Movie posters: to draw or not to draw?

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 27th, 2006, 10:42 pm

I was just wondering, why did movie posters go from drawn art (for drama, comedy, adventure, horror and animation) to mostly photo-inspired layouts? I kinda liked the old style better....

The only posters that were recently done in this style were the Star Wars prequel films:

http://cgi.ebay.com/STAR-WARS-ATTACK-OF ... otohosting

I wish more films were done this way.

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 27th, 2006, 10:49 pm

Plus at first I thought this was e-bay's typo but then I remembered that ROTJ was actually called this at one point:

http://cgi.ebay.com/STAR-WARS-6-MOVIE-P ... otohosting

Post by **Josh** » September 27th, 2006, 11:11 pm

This AWN article may answer some of your questions, Vi.

Post by **Ben** » September 28th, 2006, 10:14 am

Well, ROTJ's <I>working</I> title was Blue Harvest, but we won't get into that!

I'm not sure I agree with that article's reasoning behind why we see less of these posters, nor some of the comments made by the artists.

Drawn art for movie posters go right back to the beginning of film, not just to around the 1970s. I have a number of "movie poster" books that illustrate publicity for early comedy movies, most notably the Marx Bros output for Paramount in the 1930s.

And 1940s/50s posters were practically ALL drawn. In the 1960s, things got a bit more real as the stars wanted to see their own faces on the posters, and by the 70s there were some pretty bad artists doing the drawing. It began to pick up in the late 70s and we got some pretty good artwork again through the 1980s.

I see what they're saying, that art reduced doesn't look great on video boxes, but I disagree. I think the most major recent movie to use a poster like that was the first Harry Potter, but when it came to disc they swapped it for a lame-o photo montage, with just as many small details. And how come the poster art was used on the even smaller CD soundtrack cover? They never had a problem with that.

Also, Drew Struzan's most recent projects have been home video commissions from Warner Bros for new cover art to adorn their reissues of The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. Why commission art JUST for the video covers if this is the so-called reason it's dying out?

I think the real reason is that more and more films are based on opening weekends and bringing folks in based on seeing the stars in the movie. After all, decent stories and plots went out the window long ago. So posters are relying more on the "real faces" of the stars to be more instabtly recognisable. While they don't sell the overall film as well, they do promote who's in it, and especially when it comes to video usually these posters are discarded as well to basically make way for the "floating head syndrome" where a front cover is usually a huge head-shot of the lead(s) and nothing more.

Old posters used to either tell you more about THE MOVIE or get you excited and intrigued to see it. Nowadays, everything is splashed everywhere and it's only all about who's in it and how much it makes in the first three days.

Some posters still work, but it's becoming more of a graphic-art thing, such as the inspired concept for The Devil Wears Prada. The old, drawn posters are much missed though.

For more gorgeous art, check out Drew's own site. There USED to be a treasure trove of amazing material and a lot of pre-titled poster art, but a lot of that has been taken down. There's still a wealth of art on show here though:

http://www.drewstruzan.com/

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 28th, 2006, 6:12 pm

Old posters used to either tell you more about THE MOVIE or get you excited and intrigued to see it.

Exactly!

That's pretty much the way I feel about older trailers as well.

Nowadays, if I see a trailer or poster I really like, I usually remember it, since there aren't many of them.

Some good posters:

American Beauty (no stars!)

Being John Malkovich (several really good posters here!)

and some others, which I'm drawing a blank at right now.

The Indiana Jones posters were great too! Remember the Last Crusade one: "The man with the hat is back....and this time he's bringing his dad."

Post by **Ben** » September 28th, 2006, 6:46 pm

Well, that's a tagline you're talking about there. Last Crusade had a bunch ("Have the time of your life keeping up with the Joneses" was another).

Struzan drew all those Indy/Crusade posters, and you could really feel the burn coming off the page.

Post by **Macaluso** » September 29th, 2006, 12:44 am

To me, the old posters look ugly. The way it's done now is how I like it.

Post by **Ben** » September 29th, 2006, 8:06 am

Post by **Dacey** » September 29th, 2006, 9:57 am

I kinda agree with Mac. I don't find old posters "Ugly", though.

Weren't some versions of the "Talladega Nights" poster drawn? I'm pretty sure there was one at my theater that was.

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 29th, 2006, 10:17 am

To me, the old posters look ugly.

Just wondering, and no offense meant, what exactly is it about them that you find "ugly"?

I used to think they were a little "weird", (although I'm old enough to have grown up with them at least for part of my childhood) but now, with all the absolutely cynical, crass, tacky, homogenized, and soulless marketing that you see everywhere (Matrix poster--Keanu Reeves and "some guys" with shades), I've definetely begun to appreciate them more.

I mean look at the Pirates of the Carribean poster. The first one wasn't too bad; kind of had that illustrated look reminiscent of older films. (at least in my recollection) But the new one? HORRIBLE!

Just Depp's face splashed all over the poster, nothing else, maybe some of Kiera. That's it--no ship, treasure, islands, or whatever else was inthat film. (haven't seen it yet.)
Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, they could have come up with something more imaginative, especially for a fantasy-adventure film?

I mean what, are they just supposed to say: "Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow!" and everyone's lining up like lemmings to see the movie without even knowing what it's about? (even if it is a sequel) Don't you see how that shows how little respect movie studios have for the average audience member?

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 29th, 2006, 10:24 am

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, circa 2007:

http://www.themovieinsider.com/ps2505-u ... oster.html

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, circa 1990

http://www.impawards.com/1990/teenage_m ... rtles.html

You be the judge.

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 29th, 2006, 10:29 am

Also:

Hey, Ben!

I guess I was right about that Little Mermaid poster (my old avatar) being released during the original run after all!

http://www.impawards.com/1989/little_mermaid_ver1.html

EDIT: ...Unless they just lumped them all under the same year--oh well.

) My bad.

Post by **Ben** » September 29th, 2006, 1:31 pm

Not sure I follow your TMNT examples Vi... the new one is a CGI image and the 1990 version is a photo montage...??

Little Mermaid...nope, I'm right! Original release: 17 November 1989 (after a premiere on the 15th).

Re-issue: 14 November 1997. The poster you linked to promotes this 14 November release.

Sorry!!

Post by **Dacey** » September 29th, 2006, 2:05 pm

ShyVi, what "Pirates 2" poster are you talking about?

The final poster had all three of the main characters, plus a glimpse of the Kraken and the cannibals.

It was a pretty good poster to me.

Post by **Meg** » September 29th, 2006, 9:30 pm

[quote="ShyViolet"]Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, circa 2007:

http://www.themovieinsider.com/ps2505-u ... .htmlquote]

To be fair, that's an early version - the newer ones look way better.

Hey, wasn't the first Harry Potter poster drawn?