Why do movie posters suck now?


Has any of the studios ever directly addressed why they fart out photoshopped crap for movie posters/one-sheets instead of having beautifully painted works of art like they used to have? When Directors are paying Drew to create one-sheets for their films, why are the studios STILL refusing to use them in their marketing? I understand they're no longer used, but I do not understand why and so far no one -- and I've asked everyone -- has given me a reason.

http://www.juicycerebellum.com/movie.htm
"Movies, movies, politics and movies."

reply

It's a shame. I miss that style I grew up with.



You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude.

reply

It is a shame. But does anyone know WHY it happened? I've asked many, many, many people of ALL different ages and nearly every one of them prefers the painted/drawn one sheets.

http://www.juicycerebellum.com/movie.htm
"Movies, movies, politics and movies."

reply

They were talking a little about this in the movie. How preview audiences get these comment cards asking how one image makes them want to buy popcorn more. Which has nothing to do with the actual decision-making. As if the studios have boiled everything down for maximum financial impact. Violent movies are PG-13 to draw in more paying kids. Darabont says that Hollywood is in a state of flux, but it's that bottom-line mentality that seems to drive everything they do.

It's probably quicker and cheaper to get a photoshopped image, rather than pay an artist. Everything's generic now.

-----
It's already mutated into human form! Shoot it!

reply

Because studios are run by businesspeople without imagination, taste, or heart.

How depressing is it that even someone like Guillermo Del Toro couldnt get them to use that beautiful poster art he created for hellboy and pan's labyrinth. Hollywood is even more dysfunctional than i thought.

reply

Because as photo editing software got better, the ability to make photographs look better in poster design grew. not only did that give them a more modern style (a style which, sadly, the 90s spread rampantly and terribly), but it also meant there were herds of people able to do it for cheaper.

which isn't as bad as it seems, because it had to happen. The reason this guy does all the biggest releases is partly because they're the ones who can afford him, and there's only one him. half the other "good" posters from his era are just variations on the styles he popularized. you actually can sort of see his composition styles becoming more popular again, but with cgi and photographs instead of oil paint. which is also fine because there has to be some progress, otherwise all movie posters will always look the same. Unfortunately that usually means extended droughts of bad taste.

it's partly the studios' faults though, apparently most of the people working for them aren't that creative. they did this before with Saul Bass (the other designer whom they said made posters that were better than some of the movies, and also like all modernly relevant 1960s design). One designer causes a stir (though rightfully so in both cases) and every studio picks them up, and all the best directors brand their work with them, and everyone that isn't using him is imitating him. which is good because it adds to the artistic mystique of Hollywood by having all these iconic posters, but only because they're using the same iconic artist over and over. so you get a ton of great posters for big movies, but you also turn the pool of creativity stagnant, and over saturate it with increasingly worse variations of tired ideas. kind of like how most major movies recently are tired rehashes. because everyone wants to do a gritty reboot, even though there's nothing left worth rebooting, and when the hell did everything get so gritty?

I'd say you could expect them to find the next great poster artist in the next decade, but now they're all starting to imitate the much better indie movie posters. which is really good because indie films are way bolder about poster choices (well... are bold more often), but too diverse to have any one big artist really take over again. though at least the recycled junk that will make up the majority of studio films' posters will have a lot more diversity than before. I pretty much assume Hollywood has to spend about 20 to 30 years beating an idea to death before they modernize and catch up to what everyone else has been doing for a decade. but I guess that's where the money is. still looking forward to the gritty reboot phase ending in like 10 years.

reply