Inglourious Basterds: The Lost Art of the Film

[eatbrie]

Did anyone go to this?

http://upperplayground.com/feature/story/inglourious_basterds_the_lost_art_of_the_film_217

I personally had no interest, 1) because I do not like any of the designs (actually I hate most of them except for the Pardee one), and 2) because these have nothing to do with the movie.  Except for being signed by Tarantino, there is no studio backing, and not even a screening.  At some point, enough is enough.

Which leads to my next question: I was under the impression that the Alamo prints were originally associated to an actual screening (which made them movie poster-ish).  It seems that they are now produced for the sake of being produced, with artists just doing their thing (kinda like the Tarantino prints above).  Am I right?  If this is the case, I might withdraw from the whole concept, because it becomes endless.  Anyone can do a design of anything and number it.  Or maybe not if Stout and Ansin keep at it.

T

[Carson]

The rock poster arena has become so over saturated, the Alamo's success has sparked the interest of a lot of artists, blogs, printers and art dot coms. The thinking seems to be: same concept, same ink and paper, new subject (movies), new market. Rock prints have had their day for the most part and contributors from the music world are now giving movies a try on heels of Alamo's success.

The vast majority of what is springing up carries next to no resale value in my opinion and some of the lessor designs are simply bait. The Alamo prints have been an overall success and an increasingly endless wave of imitations are now beginning to follow. That's not to say Alamo is the end all be all; many of my favorite come from the Castro Theater screenings and Berkley underground screenings but per my personal interests I primarily collect those linked to actual screening or an actual film festival, namely, the screenings I attend in Austin. Much of the rest, as these IB prints, are of no interest to me personally.

[eatbrie]

I agree with you, but are the recent Alamos linked to a specific screening or completely arbitrary?  If not, am I right to think that they were originally, and when did it change?

T

[theartofmovieposters]

I think the IB Alamo prints were for an actual screening.  The recent Warriors prints are er questionable to say the least.
Agreed that if it's not for an actual screening, unless I am really loving the artwork for whatever reason, not of interest to me either.

There is generally some screening date on these, so the lack there of would indicate art print. 
I am fairly sure they always used to be for actual screening events of films, but I guess since they've noticed a huge shoot up in demand, the temptation to cash in is too great.  Seems to be just a recent thing for my mind.  Ever since I've followed these prints, they have always been for actual screenings, again until recently.

[ddilts399]

I think you all should probably quit collecting them.

[Carson]

I think the IB Alamo prints were for an actual screening.  

the Stout IB prints were for a screening; got to attend that one. No idea about these Lost Art versions.

There's a ton that were done for screenings, recently some that are not, now lately prints like Wolfman and Parnassus which are licensed by the studio and released around same time as the movie for a little added promo but not bound to a specific Alamo screening. Some are liking the new trend, some aren't but seems most don't care as long as the art is interesting/wel done.

They're all studio licensed though -- supposed to be at least. That's why that Dawn of the Dead never got printed. Romero's agent called Tim Doyle and, basically, said he'd crucify him if the poster was ever printed.

[CSM]

I think you all should probably quit collecting them.

Sounds like something I would say 

[supraman079]

They're all studio licensed though -- supposed to be at least. That's why that Dawn of the Dead never got printed. Romero's agent called Tim Doyle and, basically, said he'd crucify him if the poster was ever printed.

And that was one of the best looking posters ever drawn up from Alamo in my opinion. I was and still am disappointed they couldn't get that worked out. I really wanted the variant of that poster. I still have the images on my computer and I look at them from time to time but it's not the same has owning a silk screen version. 

Chad

[acidburn]

anyone have a pic of the doyle dawn of the dead poster?

[bannister]

anyone have a pic of the doyle dawn of the dead poster?

The poster was done by James Rheem Davis.

[acidburn]

this was the one that was banned? i thought doyle was told my romero not to

[ddilts399]

Doyle ran Mondo for quite awhile.

[bannister]

this was the one that was banned? i thought doyle was told my romero not to

It was never printed. It was up for order then removed after the screening got canceled. They said that was why it wasn't released. I guess that was the "official" reason why they didn't print it, given the info carson posted earlier.

[Ari]

end of the day, if you LIKE the art, but one, they really arent theatre posters, because if they print 300 or 1000 or whatever, and use a couple, the main reason for the print run is for sales. LEGIT movie posters arent made to be sold. SAYING THAT I have a few and really like them, for the art. May be a grey area. I'll give an example. I have the original color seperations for a cult film, I wont say what it is, but the posters for an origibnal sell for $100+ (probably more by now) sent to me by the director. I CAN print from these perfect posters, and its awsome artwork, have a screening at my local pub, print 200, paste 20, have 180 left to sell, its a poster from a screening, unused. But my main motivation is to sell the left overs.
I could do that, haven't, but really thats what these are, and I dont mind, the quality is good, some of the artwork is good, good paper stock, can't complain, as long as you know what it is.

[MyDear]

Hi folks,
finally I have to ask the question.
DO YOU THINK THAT POSTERS PRINTED BY STUDIOS OR DISTRIBUTORS are "NON
COMMERCIAL"?  and all so called "art prints", "limited editions" are made for money?
I am lost here. If I go to cinema, they sell posters officially. You can buy them in cinema.
gazzilions of copies printed for worldwide distribution is printed to BE SOLD
AT THEATERS during screening.

From your discussion it looks like Hollywood is some kind of non-profit
arthouse which has nothing to with money and all these designers who do the
tribute artwork related to the films, are doing this for just "cash hunger"

OK, ok.. I know.. you want original things that are real "movie posters"
But - are you sure that producers care about this? When was the last "authentic
movie poster" that had "not for sale" print on it. In other worlds - if
producers can get few more millions worldwide from selling posters, do you
think that they will give up and won't pick up these few more millions..
Maybe I lost it somehow but can't see the moment when it changed in Hollywood.
The most important aspect is box office and total income, I think..
Am I wrong here ?

Best,
Krzysztof
polishposter.com

[ddilts399]

Lets cut the bullshit here shall we.

The ONLY reason the studios do not want posters sold is because they do not get .99 of every 1.00 made of the sale. The only reason the studios do not launch sales on posters for every release is the nightmare kickback that would be due to EVERY name printed on that poster.

Once the presses are running the more they print the cheaper the posters get per poster.  If they had someone half way intelligent running the advertising department, they would realize that they could pay a part of the advertising campaign selling to the collector market.