All Poster Forum
Movie Posters => General Discussion => Topic started by: eatbrie on February 02, 2015, 07:04:48 PM
-
Collecting posters without watching the movies is ridiculous, imo. This hobby was not born in a vacuum. It only exists because of its connection to movies. You love movies, then you love posters, not the other way around. I wasn't aware Mel didn't love movies, or at least had not seen the source of the posters he collected. I get a lot of posters for free, but if I buy something, you can be sure I know why I buy it and the movie it advertizes.
Someone said "The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long." This is so true. Mel tried to do so much so quickly. The layout of his posters in his apartment, to the point where you can't even breathe anymore, posters in the shower, the websites, rough interactions with forum members, on the phone too apparently, Mel getting upset if someone dares to disagree with him, lots of wrong info thrown around, some great stuff too to be sure, mainly the result of someone who is trying very hard, too hard, and eventually quits because he is pushed into a corner. I think there is a word for that in psychology. Someone who goes to extremes without knowing what he's in for and then throws it all away when facing adversity.
And I won't even talk about him removing all content from the forum upon his departure.
I think Mel needs some stability in his life and he won't find it in a brittle little hobby like ours. I wish him the best.
T
-
Collecting posters without watching the movies is ridiculous, imo. This hobby was not born in a vacuum. It only exists because of its connection to movies. You love movies, then you love posters, not the other way around.
We're at opposite ends of the spectrum here buddy. I think, therefore, I am ridiculous! bed1
-
well get this.... I havent been to a theatre since 2010 and that was only because my power was out for four or five days, watched Toy Story 3D. and before that it was a couple years. and yes I am odd enough to admit that.
I have a lot of catching up to do
Nah...films and posters stopped being awesome in 1958 so you ain't missing anything
-
I'd add a few (maybe a couple of) decades, but almost what he said :)
But as to what T says, I have some posters for films that i haven't seen, BUT they are films I want to see, and I am reasonably sure I will enjoy.
But no matter how great the art, if I have seen a film and don't care for it, I wouldn't own the poster.
for me, collecting posters without loving the films they represent is like collecting bookshelves and leaving them empty. (or something like that) - you are missing the BEST PART!
-
et tu, Ari?
-
Ok just to sidetrack this thread even more check out the Canadian poster below. It has a stamp from North Bay Ontario which is basically a small town up north, where either 1-you were unfortunate to be born in or 2- you pass through on your way wayyy up north. The fact that I got my hands on a Canadian printed poster, not a US designed one which they just use for Canada like all the others, no less it being from North Bay, makes me happy. First off as a historical "Canadiana" piece, but the design, the colours, the subject matter, is just gravy. Have I seen "We dive at dawn", do I know who Eric Portman or John Mills is? Resounding fucking no. Maybe, if i come across the movie it would peak my interest, but I eat this sh*t up as it is, and it doesn't take away any part of my claim to the hobby.
(http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k267/vintagevick/Movies/DSC_0657_zpsu1fzul9e.jpg)
-
We're at opposite ends of the spectrum here buddy. I think, therefore, I am ridiculous! bed1
This is totally foreign to me. I love movies first and foremost, and collecting posters is an extension of that. The wife and I see on average about 200 new movies a year, 70 in the theaters and the rest on demand. During awards season, we sometimes see 5 movies a week in the theaters. I collect posters because they remind me of a movie I enjoyed. I haven't seen many movies pre-1940, so I won't be collecting that, because there is no connection. I honestly don't understand why anyone would collect posters for movies they haven't seen. What's the point?
T
-
doesn't know who John Mills is
doesn't know who Eric Portman is...
hitself
-
doesn't know who John Mills is
doesn't know who Eric Portman is...
hitself
I do now, after purchasing the poster, when I had time to read up. Either way, you are missing the point.
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/KnGo6Qm0Wt8
;D
You have put it best.
-
I honestly don't understand why anyone would collect posters for movies they haven't seen. What's the point?
T
I could answer that..if I may... I have bought two posters from films I have never seen, probably never will. Cannot find any of those two films elsewhere in Europe, God knows I've tried. Bought them because they are films by directors a/o actors/ who I like with an artwork that speaks to me of many films I have watched, enjoyed and love with them in it. One is from a 30s film with the incredible Kay Francis. Another is a poster from the 40s a film from the one and only director Mitchell Leisen. Must have for me. click. :)
-
Well, I collect posters related to the films I love, but like anything else, I am not a fanatic.
For example, the poster in my icon is from a 'lost' silent of the early 20's. I obviously haven't seen it, but the image is one of my favorites.
On the other side of the coin, there are many movies I enjoy where the poster leaves me cold. I don't buy those posters, nor would I buy a poster simply because the film was popular.
-
I assume a fair number of people collect posters either because they represent films they enjoy or they are aesthetically pleasing. In the best of circumstances a poster ticks both columns.
How else can one explain Thierry's Bieber posters beyond them being visually appealing to him? :-*
-
I assume a fair number of people collector posters either because they represent films they enjoy or they are aesthetically pleasing. In the best of circumstances a poster ticks both columns.
How else can one explain Thierry's Bieber posters beyond them being visually appealing to him? :-*
Same reason I have an Ishtar poster. It's not bad looking, but I keep using it as a joke.
-
Like I said, I get A LOT of posters for free. And no, I am not selling them. Not now. Not ever.
T
-
I could answer that..if I may... I have bought two posters from films I have never seen, probably never will. Cannot find any of those two films elsewhere in Europe, God knows I've tried. Bought them because they are films by directors a/o actors/ who I like with an artwork that speaks to me of many films I have watched, enjoyed and love with them in it. One is from a 30s film with the incredible Kay Francis. Another is a poster from the 40s a film from the one and only director Mitchell Leisen. Must have for me. click. :)
I understand that, Rosa, but at least you made the attempt to find and watch those movies. You got the posters and realized that their connection to specific movies might make you enjoy the posters more. Or less ;) Same with Jay, who obviously will have trouble finding that obscure 20s flick. What I don't get is buying posters for movies that can easily be found and not caring about seeing those movies. You're missing half the fun.
T
-
The poster has failed to do its job if it doesn't make you want to see the movie.
That said, I also fall into the category of am unlikely to ever see some of what I collect, but to me it doesn't matter. Good art is good art and I refuse to limit my appreciation of it by denying it to myself because the movie it's promoting is a turkey or even MIA. I do look deeper into a film when I'm struck by the poster, that's got to sort of count. If it turns out I don't want to waste n minutes of my life slogging through it, oh well, I'm still happy to enjoy the poster.
-
I could answer that..if I may... I have bought two posters from films I have never seen, probably never will. Cannot find any of those two films elsewhere in Europe, God knows I've tried. Bought them because they are films by directors a/o actors/ who I like with an artwork that speaks to me of many films I have watched, enjoyed and love with them in it. One is from a 30s film with the incredible Kay Francis. Another is a poster from the 40s a film from the one and only director Mitchell Leisen. Must have for me. click. :)
I feel the same way. Take for example my poster for The Golden Arrow. The film isn't good. Bette Davis is just ok in it. BUTBUTBUT, the portrait of her, a star and actress I love, make up for this a great deal :) So I can understand owning a poster for a movie you don't like or a movie you haven't seen, if the art and the actor makes up for it!
-
I feel the same way. Take for example my poster for The Golden Arrow. The film isn't good. Bette Davis is just ok in it. BUTBUTBUT, the portrait of her, a star and actress I love, make up for this a great deal :) So I can understand owning a poster for a movie you don't like or a movie you haven't seen, if the art and the actor makes up for it!
+1 ;D
What you said here, Brian! The art, actor (especially if known AND liked) can all be real factors in going for or getting a poster for a film that may not have been seen (or that hasnt been available to be seen in many decades, or if not ever issued on dvd or blu ray).
-
Thinking about that. If we follow T's advice, London After Midnight becomes a $2 fish wrapping ;D
-
Again, if you cannot see the movie because it doesn't exist, it's obviously a different issue. But if you can, you should. My opinion anyway.
T
-
I do now, after purchasing the poster, when I had time to read up. Either way, you are missing the point.
no I didn't miss the point. I was singularly commenting on that one aspect of your post
moron1
-
T as the son and grandson of art dealers, you should be able to understand that poster collecting is the same as collecting any objet d'art
it doesn't require prior knowledge of the material (Vick is the attendant example in this thread) nor does it require anything else other than appreciation for the medium
I have quite a few posters for which I have never seen the movie (however, they are a minority in my collection by many)
-
T as the son and grandson of art dealers, you should be able to understand that poster collecting is the same as collecting any objet d'art
it doesn't require prior knowledge of the material (Vick is the attendant example in this thread) nor does it require anything else other than appreciation for the medium
I have quite a few posters for which I have never seen the movie (however, they are a minority in my collection by many)
I completely disagree. Fine art is subjective, movie posters are not.
T
-
art doesn't have to be an easel painting to be art you snob.
you have illustrators (like for instance, Struzan)
ad artists, street artists, people who work in glass, pottery.. art is all around you. sometimes you can't buy the physical art and the artists sell prints (like Lautrec)
but it's all art
you freaking snob.!
-
Yes, I'm a snob. No issue whatsoever. 1. I said fine art vs movie posters. Movie posters are not fine art. Sorry to disappoint you. If you believe you're collecting fine art, go to a museum and show them your gambling collection. I'm sure they'll be impressed. 2. Movie posters are not art. They are mass reproductions. The original art by Struzan is art, not its 10,000 copies. Art is the unique vision of an artist, regardless of the medium. It cannot be reproduced. If it is, it loses its cachet of authenticity. This is all in my humble opinion, of course, and I'm sure many of you will disagree. To each his own. A Lautrec print is not art, it is a reproduction. It can be signed by the artist or by the artist foundation, it is still not art. The original is art. One and one, the artist and its creation. I will only consider movie posters to be art when the poster is unique, as in "London After Midnight." If the original painting cannot be found, and its reproduction is so rare that it becomes unique, then it becomes art, because there is no alternative.
T
-
And to go back to what we were saying earlier, movie posters are the interpretation of a unique work of art, the movie itself. They do not exist without the movie, while the movie exists without its poster. Which is why one should attempt to see the movie to truly appreciate its interpretation. If it is not possible, as often the case, then the interpretation stands alone and becomes the original.
T
-
I am sure very few have seen the movie and I am also fairly certain very, very few of those who have would put it in their top 10 list but this poster is highly desirable for some reason. All other paper on the title gets results that are miniscule by comparison. What could all the titillation be about if not many have seen it and even less would consider it's value as a movie commensurate to the sales results it has achieved as a poster? Hmmmm...?
(http://www.emovieposter.com/images/moviestars/AA110529/550/i_love_trouble_linen_JM02038_L.jpg)
-
One more thing:
I find people who go out of their way to tick off the "cool" items, the ones that make other members jealous or are titles/formats that are for whatever reason holy grails (**pulp fiction LS, downhill racer, BAT, cool hand luke, um, you know what I mean)
Rather than ones they personally LOVE, surely not everyone has the same taste? seem to burn out fast.
Indeed
-
I love having that poster from the early 50s, could have come from Berlin after the war, or a theatre in Manhattan but in this case it comes from North Bay, Ontario. The movie itself could have starred Eric Portman, Grace Kelly, could be its a decent film, maybe not. It doesn’t change what I do know, which is that the poster is awesome, as art, as artefact. Was it printed ten thousand times? Maybe. Will it look awesome framed on my wall? I think we all know the answer to that.
-
I agree with that.
I would probably keep a shitty daybill for a shitty film if it had "Orana Drive In" hand written on the top or something, as thats where I cut my chops in watching films.
-
"movie posters are the interpretation of a unique work of art, the movie itself. They do not exist without the movie, while the movie exists without its poster. "
usually yes, but not with a lot of the 50's exploitation, like the famous BEAST WITH A MILLION EYES, where the title came first, then the poster, THEN some sucker had to write a script based on the poster. Damn chicken coming before the egg ;)
this is why it can be hard for me to attribute aura status to films and actors. Take the good, the bad, and the ugly...(DONT GO THERE) great scenes but overall, kind of all over the place, portions are hard to understand (OH NO YOU DIDNT) How does it end, well there's that part where that Eastwood guy turns out to be a racist bigot. So what gives with the poster? There is a version of it I would be all over (someone who makes more money than me had it backed and framed, I remember seeing pics on a thread somewhere) because its mindboggling (careful ari i recall some purple!) I'd get one as an investment too, but seeing the movie certainly doesn't make it any more appealing. So from where I stand things look very different, is all.
-
I am sure very few have seen the movie and I am also fairly certain very, very few of those who have would put it in their top 10 list but this poster is highly desirable for some reason. All other paper on the title gets results that are miniscule by comparison. What could all the titillation be about if not many have seen it and even less would consider it's value as a movie commensurate to the sales results it has achieved as a poster? Hmmmm...?
haha ;D
-
this is why it can be hard for me to attribute aura status to films and actors. Take the good, the bad, and the ugly...(DONT GO THERE) great scenes but overall, kind of all over the place, portions are hard to understand (OH NO YOU DIDNT) How does it end, well there's that part where that Eastwood guy turns out to be a racist bigot. So what gives with the poster? There is a version of it I would be all over (someone who makes more money than me had it backed and framed, I remember seeing pics on a thread somewhere) because its mindboggling (careful ari i recall some purple!) I'd get one as an investment too, but seeing the movie certainly doesn't make it any more appealing. So from where I stand things look very different, is all.
See I like the film, but I wouldn't own a poster, or I would but I don't and don't plan on it (for resale yes, for MY collection, I doubt it - could lead to a whole nother can o worms).
-
I agree, though saying that, I dont care, if someone doesnt like film, like steve 50's said he didnt really watch movies, but loved the posters, well its OK. I dont get it. But its OK. For me, then you could buy any advertising art that looks nice. But I guess people do that huh?
I agree with you, Ari. I don't care either. I'm just saying what works for me and how I feel about posters. I don't hang my posters, I do not think they're art, they're just posters, but I still like them. People feel differently, I have no problem with it. You know the saying... Opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one.
And this is how forums are born and thrive.
T
-
I have the hole, but nothing to put it in. hmm, that sounds wrong.
-
Yes it does but its okay it is you. ;)
I love movies and I love posters. I do like it better when they intersect but they sure as hell dont have to.
Movie posters are great on their own. They dont need added help.
-
Yes, I'm a snob. No issue whatsoever. 1. I said fine art vs movie posters. Movie posters are not fine art. Sorry to disappoint you. If you believe you're collecting fine art, go to a museum and show them your gambling collection. I'm sure they'll be impressed.
With all due respect, a fast web search will turn up many instances like these, where art museums have hosted shows featuring movie posters:
http://www.denverartmuseum.org/exhibitions/rebranded-polish-film-posters-american-western-0
http://www.vcstar.com/entertainment/art-galleries-and-museums_20140307103838164
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186368-d6510862-i121571084-Shrewsbury_Museum_and_Art_Gallery-Shrewsbury_Shropshire_England.html
Frankly, I do not see how posters advertising early 20th century wine and soap can be considered art, while posters aren't. Now, I will admit that 90% of posters are NOT art, but I think that is true in general. Those early French advertising posters are probably 90% lost and forgotten with only the best saved and cherished.
Are Norman Rockwell paintings less a work of art because they graced the covers of the Saturday Evening Post. How about Hirschfeld drawings. Are you saying that the ones he drew for restaurant openings are art, but the ones he created for movie posters aren't?
As long as we consider the art print as a legitimate form, I think we have to consider the movie poster in the same light.
-
Reasons for collecting posters are highly personal.
Are they art? I think not (original paintings for posters are)
But, I believe they are historical artifacts and for that I love them. Posters can tell us not only about the film they advertise, but about the place and time they were produced, the people who made them, etc.
-
Indeed
Indeed indeed.
-
But, I believe they are historical artifacts and for that I love them. Posters can tell us not only about the film they advertise, but about the place and time they were produced, the people who made them, etc.
shit yeah
-
This thread has become very philosophical, what is art?
I don't think its snobby to think that art is what you see in museums or galleries, its definitely not snobbery, its stupidity.
Its funny that such a subjective medium has rules slammed onto it, prescriptivism is the enemy of art.
Another point, I find it crazy that people collect film posters for films they've never seen. I've only just started but I'm only looking to have a small collection of posters of films I really like, that have original film posters worth having. I'm getting an original Manhunter poster, because I love the film and the artwork, but I wouldn't get an Exorcist poster, even though I think the artwork is great.
-
Its funny that such a subjective medium has rules slammed onto it
...
Another point, I find it crazy that people collect film posters for films they've never seen.
I find it crazy when people contradict themselves in the same post.
-
I find it crazy when people contradict themselves in the same post.
Trying a tad too hard there, no contradiction, its was my personal opinion, never said it was wrong.
-
Well, in the end I feel no need to justify myself. I collect, and I display a rotating subset of what I collect. The stuff I collect and especially the stuff I display pleases me. Beyond that, I really don't care if it is "art" or just my self indulgence. It pleases me, and I don't ask others to admire it or to pass judgement.
-
Well, in the end I feel no need to justify myself.
I feel the same way, but my collecting posters having nothing to do with having seen the movie, has so far been labelled "ridiculous" and "crazy" so you can imagine my efforts to explain further.
I also think the IMO defence is thrown around rather loosely.
In the end, its all good. I still love you APF.
-
I feel the same way, but my collecting posters having nothing to do with having seen the movie, has so far been labelled "ridiculous" and "crazy" so you can imagine my efforts to explain further.
I also think the IMO defence is thrown around rather loosely.
In the end, its all good. I still love you APF.
Apologies if was offensive, didn't mean to be harsh.
I didn't mean it literally by the way, I wouldn't do it personally but not saying its wrong.
-
I find it crazy when people contradict themselves in the same post.
laugh1
-
With all due respect, a fast web search will turn up many instances like these, where art museums have hosted shows featuring movie posters:
http://www.denverartmuseum.org/exhibitions/rebranded-polish-film-posters-american-western-0
http://www.vcstar.com/entertainment/art-galleries-and-museums_20140307103838164
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186368-d6510862-i121571084-Shrewsbury_Museum_and_Art_Gallery-Shrewsbury_Shropshire_England.html
Frankly, I do not see how posters advertising early 20th century wine and soap can be considered art, while posters aren't. Now, I will admit that 90% of posters are NOT art, but I think that is true in general. Those early French advertising posters are probably 90% lost and forgotten with only the best saved and cherished.
Are Norman Rockwell paintings less a work of art because they graced the covers of the Saturday Evening Post. How about Hirschfeld drawings. Are you saying that the ones he drew for restaurant openings are art, but the ones he created for movie posters aren't?
As long as we consider the art print as a legitimate form, I think we have to consider the movie poster in the same light.
T is just a snob Jay. Objet's de Art encompasses a huge variety of material, snobbery aside.
-
I can't be bothered rereading but I think it was said by our illustrious leader, Movie posters aren't FINE art.
Rather than applied art or commercial art, which is what Movie posters are (dare I say IMHO).
Thats OK isn't it?
An original painting might be fine art, but whack a title and credits and tagline to it and print it off for use in theatres, surely everyone agrees it then becomes a whole 'nother beast... right?
And no snobbery, I love commercial art, as with anything, when its done well its great.
my Mother was a commercial artist, my sister and I both do it when we can to help pay the bills.
I'm getting an original Manhunter poster, because I love the film and the artwork, but I wouldn't get an Exorcist poster, even though I think the artwork is great.
See how subjective it is?
I would LOVE an Exorcist poster, because I love the film, but I think the artwork STINKS :)
-
Seems to be a very interesting and heated discussion here........ I might be new here but one thing is apparent to me, everybody collects posters for their own reasons. I must admit I find it odd to collect posters and not display them. I also feel it is a little odd to have a poster and not have a bond with the movie, director, or actor/actress. Unless of course the movie is unavailable for viewing, or you perhaps collect an artist like Struzan. This would however lend to the argument that movie posters are indeed art........
Now for me, my oldest daughter and I bond over movies. I gave her a framed Never Ending Story poster for Christmas and she was nothing less than ecstatic, she went straight into her room and hung it. She loves the movie, and adores the art.
;D
-
i gave my daughter about 30 daybills for films she liked/loved.
now she is grown up, and I still have then sitting in a flat file for her, haha
maybe ONE DAY she will ask "hey Dad, whatever happened to those old posters of mine?"
(and then ill see then on ebay) hahaha
-
i gave my daughter about 30 daybills for films she liked/loved.
now she is grown up, and I still have then sitting in a flat file for her, haha
maybe ONE DAY she will ask "hey Dad, whatever happened to those old posters of mine?"
(and then ill see then on ebay) hahaha
This actually made me laugh out loud!!! I don't think my daughter would do this, she is about to go off to college. She is studying graphic design and marketing. Her love for art is very strong. She was commissioned by a small local band to do the art/design for their CD! Since she was a little girl I have done everything I can to support her experimentation with the arts. While my taste is a lot different than hers, I still encourage her to no end. Who knows maybe one day she will design some movie posters. A dad can dream can't he?
-
yeah, its all good.
Strangely my daughter doesn't really like (most) films anymore, (it kills me;)
haha it doesn't, she loves Manga and Anime (and bloody *computer games), lives and studies in Sth korea, and decided on her own taste and style.
I pretend it bothers me, but its a joke.
Im glad she sticks by her guns and enjoys what she does.
* I hate computer games, at least this rebellion against her father is one I can understand and appreciate.
(thank shit she didn't become a surfer "chick" or a bogan or aspire to be paris hilton)
-
I'm "guilty" of collecting posters for films I haven't seen.
But ----
After buying the poster - strictly because of its aesthetic appeal, I've then gone and searched out those flicks and watched them, good or bad.
To me, the purpose of a poster was/is to advertise an unknown and unseen film. It was meant to "pull you in" along with the trailers shown in the theater. All these years later, if a poster for a film that is 40-60 years old can still do that, then it has succeeded in its purpose.
And if the poster art or design is extra special (or even amazing), then that's an added perk, imho. thumbup
-
I'm guilty of collecting posters for films I haven't seen.
I am as well but I'm not guilty about it really. I don't see any problem with owning a poster which you enjoy just for itself without having a particular liking for the film to which it is linked. If you collect travel posters you don't need to have been to the places depicted or if you buy an advertising poster you don't need to like the product, you can just appreciate the graphic art for itself.
However, the best combination is always going to be a great poster for a film that meant something to you, there's no beating that.
-
I'm with you Jeff, I also have bought posters for movies I hadn't seen and then went looking for those movies. It is a special treat to finally find a film that I have first discovered by acquiring its poster. More often than not, the art on the poster is better than the actual movie, but that's another story!
By and large, the majority of the posters in my collection are for films that I have seen though, but there are a few for older, rare movies that I have yet to track down.
-
I'm with you Jeff, I also have bought posters for movies I hadn't seen and then went looking for those movies. It is a special treat to finally find a film that I have first discovered by acquiring its poster. More often than not, the art on the poster is better than the actual movie, but that's another story!
By and large, the majority of the posters in my collection are for films that I have seen though, but there are a few for older, rare movies that I have yet to track down.
Same here, but that's the beauty of this hobby, too, being able to discover new films because the posters can pull you in first. And that's exciting to me, too, since I always like to watch new flicks I havent seen or come across before. thumbsup.gif
-
1. I said fine art vs movie posters. Movie posters are not fine art. Sorry to disappoint you. If you believe you're collecting fine art, go to a museum and show them your gambling collection. I'm sure they'll be impressed. 2. Movie posters are not art. They are mass reproductions. The original art by Struzan is art, not its 10,000 copies. Art is the unique vision of an artist, regardless of the medium. It cannot be reproduced. If it is, it loses its cachet of authenticity. This is all in my humble opinion, of course, and I'm sure many of you will disagree. To each his own. A Lautrec print is not art, it is a reproduction. It can be signed by the artist or by the artist foundation, it is still not art. The original is art. One and one, the artist and its creation. I will only consider movie posters to be art when the poster is unique, as in "London After Midnight." If the original painting cannot be found, and its reproduction is so rare that it becomes unique, then it becomes art, because there is no alternative.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue T. In fact I think you're in a distinct minority. If you asked/showed the average Joe/Jane, most would agree that some modern MPs and many vintage MPs qualify as "fine art." Maybe we should post the issue on Reddit. Certainly my coworkers and apartment neighbors liked them.
No, I don't think you need to actually watch a movie to enjoy/buy its posters. The Top 25 test posters from Rounds 1-2 for which I never saw the movie:
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-11%20at%207.27.45%20AM_zpsx7cge4gv.jpg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-11%20at%207.27.45%20AM_zpsx7cge4gv.jpg.html)
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-11%20at%207.28.01%20AM_zpsp8zaybq4.jpg) (http://s1320.photobucket.com/user/HereComesMongo1968/media/Screen%20Shot%202017-06-11%20at%207.28.01%20AM_zpsp8zaybq4.jpg.html)
All of the above sport beautiful illustration art or "cool as hell" photos. They have value entirely independent of their movies.
P.S. I have to admit I'm embarassed I've never seen BAT. On the to-do list!
-
We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue T.
Yes, check it out, people disagree, and that's quite alright.
True, I don't like displaying posters, true, I don't think posters are fine art (far from it, actually), and true, I think S2s are reproductions not worth a second of my time.
Next!!
thumbsup.gif
T
-
^ Cool, 75 years later posters are still getting people to see the movie
-
Motivated by this poster, I actually watched the first ten minutes of Le Divorce but quickly lost interest.....
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/2017-07ld_zpsifywixxw.jpg)
-
Motivated by this poster, I actually watched the first ten minutes of Le Divorce but quickly lost interest.....
What kind of interest?
-
The US poster accurately portrayed it as a "chick flick":
(https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/63dd9cf7-7c8b-47bb-aa80-e43f9834ecf6_1.170847c0be53fb4aef70e01074f3c420.jpeg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF)
-
I've tried watching more movies in my MP collection, with mixed success:
*****
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18620882_1938835946400339_6587601319219713181_o.jpg?oh=1e28aa734dba55d855d5acea6547a3ac&oe=5A6BF528)
Real disappointed with this one, to be honest. I watched the first 50 mins and had to bail. AH was just deeply weird and frivolous, getting married at 14yo to an old man for the hell of it, platonically "sleeping" with her neighbor after they just met (super-boring character/actor BTW), etc. My bro-in-law agreed, calling her an "alien with a fake accent." Mickey Rooney played a horribly terrible Asian landlord.
But I'll say one nice thing: great music.
*****
Only made it through the first two minutes of La La Land. Just don't like "original" music singing and cavorting about, except Grease. But I do like "mainstream" pop musicals like Glee:
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/IMG_0634_zpsnb18vovu.jpg)
*****
Really liked the Ghostbusters reboot, although I'm in the minority.
(http://www.moviepostercollectors.guide/Storage/Ghostbusters.jpg)
(http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ghostbusters-review-roundup.gif)
*****
Next up:
(http://www.moviepostercollectors.guide/Storage/Beguiled.jpg)
-
I've tried watching more movies in my MP collection, with mixed success:
It'd be interesting to know if watching the films have changed the way you feel about those posters.
-
It'd be interesting to know if watching the films have changed the way you feel about those posters.
Good Q. Hmmm, well for starters I still think BAT is an A+ MP but I would not have shelled out ginormous $$$$ for it knowing the movie was a dud (IMO).
That said, I generally don't care about the movie quality for cheaper posters. I'm pretty sure most of these movies are atrocious but I still bought the MPs:
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/Screen%20Shot%202017-10-31%20at%205.29.25%20AM_zpsuhf1p1dl.jpg)
And who doesn't want a P9 MP, the worst movie eva:
(http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u536/HereComesMongo1968/lf_zpswjmpulqh.jpeg)