but apparently it works.

[Silver Nemesis]

Though let's talk about that cover

I may be wrong, but it looks like that image of Batman was based on a Hot Toys action figure rather than an actual photograph of Michael Keaton.