MovieChat Forums > Alive (1993) Discussion > The IMDb Cover is Lying.

The IMDb Cover is Lying.

posted 9 years ago by brandonhelee
4 replies | jump to latest

Okay I was scrolling through netflix looking for something to watch since I'm a little bored and I came across this film since Ethan Hawke is like one of my favorite actors and I came to the IMBd page and the cover they have say's 30th Anniversary Edition and I call *beep* how can a film that was released in 1993 be 30 Years Old in 2015 or whenever that DVD cover was published.

[–] palisade-1 9 years ago

It was the 30th anniversary of the subject of the film (the Andes plane crash itself), not the 30th anniversary of the film's release.

There were a number of events that commemorated this anniversary, as well as media stories. Of course, there has been a 40th anniversary now (in 2012).

http://www.viven.com.uy/571/Eng/

The 30th Anniversary release included a number of special features on the DVD with updates on the survivors and their lives after the tragedy.

[–] brandonhelee 9 years ago

Okay that's a bit odd to me to have the 30th Anniversary of the real life events of the film be on the cover off the film so by the distributors of that DVD's logic The Titanic(the 1997 James Cameron film) should've received a 100th Anniversary Editon Release in 2012.

I'm not too fond that decision it seems very illogical to me.

[–] palisade-1 9 years ago

it seems very illogical to me.

It doesn't to me. The situation of Alive vs Titanic is totally dissimilar.

When Alive was released in 1993, it did poorly in theaters and soon disappeared. If the film were released as a "10th Anniversary Edition" for one thing, few people would know or care about the 1993 date, and secondly, it would be celebrating relative market failure.

Whereas, many people would remember the event of the Andes plane crash, even if they had not recalled the exact date. And the book was well known. So it made more sense, in terms of audience recognition, for the event to be the focus, not the original film release date. Better not to call attention to the fact that the movie was a commercial flop (not because it's a bad movie -- but it's R rating certainly hurt).

But Titanic was different story. Although the sinking of the actual ship was very well known, the movie itself was a global phenomenon and both the most expensive and the highest-grossing film in history (in the West, anyway) up to that time. It made sense to release it as "10th Anniversary Edition" because the original release was a huge media and popular event. Nothing like it occurred with the release of Alive.

Titanic had it both ways, since it also released a 2012 100th anniversary 3-D edition in both theaters and on DVD/Bluu-Ray, but it didn't say "100th Anniversary Edition" on the box. That would have been redundant, since there was an onslaught of 100th Anniversary events, films and TV shows for the centenary of the Titanic sinking.

[–] greatwareagle 9 years ago

There's nothing wrong with it. And there wouldn't be anything wrong if the same thing happened with promoting Cameron's Titanic.

When the original Jurassic Park came out, the tag line on posters and the vhs box was:

"An adventure 65 million years in the making."

Same thing.