SHAM033 - Don't Torture a Duckling: The Artwork
 

So here is panel A for Shameless' forthcoming Don't Torture a Duckling! I really like this as I think it has a rather nice retro, VHS rental feel to it. What do you think?


(Reverse will follow in a few weeks.)

Fear, death, and boobs - that's what a proper Giallo artwork needs! :thumb:

Really nice!

Greetings!

It does look very VHS-y doesn't it? I like it!

I really like if for a couple of other reasons. :D

Oh, I'm not sure about that.

Reminds me of mid 90s Zalman King straight to VHS soft porn effort, the sort of thing you now see in poundland. :tongue1:

Is it fitting for Lucio Fulci's 'Masterpiece'? Not so sure.

Will it help sales? Probably!

Use Panel B then :happy:

I like this cover very much.....can't quite put my finger on it :rolleyes:

will probably hurt sales, as it only refers to a specific scene in the film, and may give casual buyers the wrong idea...personally its the kind of cover id ignore due to overkill during the latter stages of video shop rental ahem (the bloody softcore thing, nae fulci etc) IMO as always, just putting my tuppence in....

I can guess where the First time release in the UK sticker will go.

A lenticular sleeve having the guy close his eyes and fingers would be fun.

In my eyes the panel is head and shoulders above the Blue Underground and Anchor Bay covers used for the Region 1 edition.

I also can't get enough of Barbara.:p

It is better than the R1 art but it makes it look cheap and sleazy.

It is cheap and sleazy.;)

Maybe so but I think that's debatable... I will say that the last Shameless DVD to feature a nakedness and breasticles on the sleeve almost sold out on Day 1 of release (Almost Human).

I've seen a mock up of Panel B and I have to say it's one of my favourite Shameless sleeves ever, but I won't be able to reveal it for a few more weeks.

Cheap and sleazy sells though, Pete! If it's classiness you're after then you can look forward to Panel B!

I just don't like it at all. Many of these films struggle to get the respect they deserve and covers like that are no help at all. Now the average customer in HMV will see it as just another piece of exploitation crap. Which it is not.

Still not as bad as some of the Arrow covers though ;)

It's a good point and I agree with you about these films struggling to get respect but I think if the average HMV customer browsing the horror section sees this, they'll buy it and then discover that it's a great film.

If Shameless were to run with something classier then, with a title like Don't Torture a Duckling, there's a good chance the average HMV customer would think it's a foreign art film and not buy it at all, never mind discover it's a great film.

I'd rather take the former scenario any day!

The problem Shameless have is if they are going to feature a specific scene from the film on the cover then it will appear sleazy, nasty, gory etc. Be it Barbara Bouchet naked, a dead child, or a battered woman dying on a gravestone. It is an exploitation genre film after all.

Here's an exciting alternative pic you could use for a panel, sure to wow the punters.

That's almost as engrossing as the reverse artwork for My Dear Killer! :)

Thats certainly eye opening. The desk is particularly impressive. :lol:

Hopefully.

And if they don't buy it the 'dirty mack' brigade will :D

True.

Still thinks it's crap though.

How much of that was down to the fact that it was a lenticular sleeve, limited to 1000 copies though? If the lenticular sleeve wasn't limited (or indeed if the sleeve bore the same image but wasn't lenticular and wasn't limited), do you think it still would have sold as many copies on the day of release?

True. But, equally, if it had been a limited edition lenticular that featured a more, um, restrained image, would it have still sold out? It's hard to say.

However, I'm pretty sure I remember Almar saying a few years back that the sleazier, more explicit covers sell better than the classier covers.

I think that's an excellent cover which strikes the right balance between classy and sleazy, exactly as the film does.

Or maybe they should use this:

http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/a...g?t=1311171690


:p

Aside from Bouchet's nudity, I don't think it's sleazy at all.

I hate sounding like such a moaner but I do think it deserves better.

Hopefully the reverse will be better. :)

That's the only bit that makes it a little sleazy and I wouldn't change that bit at all!

I hope no ducklings were harmed in the making of that cover Pete. :mob:

Looking at the cover again, it would seem more appropriate if it was the cover to Peeping Tom or Krzysztof Kieślowski's brilliantly erotic A Short Film about Love.

While I'm not a massive fan of Panel A I understand where Shameless are coming from, it does cover a lot of the imagery from the film. Besides which Bouchet topless on the cover will entice a fair few buyers, don't forget that WE know the film isn't really that sleazy but the general buying public don't.

In terms of in-store purchases, I don't know if it matters whether the artwork is 'good' or not as sales will be gained or lost on how interesting, appealing or eye-catching it is. I think this cover checks those boxes.

Panel A is not bad.
Roll on side B I say!:nod:

Not sure about the cover, but if it helps sales then I won't complain!

Be interesting to see Panel B.

I think it would have, since imo, the image itself wasn't particularly good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sorry thats a really bad cover, dunno if its been photoshop'd but it looks like it.

not really convinced by this cover... hope the reverse one is miles from this.
no news on extras yet?

It looks pretty cheap, honestly. And I don't consider DUCKLING to be cheap and sleazy at all. It's a grim, psychosexual mystery that is particularly well made.

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?

Sex sells folks!

Why do you think they put virtually naked girls on the front of lad's mags?

This cover will go down a storm outside of the prude UK!

As well as selling amongst the Shameless faithful :nod:

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.

That's music to my ears. :clap:

Just to prove any further doubters wrong: French author Boris Vian once wrote a book called Autumn in Peking. The punch line: during the book neither autumn nor Peking are mentioned. Not once. Why am I telling you this? Because it does not do any harm to the quality of this (besides, fantastic) novel - the same goes for Shameless' sleazy cover and Fulci's gem.

Greetings!