Why are movie posters so generic and boring nowadays?

[toddly6666]

What is going on with the lack of creativity in most movie posters and blu-ray/dvd covers? Movie posters and home video covers seemed to be special back in the day. But nowadays, they are so ridiculously boring and uncreative.

There are some companies that understand that making a very artistic, creative home video cover can sell movies based on that fact alone. For example, Criterion and Shout! Factory totally understand this concept.

And then there are other companies the just churn out these dull, lifeless safe posters/covers. I don't get it. Is hiring an artist really that more expensive than hiring a graphic designer?

A bad movie can be seen more likely all because it has a nice-looking poster. I haven't seen Hobo with a Shotgun yet, but I want to see it only because of the cool-looking poster.

CREATIVE POSTERS/COVERS:

[Show spoiler]

BORING,GENERIC POSTERS/COVERS:

[Show spoiler]

Can anyone explain what's going on with the lack of creativity?

[Mandalorian]

I wasn't even born back then, but I miss the hand drawn posters. Beautiful artwork. Nowadays it's all photoshop, and whatnot.

[chad_1138]

I agree with all the boring ones shown except Fast Five. I really liked that design. The IMAX theater we saw Fast Five at had a giant lobby stand (5-6 feet tall and 10-15 feet long) of that poster, it was pretty sweet.

I do agree though that movie posters are getting boring, most likely thanks to photoshop.

Just like the kids at the school I teach at have no knowledge of how to write anymore thx 2 the invtion uv txting LOL

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by chad_1138

I agree with all the boring ones shown except Fast Five. I really liked that design. The IMAX theater we saw Fast Five at had a giant lobby stand (5-6 feet tall and 10-15 feet long) of that poster, it was pretty sweet.

I do agree though that movie posters are getting boring, most likely thanks to photoshop.

Just like the kids at the school I teach at have no knowledge of how to write anymore thx 2 the invtion uv txting LOL

Off topic,but that last line made me laugh

[Scorpion Soldier]

Whilst i understand what you're saying i have to say i heavily disagree about the Harry Potter teaser poster being boring and generic.

[blonde_devil]

i think there are 2 reasons. first is that studios are too lazy/cheap to get an artist to do the work even though some of these posters are classics. look at the Star Wars and Star Trek posters and tell me a live action pic would be better. the posters, which most dvd/bluray covers use, are supposed to grab your attention and it think most studios forgot that. the second that ties into it is that they confuse live action with photo-realistic. a great example is the star wars covers where they took photos to mimic the original covers - they look like crap compared to the originals. and there is no reason why you can't use actual pics. I think some of the Superman 2 ones used real pics and looked good. but they see an artists doing a really good portrait and get the idea in their head that if that portrait is good, a real pic would be better and then the photoshop the hell out of one. look at the Back to the Future posters - would the actors and a real car really have looked better? i think it is just a phase like when Fox wasn't using the fanfare or when Warners didn't use the WB shield - it will pass and all it takes it one movie with a kickass poster doing well.

[Todd_Gaines]

why is UK box art almost always better than US

for example:

uk this is great



US this not so great

[Mandalorian]

Bad example. I like In Bruges's artwork. It's more interesting IMO.

[zahinn]

Originally Posted by Todd_Gaines

why is UK box art almost always better than US

for example:

uk this is great



US this not so great

So true.

[Samus Aran]

It's almost like the studio heads hire their lazy, talentless, unemployable slacker sons to Photoshop the DVD and Blu-ray covers because 1) nepotism is king, and 2) no one else would ever hire them. There seems to be a lot of Photoshop activity just for the sake of doing something, as if it can't possibly be any good until you get your fingerprints all over it.

Why take the Rain Man poster and replace the entire background with a fake-looking one for the Blu-ray cover?





Why take one of John Cusack's legs and flip it to be the other leg on the Say Anything cover when he already had two legs before?





They also had to make Adrian Pasdar look like a Twilight vampire for the Near Dark cover.

[Don Corleone]

I remember the old James Bond movie posters, why can't they use them for bluray artwork , is it a matter of copyright laws

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Can anyone explain what's going on with the lack of creativity?

...Um, excuse me, did some one forget I'M still in the room?

Q: Why have theatrical posters become boring head-collages?
A: Because actors are greedy. And those who aren't, have greedy agents.

One of the contract perks to being the "bigger" star of the movie was getting a bigger percentage of the profits. But of course, since movies don't make profits anymore, the only perk is whether you're one of the actors "lead" enough to get your face on the poster, and remind people that you're in the movie.
And since the professional side of acting is to remind the public and other producers that you WERE in the movie, to be a character minor enough, or actor un-drawable enough, not to be featured on the poster, is a major slant no actor wants to be subjected to....At least as long as he can negotiate his contract
(That's also why, if you see two actors on a romantic comedy poster, the names are "switched" over the heads--That way, there's no conclusive argument about who was billed "first". Billling order is an actor's nitpick that dates back to the days of vaudeville.)

Q: Why do we have bad covers instead of good ones? That's like having bad stuff instead of good stuff!
A: Because every design of a VHS, DVD or Blu-ray cover is copyrighted by its design department and studio. The first release is usually close to the original poster, but after that, something has to be tweaked to be legally original--The background has to be changed, or a different configuration of actor placement. After about six or seven or eight releases in the twenty years since home video...a designer begins running out of options, and creativity sets in.
Sometimes, like Near Dark, they just go all out and sell it in whatever way they think they can get money for it on the shelves. You're only buying, they have to do all the selling.

Q: Why didn't they use the German poster of Freddy vs. Jason instead?
A: Now you're just being loopy. Go away.

That was an easy one!...Next question?

[toddly6666]

Look! I can lift up my shirt and fart on you!





Let's just combine two generic posters into one. Look at how well it all merges together!

[Caesar Will Rise]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Off topic,but that last line made me laugh

It should also be a reason to cry.

[Caesar Will Rise]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Look! I can lift up my shirt and fart on you!





Let's just combine two generic posters into one. Look at how well it all merges together!

Both of those look equally awful. Wow. Just wow.

[Guydowood]

Simple Drew Struzan is retired!

[Donat96]

Originally Posted by Guydowood

Simple Drew Struzan is retired!

A simple way to put it. Sad that painted poster art had to die. Looks much better most of the time than Photoshopped junk that is used today.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by Donat96

A simple way to put it. Sad that painted poster art had to die. Looks much better most of the time than Photoshopped junk that is used today.

Exactly...If the following poster would be painted, it would look so much better and maybe even get more people to see it, but nope...Look how those teenage actors are sprinting with their legs stuck between the eggs.

[remake]

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

[Show spoiler]It's almost like the studio heads hire their lazy, talentless, unemployable slacker sons to Photoshop the DVD and Blu-ray covers because 1) nepotism is king, and 2) no one else would ever hire them. There seems to be a lot of Photoshop activity just for the sake of doing something, as if it can't possibly be any good until you get your fingerprints all over it.

Why take the Rain Man poster and replace the entire background with a fake-looking one for the Blu-ray cover?





Why take one of John Cusack's legs and flip it to be the other leg on the Say Anything cover when he already had two legs before?





They also had to make Adrian Pasdar look like a Twilight vampire for the Near Dark cover.

lmfao at them spreading John Cusack's legs.

[remake]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Exactly...If the following poster would be painted, it would look so much better and maybe even get more people to see it, but nope...Look how those teenage actors are sprinting with their legs stuck between the eggs.

All three cast members are also looking in three different directions. What exactly are they looking at?