Human Tornada posted:

I think the Hunger Games poster is pretty good for what it is.

Complaining about a "cliched" pose just seems nitpicky when there's lots of other stuff going on around it, as opposed to the examples where it's just some vague lights or empty scenery. Every poster can't do something completely original.

Desperado Bones posted:

Here are more posters, the artist is Ernesto "Chango" García Cabral if anyone wants to look more of his stuff:

Liar posted:

This poster's such a cluster-gently caress.



edit: I keep laughing at the random non-black guy on there. That Asian guy looks so out of place.

CroatianAlzheimers posted:

There's no corner store at Six Mile and Ilene. Besides, Six Mile is called McNichols in the city. That poster sucks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system#From_M_to_GP_to_PG posted:

Rated GP: All ages Admitted. Parental Guidance Suggested.
...
By 1972, parents perceived the "GP" rating as not indicative of a film's true content. In 1971, the MPAA added content advisories such as: Contains material not generally suitable for pre-teenagers. In February 1972 the MPAA replaced the GP rating with the new PG rating.[9]

Rated PG: Parental Guidance Suggested — Some Material May Not be Suitable for Pre-Teenagers.

Liar posted:

Agreed. I don't know what else they could really do with the poster in terms of originality... Probably because I haven't read the book and have no goddamn clue what the movie is about beyond teenagers killing each other for other's entertainment. I guess it could be a poster of one child stabbing another in the face while someone watches it on TV with their kids, but I doubt that'd be acceptable in terms of a poster being marketed to kids. Blandness doesn't equal awfulness.

Mister Chief posted:

I wonder if Bill Oberst, JR. plays the horse or the dog.

Cacator posted:

Man that's just pandering.

"What do little girls like?"
"Princesses? Ponies?"
"Hmm..."

penismightier posted:

"Also a dog."

Bloody Hedgehog posted:

I love this cover for the the DVD rerelease of Groundhog Day. You remember that film, the one that stars Phil Murray, Bill Murray's similar but not exactly the same looking unknown brother.

The MSJ posted:

Puppy.

Because alliteration.

Cacator posted:

"Johnson, do you know just how much revenue we lost because you didn't put 'Puppy' in the title?!"

Mister Chief posted:

Here is a good poster for a film about kids killing each other.

Young Freud posted:

I don't know why you used the Chinese poster, but it sums up the point well, with Kitano in the center of everything and the student marked out and "41 to go" above them. I believe the original Japanese poster did that, but I couldn't find one, just re-releases.

Mister Chief posted:

Is that not the Japanese poster? I would have thought the film would be banned in China.

Mister Chief posted:

Is that not the Japanese poster? I would have thought the film would be banned in China.

Mister Chief posted:

I wonder if Bill Oberst, JR. plays the horse or the dog.

Vagabundo posted:

Ez posted:

I like this one because even before I scrolled down enough to see the title I knew exactly what movie it was. I didn't realize that shirt/suspenders/tie combo was so iconic.

Vagabundo posted:

I know some people have soured on minimalist posters, but here are these. They came up in the Office Space fan page feed on Facebook.

feedmyleg posted:

However, it's much more iconic for someone who has seen the film, overall most of what it tells outsiders is essentially "this movie takes place in an office where people wear ties" - which you essentially already get from the title. Something that simply and cleverly conveys the idea of being stuck in a corporate hell would be much more appropriate and interesting. Or being a faceless cog in a machine, or having an oppressive amount of red tape between you and any decision, etc.

It seems like these aren't things that 99% of those designers think of when making these.

Ez posted:

For a theatrical poster yeah, but this is specifically made for fans of the movie.

NINbuntu 64 posted:

And who says it can't be both?

TheJoker138 posted:

Because movies don't really have fans yet when they're still in the stage where they would have theatrical posters, maybe? Unless it was for a rerelease or something.

Madkal posted:

Movies with built in fanbases (ie every superhero movie) as well as stuff like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings where there was an existing fanbase before the (new) movies were released.

TheJoker138 posted:

Anyone who was a fan of any of those before they released was stupid. Sure, you might get something awesome like LOTR, but for every LOTR there's something that turns out like Batman & Robin. Being a fan of the franchise the movie is based on is fine, but being a fan of the movie itself before it releases is a dumb thing to do.

feedmyleg posted:

True, but I think even there, there's a missed opportunity there to do something thematic with the poster. It bucks the obnoxious trend of just picking one non-representative image from the film and making a poster out of it, though. You may be able to pick up something to do with the "square" corporate atmosphere from the presence of the suspenders, or perhaps the claustrophobic framing, so at least it works on some level beyond most.

However, it's much more iconic for someone who has seen the film, overall most of what it tells outsiders is essentially "this movie takes place in an office where people wear ties" - which you essentially already get from the title. Something that simply and cleverly conveys the idea of being stuck in a corporate hell would be much more appropriate and interesting. Or being a faceless cog in a machine, or having an oppressive amount of red tape between you and any decision, etc.

It seems like these aren't things that 99% of those designers think of when making these.