NEW ART FOR DVD OR THE ORG POSTER Do you like it when a company puts out a dvd and its new art for the cover? I prefer the poster for the cover.  I didn't like it when I see that MGM (well its SONY NOW) was using that picture of Nicolas cage imposed next to Cher on Moonstruck! I wish they would stick to the orginal art! PS I also hate the cover of "Four Wedding..."  

A lot of times the decision to not use the original theatrical art is a financial one as royalties would have to be paid to the artist of the original artwork.

Matt wrote: A lot of times the decision to not use the original theatrical art is a financial one as royalties would have to be paid to the artist of the original artwork.

Don't they have to pay royalties to the person who created the new cover?  Is it really that much cheaper?  I've never understood these arguments (or the ones for music rights in a movie).  Why can't these things be worked out?  After all, if the artist charges too much for the royalties, they get nothing because they either change the music or the art.  

Should do double sided covers, one that looks a mess with quotes and stuff to sell to your average consumer, and another for the collectors.

I prefer the poster. New art to me just doesn't cut it.