Talk:Film poster/Archives/2012

Movie Poster is not a Film Poster

Change made to reflect that. Please change title to Movie Poster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.194.190.100 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This issue was already addressed in the previous Talk discussion. Thanks. --jca2112 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So, the discussion was dominated by someone that had no idea what he was talking about. I created the "movie poster" page years ago - it should be changed back. I will continue to edit this until it is switched back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.194.190.214 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to being dominated by an anonymous IP that doesn't have a registered account at Wikipedia? --jca2112 (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree - its movie poster, not film poster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.140.19 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe these anonymous IPs should register and complain about this "movie vs film" naming issue through the proper Wikipedia channels? They may want to start with the naming of the main Movie topic rather than periodically changing the name of this smaller article. --jca2112 (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Collecting

Please DISCUSS changes Here, thank you. (Thanks Akther Ahmed)

I've re-deleted the recently added material, because this article is ostensibly about movie posters in general, not a guide for potential poster collectors. —tregoweth (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, please discuss before reverting - your opinion is only ONE opinion. Furthermore, the article quotes "Auction houses started selling movie posters in the 1980's and on November 15, 2005 a record price of US$690,000 was paid for a poster of Fritz Lang's 1927 film Metropolis from the Reel Poster Gallery in London." Therefore collecting movie posters IS part of this article. I took out a bunch of info I agreed was not really applicable - but, COLLECTING IS APPLICABLE HERE. PLEASE - Do NOT revert without discussion.User:phishman 27 June 2006

Seems like people here cannot follow the Wiki rules which clearly state you cannot just revert without discussion. If the piece on collecting should be written better, fine, but do not just delete because you do not feel it belongs - this is what discussionas are for. Furthermore, collecting is an integral part of what a movie poster is - so, it DOES apply here. Again, DO NOT REVERT WITHOUT DISCUSSION.User:phishman 27 June 2006

First of all, there are no rules saying you have to discuss things before reverting them. WP:REVERT advises, not requires, you to explain your edits, which both Tregoweth and I did. Second of all, I didn't revert your changes - I deleted them. The article is about movie posters, not movie memorabilia or collecting memorabilia which is what that paragraph is about. This section belongs in the Movie memorabilia article you created, not here. Please refer to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles for more information. Thanks and good luck.

For your reference, the section in dispute:

The act of collecting various things is as old as human history. From firmly established fields of collecting, such as Fine Art, Rare Books, Fine Wine, and Antique Furniture, to more obscure collections, such as Beer Cans and Coca-Cola Merchandise, the act of collecting can almost be considered "human nature."

The concept of "Movie memorabilia" began with such things as scrap-books, autographs, photographs, and industry magazines, but quickly expanded in the post-WWII era. Collectors began seeking out original advertising material, and the classic "onesheet" movie poster became the pinnacle object to own for any given film. Other material, such as lobby cards, other-sized posters, international posters, personality posters, and glass slides began also becoming highly sought after. Today, the field of movie memorabilia collecting has grown into an internationally recognized Community of increasingly serious and financially secure collectors, making it one of the fastest areas of speculation for investment.

Any new person to the Movie Memorabilia Collecting Community should absolutely do the research necessary to make wise investment decisions. If, however, the motivation is a passion for everything cinema, then, by all means collect what you love and not what may be a better investment.

TOP SELLING MOVIE POSTERS AT AUCTION

--Jtalledo (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I deleted all references to collecting, as you are insisting. You cannot have it both ways - either you mention collecting and I add the piece on collecting, or, you leave collecting OUT all together. I restored the external link as it does NOT violate the policies as suggested - there is no promotion, sales/goods, and is not operated in anyway by me. I do not have time to deal with your entitlement, so, if you can find a way for me to include the collecting piece I think we will both be happy. There ya go. User:phishman 28 June 2006

• It's not that collecting movie posters can't be mentioned, just that your additions seemed to be more of a guide to collecting movie posters, which was tipping the article away from its main reason for existence: describing what movie posters are. —tregoweth (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Stub?

Should this entry be labelled with a Wikipedia:Stub?

This topic deserves more attention and information. Some of the information is incorrect, and large aspects of movie posters (such as design, marketing, collecting [as mentioned above]) are not included, such as linking to related topics, such as National Screen Service (NSS), or info about the Key Art Awards, modern versus vintage movie poster design and illustration, etc.

Well, no one seems to be in on this discussion. The article clearly needs a stub to get attention/editing/correcting. I hate complete rewrites coming from just one author (like myself, or whomever) without any discussion/etc. My next question is what is the appropriate Wikipedia:Stub category to label this article? The Film stub doesn't seem to have a sub-category that fits. Any ideas? --Jca2112 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, can anyone tell me why Peter Strausfield is included as a "notable film poster artist" on such a very short list? --Jca2112 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For one, his name is spelled "Peter Strausfeld", and he was known for his woodcut posters, not traditional movie poster illustration. His name should be removed in any upcoming rewrites until this article is greatly expanded to include his type of contribution. It seems this article is written from a more Euro/International POV, which isn't approrpriate until the entry is expanded to cover the topic as a whole, rather than simply listing some poster sizes and a bit of random poster info. --Jca2112 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed "Peter Strausfield" -- see above reason. --Jca2112 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a request to expand this page. As it stands right now, most activity involves random IPs/users adding in their commercial/dealer/etc. links. Since Wikipedia isn't meant to be an ecommerce portal for poster dealers, these need to be removed unless anyone objects. Rather than remove the latest dealer/collector link added today, I placed a comment in the External links asking people to stop adding their poster sales sites. Unless someone can offer some further discussion on this, some/many of the current external links need to be removed. --Jca2112 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Interest at a Price

I would like the info on collecting movie posters to be reinserted. If this happens I will be more than happy to add info on NSS, and other related info...if not, then I have no interest in adding to this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.82.44.3 (talk • contribs) 17:46, September 1, 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by labelling your revert edit as "link is item specific" to put back in a dealer's link. Regardless your "if you remove my link I won't help edit this article" ultimatum is against Wikipedia guidelines (and at the very least, the spirit of the site in general) and isn't necessary. If you have useful information you'd like to contribute, please do so -- this page desperately needs help. Just don't make it about more dealer links. Jca2112 05:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Strikes me as a little bizarre that there's no mention of the collecting aspect of movie posters, which is probably one of the main reasons people would come to look at it. Especially as the article is illustrated with the most valuable poster ever sold. Yorkshiresky 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Movie Poster Rename?

Copying this conversation from User_talk:Mel_Etitis for reference and any future discussion.

Why did you rename movie poster to the far-less common term film poster? Not only that, you removed all mention of the term "movie poster" from the article completely. Between this edit and the One sheet (film) splintering, this article is going downhill. Appreciate any explanation as to your motivation for this change. -Jca2112 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For some time the Wikipedia convention has been to use "film" not "movie" in all titles; this was discussed at length, before being agreed upon. It was pointed out that "movie" isn't universally preferred by any means, though it is U.S. common usage, that to many who don't use it it sounds slangy and somewhat infantile, and that "film" is more suitable for an encyclop&aeligdia, as opposed to a magazine. Moreover, in this and related articles the terms "film" and "movie" were used at different places — elegant variation, which is poor English style. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. (I'm going to leave my reply on your user talk page since that's where the question started - please reply here to keep the conversation in one place). I understand following Wikipedia naming conventions of wanting to use "film" over "movie" where appropriate (and in most cases), but I think it is a mistake to rename the article and replace all instances of movie poster in the article with film poster, especially with no discussion. The "film" naming convention doesn't have to be absolute -- you wouldn't, after all, necessarily attend a "film theatre". The article doesn't even contain the term "movie poster" anymore, which makes the article inaccurate. As I understand it, Wikipedia naming convention says: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. I'm reverting the article name/changes back. Since we disagree on the naming of the article, you could propose the name change so others can help decide: "If you cannot rename a page, or you think that the renaming may be controversial, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and list it there." Although, I would love for discussion of the move/merge of one sheet (film) to be resolved first. ;) -Jca2112 19:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled; I might have missed something. As the title of the article is "Film poster", and the article refers throughout to film posters, where's the inaccuracy? At the article on Film, the alternative term "movie" is mentioned, and I suppose that that could be done here. Would that resolve your problem, or am I missing your point?

Again, the usage in this article and in One sheet (film) and other articles was inconsistent, sometimes referring to movies and movie posters, sometimes to film and film posters. I made the usage internally consistent, and externally consistent with most other articles in Wikipedia.

I'd not go to a "movie theater" any more than I'd go to a "film theatre"; I'd go to a cinema...

If you want to change the names of this and related articles, why not make the proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves? As my change was in line with Wikipedia naming conventions, and your claim is that this should be an exception, that's surely the correct approach. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not debating bringing articles in line with a "film" naming convention over "movie", but by following the absolute naming convention you describe, then movie theatre would be renamed film theatre. I'm not claiming an exception any more than you are claiming an absolute. Also, I think it is a mistake to dismiss discussion/etc before making the change because you believe you are following naming conventions. It's not necessary for me to revert your rename if you feel the article/name is now more accurate -- someone else can propose the merge/renaming back if they agree with me. The article needs more attention with regards to the content than debating the name at this point. :) -Jca2112 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your first point, the difference is that there's no usage "film theatre" (at least, none that I've ever come across), whereas "film poster" is not only used by many people, but is even to be found in the versions of the articles before I found them (see, for example, here). That leads to the second point: both versions are accurate, but one accords better with Wikipedia usage elsewhere, and so its use gives more consistency of style.

Still, as you say, debate over this should come a long way behind improving the content of articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE return to the original title "movie poster" as this is what MOST people that care about movie posters have referred to them as for decades. User:phishman

Most people where? Most people I know call them "film posters". --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, who do you know? I know hundreds of people in the business of film making and thousands of Movie Poster collectors. In fact, as stated above, this is beginning to be a pissing match between those that have the power, but no clue, with those who have no power, but completely understand that a "movie poster" is a "movie poster." PLEASE REVERT THE MERGE. User:phishman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.201.14 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 February 2007

No, it's a discussion between one person who was brought up to have decent manners and who has read and understood Wikipedia guidelines and policies and someone who wasn't and hasn't.

Still, I'll try again. leaving aside the points already made above, Googling "film poster" gets 596,000 hits, including commercial sites and fan sites such as this and this and this and this ("film posters" gets 601,000 hits). That's considerably less, of course, than the hits for "movie poster", but "film" is consistent with other Wikipedia articles, including "film". If "film poster" didn't exist, or was the usage of a very tiny minority, then consistency wouldn't count — but it clearly isn't. ("Cinema poster" gets 66,700 hits, incidentally.)

Now, you might know no-one who uses these terms, but there are clearly a lot of people out there who do. Your argument that the article's name should follow the usage of your circle of acquaintances doesn't stand up. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bud, I have manners - it you that needs a bit of a personality check. The sites you quoted were in the United Kingdom, not the USA - movie posters are absolutely AMERICAN and should be reflected as such. I do not care how movie posters are referenced in England, it only matters that the MAJORITY of people that even care about this subject refer to them as movie posters, NOT film posters. PLEASE REVERT THE MERGE. uder:phishman

1. Parochialism isn't good reason for a rename.
2. What merge? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He Mel - ever Google YOUR name? Man, you need a life. The "merge" I meant is combining "film" with "movie" at every possible chance. PLEASE REVERT THE TITLE TO "MOVIE POSTER" I will be complaining to Admin if not. Of course, according to Google MANY have complained about your Heavy Handed and Arrogant editing. PLEASE REVERT. user:phishman

Go and complain. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Image of film poster

The fair-use rationale says that images of posters can be used only: "to illustrate the film in question or to provide critical analysis of the poster content or artwork". It's not clear to me that that's what's happening at at this article (which doesn't even mention the poster, its content, or artwork). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"doesn't even mention the poster, its content, or artwork"

From the film poster article:

The Key Art Awards[1], sponsored annually by The Hollywood Reporter, include awards for best poster in the categories of comedy, drama, action adventure, teaser, and international film. In 2006, the original poster for The Silence of the Lambs was named best poster "of the past 35 years". (emphasis mine)

This is why I put in the Silence of the Lambs poster as the example -- since it's actually mentioned in the article by name as newsworthy/etc. for it's recognition by the Hollywood Reporter, etc. If the Silence of the Lambs poster image [[1]] doesn't qualify as fair-use in this case, then why not remove the image completely? This case seems just as (if not more) valid within the given guidelines as other instances of the image (or any poster image, for that matter) appearing in Wikipedia, such as New York Film Critics Circle Awards 1991. -Jca2112 20:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that — unsurprisngly, perhaps, given that it's mentioned once, and not discussed. In other words, there's no way that the article engages in "critical analysis of the poster content or artwork", nor that the illustration does or helps to do that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Should the image be removed from New York Film Critics Circle Awards 1991 as well? What movie poster image would be appropriate? The previous poster image (in the article) [[2]] for Metropolis was no more "fair use" than this Lambs image -- since the Metropolis film is not in the public domain. It would be nice for an article about movie posters to actually have an example of a movie poster. -Jca2112 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, it should.
2. It would often be nice to illustrate articles in ways that are legally suspect, but the law wins out I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple versions of the same title

I added some representative film titles under the list of notable poster artists. In doing so, I noticed that, according to the various articles, Drew Strusan worked on such posters as the original Star Wars and Jurassic Park, while other artists The Brothers Hildebrand (Star Wars) and John Alvin (Jurassic Park) are also give the credit. Was there more than one poster for these releases, and if so, which is definitive?. Verne Equinox 00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I answered part of my own question. the Star Wars poster by the Hildebrand's was for the re-release, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.Verne Equinox 00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Brothers Hildebrandt created the artwork for the 1977 Star Wars consumer retail poster (as mentioned in this article on PosterWire.com). This same art was used for many, many retail promotional items during the original film's release. Despite the 1977 A-Style one-sheet being the work of another artist (Tom Jung), an argument can be made that the Hildebrandt image is the "definitive" one. The News Hound 09:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Conan The Barbarian credit

I know Frazetta did the original poster for Conan, but it was Renato Casaro who did the poster that's on the 'Conan The Barbarian' wikipedia page that links from this Film Poster page. Should that be corrected?

U.S. poster sizes

Pre-1980s U.S. film posters also were produced in 30x40 and 40x60 sizes. These typically utilized the same art as one-sheets but were printed on heavier card stock. I propose adding this information barring objection. The News Hound 09:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Added the above information to the article on 30 April 2010 The News Hound 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Motion Posters?

This addition by user Packinheat2u on 30 April 2010 regarding "motion posters" contains no citation or explanation beyond a single sentence. Request addition of reference/justification. The News Hound 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)