Charlie and the Chocolate Factory gets new, anniversary cover

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

I think Roald Dahl hasn't had much to lose for about 25 years or so...

"They" = "Penguin"

(I apologize for not specifying what I meant in a situation where I should know people will delight in misunderstanding me. )

Good catch!

[doubleshuffle]

I knew that you knew. I just couldn't resist...

[crich70]

Originally Posted by wannabee

If you keep doing the same thing you keep getting the same results. Penguin obviously wanted a different result from previous and any publicity is good publicity.

That depends on what the publicity is for If it's drawing attention to something others find a negative and you want to gain positive attention then it isn't good publicity.

[xg4bx]

I kinda like it, it's different

[Pulpmeister]

Too often publishers resort to Stock photo libraries for covers, which are irrelevant to the books. BITGOD ("back in the good old days") they hired artists and graphic designers, who often actually read the book and then epitomised it with tempting, inviting cover art. What a daft idea that was, eh?

What you often now get (and what is now regularly derided in Private Eye as "bookalikes") is different books using the same stock photo as cover art.

The Penguin cover art we're talking about tells you nothing at all about the content of the book, gives you no clue. The rationale provided by Penguin is purest doubletalk, just empty phrases, sad to say. I have the feeling it's hasty cobbling of jargon to rationalise a bad idea after the event. Even the old economy style Penguin of two bands of colour, a penguin logo, and text, would be better.

[gmw]

Exactly, Pulpmeister. I find it really quite sad that even new books by quite famous authors get relegated to stock photos (okay, so sometimes they've had a designer make a professional collage of them, but with so many it remains obvious they were originally stock).

The Penguin old style plain covers at least had a certain elegance - much more suited to an adult audience than this new travesty.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by gmw

The Penguin old style plain covers at least had a certain elegance....

...and honesty.
They at least admitted they didn't think the book was worth the investment of a new, custom cover.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by gmw

Exactly, Pulpmeister. I find it really quite sad that even new books by quite famous authors get relegated to stock photos (okay, so sometimes they've had a designer make a professional collage of them, but with so many it remains obvious they were originally stock).

The Penguin old style plain covers at least had a certain elegance - much more suited to an adult audience than this new travesty.

I miss the artist rendered covers too (so do the artists...) But stock photos are HUGELY, HUGELY cheaper. Lots of us indies have the "one day..." thought. Some artists do upload some phenomenal work to the stock photo places (MelleFrenchy did the face of the cartoon on Executive Lunch; I absolutely LOVE the dragon on Dragons of Wendal done as a vector illustration by Gurbi4--wouldn't I have loved to have had him draw the baby dragon on DragonKin!!!) I've even contacted a few artists for single, non-exclusive prices, but it's difficult for them to do that amount of work for a reasonable price. And I'm not saying I blame them. Even photographers tend to sell their work for about 80 dollars minimum to individuals and you can get stock photos for 10 or so.

But someday...

[Manabi]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

Too often publishers resort to Stock photo libraries for covers, which are irrelevant to the books. BITGOD ("back in the good old days") they hired artists and graphic designers, who often actually read the book and then epitomised it with tempting, inviting cover art. What a daft idea that was, eh?

I don't know, I've seen plenty of older books with covers (and text blurbs!) that weren't even in the same ballpark as the actual story. I'm not sure it worked like that all that often. The cover art was often better than what you get nowadays, just not always relevant.

This cover though, is really, really bad. I noticed the dark elements to the book when I first read it (even as a kid), but I just can't see any relation with that picture to those elements within the book. If they'd claimed it was Veruca Salt, they might have some standing, but I don't see that either. Veruca was spoiled rotten and given everything she wanted. The girl in that photo looks like she's drugged and not remotely happy. That girl looks like a little girl being forced to live out her mother's dreams for her, even though she doesn't want to. That is NOT what Veruca was about. (Actually Veruca is more the polar opposite.)

Looking at the full photo set someone linked, it's even more apparent. That girl looks miserable as hell to me. Veruca was ostensibly happy, just needed to learn self control. I think the facial expression of the girl, more than her appearance, is what we find so disturbing. I actually thought she was a doll at first because she looks so soulless. I don't really see where it's sexualized though, unless you have a doll fetish.

Ironically, Veruca's story is much more of a lesson to her parents than Veruca herself, making her nicely suited for a cover targeted at adult readers. Mike Teavee's would have been good too, as his is also more of a parental failing.

[crich70]

I remember hearing about when The Hobbit 1st came out in paperback and how the picture that was proposed for the cover didn't look anything like the story. There was a tree with hanging limbs with what looked like Christmas baubles hanging from them or some such. I understand J.R.R. Tolkien was not pleased at all.

[Luffy]

I used to think I never would bother my head about book covers, guess this little display made me alter that stance. This cover is an eyesore.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Luffy

I used to think I never would bother my head about book covers, guess this little display made me alter that stance. This cover is an eyesore.

There's been worse:

http://www.fantasyliterature.com/giv...rible-cover-3/

(I am not affiliated with this blog in any way other than I follow their reviews and read it, and I do enter their contests.) I think this is the worst cover I've ever seen, although their previous "rename this cover" was nearly as bad.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

There's been worse:

http://www.fantasyliterature.com/giv...rible-cover-3/

(I am not affiliated with this blog in any way other than I follow their reviews and read it, and I do enter their contests.) I think this is the worst cover I've ever seen, although their previous "rename this cover" was nearly as bad.

Yeah but that is Science Fiction/Fantasy, and the book was published in the 70's...weirdness comes with the territory. The Roald Dahl book is more disturbing, for some reasons.

[crich70]

I don't remember ever reading a Ray Bradbury story featuring a centaur though. In fact the title refers to an "electric Grandmother" and is a story that has been filmed twice. One time it was a Twilight Zone episode and the other was just a family program (starring Maureen Stapleton as the title character).

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crich70

I don't remember ever reading a Ray Bradbury story featuring a centaur though.
.

So? Why should that stop them?
They plastered generic spaceships on the covers that had nothing to do with space and aztec pyramids and iconography on noirish space conspiracies that had nothing to do with mexico or aztecs, so why not fractal centaurs on a Bradbury book?
It was the 70's...

Probably looked really cool after they inhaled...