View Single Post
  #39  
Old 21st July 2011, 08:27 AM
Sarah@Cult Labs's Avatar
Sarah@Cult Labs Sarah@Cult Labs is offline
Newsletter Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 2,302
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinncent View Post
I agree! I think its a mistake to have a naked woman on the cover since a lot of people wont buy it in store! It also don't show a true picture of the movie! We know that gore sells better then naked giels on the cover! What guy would buy this movie while shopping with his girlfriend?
Well, for a start, there will be a sticker over all rude bits as per usual so it's not as if you're going to be handing a bare pair of boobs to the lady behind the counter in HMV. And if your hypothetical guy is anything like any of the guys I know, he'll pack his girlfriend off to Topshop and then march straight back into HMV and buy it.

As far as I'm aware, nudity or semi-nudity on the cover art did not damage the sales of Venus in Furs, Ratman, Night Train Murders, Baba Yaga or Satan's Baby Doll. Shameless have been doing this for a while now so they do know what they're doing. They wouldn't put a naked woman on the cover if they thought for one minute that it would damage sales.

As for people saying that this isn't what the film is about - fair enough. As fans, we all know that. But Shameless has always done this with their artwork: harking back to the glory days of video when the cover art was usually far from being representative of the film inside the box. It's an exploitation strategy and it's one that Shameless have used for most of their titles, partly out of nostalgia for the days of video, and partly as a way of increasing sales amongst the uninitiated.

For the rest of us, there is the reverse art. Like I say, I've seen a prototype and it's stunning, in my opinion, and very fitting for the film. But it wouldn't sell half as many copies if it were used as Panel A, I'm afraid.
__________________
Reply With Quote