MovieChat Forums > The Enemy Below (1958) Discussion > DVD cover

DVD cover

posted 17 years ago by L_Forster
9 replies | jump to latest

I just purchased a copy of this movie on DVD, love it, no complaints whatsoever. Just have a question if anyone knows the answer. On the cover is are pictures that have the captions "Robert Mitchum and Curt Jurgens". But the picture depicted of Curt Jurgens looks nothing like him. His picture is on the back, and they just don't look the same. I just wonder if they made a mistake, or if they didn't have a picture and had someone else stand in. I could be wrong, it could be him, just doesn't look like it.

[–] aflowers 17 years ago

I bought the DVD and noticed the same thing. That *might* be Robert Mitchum, but that sure does not look like Curt Jurgens. More like Ward Bond.

Anyone else notice?

PS - DVD quality is great!

[–] GeorgiaDixie 16 years ago

I noticed this too. It's also the picture for IMDB and I think they should change it to the old VHS cover (which was a shot from the end of the movie, if I recall correctly)

[–] DavidW1947 13 years ago

It looks to me like Arthur La Ral, who played the Nazi Kunz aboard the submarine. It definitely isn't Curt Jurgens. This is what happens when somebody is given the job of designing a DVD cover who has most likely never seen the film and hasn't the foggiest idea what they're doing. In any case, Arthur La Ral was way down the cast list. The cover of the Region 2 DVD released in the UK has the original poster design on it and looks far better.

[–] CGSailor 10 years ago

You want to see bad covers... Go check out the IMDB main page for the film Crimson Tide. They use the "Unrated Extended Version" DVD Cover.

Look at what's wrong with it... Laugh your asses off, and when you wipe the tears of laughter from your eyes, come back and post what you find.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] Cairo-5 10 years ago

I've courteously waited a few days to give others the opportunity to claim the laurels of giving a good answer. Since it now appears that no one else is going to step up to the plate I'll jump in on this. And cheat because I'm confident I knew what you had in mind even without looking at the DVD cover.

The submarine on the illustration has the hull number 236. In historical fact the US Navy submarine SS-236 was the USS Silversides, which was a Gato Class boat. Meaning it was a World War II era sub, propulsion powered by an electric motor with the electricity provided by a diesel generator when surfaced or at snorkel depth, or by a very large battery when running deeper. It had no missiles but was quite a lethal weapon for her time thanks to its torpedoes.

Having pointed that out, I must confess that the issue of the hull number doesn't really bother me. SS-21 was the USS F-2, a World War I era US Navy submarine. But SSN-21 is the USS Seawolf, a modern day nuclear powered fast attack sub, the first of her class.

So it can happen that a hull number gets reused, even though this has certainly not happened with any of our boomers. And in fact the fictional story in the movie is set on the USS Alabama, SSBN-731, an actual fleet ballistic missile submarine. So we're entitled to a few disdainful sniffs over the cover artist's failure to get such a readily available fact straight.

But the error that I find completely laughable is the location of the hull number in the illustration. It's positioned well below the waterline of the sub. And in any era of history, with any class of submarine, that is absolutely absurd.

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

[–] CGSailor 10 years ago

BINGO, however your answer indicates you missed an additional detail which precludes your... "Having pointed that out, I must confess that the issue of the hull number doesn't really bother me... ...So it can happen that a hull number gets reused".

They didn't just use the wrong hull number. AND... the Hull number is in the correct place.

The sub shown in illustration IS a Gato class submarine. Not just the hull number of a Gato class.

But the error that I find completely laughable is the location of the hull number in the illustration. It's positioned well below the waterline of the sub.

It is actually above the waterline of the hull, it is in fact in the correct place as the Silversides currently shows it. Take a look at some modern photos of Silversides and compare them to the illustration.

They actually used an Illustration of the real USS Silversides SS-236 a Gato class Submarine from WW2 for the cover of a movie about a Modern Ohio class SSBN.

Here is the DVD Cover in question.
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1269731840/tt0112740?ref_=tt_ov_i

You see the Knife shaped Bow typical of a WW2 Sub, rather than a modern Dome shaped bow of a Modern sub.
Then there is the hull number above the waterline.
Then you see the roiling bow wake.
Behind that is the Bow planes in the surfaced stow position.
Behind that you can now see the limber holes where the freeflooding superstructure meets the pressure hull.

Here is a photo of the actual Silversides by way of comparison....
http://www.hnsa.org/ships/img/silversides2.jpg
Note even some of the stanchions and Antenna supports are the same.
This is but a reverse angle showing the port side whereas the illustration is from starboard.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] Cairo-5 10 years ago

All right, but I'm really not picking up on all those details. Chalk it up to the quality of the illustration on the DVD cover. Very poor. And the proportions just seem wrong. Are you sure that they transposed an actual picture of a submarine and this is how they got their illustration?

By contrast the picture of the actual Silversides is wonderful. Good to see her looking so well.

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

[–] CGSailor 10 years ago

Are you sure that they transposed an actual picture of a submarine and this is how they got their illustration?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63358607@N00/12475194665/

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

[–] ngks 8 years ago

It's Stacy Keach from Mission of the Shark: The Saga of the U.S.S. Indianapolis. They screwed up. How I don't know.