Charlie and the Chocolate Factory gets new, anniversary cover

[crich70]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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...

Touche. I don't remember the earliest part of the 70's (I was born in Dec. of 1970) but it was a different world back then from what it is now. No web for the average person for example as computers were still in their infancy (if not still in the visualization stage).

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crich70

Touche. I don't remember the earliest part of the 70's (I was born in Dec. of 1970) but it was a different world back then from what it is now. No web for the average person for example as computers were still in their infancy (if not still in the visualization stage).

Try this one, for JACK OF EAGLES. Set around 1950 with all Earthbound action.

http://itdoesnthavetoberight.files.w..._of_eagles.jpg

Slapping any old picture on a paperback was common through the early 70's.
(Although ACE was an exception. Their doubles tended to have appropriate covers and their Burroughs titles had Frazetta originals.)

[Cyberman tM]

I realize this is going off-topic in more than one direction, but it just fits so nicely.
Regarding weird covers, read the paragraph about those for the german Transformers Comic published by Condor:

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Condor_Verlag...formers_comics

IMO, in this case the cause is clearly that the publisher had absolutely no respect for the product. (Which caused other issues as well.)

[Pulpmeister]

You're right about Jack of Eagles, fjtorres, that was very typical of the period; BUT, you knew at a glance that you were getting sf, and very often the very name of the author was the largest thing on the cover; a brand name. UK Panther paperbacks of many of Asimov's books had ASIMOV in huge type, one of those more or less generic space hardware images, and then the title. What you saw is what you got: an Asimov SF book.

The problem with the Chocolate Factory cover is that unless you already know all about the book you have no idea what it contains. The vaguely Stepfordish look is oddly creepy, but uninformative.

To me, one of the most striking and memorable of all paperback covers is the Poirot one, on a c. 1970 Fontana edition of Death in the Clouds, in which the murder takes place on a cross-channel passenger plane in the mid 1930s. It shows a vintage airliner with a huge wasp looming above the plane, looking as though it's about to sting the aircraft to death. And yes, the aircraft and the wasp are in the book.

There was a documentary presented by David Suchet in which, among other things, he interviewed the artist who painted that cover (and many other covers) for Agatha Christie books at the time, Tom Adams, and he said that he usually read the book about three times before an image began to consolidate in his mind.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

You're right about Jack of Eagles, fjtorres, that was very typical of the period; BUT, you knew at a glance that you were getting sf, and very often the very name of the author was the largest thing on the cover; a brand name. UK Panther paperbacks of many of Asimov's books had ASIMOV in huge type, one of those more or less generic space hardware images, and then the title. What you saw is what you got: an Asimov SF book.

The problem with the Chocolate Factory cover is that unless you already know all about the book you have no idea what it contains. The vaguely Stepfordish look is oddly creepy, but uninformative.

To me, one of the most striking and memorable of all paperback covers is the Poirot one, on a c. 1970 Fontana edition of Death in the Clouds, in which the murder takes place on a cross-channel passenger plane in the mid 1930s. It shows a vintage airliner with a huge wasp looming above the plane, looking as though it's about to sting the aircraft to death. And yes, the aircraft and the wasp are in the book.

There was a documentary presented by David Suchet in which, among other things, he interviewed the artist who painted that cover (and many other covers) for Agatha Christie books at the time, Tom Adams, and he said that he usually read the book about three times before an image began to consolidate in his mind.

That Christie cover also made it into an episode of Dr. Who with David Tennant as the Dr.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by crich70

That Christie cover also made it into an episode of Dr. Who with David Tennant as the Dr.

Indeed. And a fun episode at that.

(But don't let a proper Whovian catch you with that abbreviated spelling of the Doctor. I've witnessed people being severely scolded for that, it may even have been here on MR...)

[crich70]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Indeed. And a fun episode at that.

(But don't let a proper Whovian catch you with that abbreviated spelling of the Doctor. I've witnessed people being severely scolded for that, it may even have been here on MR...)

True. I'm working my way through the 7th series of the new Doctor's (Matt Smith) adventures at present. Matt Smith isn't a bad Doctor overall though my favorite is still Doctor # 4 (Tom Baker). I like how the BBC keeps things consistent while changing them round. Something the publishers at Penguin could learn from I think what with how they messed up on this cover for Charlie.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

You're right about Jack of Eagles, fjtorres, that was very typical of the period; BUT, you knew at a glance that you were getting sf, and very often the very name of the author was the largest thing on the cover; a brand name. UK Panther paperbacks of many of Asimov's books had ASIMOV in huge type, one of those more or less generic space hardware images, and then the title. What you saw is what you got: an Asimov SF book.

The problem with the Chocolate Factory cover is that unless you already know all about the book you have no idea what it contains. The vaguely Stepfordish look is oddly creepy, but uninformative.

Agreed on both counts.
What sold paperbacks in those days was the brand (usually the author but not always), the title, and most especially the back cover text.

In the early days paperbacks were just too cheap to get commisioned covers and the art departments at many publishers were not terribly concerned with paperback covers for most genres. Off the top of my head, ACE, BALLANTINE, and DAW were very good; NAL, BERKLEY, and AVON were really bad. At "best", impressionistic--at worst irrelevant.
Things improved by the late 70's and 80's in terms of cover quality but in recent times we've seen a decline back to the 70's most notably from the BPHs who have resorted to online stock images and cliches.

http://publishingperspectives.com/20...n-book-covers/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/19...iches?s=mobile

http://stevewhibley.blogspot.com/201...rs-beware.html

http://thebooksmugglers.com/2010/03/...n-fantasy.html

[CharredScribe]

It's hideous and says nothing about the content. Also, only the work of Quentin Blake should be used for Dahl's books.

ETA: I guess it is supposed to be Veruca Salt but she is one character in the book, and her creepy doll stare doesn't really capture the essence of the novel.