How can we used objective terms in a subjective field like design? Though it’s hard to define “good” in art, there are a few common elements of memorable and successful posters that act as a guideline for creating “good design.” Here, ten “good” and ten “bad” posters are critiqued and examined in order to demonstrate the ideology behind supposed “good poster design.”
Art and design is subjective, but for the purposes of this exploration, several key components of design will be analyzed in order to determine what makes for a successful or memorable movie poster; its concept, visuals, messaging, and the ways in which it engages the audience. Once given the context and framework of what makes for a good poster, two final posters are presented as “least favorite” and “favorite” of all time–can you complete the critique to see what does and does not fit within Poster Child’s criteria for good movie poster design in these examples?
Concept
GOOD:
Though it could be argued that this poster is essentially the same as any other “floating head collage,” it is worthy noting that it feels very authentic to the period in which the film is set. For a film about Hollywood in the 1960s, it almost feels obvious to create a 60s style poster illustration–but it is well done and doesn’t actually feel like a “modern rendition,” but feels as if it is pulled straight from this time period.
BAD:
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. has a lot of wasted potential. All of the official posters from this film simply showed the cast, and bits and pieces of their setting. From this poster, you wouldn’t really know what time period this film is set in and the story and IP provided a great opportunity for the designer. A Saul Bass inspired graphic poster, for instance, could have felt more authentic to the film, the decade in which its set, and it would have paid homage to the original television series as well.
VISUALS
GOOD:
The poster for Coen’s The Tragedy of MacBeth is visually (and conceptually) interesting and its simplicity is what makes it so appealing. The type design is interesting, and the poster feels as if it was designed with the type in mind–while many posters seem as if the title was placed on as an afterthought. The type is just as important as the image, especially in poster design, so this is a great example of how highly stylized type and image, and composition, can all work together in a very successful way.
BAD:
The Ready Player One poster may look intriguing at first glance, but it doesn’t take long to realize how awkwardly long the main character’s leg is. Some have argued that this is just a matter of a bad angle, but either way, it did not make for successful visual. In a presentation at ArtCenter, poster designer and illustrator Akiko Stehrenberger noted that the main reason why photobashed/photoshopped posters are often unsuccessful is because the artists and designers are not trained in traditional arts. In other words, Akiko expressed that a basic understanding of light, anatomy, and forms make designers stronger, even if they are not illustrating. In this discussion, we learned that an understanding of different practices, such as illustration, can help designers avoid problems like this.
Messaging
GOOD:
Historically, have had some of the best taglines. Lines like “In space no one can hear you scream”(Alien) and “When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth” (Dawn of the Dead) have the ability to stick with the viewer, whether or not they have seen the film. The tagline for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre “Who will survive and what will be left of them?” is one of the eeriest of all time. Paired with the grisly imagery of a girl screaming and a man with a chainsaw, the audience is left to put the pieces together. Without the tagline, the poster would have possibly a similar effect on its audience. The image is disturbing enough itself is quite shocking, but the copy really completes the visual storytelling of the poster.
BAD:
“The man with the hat is back and this time he’s bringing his dad” is one of the weirdest movie taglines of all time. It’s the most literal way of describing the film, and unlike The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the audience is left with little intrigue about what this film could be about. This is almost the written version of the character poster, in that the main character and a description of who else will be in the film is given to the audience right away.
Audience Engagement
GOOD:
The theatrical poster for Everything, Everywhere, All At Once is one of the most interesting pieces of design in the modern landscape. The poster is an illustrated kaleidoscope-view of the film’s characters and themes and its complexity is effective in engaging the audience. People would look at this poster for clues of what it’s about, which makes it successful. Furthermore, the illustration style is appropriate for the composition and does not feel cheap, in that it doesn’t seem as if someone was trying to replicate an illustration style or illustrated poster of the past. It is a very fresh take on the artistic movie poster.
BAD:
Vice’s poster could be considered unsuccessful in a couple of different ways. It does not feel engaging enough to get audiences to the theater. First and foremost, Dick Cheney’s profile is not recognizable to a majority of people, which may confuse audiences. The title could be a clue if you were familiar with what Cheney looked like. The tagline does not aid the viewer in any way, or imply who it could be about either. One of the oddest choices, however, is the bright yellow, red, and white color palette. For a film about corruption, greed, and power in America, this poster is conveying a much different feel. The choices for this poster do not seem to make any more sense once you have seen the film.
Bad posters are an insult to good films.
POSTER CHILD’S LEAST FAVORITE DESIGN OF ALL TIME
Based on the framework for good and bad design, can you determine why this poster has been labeled as the "worst of all time?"
POSTER CHILD’S FAVORITE DESIGN OF ALL TIME
Based on the framework for good and bad design, what makes this poster so compelling, more than 30 years after its release?