|
PriorMarcus posted:Speaking as a professional designer I can say that 99% of those, including all the Manos ones, are awful. The one on this page isn't much better either. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I'm uninformed.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Speaking as someone who isn't a professional designer, could you explain why? As somebody who is not a professional designer... are you kidding? Most of them look ugly as sin. People give so much love to the Criterion covers, however a lot of people get it wrong when they try to emulate it. Some would even argue that even Criterion misses the mark sometimes(at least it seems that way every month when Criterion announces the new upcoming releases)
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The portrait is great but I really love this image: I agree with this. It's a beautiful picture and, aside from the movie being bad, describes the overall vibe of the movie really well in a single image. zandert33 posted:As somebody who is not a professional designer... are you kidding? Most of them look ugly as sin. People give so much love to the Criterion covers, however a lot of people get it wrong when they try to emulate it. Some would even argue that even Criterion misses the mark sometimes(at least it seems that way every month when Criterion announces the new upcoming releases) Look at you being all right and stuff. Seriously, most attempts at aping the Criterion covers end up being both misguided and ugly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 09:10
|
|
|
If I just slap on some flat vector images in two colours I'm basically Saul Bass, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 09:17
|
|
|
zandert33 posted:As somebody who is not a professional designer... are you kidding? Most of them look ugly as sin. People give so much love to the Criterion covers, however a lot of people get it wrong when they try to emulate it. Some would even argue that even Criterion misses the mark sometimes(at least it seems that way every month when Criterion announces the new upcoming releases) Yeah, the choice in colors, composition, poor vector art, poorer sources. The only one on that page I liked is The Conversation, but they should have had the tape be in the title and not the "the".
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 09:38
|
|
|
This is the most gangster poo poo. I've been fascinated with this movie for years. I've probably seen it half a dozen times. Never would I have imagine seeing it in HD. It'll be strange because that grainy footage in the original print it what left the biggest impression on me. It looks like a snuff film which works in the films favor in a way. Such a creepy atmosphere. Can't wait for this!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 10:05
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:If I just slap on some flat vector images in two colours I'm basically Saul Bass, right? Also: Using a different font for each separate text element. -- My graduating GD class.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 11:25
|
|
|
Here's hoping that either Rifftrax or Cinematic Titanic gives this another go; CT re-did Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, and it's just as funny as the original episode. It'd be a great bonus if we could get a comedy commentary from the guys who made this film famous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
Re: the fake Criterion covers -- I think there's such a thing as TOO clever. The tricky minimalism can be fun and all, but once the novelty wears off it's not always the best choice to represent the movie. I actually think the Manos one is one of the better ones, as it does feel pretty B-movie-ish, but maybe something a little more photographic would be more appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
Using one of those attempted minimalist posters would date the Blu-Ray horribly in a few years when that style is no longer in vogue. Something better representing the film would be more appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
I feel like the coolest cover for this sort of movie would be either something composite from that original official poster or a shot from the movie with the title/whatever on the bottom like Driller Killer: Fake movie quotes attributed to Ebert/etc. would be a bonus. "Lurid action that will change the course of cinema as we know it even more than Blade II." ~Harry Knowles would be a great cover quote. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Fake movie quotes attributed to Ebert/etc. would be a bonus. "Lurid action that will change the course of cinema as we know it even more than Blade II." ~Harry Knowles would be a great cover quote. Pretty sure you can get sued for that, since this is an actual commercial product.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Plus with how widespread this is getting, you probably wouldn't need to get fake quotes anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
I just thought of something. If there is some kind of MST3K thing done with this, with either Rifftrax or Cinematic Titanic (or god willing, both), I hope that Ben lets them redistribute the video under a video-on-demand like Rifftrax does. Something like profites would go 33% Rifftrax crew, 33% CT crew, 34% Ben Solo. Just so long that's what Ben wants. It just seems to be the easiest way. Because people that know of this movie are slim. People who know of RT or CT after MST3k gets smaller. People who would know about the re-release of Manos would be even smaller. So if either of them did mock the movie again, if they didn't know where to get it, I don't know if it would take off if they couldn't redistribute it. EDIT: Hell, not even bluray quality. Let them redistribute the DVD quality with the tracks in the audio track, and then if people wanted the full glory of Manos they can go to Ben for the bluray. EDIT 2: Twitter urls get mangeled here, so I fixed it for you. vv http://twitter.com/#!/ebertchicago/status/142037923213230080 IUG fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Dec 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Idran posted:Plus with how widespread this is getting, you probably wouldn't need to get fake quotes anyway. http://twitter.com/!/ebertchicago/status/142037923213230080 Roger Ebert: "Miraculous!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Douche Bag posted:This is the most gangster poo poo. I've been fascinated with this movie for years. I've probably seen it half a dozen times. Never would I have imagine seeing it in HD. Some of the graininess is inherent to the kind of film that was used originally, and that won't be going away. It will be HD in that it will be the best possible reproduction of the original work print, but it won't look like a film recorded in HD today. When HDTV first came out people were oohing and ahhing over being able to see tiny details like individual hairs and skin pores that they had never been able to see on TV before. If the work print doesn't show that level of detail, then it can't be included. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
gently caress being able to see hair or pores, I want to see those nice big 16mm grains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
That's the appeal of it--sure it'll be grainy as hell, but it gives it this almost otherworld quality, like a snuff film or, as famously put on MST3K, like someone's last known photo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:gently caress being able to see hair or pores, I want to see those nice big 16mm grains. Grave $avings posted:That's the appeal of it--sure it'll be grainy as hell, but it gives it this almost otherworld quality, like a snuff film or, as famously put on MST3K, like someone's last known photo. gently caress that. Ben, can you make this happen? Just imagine it's Torgo in the comparison: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
Grave $avings posted:That's the appeal of it--sure it'll be grainy as hell, but it gives it this almost otherworld quality, like a snuff film or, as famously put on MST3K, like someone's last known photo. Heh, MST also questioned if it was a snuff film in the episode.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:gently caress that. Is this man supposed to look like he's made of plastic? I'll take the grains over this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Good lord, this looks like a cautionary tale of digital noise reduction. I almost want to watch this version of the movie now, just because of how bizarre it looks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
AngusOwnsYou posted:Is this man supposed to look like he's made of plastic? Wikipedia Brown posted:Good lord, this looks like a cautionary tale of digital noise reduction. I almost want to watch this version of the movie now, just because of how bizarre it looks. I don't know what you guys are talking about This looks extremely  natural. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
One of the main reasons I don't have 'Predator' on blu-ray. That, and the blu-ray doesn't have any added special features that the latest DVD version doesn't have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:One of the main reasons I don't have 'Predator' on blu-ray. That, and the blu-ray doesn't have any added special features that the latest DVD version doesn't have. I have the non 'special' (oh it's special alright) edition, the original release with no DNR. Stick to the DVD. Not that noticeable a leap in quality. ^^^^ The sentence above is something you will never hear once this bad boy is released 
Dissapointed Owl fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jan 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Hah! That mustache looks like a strip of felt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Looks like a Madame Tussauds wax person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:I don't know what you guys are talking about These look like video games, and not in the good way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 10:18
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:"Shepherd, we've got to find Saren."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
Just chucked in $50, haven't seen Manos properly before but the offer of a blu-ray/shirt/special thanks was too awesome to pass up in light of how great this thread has already been. Good luck with it all man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 11:41
|
|
|
IUG posted:I just thought of something. If there is some kind of MST3K thing done with this, with either Rifftrax or Cinematic Titanic (or god willing, both), I hope that Ben lets them redistribute the video under a video-on-demand like Rifftrax does. Something like profites would go 33% Rifftrax crew, 33% CT crew, 34% Ben Solo. Just so long that's what Ben wants. That's a good question. The workprint is public domain, otherwise Ben wouldn't be able to restore it. (Yes?) Is the restoration legally a different work? If so, what will Ben license it under? All rights reserved? Creative Commons?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
Prof. Numbers posted:That's a good question. The workprint is public domain, otherwise Ben wouldn't be able to restore it. (Yes?) This was covered earlier in the thread. And I hope Ben leaves it public domain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
duz posted:This was covered earlier in the thread. And I hope Ben leaves it public domain. Dumb question perhaps, but wouldn't that mean that people can just take his restoration and sell it themselves? (major misunderstanding of public domain itp)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Dumb question perhaps, but wouldn't that mean that people can just take his restoration and sell it themselves? (major misunderstanding of public domain itp) Yes, that's what public domain means. The public owns it and can do whatever they want with it. Thanks to the kickstarter, his costs are covered and he'll have a head start on selling his version before anyone else. So while I'm not him, I do happen to be a fan of the public domain and would hate to see the best version of Manos get pulled out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
Doesn't the creative commons licencing say that you can use it for personal use without a problem, but if you try to sell it then you need to contact Ben to work something out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
IUG posted:Doesn't the creative commons licencing say that you can use it for personal use without a problem, but if you try to sell it then you need to contact Ben to work something out? If you use the non-commercial clause of it, and you'd have to be putting it back under copyright to use the CC license. It's probably why that other guy is making a "Special Edition", easier to claim a new copyright on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
duz posted:Yes, that's what public domain means. The public owns it and can do whatever they want with it. Thanks to the kickstarter, his costs are covered and he'll have a head start on selling his version before anyone else. So while I'm not him, I do happen to be a fan of the public domain and would hate to see the best version of Manos get pulled out of it. As far as I understand from the earlier thread discussion, the product of the restoration process he's undergoing, the actual finished product, would be under Ben's copyright (though he'd be free to put it under CC or release it into public domain or whatever), but Manos itself wouldn't be, and anyone would be free to create their own restoration based on the negatives and whatnot he's going to be generating from the raw film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 10:25
|
|
|
Idran posted:As far as I understand from the earlier thread discussion, the product of the restoration process he's undergoing, the actual finished product, would be under Ben's copyright (though he'd be free to put it under CC or release it into public domain or whatever), but Manos itself wouldn't be, and anyone would be free to create their own restoration based on the negatives and whatnot he's going to be generating from the raw film. It's possible, sure. It depends on how much restoration he does as copies usually don't qualify for a new copyright. Of course Ben's probably already had these discussions with people who actually know what they're talking about, but I can hope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
In for $50. No longer will every frame of this film look like someone's last-known photograph.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
No, it will, just with more resolution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 05:03
|
|
