Who's going to see Disney's the Princess and the Frog

[Baby Gonzo]

By the way, back on the topic of The Princess and The Frog, there is a poster out now, I don't know if the link was posted already, but here it is:

http://www.cinematical.com/photos/the-princess-and-the-frog/2009173/


I think it's a nice poster as far as it doesn't look like clip art was used like most cop-out posters and DVD art of today, but does anyone else think it looks a bit like they're advertising a CG movie? I mean, it's rather obvious that it's a digital painting and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it?

 

[Drtooth]

I think it's a nice poster as far as it doesn't look like clip art was used like most cop-out posters and DVD art of today, but does anyone else think it looks a bit like they're advertising a CG movie? I mean, it's rather obvious that it's a digital painting and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it?

Oh my, yes. I HATE these cheap new movie posters. The CGI ones, fine... all you have to do is move around characters and repose them in an exciting way... but the live action posters are just bad publicity shots with an unfunny pun slapped in front of it. It's a doggone shame that garbage like "Grandma's Boys" got a classically designed illustrated poster (clearly to link it to Animal House). Who out there didn't love the Indiana Jones and Star Wars posters when the films first came out, lovingly illustrated and painted to look realistic? or the cornball 1960's style you see in James Bond one sheets. Now it's all publicity photo, photoshop... blah blah blah...

And as far as that poster goes... it looks like they made CGI models of the characters and posed them... I wonder if that was the case at all.

 

[Baby Gonzo]

Oh my, yes. I HATE these cheap new movie posters. The CGI ones, fine... all you have to do is move around characters and repose them in an exciting way... but the live action posters are just bad publicity shots with an unfunny pun slapped in front of it. It's a doggone shame that garbage like "Grandma's Boys" got a classically designed illustrated poster (clearly to link it to Animal House). Who out there didn't love the Indiana Jones and Star Wars posters when the films first came out, lovingly illustrated and painted to look realistic? or the cornball 1960's style you see in James Bond one sheets. Now it's all publicity photo, photoshop... blah blah blah...

I feel the same way. It really seems as though good poster art is a lost art. And DVDs are sometimes worse! Recently a new Mary Poppins DVD came out and Mary's face was plastered across the front of the package with a halo backdrop as though she were a Biblical figure. It just looked weird.

I think they let anyone with minimal *Photoshop skills design stuff now a-days. Composition is a lost art. I really apprecieate poster art that incopterates setting and environment into the piece. Now all you see are character one sheets or sloppily put together, crowded, and otherwise ugly posters.

And as far as that poster goes... it looks like they made CGI models of the characters and posed them... I wonder if that was the case at all.

I think that's possible, but I feel like the same thing could have been accomplished in Photoshop or Corel Painter. It looks like a digital painting to me. I had a roommate in college who used the same process for her artwork.




* = Believe me, I am not putting down Photoshop. I use it to color my comics and to draw sometimes, though bad Photoshop is obvious and sad.

 

[frogboy4]

The truth about commercial graphic design these days is that firms hire general marketers or interns (who are more telemarketer than trained artist) to drop pre-approved licensed clip art graphics on products. The funny thing is that since many of them are salaried workers or interns they spend twice as long on the composition as a talented and trained artist in order to look busy. That's my experience anyway. A herd of craptastic clockwatchers taking hours on a project that would take an actual graphic designer or an avid fan a fraction of the time to design something thrilling.

 

[Pork]

Yay, a new 2D Disney princess movie! When does it come out?

 

[Baby Gonzo]

It WAS going to come out on Christmas, but the date was moved up.

I'm glad. My chances of seeing a movie on Christmas Day is 0%

 

[Drtooth]

The truth about commercial graphic design these days is that firms hire general marketers or interns (who are more telemarketer than trained artist) to drop pre-approved licensed clip art graphics on products. The funny thing is that since many of them are salaried workers or interns they spend twice as long on the composition as a talented and trained artist in order to look busy. That's my experience anyway. A herd of craptastic clockwatchers taking hours on a project that would take an actual graphic designer or an avid fan a fraction of the time to design something thrilling.

You pretty much described everything in the business and entertainment world for a while now. Clockwatchers? Couldn't have said it better myself.

Remember that set of Muppet playing cards in that tin that had the Chef holding the bottom half of a whisk? And then there were these Simpsons ornaments from like 10 years ago that had really butchered stock art on the boxes... wish I could find said boxes so I could show you.... but they looked worse than bootlegs.

 

[Beauregard]

Considering that the trailer itself specifically emphasises just how hand-drawn and alike to the old films are...spending almost half the trailer showing moments from old movies...WHY is this poster looking like it's something that fell out of a CGI movie?

 

[Drtooth]

Actually, I took a closer look at the poster, and it really doesn't appear to be CGI at all. The problem is that a computer graphic, no matter how high the definition is, has a lot of limitations. Upon closer inspection, I did catch what look like colored pencil like marks, or watercolor like marks.... it could very well be that they painted this digitally, and used effects that made it look like a non-digital media piece, which somehow didn't translate well for the jpeg or whatever they used. I wanna know for sure if this was digital or original medium....

 

[Baby Gonzo]

I can't say for sure, but my inclinations believe me to believe it is a digital painting. It was probably drawn with a Cintiq. (This is pure speculation. Take what I said with a grain of salt.)

From what I understand, the movie is completely paperless as far as animation goes. (I forgot where I read that, so don't quote me on that) It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the poster was sketched, drawn, and colored completely digitally. It really isn't difficult to emulate traditional techniques digitally. Even if it were sketched traditionally and scanned in to complete, it wouldn't take much to drown out any trace that it was ever touched with a pencil.