Luke wrote:Probably real, although it looks like Disney is nearly flirting with breaking the 23% Genie rule.
no doubt. i think carpet gets more props on that cover

I agree with you. It seems to me that this cover is only aimed at getting childrens' attention. Don't get me wrong, it is a alright cover but I like the simple, mysterious covers more . I think that the simplistic cover should be the collector's box set rather than the regular release. The collector's box set is more adult oriented than the regular release so I think it's art should be correlate appropriatly. This cover art suits the normal release just fine.MickeyMouseboy wrote:wizzer wrote:this is the picture that my dvdafficianado list shows
That should be the collector's gift set box art! i love early Disney theatrical posters before they went kiddie and soccer mom-ish
I don't see anything wrong with covers being designed to attract children's attention, after all, they ARE children's films, although lately it seems that the Disney Company wants to satisfy adults rather than kids, which is kind of sad. I think covers should really represent the entire film, including all the main characters. The best cover made to date is partly displayed in my avatar. No cover can be better than that one.Cinderelly wrote:I agree with you. It seems to me that this cover is only aimed at getting childrens' attention. Don't get me wrong, it is a alright cover but I like the simple, mysterious covers more . I think that the simplistic cover should be the collector's box set rather than the regular release. The collector's box set is more adult oriented than the regular release so I think it's art should be correlate appropriatly. This cover art suits the normal release just fine.MickeyMouseboy wrote:
That should be the collector's gift set box art! i love early Disney theatrical posters before they went kiddie and soccer mom-ish
In addition, I would take the look of the Lion King box set over it's regular release cover any day. Don't flame me. It's just my humble opinion.
I didn't say that Disney movies were only for children, but they are regularly meant to be, and I think kids are what keep the Disney Company alive. Anyway, why are covers such a big deal? The important thing is what's on the inside. Hey! Look at this, Beauty is found on the inside, see the moral? Shame on all those Beauty and the Beast fans, who will not take an ugly looking DVD, although it might have money inside!MickeyMouseboy wrote:Disney movies are not for Children only and neither are they kids movie. people who think cartoons are for kids are ......... well i won't say you guys can fill in the blank with whatever you feel like calling them
Let's not forget that were it not for kids and soccer moms, Disney wouldn't be anywhere near as successful in their animation department as they are today. Therefore they might have shut down all animation divisions period sometime in the past.MickeyMouseboy wrote:I love early Disney theatrical posters before they went kiddie and soccer mom-ish
You said that perfectly Prince Phillip....I agree 100%, Aladdin should be the focal point, a red background would be great, and it should be less cluttered.Prince Phillip wrote:I do NOT like the cover art, though I don't doubt that that is what is being planned by Disney at this point. Here is why I don't like it:
-The Genie should not be the focal point! Damn! The movie is called Aladdin! And while some may argue that is he is, the fact is that when he is the biggest character on there and at the top holding the Aladdin title, he is the focal point.
-The blue in the cover is not rich like they other platinum cover colors. Beauty and the Beast had a rich blue cover, with different shades of blue kinda swirled in, same with the Lion King which was a rich orange, and Snow White with the purple, which may not have been so rich, but was still kinda swirly with different purple shades.
I think Aladdin should have a rich red backround, swirled with some lighter red or orange, to match the others better. I do not like the blue.
-It doesn't scream out quality to me. The others in the series were painted in a very distinct way, and while the Aladdin cover may resemble them a little, it quality seems to be poorer, almost like it was the direct to video sequal, while the other platinums were the Feature Animation picture, if that makes any sense.
I'm not saying it's all bad, but there is definate room for improvement.