Covers Warner Bros DVD Releases

Why all the covers in the same way ? What a waste, the original cover are much better like This is Elvis.

I've already stated on a previous post that I'm not too keen on these covers and that the ones from the previous batch from Warner were much more attractive. That said, I am puzzled as to why "On Tour" features a photo from "Loving You"! Incidently, why is "Loving You", a Paramount Picture, not included with the soon-to-be-released Paramount set. Does anyone know?

EJF, The Loving You picture is not Elvis On Tour but This Is Elvis. Paramount doesn't own the right of Loving You. Strange but true that Movie Companies doesn't own the right of their own movies sometimes. So Loving You is released on different releases world wide. Even two aspect ratios are available there's a 16:9 version and a 3:4 version. The widescreen version shows more left/right screen, the 3:4 is the television version.

Sorry about that Ronald, my mistake. I did mean to say "This Is Elvis" but I suppose I'm so eager for "On Tour" to be released that I got carried away!! Thanks also for your info on LY. Actually I do own a Region 1 copy (in widescreen) but I just was wondering.

original VHS and DVD covers had much nicer artwork, but these are the ones to own regardless.

No big deal, it's just like the Double Features CDs, they looked the same to match with the collection... I'm surely buying all this.

I agree,i liked the original this is elvis cover,i also liked the remake cover from ttwii,i also am still wondering about the 12 outtakes from ttwii,maybe it is wedding outtakes after all steve,i will however be getting the 6 movie dvd,s unreleased till now (july 3) and am looking even more intersted in this is elvis and ttwii and all those wedding outtakes i mean elvis outtakes lol

I am looking Forward to the 2 disk set's of This is Elvis & Elvis: That's the Way It Is and what could the outtakes hold?

Maybe "never-before sequences" are from material supposed to be on 2001 Edition? Propably rehearsal/arriving thing.Whatever it is I'll get it anyway.

Pics on the DVD boxes - it's all about marketing - these work very well grouped together in a large display unit and carry good impact. Now what Warners could do is print the original film posters etc on the reverse of the paper and you could then flip it over and have what you choose. Will it happen - doubtful but a nice thought.

Forgot to mention that in the UK - Tickle Me is not being released due to copyright problems. So it'll be Region 1 for the fans.

Dont know what to think of this really. On one point of view I share the probably most coincidental perspective from Warner that it´s "almost the same movie, so let´s make the same cover" on all of them. And maybe they are right?!? On the other hand the original cover had brilliant artwork from especially the "50s, so to take away the best part ;) about these movies and strip them totally from the little personality they have, only confirms Warners kind of "Mc donald´s whitewash strategy". It´s good that "This is Elvis, and That´s the way.. are reachable in it´s original form on DVD anyway....

Actually, I think Paramount still owns Loving You, but they leased the rights to NBC years ago. So, Paramount can't release the film 'til the lease agreement expires.

The reason why they all look the same is because they ALL have a blue background except for Spinout as it has grey, white and blue.

I think the covers are fantastic... as a group they are much more likely to draw the eye than a faithfully reproduced 1960s piece of artwork... sometimes the paintings were so bad he didn't even look like Elvis (checkout the original Spinout) though Speedway was quite cool. I also thought the 2000 Special Edition TTWII cover was applallling and probably cost sales... so busy, gold writing on blue... no appeal at all - criminal when they've got the best looking model the world has ever known to work with.

I like the coverart on the majority of new releases but why the LOving You picture on THIS IS ELVIS. This coverat much better than the cartoon looking originals.

oh goodie now i know what my christmas list for santa this year 7 months ahead lol, hope the come in uk versions

The covers are looking boring. They are all the same way.

The covers are pretty cool. The Elvis movies were actually classic movies, especially the good ones. Elvis was a global movie star. His movies played, and continue to play, all over the world. Jailhouse Rock and Viva Las Vegas are two of the greatest movies ever made. They are much better than say trash like the Marilyn Monroe movies where she just plays a mindless bimbo and airhead. And yet...the critics say she is the greatest female actress and a superstar. Give me a break, please. A mindless bimbo in soft core porn flicks like 7 Year Itch where she has a draft up her dress....Enough said. Her movies are horrible horrible trash. And yet the critics.....say she is the greatest actress. I am finding out a lot of cool things about the Elvis movies. Richard Thorpe, the director of Jailhouse Rock and Fun in Acapulco, was also a director of The Wizard of Oz, the Tarzan movies with Johnny W, and the Dean Martin-Jerry Lewis movies. The writer of Viva Las Vegas, Sally Benson, also wrote Meet Me in St. Louis. The director of Charro, Charles Warren, created the Gunsmoke and Rawhide tV shows. Norman Taurog, a director of many of the Elvis films, won an Academy Award for Best Director in 1932. It is great that the Elvis movies are being re-released on DVD. It is about time. These are good movies that deserve to be seen. In 2004, Jailhouse Rock was placed on the national film registry in the US, which was a great honor for Elvis.

I do think that there is double standard when it comes to Elvis movies. I mean, take a no talent like Lenny Bruce. This joker died in his bathroom with a cocaine needle sticking out of his arm in the nude. This is a famous photo of the 1960s. This guy was a vulgar, foul-mouthed drug addict that married a prostitute. And yet...he is some sort of "legend" in Hollywood while Elvis gets attacked. Come on, Lenny Bruce was a no talent suicide dope addict. So there is a double standard. I can still see that naked photo of Bruce with the cocaine needle sticking out of his arm. What did this guy contribute to art but pornography, drug addiction, and suicide? Why glorify this drug addict Bruce? Why don't the critics go after the Michael J. Fox movies, which also were formula movies featuring this no talent smart aleck. Fox always played himself in his movies. And yet the critics never attacked him. Marilyn Monroe movies were the absolute worst rubbish ever released in cinema. Yet she is the darling of the critics. Come on, Marilyn can act? I don't think so. And The Prince and the Showgirl, that is rubbish. And hey, didn't Marilyn commit suicide with a drug overdose? Seems like the experts forget about that. Why glorify a suicide dope addict? Because there is money in it, that is why. We need people to stand up for the Elvis movies. These so-called critics all have axes to grind. If they applied the same standards to Marilyn or Michael J. Fox movies as they do to Elvis movies, Elvis would not be doing too badly. Elvis had a lot of great directors working on his films. Norman Taurog, for instance, did the Martin-Lewis films of the 1950s.

Cut down on the coffee Carl.

Yes, there is a double standard concerning Elvis movies. The reason? Elvis fans themselves attack them. They spend too much complaining about would might have been (maybe) instead of enjoying what was done. Personally, I like the so called "Elvis" movie (some more than others). I'm glad he made them.

Carl you are attacking other performers in the same vicious way as some attack Elvis. That is not right either. A lot of people enjoy MM movies just because they like to look at her (the same reason why many liked Elvis movies - not for the music or acting but for the image) And I'll remember the next time a debate comes up as to what was one of the greatest movies of all time Citizen Kane or Viva Las Vegas, to stick up for Viva.

Ditto!