|
I really like this poster, except the blurb at the top is throwing it off a bit for me. echoplex posted:Jesus christ, how are you even allowed to operate a computer He's 19/20. It freaked me out at first too. Baron von Eevl fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Feb 15, 2012 |
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
GonSmithe posted:(considering I was born in '92 that makes sense) I was four that year. I distinctly remember going to the theatre to see Alien 3 and Aladdin, respectively. Memoriieees~.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
Photoshop.jpg
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Iggy Johnson posted:That's his finger. I see the finger, but it looks like there is some contraption he's using to hold the kid up. I'm probably just imagining it, and they just used some photoshoppy effect. Whatever it is, I need to watch that movie again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Desperado Bones posted:You are lucky I don't have a Beta anymore. It's Hebrew with a transliteration of the title. (the transliteration is "Ghost Rider" but the Spirit of Vengeance bit is in Hebrew)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Mister Chief posted:Photoshop.jpg Holy poo poo, looking at the cast and production credits, you think they could have hired someone with a bit more interest in the film. I'm not expecting Saul Bass, Drew Struzan or Olly Moss level work, but something a lot more eye-catching than five minutes in Photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
I wonder if Lawrence Kasdan has anything to do with that movie?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Mister Chief posted:Photoshop.jpg What is this? We've got a leg, a dog, an ugly, huge poorly placed barcode, and Lawrence Kasdan's name in big font three times. No indication as to what the movie is about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Robert Denby posted:What is this? We've got a leg, a dog, an ugly, huge poorly placed barcode, and Lawrence Kasdan's name in big font three times. No indication as to what the movie is about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
Robert Denby posted:What is this? We've got a leg, a dog, an ugly, huge poorly placed barcode, and Lawrence Kasdan's name in big font three times. No indication as to what the movie is about. It barely looks like a human leg. It might be some horrible flesh colored hoof. Is that supposed to be a high heel shoe? If so, was it drawn in Paint with the thickest brush option?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
Madkal posted:It's Hebrew with a transliteration of the title.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Cacator posted:It barely looks like a human leg. It might be some horrible flesh colored hoof. Is that supposed to be a high heel shoe? If so, was it drawn in Paint with the thickest brush option? The Apple Trailers site seems to have the original photo it was cut from. Not much better, but at least it looks a bit more human there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
Robert Denby posted:What is this? We've got a leg, a dog, an ugly, huge poorly placed barcode, and Lawrence Kasdan's name in big font three times. No indication as to what the movie is about. I'm going to guess it's about a business woman/upperclass woman who is very stuck-up and lacks love in her life so she gets a dog. At first the dog is very messy and turns her life upside-down but then she bonds with the dog. It ends with the dog dieing because every movie about a dog ends with the dog dieing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
It is a pretty cute dog though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
Mister Chief posted:Photoshop.jpg Nice to see QR Code getting more work. Always thought he was an underrated actor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
Kinda hard to read, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Kinda hard to read, though. He's only there to draw in the machine audience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
AndyP posted:Nice to see QR Code getting more work. Always thought he was an underrated actor. QR Code is the most popular actor going right now. He's in everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
kiimo posted:QR Code is the most popular actor going right now. He's in everything. Here's his breakout role in "9". 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Robert Denby posted:Here's his breakout role in "9". Did he have some work done? He looks like he might have had some tweaking done which while I can understand it, Hollywood is beauty obsessed after all, he's just too young to start making those kind of radical changes to himself. I'm worried he'll end up like Jennifer Grey where nobody recognises him anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Man, Barcode's kid has really come a long way 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
I liked his starting role in Martha Marcy May Marlene
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
    All bad, but Gary Oldman is a midget...so, there is that I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 11:57
|
|
|
Those posters look like they're each advertising a completely different movie. And why Gary Oldman, why? You're too good for this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
Flynner Magee posted:All bad, but Gary Oldman is a midget...so, there is that I guess. Is he going to walk around on his knees like Yogurt in Spaceballs? This will decide whether I see this or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 12:56
|
|
|
Ot is a performance of a life time. Also Tosh.o did a segment on Tiptoes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 13:00
|
|
|
AndyP posted:Those posters look like they're each advertising a completely different movie. I saw a few clips around Youtube, I think he did an amazing job as usual. Don't blame him for the laziness of the designers for these posters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 13:40
|
|
|
Desperado Bones posted:I saw a few clips around Youtube, I think he did an amazing job as usual. Don't blame him for the laziness of the designers for these posters. Yeah, guy plays a Marxist revolutionary who thinks that little people will only be free if they cast off their chains through violent uprising. It's pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
No, you're right Warner Brothers. That's way too classy. Ah, now that's better. 
Dissapointed Owl fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
Is that moustache hastily glued or what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:It sort of looks like they were compelled to ape the Braveheart blu-ray cover for some reason.  Which, incidentally, is not bad by any means, and pretty accurately reflects "this is a movie about William Wallace" without throwing unnecessary crap in. But it's hard to see any reason to deviate from the well-known DVD/VHS box art:  It might be just a tad on the cheesy side, but it's one of the better examples of the "main character + floating stuff and some fire" trope. Everything is well-placed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:No, you're right Warner Brothers. That's way too classy. I know everyone hates floating heads for some reason but there is nothing wrong with this Blu-ray cover. Why do people want to keep using the same old design when you can create new ones? I like showing the other two stars in this. By the way, it is MGM not Warner Bros.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
The Triumphant posted:Yeah, guy plays a Marxist revolutionary who thinks that little people will only be free if they cast off their chains through violent uprising. It's pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
kiimo posted:I know everyone hates floating heads for some reason but there is nothing wrong with this Blu-ray cover. Because that mustache looks ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
kiimo posted:I know everyone hates floating heads for some reason but there is nothing wrong with this Blu-ray cover. Nope, it's Warner Bros. in the UK. The US version is MGM and has this cover:  Which is much better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
kiimo posted:I know everyone hates floating heads for some reason but there is nothing wrong with this Blu-ray cover. If it's still the same movie and there was nothing wrong with the original cover, I see no need to create a new one. The only logic behind it seems to be "argh, this old thing will never sell the way it is, we need something more hip and current!" which of course is the archetypal bad-reason-to-do-a-thing in any artistic endeavor. Naturally this is all the more annoying when you're of the opinion that the new one is worse, and I'd say it is. The original cover looks like one coherent and well-composed image that shows a bunch of stuff related to the movie, whereas the new one looks like a bunch of images slapped together. It's not the worst thing ever, it's just... worse. EDIT: The one that was just posted above is much more acceptable, even if it's still arguably unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:If it's still the same movie and there was nothing wrong with the original cover, I see no need to create a new one. The only logic behind it seems to be "argh, this old thing will never sell the way it is, we need something more hip and current!" which of course is the archetypal bad-reason-to-do-a-thing in any artistic endeavor. Also it looks cheap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
It might be distributed internationally by Warner Bros. since, you know, MGM is out-sourcing most of that poo poo since they are a failed piece of poo poo studio with no money and only a library to sustain them (I used to work for them), in fact most of their domestic distribution is done by Fox. But that doesn't mean the WB creatives designed their Blu-ray cover. I actually don't know for sure, that is a different building altogether but I'm pretty sure WB didn't have anything to do with that. You are right though, that is a better, more cinematic cover. Sir Lemming posted:I see no need to create a new one. For international they might have an agenda like, showing a Native American's face and a woman's face rather than just having Kevin Costner's (fading) brand carry it alone. I'm sure there is a lot of research to support the decision, and I'm not even saying it is the right decision. I still like it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
kiimo posted:It might be distributed internationally by Warner Bros. since, you know, MGM is out-sourcing most of that poo poo since they are a failed piece of poo poo studio with no money and only a library to sustain them (I used to work for them), in fact most of their domestic distribution is done by Fox. Opinions about the cover itself aside, I think I can blame the actual publisher (ie Warner Bros.) for the cover with which they release their movie, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:The only logic behind it seems to be "argh, this old thing will never sell the way it is, we need something more hip and current!" which of course is the archetypal bad-reason-to-do-a-thing in any artistic endeavor. I have bad news for you in regards to "artistic endeavors" vs. "movie marketing" This is an artistic endeavor:  This is bait in order to sell you on an idea for the purpose of making money. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 20:08
|
|