Movie Posters - The good, the bad & the awful

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Movie Posters - The good, the bad & the awful

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Liar posted:

Has this cartoonish mockery of a poster made it in the thread yet?

I really, really wish Lucas had the balls to abandon that CGI crap and move on to some live action. I'd of probably of gone to theaters to see this if he'd of filmed a few actual WW2 planes in flight. Honestly you could replace any of those CGI planes with X-Wing fighters and I wouldn't notice because it all looks the same anyway. Also this poster conveys to me that the black guys are just trying to escape the war.

"Oh poo poo there's some Nazis battling it out over there and our planes are on fire! Let's just walk away!"

Honestly, nothing about it makes me think heroic black men sacrificing it all to get some goddamn recognition. I was willing to defend the mediocre Hunger Games poster because it's at least limited in what it can do. But this is a film about real life heroes who were handed poo poo planes and told to basically go die so white people could live. Give them some credit in this poster damnit!

This was the original poster:

It fits the intended tone of the film perfectly, is iconic, and would have gotten me way more excited for the film that the dreck in your post.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2012 05:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 23:33

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Lizard Combatant posted:

Whoah, it's still George Lucas. At least wait for a review from someone you trust.

I saw it last Friday, and it's kind of an uneven mess. There are definite strong points, but it feels like the theatrical cut is significantly removed from what they original intended to do. I can't quite recommend it, but it was a very interesting watch.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2012 07:02

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

NINbuntu 64 posted:

Worth a $4.25 matinee or should I just see Tintin again?

Sure, plus you can feel good knowing that paying to see it in theaters might help push back the awful institutional racism of Hollywood.

Madkal posted:

While this is an amazing poster (something I would hang up on my wall even) I am not sure if it goes with the film. That poster makes it look like balls to the wall war pulp action, while the movie itself seems like a muddled up Remember the Titans during World War II. I think a movie based on the Tuskagee Airmen is a worthy topic but I just don't trust a George Lucas movie to deliver on a movie about the Tuskagee Airmen.
Honestly, seeing that poster makes me think that Red Tails is closer to Inglorious Basterds than anything else.

Dissapointed Owl posted:

A blaxploitation 'Red Tails' directed by Quentin Tarantino would great.

There are a number of times in the film that it felt like an extension of Basterds, and I kept wishing that they would push that more and more. Whenever the pilots are in combat with the Germans, it's like they're finally able to express their anger at a lifetime of oppression on targets who are explicitly white and racist. That these are also scenes of joy (justifiably so in that they're being treated with enough respect to run combat missions) makes the violence start to approach the troubling nature of what went on in Tarantino's film.

There are also similarities to Starship Troopers at times, as both take structural elements from the earliest WWII movies that were being made during the war itself. Trying to achieve that pulpy, propaganda movie tone works at cross purposes though, since it's also trying to stick closely to history so that the real life bravery and achievements of the Tuskegee Airmen don't get muddled in a narrative that people could misread as something totally ahistorical.

It's my theory that there was a more tonally consistent cut of the movie that was chopped up into something perceived as more marketable, but until another cut comes out, or there's an extensive making of documentary, I don't think we'll ever know.

Maarak fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Jan 25, 2012

# ¿ Jan 25, 2012 08:34

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

AlternateAccount posted:

More offensive is the idea that they are beating down ME-262s in turning dogfights instead of just blowing them up on the ground or while they were landing.

kiimo posted:

Wasn't the ME262A the first jet if I remember correctly? Are we to believe he is chasing down a jet with a prop plane? I don't really know planes but that seems silly.

While they do destroy a few ME-262s, it's not at all how the poster depicts it. Spoilers They're briefed ahead of time that the jets might show up, but even then are unprepared for the massive difference in speed. After a few attempts at chasing them down, they give up the by the books tactics are go for much more dangerous/difficult approaches. It helps that the lead German pilot is a guy they had shamed earlier in the film, who is more interested in getting revenge on these "Africans" than carrying out his mission or safety.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2012 22:30

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

mobby_6kl posted:

What's with the lighting though? Note the highlights on the gun and buttons on the sleeve. Did they make two shots of some guy in a suit light from two directions specifically to be later used like this? Or did someone go over every shiny object and drew in different specular highlights?

If I had to guess, the did one shot of a guy in a suit, and then just played around with it in PS until it looked slightly different, then mirrored it, and dropped in the shots of the male stars who wore different button up shirts so that the neckline didn't look weird. That way none of the 3 actors had to be there on the same day, or even the same location. I'd bet that we'll see the faces from this poster used in others soon enough.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2012 09:38

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

TheJoker138 posted:

Why does a giant need a handgun?

Helicopters and planes. The occasional hot air balloon.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2012 06:08

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

GrandpaPants posted:

I know that generic action heroes are pretty samey and tend to smear together in their blandness, but did anyone else think that this was Marky Mark and not Guy Pearce?

Also, Guy Pearce what happened to you? You were great in LA Confidential and Memento

Lockout looks fun as hell though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAEzDJXKQTE It's Escape From New York/LA, but in Spaaaaaaaaaaaace!

# ¿ Feb 17, 2012 02:36

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Die Laughing posted:

I think the marketing for Cabin in the Woods gives away too much.

Apparently the trailer only reveals early 1st act stuff, which just makes it seem like it must be an even crazier horror movie than I can imagine a Whedon flick to be.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2012 11:50

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Vagabundo posted:

Seriously? Spider-Man looks like he's had lard smeared all over him. The second one in particular just looks so greasy.

Considering the posters seem to be playing up the voyeuristic nature of him watching the city from on high, him being slightly creepy is fine. The mirrored eyes showing a distorted city skyline in the first poster, and repeating the distorted/fisheye perspective on the city below is quite interesting. Not sure if those elements will be in the movie at all, but I really like those posters.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2012 23:31

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Based on the trailer, the plot seems concerned with economic disparity and popular uprisings, so I bet WB is uneasy about marketing that for a blockbuster superhero film. Unable to discuss much narrative, and assured that there will be a built in interest for another Batman film, they decided to go super cheap on some aspects of the campaign.

# ¿ May 30, 2012 11:54

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

While it's not extreme, there's also a creepy edge to it that the funniness of the gag doesn't entirely outweigh.

# ¿ Jun 8, 2012 06:48

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

OozieNelson posted:

Why would you want to advertise that the film is produced by someone who worked on Righteous Kill and 16 Blocks?

# ¿ Jul 9, 2012 19:04

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

TheBigBudgetSequel posted:

It's a mask that disperses an painkiller inhalant. Apparently Bane suffered injuries in his younger days that are so painful that without the mask, he'd be in constant agony and might even die.

Maybe Bane was a in the day care room of that ninja monastery that Bruce burned down?

# ¿ Jul 11, 2012 03:36

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Role Play McMurphy posted:

The heck is that supposed to be? The year evokes a wine bottle but it looks like some metallic cylinder submerged in urine.

This is the L. Ron Hubbard-inspired movie? I still don't get it.

Making an educated guess that it's Torpedo Juice, which we see Phoenix's character drink in the teaser trailer.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2012 09:10

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Nathan Fillion and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

# ¿ Jul 31, 2012 23:04

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Slate Action posted:

Just curious, does anyone know the origin or precursor of this joke ("I didn't like this franchise entry, so it doesn't exist/isn't 'canon'")?

Also put me in the 'making an Uncharted movie is a good idea' camp.

It goes at least as far back as the Star Wars Christmas Special, but I remember reading some terrible things about the Sherlock Holmes fandom, so I'd guess that fans have always been like that.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2012 02:37

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Nybble posted:

I saw the trailer the other day, we couldn't believe it was a real movie. A courier bike chase scene? Really?

Why is that a bad thing? Bikes can go places cars can't, the rider is exposed to much more danger just from the environment around them, and it's a somewhat novel idea. Mediocre poster aside, I think it looks quite fun.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2012 23:41

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Magic Love Hose posted:

I didn't want to see Ruby Sparks at first, because the inherent creepiness of a guy dating a woman he conjures into being with his mind was just out of place with the generally twee nature of the trailer.

Then I saw Ruby Sparks. It is pretty drat honest about how creepy that sort of thing could get, and it gets dark. I'm not sure if I like it, but I can say that the trailer is putting a smile on it that it shouldn't have and doesn't.

It's the Funny Games of quirky indie girl romance films, right down to the trailer being deceptive about the approach to the subject matter.

# ¿ Aug 19, 2012 07:13

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

DrVenkman posted:

Is there an actual reason that Mondo sell next to no posters? They sell out in less than a minute so surely they can afford to make more. It's so frustrating following them on Twitter because stuff is gone almost the moment it's announced.

Isn't running a business all about supplying a market? Running like 100 copies of something and leaving the only place to buy them be Ebay is a terrible business practice. I'd even take reprints for a cheaper price.

It's likely they have very little inventory space, and limited production capacity as well. Small print runs in high quality at premium prices make them exclusive art objects instead of just movie posters, which creates far more demand than supply on average. The high speculative prices on ebay only increases the demand at the very moment they go on sale.

Maybe they'll be financially stable enough to do large print runs in coming years, but for now they've found something that seems to work great for them.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2012 19:57

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Mister Chief posted:

Is that movie any good?

Fun tribute to 80s teen comedies with an emphasis on Back to the Future. Crude at times, but it makes good use of Crispin Glover.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2012 10:24

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Even though the Mondo posters are likely to be a good investment, it's rarely a good idea to purchase art speculatively that you don't particularly like.

edit. ^^^ Or maybe that particular one isn't even a good investment.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2012 02:15

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Remember when they used to make music video tie ins?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvYEdmW47gQ

It's a shame that John Carpenter and the Coup De Villes never made one for The Thing.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2012 23:27

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

If only the film was as good as that poster.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2012 03:54

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Sheldrake posted:

If only you weren't dead on the inside.

I haven't seen it in years, but I remember the novelty of it all wearing off less than hour in and getting bored. Did my teen self miss out on something worthwhile?

# ¿ Dec 5, 2012 04:15

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Mister Chief posted:

New Ghibli posters.

The Wind Is Rising.

Compare the shadow on that cloud to:

Which would seem like an insane stretch if it wasn't for:

Although the bomber is much more obvious in the latter since its fire bombs are mixed in with the fireflies.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 06:54

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

rodbeard posted:

You're clearly putting too much thought into this. Something no one is ever going to accuse Baz Lurhmann of doing. Also what the gently caress are these posters I feel like this movie is supposed to be some sort of art deco version of the Matrix rather than an adaptation of the Great Gatsby.

Ah yes, lazy Baz Lurhmann. Just stumbling through his film career.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2012 19:40

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Snoop Radley posted:

I figured that must have been what was going on, but I'm squinting and struggling and I just can't find any text in that mess. Are you having a laugh?

Quick and dirty:

# ¿ Dec 23, 2012 11:09

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

I never knew Bobby Hill was in movies.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2013 21:36

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Cinnamon Bastard posted:

For gently caress's sake. This proves it: people cannot be trusted to just do whatever they want with movie posters.

It's official: From now on, third-party posters should only be produced as Frank Frazetta style posters, regardless of the content of the film. Anything else is just frustrating.

This. Forever. For everything.
Because apparently limitations need to be imposed.

Of course it also had this poster by Mondo favorite Olly Moss:

# ¿ Jan 17, 2013 22:58

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

CaptainHollywood posted:

I don't want to watch that movie because I know it won't live up to that poster.

He eats pizza with a pair of scissors while wearing leather gloves. It's a must see. There's an axe cult.
Old frontpage review: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/movie-reviews/cobra.php

# ¿ Jan 18, 2013 04:43

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

http://www.criterion.com/films/542-robocop
Out of print and DVD only though.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2013 06:52

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

This is torture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eSwq1ewsU

# ¿ Feb 1, 2013 06:15

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

DNS posted:

I disagree, I think more NASCAR fans are in it for the storylines than the carnage. In fact die-hard stock car fans will often cite the relative safeness of it vs. open wheel as a reason for their preference, at least in my experience.

Could you go into the storyline aspect a bit? NASCAR has always been the most opaque sport to me in terms of appeal.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2013 08:30

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

While I realize it would be impractical and unrealistic for every director to make their own posters, I would love to see the results.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2013 05:54

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

A similar style ad:

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 21:56

Maarak: May 23, 2007; "Go for it!"

Oblivion seems to be taking an anti-drone stance, so I'm willing to cut them some slack on the trailer. Also I suspect the plot is very similar to a favorite episode of The Outer Limits(there are no aliens, it's just a genocidal conflict between groups of humans using aliens as cover).

# ¿ Feb 28, 2013 18:00