NitrateVille.com

For those who have never seen the film (admittedly a minority) this is a real spoiler, and unimaginative as well.

I'm gonna count that as a "thumbs down." I suppose you're really going to be unhappy with the new score by Wang Chung.

I'll never know, as I don't have a Blu Ray player

Spoiler Alert -- Stories Are Not Spoiled by Spoilers

And on topic... I like it. Phantom. Opera. Says it all, and in a handsome image.

If the image of the Phantom hadn't been ubiquitous in monster movie culture for decades, it would be a spoiler. Here, it has the effect of saying... oh, there's that one.

I agree with the "spoiler" comments.

PHANTOM is public domain so the availability of different images for a cover is not in dispute.

There could have been many choices that would have kept the mystery intact
and still identify this film as the Chaney version.

Well the phantom's image was not released on Chaney's insistence in 1925, and that was a great marketing decision. However, since it is 86 years later, it doesn't matter anymore. I guarantee you, that this cover will greatly appeal to someone browsing through BluRay discs at Best Buy. David Shepard is selling to a different customer now.

As a 12 year old (no, not now, back in 1962) I was an avid reader of Famous Monsters of Filmland (and MAD Magazine too) so I had seen many photos of Lon as the unmasked Phantom before I saw the movie. But when I got to see the film itself (over NYC Channel 13, an early PBS station) on "The Toy That Grew Up," I was still jolted when Mary Philbin removed the mask. So I doubt that showing an oft-published photo on the blu-ray cover will be a spoiler for anybody who has ever had an interest in this film.

But I'll tell you a dvd cover that is a real spoiler - the Howard Hawks' THE THING with Jim Arness in full view as he is never seen in the film itself. I think everybody who has ever seen this film will agree that not getting a good look at him adds tremendously to the suspense. The box cover photo makes him look rather laughable - in other words, Hawks knew what he was doing.

bobfells wrote:As a 12 year old (no, not now, back in 1962) I was an avid reader of Famous Monsters of Filmland (and MAD Magazine too) so I had seen many photos of Lon as the unmasked Phantom before I saw the movie. But when I got to see the film itself (over NYC Channel 13, an early PBS station) on "The Toy That Grew Up," I was still jolted when Mary Philbin removed the mask.

I had a similar reaction as a kid. I, too had seen plenty of stills of the make-up but the first time I saw that face actually MOVE, was a real shocker

I agree with the "spoiler" comment.

For those that know the film, there's no need to show the phantoms unmasked face so blatantly.
For those that don't know the film - it totally ruins the unmasking scene.
Dumb.

These days everybody knows that the Phantom of the Opera story involves a guy with a disfigured face. There's also a reason the image of Chaney in the part has become iconic. It seems to me to be a no-brainer to capitalize on it. This cover virtually screams "Buy Me!!!"

Agreed, the use of this image iasn't a spoiler. The vast majority of purchasers will probably be people interested in upgrading from their existing copy. This cover will attract that faction in a retail location, whereas it might be overlooked with a different design.

It'll also be more likely to intrigue the buyer unfamiliar with the film rather than any other image from it I can think of. Horror and weirdness sells these days.

I'm not sure. I'm torn between it being a spoiler for a few people not familiar with the movie and the fact his image might sell more titles. Personally I would have preferred a more minimalistic image that still intrigued people to buy. Maybe a image of the ballroom scene when he's wearing the mask of the red death, or on top of the spiral where he is not in full view. The image used right now seems to be the reveal shot and takes up a entirely too large part of the image. Might serve to desensitize the viewer to his eventual unmasking in the movie. Even if someone had seen the image before its unlikely it would be so fresh in their minds while watching the film unless of course had they not just seen it on the cover.

Just my opinion. Of course they could have anything on the cover and I'd still buy it. I just wish more Chaney titles would see the light of day in HD. If only I was loaded.

It's kinda growing on me although I prefer the Milestone Cover...or maybe something like this:

Regardless, I'll be buying it anyway. (Speaking of Milestone, are they going to announce their release soon? Not a peep from them about anything lately).

I will admit that, though I was the first to complain, the cover does fill the primary requirement of a video box- it will stand out on a rack and is very legible to a quick look.

ColemanShedman wrote:It's kinda growing on me although I prefer the Milestone Cover...or maybe something like this:

Regardless, I'll be buying it anyway. (Speaking of Milestone, are they going to announce their release soon? Not a peep from them about anything lately).

Love that poster

I love the underwater rendition of the Phantom in the poster above as well.
It's said to be the only poster where the Phantom is already unmasked.

RE: The upcoming Blu Ray cover

It's true that Chaney's Phantom is a well known iconic figure...
I guess my feeling that it's a "spoiler" is kind of like playing a poker hand,

Why lay down your cards right at the start....?

The UK version of this title from Park Circus appears to be using the same poster
that Milestone had used in their two disc set:

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=7052" target="_blank

ColemanShedman wrote:

Wow!

Looks good!

Not the best I've seen, but not the worst either. I'm more excited about getting to hear the Gaylord Carter organ score (really hoping that it is lossless).

It'll also be more likely to intrigue the buyer unfamiliar with the film rather than any other image from it I can think of. Horror and weirdness sells these days.

Maybe so, but if someone unfamiliar with the makeup sees it on the cover, it can do nothing but diminish the impact of the unmasking scene when they first experience it. I like the idea of the red death costume image, with similarly bold lettering as in the cover they picked. It would certainly be attention getting and not as damaging to the scene in the film where that costume appears.

For those who have managed never to see the makeup, the cover is a spoiler, and for them cannot be excused on the grounds of marketing...

The majority of older people who would be in the market for this already have see this closeup. Younger people might be intrigued by the grizzly face. I think it's excellent marketing.

Funny, I was about to create a Topic called: Busting Charles Foster Kane.

It would be about how this Ghostbusters cartoon, spoiled in some few degree, the experience I had first time I watched Citizen Kane.

if you watch the episode, you will notice many similarities, intentionally made this way. Like the name of the millionaire, Charles Foster Hearst (mix of the fictional and the real character), the huge mansion and castle, and what was the word "Rosebud" and it's connection to the ghost.

The episode at least have a happy end, like if we imagine that Kane a least had a lost childhood back after dead.

I still remambered this episode when I watched Citizen Kane, and all the connections was fast linked in my mind while the film was running. The young Kane on snow, the hurry gronth and rich Kane and his power, and the last words in dead bed, Rosebud, So I imagined: Rosebud was his sled toy.
So, for me, the revelation in the end was not a surprise at all.

Is some of you want to watch the episode, just for curiosity, despite of be a silly TV cartoon, here the links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WtRGi_J2PQ" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVIQ8TB5ilc&NR=1" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scc1toUndV8" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank part 3/

Other people said, in commentaries section, that guessed Citizen Kane's end due had watched this cartoon episode.


But about the Phantom of Opera, anyone who saw one single version, modern or old, of any of many incarnation of the theme, knows he is suposed to be unmasked and look very disfigurated.
This cover maybe can help bring the film to teenagers. Anyway, the artwork looks nice.

David, what about a screen capture to allow us to see the image quality ?

I like it.

I would have liked it more without any words at all on the front. I mean... who NEEDS them? If you know what that image is, you already know what the film is. If you don't know what the image is, you're more liable to pick up the blu-ray and SEE what the film is.

Well I've always taken any spoilers very seriously. To me you only get one chance to experience a movie fresh and once its over the experience will never be the same. Anything that diminishes that 1st time experience I see as negative.

You would be surprised how many people are not familiar with the Phantom's imagery or even know who Chaney is. I just think there are plenty of scenes to pull from in the movie that would make the cover stand out just as well without revealing too much and weakening the effectiveness of the reveal scene.

Plus like I said earlier. Knowing the iconic imagery vaguely from seeing it somewhere and having it fresh in your mind from opening the cover when watching the film for the first time can place the viewer into two uniquely different disposition's.
That of possibly jumping back in a ghastly surprise of horror at the reveal or going "finally the guy from the cover I've been anticipating"'. With no surprise at all.

From a marketing standpoint, it makes perfect sense to use that image as cover art. They deserve to sell as many discs as they can as a return on their investment. You can always screen the film for guests without showing them the packaging. This is like complaining that SAFETY LAST sports a picture of Harold hanging from the clock. Spoiler alert!

You also have to consider the context for audiences of then vs. now. Something as horrifying as the Phantom's face depicted onscreen would be be much more of a shock to audiences of 1925 than to audiences of today, and the impact much greater. Sort of like seeing King Kong for the first time with 1933 eyes; back then you can easily imagine audiences struck with wonder at seeing such a giant gorilla. Today, one who'd never seen Kong before might at best think, "Wow, what a cool puppet."

But that is not the case with Chaney. His makeup and the reveal shot still hopes up quite well. Especially to new comers. I would just hate to have one of the best reveals in cinema history ruined. Its just my opinion that it is important not to show the image for those who have never seen it. Ultimately I guess it is not that big a deal. To me its a spoiler and something the original advertising specifically tried to hide. I can just imagine people going into the movie specifically waiting impatiently for the phantom to show his mug. No surprise at all. IMO showing Harold hanging from the rock in Safety Last is not a fair comparision . This is more akin to telling people Janet Leigh dies halfway through Psycho.

It's my argument that The mask of the Red Death image would have sold just as many copies. I think that image is even more iconic since it seems the History channel uses it for every documentary they make on Plagues, The Devil, Biblical stories etc..

It seems the main argument for the cover is the idea everyone has seen Chaney in his makeup and it might sell more copies with only this image. I'm all for them selling as many copies as possible, but I think people here may over estimate the extent of knowledge people have about Chaney and silent horror films in general.

Well, since access to paralell universes isn't yet possible, we can't judge how we personally would react to the reveal scene both with and without previous familiarity with the makeup. But that does prompt an interesting question for those who are familiar with the film: how many here saw the film for the first time having never previously seen the Chaney makeup? For me, it's been so long I can't be sure, though I tend to think I'd seen it somewhere, somehow, before.