We were talking about 1950s sci-fi flicks in class today, and I got to thinking...Which of the following movies - based solely on the quality of the poster - would you rather see?
Definitely the original one. I think I've made my point clear on my strong despising feelings of "graphics" these days... it's overkill. The latter of the two looks like some typical movie, anyways.
Should this even be a question? I mean it is obvious that the origial poster give off way more then the remake. In the original you see all this conflict and chaos that it makes it seem and look like an awesome movie (eventhough it already is and awesome movie). The remakes one shows Keanu Reeves face whit people standing and his eye looking like the world. What? It is basically saying, "our movie has Keanu Reeves, you know the guy who played Neo in The Matrix!" Really? It doesn't captivate the story as much in the remakes poster. It is just saying that the movie has Keanu Reeves.
Call me biased, but Caleb is correct. The message of the first poster is: this movie contains robots and women in peril and ray beams and evil and danger and army soldiers and drama. The message of the second poster is: this movie contains Keanu Reeves and yet another blue light in the sky over a big city. We've 'seen the movie' the second poster is advertising dozens of times. A a picture of movie star whose face is tinted blue is not a movie poster...it's a magazine ad for colgne.
I agree with both Caleb and Mr.Cowlin. Keanu Reeve's name is even bigger than the title of the movie. It's wider, on the top, right above his huge face that is just eating up the entire poster. It seems like someone would walk out of the theater after watching the movie, asking, "Wait, what movie did we watch?" The reply: "I forgot, but Keanu Reeves was in it!" The problem with the 21st century is that rich actors usually gain the entire importance of a film. I've noticed that older movies emphasized the director/producers and basically tried to show off the creative plot and effects. For example, the title of the film in the original poster takes up the entire space! It shows off how there will be eerie men with lazers, crazy war scenes, some type of love interest, etc. It pulls the audience in to experience the actual movie instead of just going to watch Keanu Reeves flutter his blue eyes.
I definitely agree with everyone the original version just is way better because it gives off way more. Based on everything we saw in class the first day I can already tell that the original is better. Today I can guarantee almost everyone would choose to see the remake just because of the cover and because the movie has Keanu reeves in it. What I notice about the 21st century is that all these rich people have power to produce a really good movie but they spend half the time thinking what to put on the cover or in the trailer etc. I mean look at the top of both covers the original one says from out of space a warning and ultimatum while the other one just says Keanu reeves. The original one just grabs my attention more. I think the remake was a completely waste of time.
The first poster gives you more reasons to see it. It shows a giant robot/alien, a girl being taken and the United States Army firing at the figure. It also shows the darkness of space behind it and a hand grabbing the earth. It gives more depth and shows there's something about you should see. it makes you want to see it, after seeing a poster like that how couldn't you see that. The second poster only shows Keanu Reeve's face and a blue light covering a small city. To me, the second poster looks like it went straight to dvd. It doesn't excite me or gets alot of my intrest. Also this happens a majority of the time. Remakes usually suck and kill the original story it's suppose to tell. You can't recreate the magic with a remake like the original did.
I have two different views on this. I think the first poster clearly tells you what the movie is about: A robot causing this girl and and the earth to be in danger. So I do like the first because it is all laid out for you. But, the second poster is interesting as well. I actually think the second one makes me want to see the movie more than the first. The second poster has this face that just stares at you, its mysterious and creepy (and the eye almost glows)! This almost lures me in, I want to know what happens. The face has a dark and light side, it makes you wonder what is going on, is this person good/evil? The sky in the background is green and blue and almost looks like water which is really queer, and there are a bunch of people/figure lined up in front of the city. As much as I like the first poster because it looks classic and tells you what the movie is about, the second one make me want to see the movie more than the first since it doesn't really tell as much and is quite mysterious.
Carolyn Nash- i would rather see the original because the new one's poster looks like every other sci-fi movie. the Original shows some things that are going to happen while the other one is just of someones face. i think the colors in the poster are very abnormal. in sci-fi movies now you see alot of blues. in the original you see blues but you also see some orange, yellow and brown/black.
Well in all honestly, neither, because both seem a little to cheesy and farfetched for me but let me first explain. The first poster definitely looks more visually appealing then the Giant Keena Reves face that is suppose to tell me about what the movie is about because if it is then i guess I'm watching a 90 minutes still shot with Keena Reves's face. But seriously the first movie looks interesting but kinda too crazy and cheesy for me and i wouldn't take it serious as a horror film. The second movie just looks boring, mostly because of the poster, but it also looks like it is going to be a crappy movie so they want to make some money off of it and therefore will market the actors in the film rather than the film it self.
Definitely the original one. I think I've made my point clear on my strong despising feelings of "graphics" these days... it's overkill. The latter of the two looks like some typical movie, anyways.
ReplyDeleteShould this even be a question? I mean it is obvious that the origial poster give off way more then the remake. In the original you see all this conflict and chaos that it makes it seem and look like an awesome movie (eventhough it already is and awesome movie). The remakes one shows Keanu Reeves face whit people standing and his eye looking like the world. What? It is basically saying, "our movie has Keanu Reeves, you know the guy who played Neo in The Matrix!" Really? It doesn't captivate the story as much in the remakes poster. It is just saying that the movie has Keanu Reeves.
ReplyDeleteCall me biased, but Caleb is correct. The message of the first poster is: this movie contains robots and women in peril and ray beams and evil and danger and army soldiers and drama. The message of the second poster is: this movie contains Keanu Reeves and yet another blue light in the sky over a big city. We've 'seen the movie' the second poster is advertising dozens of times. A a picture of movie star whose face is tinted blue is not a movie poster...it's a magazine ad for colgne.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Caleb and Mr.Cowlin. Keanu Reeve's name is even bigger than the title of the movie. It's wider, on the top, right above his huge face that is just eating up the entire poster. It seems like someone would walk out of the theater after watching the movie, asking, "Wait, what movie did we watch?" The reply: "I forgot, but Keanu Reeves was in it!"
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the 21st century is that rich actors usually gain the entire importance of a film. I've noticed that older movies emphasized the director/producers and basically tried to show off the creative plot and effects. For example, the title of the film in the original poster takes up the entire space! It shows off how there will be eerie men with lazers, crazy war scenes, some type of love interest, etc. It pulls the audience in to experience the actual movie instead of just going to watch Keanu Reeves flutter his blue eyes.
I definitely agree with everyone the original version just is way better because it gives off way more. Based on everything we saw in class the first day I can already tell that the original is better. Today I can guarantee almost everyone would choose to see the remake just because of the cover and because the movie has Keanu reeves in it. What I notice about the 21st century is that all these rich people have power to produce a really good movie but they spend half the time thinking what to put on the cover or in the trailer etc. I mean look at the top of both covers the original one says from out of space a warning and ultimatum while the other one just says Keanu reeves. The original one just grabs my attention more. I think the remake was a completely waste of time.
ReplyDeleteBrandon Stark
ReplyDeleteThe first poster gives you more reasons to see it. It shows a giant robot/alien, a girl being taken and the United States Army firing at the figure. It also shows the darkness of space behind it and a hand grabbing the earth. It gives more depth and shows there's something about you should see. it makes you want to see it, after seeing a poster like that how couldn't you see that. The second poster only shows Keanu Reeve's face and a blue light covering a small city. To me, the second poster looks like it went straight to dvd. It doesn't excite me or gets alot of my intrest. Also this happens a majority of the time. Remakes usually suck and kill the original story it's suppose to tell. You can't recreate the magic with a remake like the original did.
Stephanie Kaszuba:
ReplyDeleteI have two different views on this. I think the first poster clearly tells you what the movie is about: A robot causing this girl and and the earth to be in danger. So I do like the first because it is all laid out for you. But, the second poster is interesting as well. I actually think the second one makes me want to see the movie more than the first. The second poster has this face that just stares at you, its mysterious and creepy (and the eye almost glows)! This almost lures me in, I want to know what happens. The face has a dark and light side, it makes you wonder what is going on, is this person good/evil? The sky in the background is green and blue and almost looks like water which is really queer, and there are a bunch of people/figure lined up in front of the city. As much as I like the first poster because it looks classic and tells you what the movie is about, the second one make me want to see the movie more than the first since it doesn't really tell as much and is quite mysterious.
Carolyn Nash- i would rather see the original because the new one's poster looks like every other sci-fi movie. the Original shows some things that are going to happen while the other one is just of someones face. i think the colors in the poster are very abnormal. in sci-fi movies now you see alot of blues. in the original you see blues but you also see some orange, yellow and brown/black.
ReplyDeleteWell in all honestly, neither, because both seem a little to cheesy and farfetched for me but let me first explain. The first poster definitely looks more visually appealing then the Giant Keena Reves face that is suppose to tell me about what the movie is about because if it is then i guess I'm watching a 90 minutes still shot with Keena Reves's face. But seriously the first movie looks interesting but kinda too crazy and cheesy for me and i wouldn't take it serious as a horror film. The second movie just looks boring, mostly because of the poster, but it also looks like it is going to be a crappy movie so they want to make some money off of it and therefore will market the actors in the film rather than the film it self.
ReplyDelete