2121 replies to this topic

[Matt_13]

For those of you who can't vote, delete your original one and give it another go. Went with So So myself.

[TheREAL008]

American cover art is terrible. Why oh why can there just be ONE book cover for every country?

Definitely a contender for worst cover art in a Bond book.

[terminus]

I could vote. The way to do it (if you already voted in the last poll) is to select the "delete my vote" option, then you'll be permitted to vote anew.

Thankyou. Doing that right now.

You know what it reminds me of? The cover for the Tom Clancy book 'Dead or Alive'.

To be fair that would require Jeffery Deaver's name to be bigger than the title and in this case... they're about the same size.

Yes - it was more the simplicity of the design, the block lettering and the uninspiredness of it.

[K1Bond007]

You know what it reminds me of? The cover for the Tom Clancy book 'Dead or Alive'.

To be fair that would require Jeffery Deaver's name to be bigger than the title and in this case... they're about the same size.

Yes - it was more the simplicity of the design, the block lettering and the uninspiredness of it.

Somewhere in a terrible alternate universe Bond fans are seeing this:

Attached Files

•  TOMCLANCY.jpg   35.58KB   21 downloads

[marktmurphy]

It's hard to call this a photograph. Maybe it used a real photo, but this has been turned into an illustration. Jim's right about TMWTRTT. That used photo elements (like the US Doubleshot). But my point is this one is clearly a straight-ahead photographic cover. It's doesn't go for an illustrated or graphic "feel" as these other "photo" cover do. This is is more like those UK ones.

I wouldn't agree there; that smoke has been as tinkered with as the DMC cover.

Stand by everyone...[/size]

[size="7"]BOOK BOND EXCLUSIVE: CARTE BLANCHE U.S. COVER ART

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
I know Americans are capable of great design; I've seen it, but in the world of Bond the evidence runs to the contrary. I struggle to think of any US 007 book cover that isn't worse than its UK counterpart or just plain horrible. The DMC one was quite fun I suppose but not a big favourite of mine.
I suppose they just know their market.

[zencat]

It's hard to call this a photograph. Maybe it used a real photo, but this has been turned into an illustration. Jim's right about TMWTRTT. That used photo elements (like the US Doubleshot). But my point is this one is clearly a straight-ahead photographic cover. It's doesn't go for an illustrated or graphic "feel" as these other "photo" cover do. This is is more like those UK ones.

I wouldn't agree there; that smoke has been as tinkered with as the DMC cover.

Good Christ! Can no one understand my overall point about a "photographic feel" as opposed to an "illustrated feel"? I'm sorry I brought this up. Jeeze!

I hate Bond fans.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

it's impossible to call it a terrible cover.

No it's not. It's quite easy: it's T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E!!!

It lacks any imagination or creativity. Hopefully the contents will make up for it.

I can make that cover in 10 minutes with MS Paint.

[marktmurphy]

It's hard to call this a photograph. Maybe it used a real photo, but this has been turned into an illustration. Jim's right about TMWTRTT. That used photo elements (like the US Doubleshot). But my point is this one is clearly a straight-ahead photographic cover. It's doesn't go for an illustrated or graphic "feel" as these other "photo" cover do. This is is more like those UK ones.

I wouldn't agree there; that smoke has been as tinkered with as the DMC cover.

Good Christ! Can no one understand my overall point about a "photographic feel" as opposed to an "illustrated feel"? I'm sorry I brought this up. Jeeze!

I hate Bond fans.

I understand it, I just disagree with it! The DMC one, with its high end fashion photography style feels more photographic than this one, which could easily be painted and create the same effect. There's nothing overtly 'photographic' in the designer's approach to the CB cover, although they may well have used photography in the execution.

[zencat]

Yep, got it.

At least the U.S. cover is clearly a photograph.

[doublenoughtspy]

Good Christ! Can no one understand my overall point about a "photographic feel" as opposed to an "illustrated feel"? I'm sorry I brought this up. Jeeze!

I hate Bond fans.

I sort of understand your point Zen, but the DMC cover was heralded as wonderful photographic work, and the cover model, Tuuli Shipster, was used throughout the marketing campaign in the UK.





I believe there was a blog post or two out there from the photographer, with some behind the scenes shots, especially of the poppies. I can't find it at the moment.

So while I agree that it was manipulated, the UK DMC is, to me, a photographic cover.

[zencat]

Yes, yes, I got it. Photograph. GOT IT!

(EDIT: Sorry DNS, maybe you missed my exchange with MTM above.)

I can make that cover in 10 minutes with MS Paint.

Didn't you like the cover a few pages back?

[TheREAL008]

I'm still irked. They could have given us something akin to the original coveers. I really like the universal cover, but the US cover art is way too simple. BTW, I'm not judging the book by it's cover because I fully intend on reading the story from page one until the end of the book.

Maybe I should make my own book covers for this series if the trend continues...

[marktmurphy]

I don't think you're wrong or anything, John; it's just a bit frustrating when a photographer can do something really great with smoke (just look at that famous Fleming portrait I posted a few pages back- that's glorious) but this ends up looking a bit thin.

[zencat]

I know. I was just trying to make a point that I'm not sure even I understand anymore.

[MattofSteel]

I'm not normally one to get riled up on such a minor component of Bond media as the cover art, but that US one is an insult. Looks like the cover of a 1980s video game.

[Quantumofsolace007]

the US cover looks lame compared to the much cklassier british cover. Why can't US have a classy sophisticated cover? I may just preorder from the uk so i can get the better cover.

[Captain Tightpants]

Don't like it all. Very 1970s.

[marktmurphy]

On a more positive note; just looking at it again, I'm quite keen on the typography on the UK cover.

[OmarB]

I've stayed out of this topic for days but I guess I'll thrown in my two cents. I think both covers blow. One's too on the nose and the other you could almost put any author/title on there and it works, even in other genres. I'll just be taking off the dust jacket and hope the hardcover is in a nice black underneath all that.

There are many great artists put there working that I think would look miles better, but alas I'm not doing the picking here so I'll just wait and read.

Wonder if the paperback cover is going to be any better?

[Kilroy6644]

Not a fan of the US art. I'm of the opinion that we got the better art for DMC, but we got shafted this time. On the other hand, the cover was the best part of DMC. I'd be perfectly happy to buy a book wrapped in old newspaper, if it meant that the contents were enjoyable.

[chrisno1]

Not a fan of the US art. I'm of the opinion that we got the better art for DMC, but we got shafted this time. On the other hand, the cover was the best part of DMC. I'd be perfectly happy to buy a book wrapped in old newspaper, if it meant that the contents were enjoyable.

I'd second you on each of those four points Kilroy

[zencat]

Not a fan of the US art. I'm of the opinion that we got the better art for DMC, but we got shafted this time. On the other hand, the cover was the best part of DMC. I'd be perfectly happy to buy a book wrapped in old newspaper, if it meant that the contents were enjoyable.

I'd second you on each of those four points Kilroy

I also think the U.S. got the better art with DMC, which was a rarity. But that's a pretty subjective call. They were so radically different. These covers are pretty similar in that they are both minimalist, both have the title centered, and is that the same font? For me, the UK wins this one, but I still think this US cover might be more satisfying in the flesh.

[Matt_13]

I pre-ordered from amazon.co.uk. The white one is just too slick to pass up on, though I must say I've warmed up to the US version considerably.

[007jamesbond]

anyone know the estimated price for Carte Blanche? about 30 to 40$

is the US cover same as Canadian cover?

[jamie00007]

*crosses fingers that Australia gets the UK cover art*

That American cover is just horrible. Looks like one of those $5 thrillers in the newsagents bargain bins by authors you've never heard of. Looks like someone put in a good 2 minutes work on photoshop for that one.

Edited by jamie00007, 20 January 2011 - 07:04 AM.

[Simon]

It would be fascinating to listen in on the discussions about what goes into these covers. I think it might be as simple as the smaller the market, the more subtle and artistic you can be.

I agree, it would be fascinating actually becuase I too am no expert. Just a person with an opinion.

How well do you know these publishers zen? Would you be able to score an interview?

S.

[David Schofield]

Just by the look of these covers, you'd think the publishers were trying to sell two entirely different books.

A moody, subtle Flemingesque tale for us Brits.

And a piece of Bensonesque action tat for the Yanks.

The US cover is amazingly cheap and nasty. Disgraceful.

[sharpshooter]

Just by the look of these covers, you'd think the publishers were trying to sell two entirely different books.

I understand they're trying to sell two different markets. But I'm right there with you. The result didn't have to equal this. This US cover does do something; it makes me appreciate the UK cover even more, because they’re polar opposites. It’s the example of what not to do. The UK cover creates the desired mood under its own steam, without falling upon clichéd repetitions. People can say they’re both bland. But understated, elegant class can’t be beaten when you’ve got something trashy, for want of a better word, in comparison.

[Jim]

And a piece of Bensonesque action tat for the Yanks.

Bit much, non? I thought the covers to Mr Benson's books were quite distinctive and jolly. Stretching it a bit to clobber Mr Benson by association with anything very much here.

This may be more Deaver-esque if anything.

I think the US cover is distinctive (for good or ill) and hardly unambiguous and if designed to sell hardback books in a depressed fiction market, so be it. It may prove necessary and successful, ultimately. To re-establish a good-as-sixty-year-old name in a bold way - and to try to get a new series going rather than a Faulksian one-off curiosity, this may work - it may have to work.

Pragmatics may have to give way to art.But perhaps not yet.

[macleod_73]

Yeah, the US cover is ugly as sin...going to pre-order the UK edition!