24 X 36: A Movie About Movie Posters (2016) by Kevin Burke

[cranefly]

Movie posters used to be a big part of a movie's release.  Artists were commissioned to create them, and they were significant works of art.  Certain artists were renowned for their poster creations.  They were printed in several standard sizes from very large to very small (like a playing card).  Oddly, this did not include 24X36, which you might have noticed is the title of this movie.  I'll get to that shortly.

Then the '90s happened.  It didn't mean to happen, but there seemed no other way to bridge the gap between the '80s and the new century.

The '90s saw a big change in poster creation.  Photoshop (actually its predecessors) was partly to blame, along with a desire to streamline the process and cut costs.  So most posters became photos of the actors along the top, with some action element underneath -- or some variation on this.  Anyway, goodbye artists.  Goodbye collectability.  The designs and creation were made inhouse, guided by committee.  The big issues were making the actors happy with their image.  Hey, I'm too important to have a part of me in shadow.  Why is so-so bigger than me?  That's the problem with emphasizing the actors on the poster.  You have to make them all happy.

As an interesting aside, and predating the '90s, Charles Bronson would not approve his image on a poster unless it showed a certain vein in his bicep.

So.  How does 24 x 36 enter the picture?  Well, a cottage industry sprung up among fan artists, who started creating posters that became very collectible.  This went full circle to the point that the studios started buying these posters and commissioning more work from the artists -- because, you know, you need covers for DVD and BluRay releases and so on.

Which brings up the question of licensing.  Most of these artists get licensing before creating their posters for a movie, and this allows them more opportunities working within the system.  The downside is that the studios have a heavy hand in their creative process.  Then there are the maverick artists, the ones who flaunt licensing and risk cease and desist.  Their argument is that the artist should always be top dog, guiding the creative process, and licensing gives too much creative control to the studios.

A little weak in the visuals and sound, but insightful.  Worth watching if you're planning to write a movie review based solely on a poster.

[Drunk Monk]

FTW!

You know, this reminds me. I had a box of promotional materials I poached from MQ6. I forgot what the industry called it, but it was sheets of B&W images of different sizes that were delivered to theaters ahead of the films to be used for cut&paste newspaper ads. This was long before Photoshop, back in the days of blue lines, wax guns and exacto knives. It was a standard file box packed tight with tons of B-movie promos from the 80s when I worked at MQ6. I think they were going to toss it. For the longest time, I thought I knew where that box was but a few years back I was feeling nostalgic went looking for it and couldn't find it. I doubt my folks tossed it. I imagine that it's still in that weird room by the top of the stairs in my mom's house. That room is packed with boxes of stuff, mostly mine, with one of those hoarder paths to a cluttered desk where my mom used to make rubber stamp cards. Those promos are probably pretty cool. I remember it being such a random collection of films.