|
davidspackage posted:I love that Machete Kills poster, but I'm surprised there's no Lady Gaga credit. Maybe her role's really short. Particularly since Cuba Gooding Jr, Walton Goggins and William Sadler get a credit on the poster but don't make an appearance. I'll never quite understand poster billings.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
MY ABACUS! posted:What makes a movie poster good? A great poster sets you up for the film. It invokes an emotion you will feel when watching the movie. A good poster gives you an idea of the plot without giving it away and tells you the major stars. A bad poster is pretty much the opposite of this, unless it's being intentional with hiding something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Particularly since Cuba Gooding Jr, Walton Goggins and William Sadler get a credit on the poster but don't make an appearance. I'll never quite understand poster billings. Billing in general can be weird. In that live-action Fairly Oddparents movie, Randy Jackson got billing in the opening credits. He had a one-line cameo at the very end of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:A great poster sets you up for the film. It invokes an emotion you will feel when watching the movie. Also your basic design things like framing, color selection, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Particularly since Cuba Gooding Jr, Walton Goggins and William Sadler get a credit on the poster but don't make an appearance. I'll never quite understand poster billings. All crediting including order of appearance from left to right on a poster is hammered out before shooting even begins on a lot of films. This is why sometimes you get pictures that don't match the names on the poster and stuff. They negotiate whose name goes where and how big their face is and yadda yadda. Then stars with clout get to approve marketing materials and can whine if someone else is placed more prominently or lit better or any number of things. It's ridiculous. No graphic designer wants to make a bad poster, sometimes bad is the best you can do after 10 producers and 5 stars change their mind 100 times each.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
MY ABACUS! posted:What makes a movie poster good? It makes you want to see the movie, or at least curious enough to give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
What makes a good minimalist fan poster
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:What makes a good minimalist fan poster How much it goes for on Ebay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:What makes a good minimalist fan poster I'll let you know as soon as I see one
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Ez posted:I'll let you know as soon as I see one What if not seeing one is true minimalist perfection?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It makes you want to see the movie, or at least curious enough to give it a shot. This is the correct answer, I think. Every element of graphic design is there for aesthetic pleasure, but the aesthetic pleasure is there to draw attention, so attention is really the ultimate goal. The worst thing a poster can be is unremarkable and forgettable, same as a movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:What makes a good minimalist fan poster The first one you see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
.
boom boom boom fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
 Finally got this bad boy framed and hung. For those that aren't familiar, this is from the 1970's rerelease of Fantasia for the hippy set.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
A good poster for me, minimalist or not, is one I'd have on my wall and simply enjoy looking at. That Machete Kills poster does a good job of selling the film and now I want to see it, but the poster itself is not the sort of thing I'd (personally) want to look at every day. Film posters can be works of art in themselves, and those really striking ones are the things we remember. Hell, while I was writing this very post, TracerBullet just posted one from the 70s he likes. That's what makes a poster good, that you see it and you remember it even after all the time since the movie was made. Commercially or artistically, that's just awesome. I feel really bad for the people who make modern movie posters, because the ability to make something really genius and interesting is probably the first thing to die under the heel of all the producers they probably have to answer to. I can't wait to never make anything good again once I need a budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Where's Walter? I'm still on the fence about the movie itself but this poster rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
25: How many women? A Number of Women It seems to me that once you get into triple digits, the quality of your poster starts to dramatically drop. Two Women  Three Women  Five Bold Women  5 Loose Women  5 Branded Women  7 Women  7 Women from Hell  8 1/2 Women  10 Violent Women  Thirteen Women  13 Frightened Girls  100 Women  (because nothing sells a sex comedy like Clint Howard) House of a 1000 Women (aka 2000 Women)  2 Million Stupid Women 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Took me a second to realize that 100 Women and 100 Girls are different movies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bastard posted:Somewhere there's an exasperated Disney lawyer trying to explain that this is why they can't sue the film makers over the poster, and getting nowhere with it. It's pretty clear parody, since both the poster and its film are commenting on what they're appropriating, and is thus covered under fair use, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 09:37
|
|
|
Fair Use has touches of grey to it as far as litigation is concerned. And partly because of that, a large entity like Disney could be over whelming enough that defendant just pays the settlement before a trial gets fully under way. Terminal Entropy fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Sep 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
Pretty sure Disney could block it's release since it was filmed on their land without their consent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 11:48
|
|
|
Mister Chief posted:Pretty sure Disney could block it's release since it was filmed on their land without their consent. Nah that's actually unlikely now that its complete. They could prevent the filming while it was being done obviously but now that its complete its more complicated. This [url= http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/01/escape-from-tomorrow-disney-world-and-the-law-of-fair-use.html]New Yorker article[/url] by a lawyer discusses it better than I can. It's not really so cut and dry and its probably better for Disney, from their position, to ignore an indie micro budget film only a few nerds care about than to give it a bunch of attention and potentially set any legal precedents about free speech that would be even more detremental to their brand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
Disney is pretty much resigned to this film existing and getting a release and they don't really care. The film is careful not to scream Disney (apparently they never refer to the parks by name) and only occasionally uses park icons like the castle or Spaceship Earth, but since those were all built in the 70s and 80s Disney doesn't have any copyright on the architectural structures (you couldn't copy right architecture until the 90s) so it's technically fair game to shoot Spaceship Earth or the Monorails. The filmmakers were also careful to remove any music from attractions or ambiance, so they don't have to deal with music copyright from Disney either. Disney even acknowledges the movie on their D23 Disney Encylopedia. They are fully aware, but do not seem to care. And that's really the best move for them. Look at Sea World with Blackfish. They are trying desperately to smear the name of the film, and all it's doing is bringing more attention to the film. Disney figures, let this guy have his fun. He won't make a fortune off it or anything, and it's not doing us any harm. It's remarkable legal restraint, but it's smart.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
ShufflerZero posted:25: How many women? A Number of Women I've got this one on my wall. Not a great film, but pretty fun for a slasher flick from 1932.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Disney is pretty much resigned to this film existing and getting a release and they don't really care. The film is careful not to scream Disney (apparently they never refer to the parks by name) and only occasionally uses park icons like the castle or Spaceship Earth, but since those were all built in the 70s and 80s Disney doesn't have any copyright on the architectural structures (you couldn't copy right architecture until the 90s) so it's technically fair game to shoot Spaceship Earth or the Monorails. They learned a valuable lesson from Barbra Streisand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
MrBling posted:They learned a valuable lesson from Barbra Streisand. Not really:Disney wants to trademark 'Dia de los Muertos' and Merida From 'Brave' Gets An Unnecessary Makeover, Sparks Change.org Petition
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
What do those have to do with the Streisand effect?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Disney still hasn't learned what kind of fall out their actions will have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
Terminal Entropy posted:Not really:Disney wants to trademark 'Dia de los Muertos' and Merida From 'Brave' Gets An Unnecessary Makeover, Sparks Change.org Petition Sweet, a day of the dead Pixar movie sounds fabulous! Also, that petition is dumb or they just chose a bad picture to illustrate their point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
Ariza posted:Sweet, a day of the dead Pixar movie sounds fabulous! Also, that petition is dumb or they just chose a bad picture to illustrate their point. I never understood that controversy. They redesigned the character to make her look like more like the traditionally animated princesses and people think they "sexied" her up. I don't look at the new design of Merida and think "ooh look how sexy she is", she still looks like a dorky cartoon character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
It is a rather ironic that she's wearing the dress which in the movie she doesn't want to wear and despises as symbolic of her being forced into the princess role but is made to wear anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:It is a rather ironic that she's wearing the dress which in the movie she doesn't want to wear and despises as symbolic of her being forced into the princess role but is made to wear anyway. I don't want to start a detail so this is the last thing I'll say about it but I would guess that it's just some animator or designer picking a dress that better matches the style of the princesses. I doubt Disney cartoonists are trying to make a subtle point about women's place in society, it's all marketing bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
Ez posted:I doubt Disney cartoonists are trying to make a subtle point about women's place in society No one has ever even remotely suggested this, so you're probably right to doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:It is a rather ironic that she's wearing the dress which in the movie she doesn't want to wear and despises as symbolic of her being forced into the princess role but is made to wear anyway. Anyone who doesn't understand why people were upset about the Merida redesign should read this over and over until it sinks in. (Also, what happened to her cheeks?!?) Anyway, what happened with Disney and Streisand?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
Rahonavis posted:Anyway, what happened with Disney and Streisand? Nothing to do with Disney. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
The Dia de los Muertos movie is a Pixar joint, btw. This is why Disney titles their movies things like "Tangled" and "Frozen" instead of "Rapunzel" and "The Snow Queen". When you're dealing with public-domain material it's way easier to create an entirely new title that you can copyright and own.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Also your basic design things like framing, color selection, etc. That's not really what makes a good poster, more things to think about when making a good poster. Sure its likely a good poster will have excellent composition and colour choice that create mood and bring attention important aspects of the poster, but if the over all ideas behind the poster are bad then it doesn't matter how good certain design aspects of it are. The reverse can also true, a bad execution of a really good poster idea can still be pretty decent. Sure if its designed to bad enough nothing will come though at all, and it will be crap. But on the whole I usually prefer badly designed great ideas, than really well designed poo poo ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
I'm pretty dang excited for this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
Compared to the striking character photos shown earlier this looks like a direct to dvd cover.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 17:57
|
|
