Quote:
Originally Posted by jedi_don
|
Well, the topic kinda shifted for a page to the effects digital has had on various artistic fields, not just movie posters. Its a legitimate topic when talking about what happened to movie posters as it really is because of the easy, and cost effective use of digital technology that has really been one of the major causes of the decline of the movie poster market and we have seen that same decline in other mediums like book covers as well.
The main topic is still movie posters, but again other mediums have seen the same exact thing happen due to digital technology so I really don't even see it as a derailing of the topic, just a widening of the overall scope of the topic of what has happened to movie posters in general and what is happening to other mediums as well due to the same reason, cheap and easy digital technology.
And yes, I have already seen that video and it does make some good points, especially regarding the use of complimentary colors. Complimentary colors or colors that lie on the opposite side of the color wheel just naturally look great together, which is why thier called complimentary colors. Its used WAY too often as a way to try and spice up the look of movie posters. Orange and blue/teal is the one seen most often IMO and it makes them all look the same. And the floating head technique is the most common technique in modern movie posters and its the one aspect of digital posters I absolutely can't stand. And I like how he used remakes of films to show the drastic changes in the movie poster designs. That really is one of the best ways to see just how far down hill the medium has gone. Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Evil Dead, etc. Look at the original poster and then look at the modern remake poster.
What I don't buy in that video is the claim that there isn't enough money left after advertising to spend money on a quality poster, after all, paying an artist to make a quality movie poster would likely cost less than 1/1000 of a single advertisement played during prime time. They have plenty of money left for quality posters especially since Hollywood has basically been seeing record profits year after year for the last 7-8+ years running. They just don't want to spend it to maximize profits. Not having the money and having it and not wanting to spend it are 2 very different things. They have PLENTY of money to make beautiful posters as its one of the cheapest aspects to movie making. The studio's are just choosing not to make quality posters to maximize profits and save time and its really ridiculous given how much it actually costs to make a quality poster. Niel Degrasse Tyson made a comment recently regarding Donald Trump cutting funding for PBS. He said:
Quote:
|
Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive
|
The same thing could be said for movie studios trying to maximize profits by cutting the budget for movie posters. Cutting the absolute minuscule amount of money it takes to create a quality poster to help maximize profits when movies studios made a record total of 11.17 billion in 2016 in nothing short of laughable. Its right in line with how ridiculous cutting PBS funding is to try and balance the US budget. Its such a minuscule amount of money its not going to make a single bit of noticable difference. Had Hollywood made quality posters for all of their films in 2016, thier record total would have still been 11.17 billion as the amount it would have cost to make quality posters wouldn't have even been enough to make the 11.17 billion go down to 11.16 billion.
