Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Flying Fish poster

Flying Fish poster

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2012 at 13:54:40 (UTC)

Original – Promotional poster for the 2011 Sri Lankan film Flying Fish, directed by Sanjeewa Pushpakumara

Reason: High quality, interesting image, good EV, underrepresented area (Sri Lankan film)
Articles in which this image appears: Flying Fish (film)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator: Sanjeewa Pushpakumara

Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice ~~scan~~ job too. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this is a scan. This looks like the original artwork received direct from the film producers. So what are we judging here? The photograph? -- that's been extensively manipulated? A movie poster? -- it looks pretty average and standard. Yes, technically the image is very high quality, as one would expect of an original. Any advice? Colin°^Talk 20:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg and File:Plan 9 Alternative poster.jpg, we're judging the quality of the reproduction. Like works of fine art, such as the Mona Lisa or The Starry Night, we should not judge movie posters based on the design of the poster itself. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the pieces of fine art you've cited are notable by themselves. This movie poster is not. Only the movie is. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an issue with the above-linked posters. The only thing with higher EV would be the film itself, and technical limitations prohibit us from hosting high quality films (hard to fit it in 100mb) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a "reproduction". This is the original. So I'm not judging how well someone has scanned the image and retouched it to remove creases and coffee stains. Or how well someone has photographed a work of art in a gallery. We're judging a non-notable movie poster. Since it is an original, output from the computer of the poster designer, of course it is going to have flawless crisp writing and a high technical quality. Assuming this is a still from the film, then it illustrates the film to some degree - though the writing and the vignetting detract from that purpose, failing the "avoids inappropriate digital manipulation" if film-illustration is the EV. If displaying the movie poster is the EV then I guess it is as good as you could get. If we're judging the poster as a work of art/design then this is very unoriginal. So unoriginal, in fact, that the Film poster article could use it to illustrate the standard features of a modern movie poster. Colin°^Talk 09:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have decided to oppose. This has lower EV than a still from the film. A film poster is an advertisement and this is a recent/current film. Rather than being a gift we should welcome, I'm concerned that such images are being donated to WP for promotional purposes. I don't think the FPC should promote a current advert as that is just a backdoor way of getting free advertising on WP. I'm going to create a discussion on the FPC talk page about this. Colin°^Talk 13:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Promotional images / adverts. --Colin°^Talk 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supportgood quality as to nice scan. Alborzagros (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the softness and brightness of the people in the image is done in a way that doesn't impress me, but this has good EV and the rest of the image is sharp. Pine^talk 08:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't understand the comparison to File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg and File:Plan 9 Alternative poster.jpg. Those weren't promoted just because they're good scans; they're also good examples of movie posters. This is a mediocre example of a movie poster. There's nothing interesting in its design or in the underlying photograph. I don't understand Crisco's argument that we shouldn't judge the design. Why not? We judge a photograph in two ways: its encyclopedic utility in representing the subject and its aesthetic quality. So the same applies here. Chick Bowen 19:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me, EV outweighs poor posing and whatnot (assuming the poster is not completely ruined by being too dark etc.) I think that 30s to 50s era posters were more aesthetically pleasing, but times change. If you think that aesthetics is more important than EV, I cannot force you to change your mind. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that standards have dropped that much, particularly for independent films; for example, I think Errol Morris's posters (like this one and this one) are often very effectively and innovatively designed. I salute you for finding movie posters under free licenses and you should definitely keep trying, but so far, these are not good posters, even by today's standards. Chick Bowen 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]