Animal Crackers

File: 12794843_496243583892936_544486639221652466_o.jpg (162KB, 632x960px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 632x960px

This was his original poster. The one he wanted.

File: 17861603_675066206010672_2169951090701620630_n.jpg (201KB, 759x960px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 759x960px

This was his Plan Bm which was also turned down. It's a damn shame he's being forced to basically make shit posters just because some marketing executive is uncomfortable.

Welcome to the future faggts.

>>91535713
>>91535728
Well if the film itself is CGI then I can understand why marketing and sales would want to change it
With a traditional art poster, people might go in expecting a traditionally animated movie
I mean, it's not impossible to make a good promo poster with CGI, anyway. Couldn't you recreate the general concept behind the traditional art with CG? It might not have the same interesting style but at least the idea would still be there

>>91535728
>>91535754
I genuinely wonder if this would be a case where the generic poster backfires.

No one is gonna remember the CGI one even five minutes after they've seen it. It doesn't tell you anything about the movie except "there is a CGI animal in it". It's not even like it's funny, it's just a picture of the character.

I'm not talking about animation fans, I'm talking about mom and pop and aunt Gertrude and grandma and little cousin Joey. There are a dozen CGI animal movies in theaters at any given time and the poster with traditional art at least has a gimmick that would make it stand out from all the other shitty posters in the theater and for people who see the poster to remember it by the time the movie actually releases.

I understand that marketers specialize in trying to understand the most retarded people in society and taking the safest routes possible, but I can't help but think there must have been some better compromise than the one they went with.

>>91536049
It was probably focus-tested. Don't underestimate the appeal of a cheap-shot to kids who haven't tired of goofy faces yet

>>91535728
It's a nice piece of art, but the image makes me feel like it could've worked better in the 1980s or something, when people seemed to love these painted character montages by Drew Struzan. These days, animated movies seem to have a trend of showing a character and the tagline against a minimalistic (often completely white) background.

>>91535754
If they had used this one as their poster, I'm not sure if I would've even realized that it was advertising a movie.

I like the drawn posters better, they have more effort and talent put into them and they look more appealing to me. However, the 3D one probably catches the attention of its target audience better because it uses visuals that people will immediately associate with modern 3D cartoon movie posters. Also, it looks very simple so it can be seen and read from further away than the other two images, and it shows more accurately what the movie actually looks like. Choosing the boring poster was probably the safest option.

>>91535713
Can you post more examples besides the poster thing? I want to feel sad.

I would like the to see the movie if I didn't know the story from the get go "guys finds bunch of crackers that turns people into animals and hijicks ensures".It's just so... Bland.

As for the posters, put them in the artbook or at least release online.

>>91536637
My thoughts exactly. Why would you put so much effort and passion into a part of a project that is overall just more bland looking CGI anyway?

>>91535713
>>91535728
Aside from that one tweet, everywhere else I look I'm finding that the traditional poster is the official theatrical release poster?
Did they just start to promote the movie with the good poster, and then decide to have a shittier one made at last minute because """"marketability"""?

>>91536540
Here's something he posted a few months ago.

>But try to imagine that I (Scott... the director/producer/writer/creator) can't mention all the crazy political crap that goes on with getting a film out to market.

>I wish I could. But as there are a lot of slimeballs we have to deal with, no updates are sometimes best until we work it all out.

>Needless to say, we all want this film released ASAP. But Hollywood is a sleezy place and every day is a fight.

>>91535728
this movie i actually want to see, the op poster is a cg character in front of a white background-- like every goddamned illumination movie poster-- looks like shit

>>91536896
I'm guessing the OP image is going to be the one that gets made into physical copies that hang in the theater, but the better one shows up in searches for the movie because it's already been circulating the internet longer.

>>91535728
No kid is going to give a shit about that though. They'll see a wall full of things like "massive emoji poster", "favorite cartoon character on a poster", and then 'a bunch of weird animals". They'll gravitate to the big pictures or the ones they recognize, it's what kids do. A giant hamster face will attract far more attention than weird animals all crowding up space on a poster.

>>91536049
Movies don't need you to remember the poster. Kids will scream and shout "look a hamster lets see that one lets see that one!!!!" No kids will take the time to read a comic strip, they'll ignore it and look at the giant shit with a bowtie on the next poster over.

>>91537523
>Kids are dumb and can't appreciate art
Really stimulated my noggin

>>91535713
>>91535728
>>91535754
>making a poster that actually represents the film it's advertising is bad
>making a dumb as fuck 3D children's film and complains about muh art

Wow, pretentious much?

>>91537562

>>91535728
"wow look at all those animals let's see that one!" works just as well??

also OP's pic is fucking terrible, "you are what you eat!", who the fuck eats hamsters?

>>91537861
It's true. If you bring a kid to an art museum they don't give half a shit, that's how it is. Kids have short attention spans and all kinds of fancy shit like Ipads and phones now, they'll glance at a piece of art and then go back to watching shit on youtube.

>>91538114
Kids do appreciate art you retard.

>>91538046
Kids won't give a shit about 2D ugly animals, they want 3D shit. Disney sales have shown people do not buy 2D movie tickets for kids anymore, they want 3D movies. Kids don't want to see the movie with a shitton of 2D shit on a poster, they'll immediately look at the biggest brightest shit, whether that be a literal shit emoji or a giant hamster.

The tagline is fine, the movie is called "animal crackers" and it's about eating animal crackers to turn into the animal on it.

>>91538150
Not enough to pick art over a literal shit emoji.

>>91538114
No no I agree, I was trying to imply that it seemed obvious that kids have undeveloped brains. So of course they wouldn't be able to fully appreciate things like that, I know I sure as hell didn't when I was a kid

>>91538173
>Disney sales have shown people do not buy 2D movie tickets for kids anymore, they want 3D movie
when was the last time to buy a ticket for a 2D movie anyway, when Winnie the Pooh competed with fucking Harry Potter? this is fucking bullshit, don't pretend to fucking know children

>>91537861
It's just a fact that kids are basically just smaller, more stupid, crueler, and more selfish versions of adults with short attention spans and little appreciation for complexity.

>>91538268
Winnie the Pooh is one example, but you have to look at Disney's bread and butter: Disney Princess movies. Which one is the worst for the time? Princess and the Frog, the last 2D movie. Even fucking Moana trampled all over it, not even looking at Tangled or Frozen, so you can't say "oh no it's racism" because Moana is even more "race pushing" than Princess and the Frog, what with the lack of whities completely.