Star Wars VII - Open spoilers

[Merus]

I saw a version of the poster redone in widescreen that made the composition make more sense. Unfortunately, can't remember where I saw it.

[Henroid]

  On 10/19/2015 at 10:30 PM, Jake said:

Every Star Wars poster starting with the Special Editions has been pretty gross and aimless. The actual original 70s/80s ones were great, as was the Phantom Menace teaser image with Vader's silhouette (regardless of how shit the actual movie was). This one continues to be boring and bad like 99% of the 90s+ posters.

I respect trying to make defenses for the Struzan stuff because he is great at what he does and they are painted posters instead of Photoshop and whatever else, but it's clear that even he didn't care about the Special Edition and Prequel one sheets the way he does about other clearly transcendent work he's done.

I just wanna throw a question out there about this:

 

For people alive as adults in the 70s and 80s, were those posters actually perceived as great?

[YoThatLimp]

  On 10/20/2015 at 4:02 AM, Mangela Lansbury said:

Up until now, all the marketing materials have been this weird mix of "It's new and fun and great!" and "It's that thing you like from your childhood, it's just the same but a little bit different!" so I think I'm just going to sit on the tickets I bought and ignore all marketing materials from here on in. I'm going to go see the movie regardless, so all the marketing materials that are just a little unsettling in how they're sending their message don't have to matter to me.

 

Buying early sets you free, I guess???

 

I bought tickets in two different theaters, do I:

 

See it in a nicer theater, with a good "normal" movie screen or see it in a crappier theater but Imax 3D?

I really hate 3D, I think my left eye is a little fuzzy so sometimes 3D is really uncomfortable. The movie is fake 3D, but so was Mad Max: Fury road and I liked that. I also like Gravity and The Martian in 3D.

[Lu]

Tickets booked! Gonna see it on the saturday after the premier earlier that week with a bunch o' buds! I AM EXCITED TO SEE THIS FILM! EEEEEEEEeEeEEeeEEE!

[Vainamoinen]

  On 10/19/2015 at 10:30 PM, Jake said:

Every Star Wars poster starting with the Special Editions has been pretty gross and aimless. The actual original 70s/80s ones were great, as was the Phantom Menace teaser image with Vader's silhouette (regardless of how shit the actual movie was). This one continues to be boring and bad like 99% of the 90s+ posters.

I respect trying to make defenses for the Struzan stuff because he is great at what he does and they are painted posters instead of Photoshop and whatever else, but it's clear that even he didn't care about the Special Edition and Prequel one sheets the way he does about other clearly transcendent work he's done.

 

I'm a torn on the quality of Struzan's six main Star Wars posters (VI-VI SE, I - III). The special edition triptych with its central vanishing point in "The Empire Strikes Back", that's just awesome. Really big love for those, and I disagree in that I really think he did care. 

 

No love lost for the prequel trilogy posters, however! In "The Art of Drew Struzan", the artist chronicles how Lucasfilm suits dictated, controlled and – for the last movie – even digitally rearranged elements of his finished art, leaving his composition shot. It's bitter stuff to swallow, really, although his worst anecdote is of course reserved for the Crystal Skull...

 

...I can imagine that something like this happened again and Drew quit right back into retirement.

 

 

  On 10/20/2015 at 4:45 AM, Henroid said:

I just wanna throw a question out there about this:

For people alive as adults in the 70s and 80s, were those posters actually perceived as great?

 

I laboriously managed to be a teen by the end of the 80s, and of course the real appreciation set in much, much later than that. For most of my child- and early adulthood, my rooms were plastered with Struzan posters although I didn't even know the artist's name: I liked the movie in the first place (had a Back to the Future III Struzan poster on my door, thin paper, multiple folds, from some pop magazine, probably from 1991 to 1997). However, that at least is testament to the fact that Drew managed to convey what the movie was about.

[Bjorn]

  On 10/20/2015 at 4:45 AM, Henroid said:

I just wanna throw a question out there about this:

 

For people alive as adults in the 70s and 80s, were those posters actually perceived as great?

 

I can't separate nostalgia from quality in regards to the original poster, but if you ask me to imagine a Star Wars poster, what pops into my head is the chessily wonderful one of Luke, barechested, holding a lightsaber above his head.  It channels all the pulp adventure artwork of the golden age of science fiction, which I ultimately think is a much better fit than the portrait compilations that the posters became. 

 

Edited to add: And it subverts its influences as well.  Leia is below him, but rather than clutching at him like a damsel, she's got a blaster and is ready for a fight. 

[Gwardinen]

Not certain about the motorcycle jacket look of the leading male, but otherwise I'm kind of interested in this.

[Ben X]

 

  On 10/19/2015 at 8:29 PM, Vainamoinen said:

The color scheme of Disney's artist is particularly abysmal. It's essentially four rather intense patches of color, three large red, blue and orange patches and one green hideous counterpoint that no one needed in the first place. I know of no Struzan poster that misfires similarly. Struzan is known for intense color, but all within a fairly limited gamut; in the New Hope SE poster above, the only intense color is e.g. orange, while the blues are fairly muted (of course, this poster's color range is particularly limited, and there are posters of his where local color determines a far broader color range). Other posters of his even have a monochrome feel to them (often orange, which e.g. looms through his Indy work). 

 

As to brushwork, arghh. That Disney thing is of course made digitally, so I can't even begin to compare. Struzan draws, paints and airbrushes on gessoed ground. The visible brushstrokes on his art are unrelated to the application of color. These strokes are the very first step of the painting, before even the preliminary drawing is applied to the illustration board.

 

I would definitely have preferred if they just went with another artist, a digital one or whatever. At least I would have preferred that over what we have now. An individual style – like Olly Moss'! – would have been so infinitely much better than this disgrace of a botched hommage. There's a reason no one tells us the name of that "artist". 

 

Yeah, agreed with all of this. I meant the colours feel similar to Struzan's Star Wars choices (although as you say, they've crammed a load of them together) and that they haven't tried to digitally ape Struzan's signature airbrush/pencils style.

 

That Special Edition triptych idea is really cool, but as individual posters they don't work for me...

 

I think Henroid was asking specifically about the 70s/80s Star Wars posters, btw (I guess the implied question being whether they're actually good or just seen as that because of their association with classic Star Wars and/or retro-nostalgia value).

[Vainamoinen]

  On 10/20/2015 at 7:56 AM, Ben X said:

Yeah, agreed with all of this. I meant the colours feel similar to Struzan's Star Wars choices (although as you say, they've crammed a load of them together) and that they haven't tried to digitally ape Struzan's signature airbrush/pencils style.

 

If the movie is halfway worth its salt, we will see a whole lot of fan art posters that will beat the 'official' one hands down. It's kind of what I'm looking forward to... traditional artists more or less in Struzan's footsteps, like e.g. Mark Raats.

 

And, of course, there's still the hope that Struzan did a poster that didn't make it to official status (like e.g. for Hellboy, Hellboy II, Pan's Labyrinth, Cowboys & Aliens, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, etc.)

[BigJKO]

 

[Henroid]

An American Tale: The Force Awakens

[Bjorn]

  On 10/20/2015 at 1:51 PM, Henroid said:

An American Tale: The Force Awakens

 

In which a young immigrant child challenges President Trump, not knowing that Trump is also the one known as Darth Ridiculous. 

[Vainamoinen]

  On 10/20/2015 at 1:05 PM, BigJKO said:

...

 

And that's still a comparatively muted blue/brown composition with a red dot. To get as colorful as that Star Wars poster... I'd rather look for Struzan's posters for clear cut comedy.

 

(hint: Jim Henson loved Struzan's work)

[BigJKO]

I love that American Tail poster, btw. Just wanted to post it!

[Lu]

One of the official IMAX posters, apparently:

 

 

[Twig]

 

  On 10/20/2015 at 9:49 PM, Lu  said:

 The ione of the official IMAX posters, apparently:

 

 

 

why is everything covered in wookie hair

[Bjorn]

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

[Twig]

You're welcome!

[Henroid]

I'm a little worried about this push that the end of the Empire means the galaxy fell into some sort of Fallout situation. RUINS EVERYWHERE.

[Mawd]

Maybe what the galaxy really needs is a Jawa shipbreaker service?

[Badfinger]

The bridge doesn't look like it's lined up with the rest of the body and it's driving me nuts. It's off canter (to me).

[Dewar]

I think it's the shadow, but I definitely see it too.

[Gwardinen]

Aaand now I can't UNsee it.

[Justin Leego]

Maybe that's why it crashed?

[miffy495]

It's that the engine pod on the left side is overlapping with the bridge while the pod on the right side has visible space between it and the bridge. This makes it look like it's coming out off-centre because we can't see the space that we would if we were looking at the ship from directly above. Not saying it's good design, but I can see WHY it looks bad and that it actually isn't.