Sometimes film magazines are not focused on one particular film, but have a few different films - and this is an example of that. It is called 'The Cool Issue', which is a bit of a weird name, as no one wants to read a magazine called the cool issue; it makes it sound childish and aimed at a much younger audience. Actually, looking at the front cover all of the taglines sound ridiculous and childish, with plays on alliteration, such as 'Robocop Rules', 'Katniss Kicks Ass' and 'Harry gets Horny'. Every one of those taglines makes you want to cry. They are incredibly cringey, and would make most people reach for the Empire magazine on the shelf instead. That being said, the middle one (Harry gets horny) would attract some viewers wondering what film he is in where he has to wear horns. Admittedly I had to look inside out of interest. As much as I can say that it's a cringey magazine front cover, it did do the job for me, as it did make me want to open it and see what the cover was talking about. However, I don't think it was the tagline that made me look inside the magazine, it was probably more the odd picture of Daniel Radcliffe with horns. For other people it may be that it's advertising the second Hunger Games film or for others the Robocop film. Both of these films are likely to be hugely successful, as they already have a very large fanbase and this fanbase would want to read as much information about the films as possible. This works for Daniel Radcliffe as well, as he has a very large fanbase from the Harry Potter films and many people want to know what he will do next. Even people who aren't Harry Potter fans may be interested to see if he can ever break out of the role of Harry Potter and be acknowledged as an actor in his own right. In a way, this magazine front cover is working more as a gossip magazine than a film magazine, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as gossip attracts a wide audience. It does slightly isolate a male audience however, as they do not so much want to be associated with reading gossip, and the front cover doesn't have a very manly design. This is an odd advertising choice, as most of the other editions of the magazine seem to be marketed towards a specifically male audience, so the sudden change in advertising distances the fanbase that they've already build up. The light blue colour scheme doesn't help to bring the male fanbase back, as it's not a very manly colour. If the magazine was planning on widening their demographic scope, then they should have at least left something for the men that they were originally targeting. A darker background could have rectified this, with the taglines appealing to a wider audience, but the background keeping the original audience. The danger of completely aiming at a new audience, is that the new audience may not pick up on it due to their previous thoughts of Total Film and the old audience stops reading it because it doesn't appeal to them any more, leaving them with a much reduced audience.
Again this magazine front cover has a sort of 3D design, with the characters coming out of their boxes. The main three characters on the front cover have the tops of their heads sticking out of the top border of the boxes, which makes them come to life a lot more. By having them almost jump out of their boxes the pictures spring off the page, and seem to be reaching out towards the viewer. This establishes a relationship between the front cover and the viewer and through this connection the viewer may feel that they want to buy the magazine. This seems to be a common technique in magazine front covers, with the characters going beyond the boundaries of the front cover. Perhaps this is something that we should be thinking about in relation to our magazine front cover, as it is an effective technique, it looks professional and it makes the front cover look much more exciting. It won't be the easiest technique to work out, but I think that we should be able to manage it after a few tests. Also on the design front, I like the slanting banner at the bottom which makes the front cover look more exciting and less formal. As it is a film magazine it is supposed to look exciting as it is something that people follow in their free time, rather than something that is essential for work. The slanting bottom banner has this effect, as it is making the design of the front cover more free and unconventional. The banner is split into several stills from films, and this gives it the effect of looking like a roll of film, which is obviously something that is relevant to a film magazine. This doesn't have any particular effect to pull in the viewer, but is just aethetically pleasing, which in itself would help to attract a viewer. Underneath the banner are some bullet points of other films and articles that are in the magazine. It is not necessarily the content of these bullet points, but more the sheer number of them that helps to make the magazine appealing. It makes the magazine look as if it is full to the brim with exciting articles, and that there must be something for everyone. This 'something for everyone' hypothesis may have been what prompted the publishers to have the three films instead of just one film on the front cover. It is probable that the majority of people who see the magazine would find at least one of the films appealing, increasing the magazine's chances of being sold. The front cover as a whole is very busy and it looks like there is a lot going on on it, which I suppose there is. It is divided up into many sections, any of which could pull in a potential buyer. Although this style may be effective in selling the magazine, I don't think that it is the best looking magazine front cover design. I find that there is too much to look at, and I'd rather see one big picture from a film, rather than lots of smaller pictures. I think it looks slicker and more professional with just one cover feature, but that may just be me. It almost seems as if the publishers had too many good ideas at once and decided to put them all in the same front cover, but they don't necessarily complement each other, and the front cover ends up just being a mess of contrasting ideas. Even so, it is interesting to see an alternative way of presenting a film magazine front cover.
In conclusion I don't think that this is a very effective front cover, as it alienates the male viewers who the magazine has previously been appealing to. The cheesy taglines just make it seem childish and ridiculous, whilst the baby blue colour scheme supports this effect. Apart from these massive errors the magazine front cover does have some positive design attributes, particularly with the characters' heads lifting out the top of their boxes. The film roll style banner at the bottom helps to show that it is a film magazine, but also just make the front cover look more exciting. On the other hand I feel that there is too much going on, and I think I prefer the covers that just have one film. Overall a bad front cover, but there are still some positive parts to take from it.