Sign in to follow this  
DaboGirl

Star Trek Movies Posters Old vs. New

Star Trek and Star Wars Posters Art Vs. Photos  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Photo Manipulations vs. Artwork/illustrations

    • The real photos worked up in Photoshop look more real
      0
    • The artists really had more style/artistic expression
      14


Recommended Posts

Probably 90% or more of Movie Artwork today is photos/photoshop vs. hiring an artist to paint something for them.

 

Back in the 70s & 80s 90% artwork and 10% was photos.

 

I remember the 1st series of Batman movies the 1st movie had an incredible piece artistic drawing of the Batman logo the other 3 movie that followed used photoshop work. I'm guesiing that was about the time frame studios stopped using artists.

 

I vastly prefer the artwork myself and I can't imagine all these 100 million dollars movies can't pay a talented artist $10,000 to paint the studio a beautiful piece of art to promote their movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is this move towards clean edges and simplicity these days. Personally I could make a movie poster in the style of decades past, it just takes a lot more work than most are willing o put in these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I vastly prefer the artwork myself and I can't imagine all these 100 million dollars movies can't pay a talented artist $10,000 to paint the studio a beautiful piece of art to promote their movie.

 

So how much do they pay the graphic artists to work one up in Photoshop?

 

Of the examples you showed, honestly there are some that I prefer the artists and some that I prefer the 'shopped. I can see the value in each.

 

Also, I don't see the photoshopped versions as any less of an artform, it's just a different artform. I once attended a talk by Dan Curry. While showing his slideshow, he kept saying things like "I did this freehand in Photoshop." My mouth kept dropping open. Having dabbled in photoshop myself, I know it's not all that easy and most people can't produce the same quality product that these posters are. I also know from lurking at DeviantArt that photoshop artists can spend many, many, many hours producing a quality piece of work as do other, more traditional, artists. For these posters, the graphic artist probably produces several versions, then the studio picks a design, then there's changes the studio wants...and it goes on.

 

I appreciate the time artists put in and I envy the talent they possess, but I also recognize that photoshop is a very valuable tool, so I guess my answer would be "both."

Edited by Indy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A group of posters I absolutely love are from the Godzilla series from the 90's. They were all hand drawn, and spectacular.

 

mg1.jpg

 

1.jpg

 

1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Artist impression makes a very good deal rather than photoshop concept!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as one who was a HUGE SW fan back in those halcyon days of the original films, I would have to go with artwork...ah, that Brothers Hildebrandt painting..it was my very first poster of any sf genre....what memories. But then, I also have those of say, The Dark Lord and stormtroopers, and ya can't go wrong with any big pic of Vader...or an Enterprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With artists painting the posters, you had more freedom of expression than you do with a printed photo. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this