|
Dissapointed Owl posted:I really like this alternate cover for that lovely movie: That looks like a Bernie Wrightson illustration. Or maybe Drew Struzan imitating Bernie Wrightson.
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Young Freud posted:That looks like a Bernie Wrightson illustration. Or maybe Drew Struzan imitating Bernie Wrightson. The last is pretty accurate as Drew did the painting. I think it was done as a gift for Frank Darabont too, since it was never used as a poster for the theatrical release. Drew also did the painting Thomas Jane is working on in the opening scene.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Guess I'll give the b/w version another shot, just to see if I hate it less. (it had its good points though) Those sunglasses are a worse photoshop job than when Goons do "Deal With It" gifs. How the hell does anyone go "yep, finished product, send it to print"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Don't know why I thought of Struzan, but it was likely looking at that pebbly short strokes that his brush work has. The Bernie Wrightson comparison had a lot to do with his previous relationship with Stephen King, but there's still a lot of overwrought, stretched flesh in the hands and face that it's likely Struzan being inspired by his work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Those sunglasses are a worse photoshop job than when Goons do "Deal With It" gifs. How the hell does anyone go "yep, finished product, send it to print"? Overworked and underpaid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
 Edward G. Robinson STILL can't figure it out. He's looking right at them!
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
Stare-Out posted:
I am the head of Christmas past! Dammit, Scrooge, look up from her and listen to me!
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Bana film being another studio and a box office failure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
And Ang Lee's Hulk is the one people still talk about.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Ez posted:It's a fair question though. I know it would be difficult to get all the actors together with hectic schedules and all, but why cant they just take an hour on one of the days where they're shooting a group scene and take a picture? itrorev posted:Perhaps I am naive when it comes to film marketing, but do they really have to photoshop in the pictures from other sources? With the gazillion dollars spent on marketing, would it really be that difficult to get all the actors to take a bunch of photo for sole purpose of making decent film posters? That poster reminds me of this tattoo from Ink Masters. It's supposed to be 'photo-realistic' but the criticism was that you could not take a photo with those sizes. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Those sunglasses are a worse photoshop job than when Goons do "Deal With It" gifs. How the hell does anyone go "yep, finished product, send it to print"? Stop hating on "Deal With It" gifs.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Black Lighter posted:Stop hating on "Deal With It" gifs. Don't get me wrong, I loves me some Deal With It.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Binary Logic posted:You guys are kidding, right? Do you know how hard it is to get the Hulk to stand still and pose for pictures?! LOL Is there a realistic Pacman on the other side?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Guess I'll give the b/w version another shot, just to see if I hate it less. (it had its good points though) This summer, Ashton Kutcher is... TROLLFACE. loving christ 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:And Ang Lee's Hulk is the one people still talk about. Yeah, but people didn't like Hulk when it was Ang Lee. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
Binary Logic posted:You guys are kidding, right? Do you know how hard it is to get the Hulk to stand still and pose for pictures?! LOL Realism is a style of tattooing. It doesn't mean that the subject cant be arranged or re-sized for composition reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
As far as movies with plots that are basically 'we're going to have a party' go, I've always kind of liked House Party, and the poster isn't too bad. It has the main characters front and center (with tiny girls leaning on a Monopoly hotel) and the sources of conflict behind them. Also Martin Lawrence.  Overall, it succeeds by keeping it simple, and they're clearly in a house. And hey, it's available on videocassette and laserdisc! And even the Bombay Video version is recognizable as the same film! the best part of combing GIS for these was probably the appearance of an Eraserhead poster But by the second film, there began to be obvious signs of trouble.  you'll never guess what site I found this large, non-creased image on Pajamas appear, so kudos to the poster designer for that. Based on the larger number of tiny people attending this second House Party, it may have even been the same designer they used for the first. There was, of course, a third film.  Well, there's... the outline of a house! And Emmanuel Lewis as Bernie Mac! I guess they're at least trying to look energetic, the way you might be if you were having a House Party. But look at those girls behind them; angry, disinterested, dismissive, and... Carrot Top with his hair down. Could this be the last House Party poster with even a hint of effort? Yes. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
Darthemed posted:
Is that Bodie from The Wire?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
Darthemed posted:House Party I never thought I'd see a critical breakdown of the demise of House Party posters. Or that I would agree with it. Thank you for this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Is that Bodie from The Wire? No.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
  Open the full versions of these posters and switch between them really quick. There's something weird going on with the ears and hair of Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin. It looks like they copied the face of one guy and pasted it onto the face of another and some parts of the face below still stick out or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Is there any possibility of Men in Black 3 NOT being terrible and awful like Men in Black 2?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
Switching between the two makes it look like Josh Brolin's head is swelling and about to explode Scanners-style.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
Men In Babyhandsland 3
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 17:40
|
|
Cat Army
|
Nutsngum posted:Is there any possibility of Men in Black 3 NOT being terrible and awful like Men in Black 2? Potentially, but probably not. I'm interested to see more of it in a future trailer, but they started shooting before they finished writing the script. How often has that worked out well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Potentially, but probably not. I'm interested to see more of it in a future trailer, but they started shooting before they finished writing the script. How often has that worked out well? Iron Man. ... That's all I got.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Attention Horse posted:Open the full versions of these posters and switch between them really quick. There's something weird going on with the ears and hair of Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin. It looks like they copied the face of one guy and pasted it onto the face of another and some parts of the face below still stick out or something. Yeah, it looks like they pasted Tommy Lee Jones' face and neck onto Brolin. But if I had to guess, I'd say it's for one of those posters that changes as you walk by.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Potentially, but probably not. I'm interested to see more of it in a future trailer, but they started shooting before they finished writing the script. How often has that worked out well? Apocalypse Now. ...but, uh. I don't think Men in Black 3 will be as good as Apocalypse Now. I still don't get why they're making this movie NOW. The first two made a lot, yeah, but the second was a loving decade ago. Let it die with some honor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Apocalypse Now. They're making it now because this was when they finally got all their ducks in a row. They've been trying to make the movie for years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Apocalypse Now. Time means anything in film production? There have been films that took 50 years to get made. Stuff like early sci-fi from Dick and Asimov got optioned back in the 50's, and many of the stories are still in production hell. Rights get passed from owner to owner, studio to studio, endless drafts of screen plays, it goes on forever. 10 years to get a film going is nothing out of the ordinary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Time means anything in film production? There have been films that took 50 years to get made. Stuff like early sci-fi from Dick and Asimov got optioned back in the 50's, and many of the stories are still in production hell. Rights get passed from owner to owner, studio to studio, endless drafts of screen plays, it goes on forever. 10 years to get a film going is nothing out of the ordinary. True, but that's not exactly relevant when we're talking about a pop culture franchise. 10 years between second sequels is really pushing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Darthemed posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
echoplex posted:True, but that's not exactly relevant when we're talking about a pop culture franchise. 10 years between second sequels is really pushing it. but but but... Dan Aykroyd said... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:but but but... Dan Aykroyd said... But then Bill Murray said....
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Attention Horse posted:Tommy Lee's tie cuts off with a hard line right under the knot. Could they make the copy/paste any more obvious?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
Why does Smith have jowls?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Wait... I thought Tommy Lee Jones was obviously established as human in the first movie. Because going by the tiny arm sprouting from his chest, he's clearly a Vortigaunt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Ez posted:Why cant they just take an hour on one of the days where they're shooting a group scene and take a picture?  While effort has been taken, it's pretty apparent the limitations you run into when trying to fit several people into a wide crowd shot and keep all the publicists happy. Publicity photos have always been used as reference, have a look at anything drawn for older films. Even the method of the actor's face drawn onto a model posing on a table isn't new - we just now have stockphotos.com to use. Here's an example from Aliens where an on set publicity still that's been arranged during shooting is approved and used as a basis for the poster. If Weaver was shot in full as in the finished product there would be less detail for the artist to copy across. The background is also sourced from set photos.   Actors are rarely all on the set on a given day as scheduling only allows a finite amount of time and most move onto new projects immediately after wrapping. When it comes to something like The Avengers the effort involved in putting six actors into full costume, props and makeup is more than "an hour". Also RDJ looks like this when shooting.  The other factor is ease of manipulation when making a poster which is why we use publicity photos shot in a studio. Film frames are too low quality for print resolution (grain gets messy when resized, even at 4k) and have too many distracting elements. High resolution portrait shots are desired so that the actors can have final say. It's why you tend to get warped faces as on the 11th hour they pick an expression they'd like with this pose. This also explains why people don't fit with light sources as the shoot calls for flat lighting so we can move around the lead and supporting cast and try our best to cheat with the dodge and burn tools.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
WebDog posted:This also explains why people don't fit with light sources as the shoot calls for flat lighting so we can move around the lead and supporting cast and try our best to cheat with the dodge and burn tools. Unless, of course, your film is Tower Heist then just...gently caress it! Great post btw. kiimo fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
WebDog posted:Interesting. Thanks for the informative post WebDog. Sadly it looks like when it comes to big budget studio movies, we have to pick from unpolished, realistic looking crap and clean, digital, fake looking crap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 04:03
|
|
