Written by Alexander Charchar

Let’s get ready to ruuummmbllleee!! In the red trunks we have the movie posters of the originals, coming equipped with some highs and lows in their career, and at certain angles, unflatteringly showing their age. In the blue trunks we have the younger, the newer, the remakes! They can sometimes be all flash-bang with their photoshopped, oversized faces, but are fully capable of delivering a masterful punch. Ahem... now that’s out of the way, let’s have a look at 50 movie posters and how they’ve been designed for movies that have been remade ... round one!

Remaking a movie, or anything really, is an odd thing to do. Essentially those involved are saying either ‘it was done wrong the first time, we can do it better’ or ‘it worked before, so let’s repackage this and make some money’. So what about the designers behind the marketing material? They can either reinterpret the poster in the same way the director might reinterpret the movie, or they could go right off centre and doing something altogether different. In this four part series, I pit the originals against the remakes for 50 movies; totalling in 100 posters.

One thing to note: in all but one or two cases, these are the posters that Wikipedia provides as the theatrical versions. With pretty much any movie there are many, many posters, depending on the country they were released in, budget, the cast involved and a million other things. So for these posts, I’m only talking about the two posters shown.

The Other Parts

Part I – (A-G)
Part II – (H-L)
Part III – (M-R)
Part IV - (S-Z)

This first one isn’t a direct remake, but Le Jetée was the inspiration for 12 Monkeys. The dash of red of the eye in a sea of black in the 12 Monkeys poster is a lovely use of colour, but the cast names at the top of the posters takes away from it a little bit because of their size. And the utter lack of emotion in all the characters faces makes me prefer the La Jetée poster, where the mourning women and the pain-stricken fellow at the bottom intrigues the interests a little. Not to mention that for a poster from 1962, this design has held up remarkably and not ages in the slightest, that is, if it is indeed the original poster, as Wikipedia says.

Alfie (1966 & 2004)

Let’s start with getting one thing straight – Michael Caine is awesome. This poster however, is not. The huge amount of quotes thrown all over the poster where ever they can fit just makes Mr. Caine’s floating head suffocate.. which would explain why this modern day Casanova looks so unhappy, which brings up the question of if this can really be considered the original theatrical poster?. The newer version of the poster shows some lovely constraints, hasn’t got the stars face half the size of the poster and uses a lovely ligature! A ligature people! You don’t see that everyday in movies posters. The strip that captures Jude Law is a little thick for the font used (but only barely) and the ‘what’s it all about?’ with it’s sinking question mark reeks of the marketing department. Overall, 2004 Alfie is the clear winner, especially as the stray head of the 2004 version is a great nod to the original (be it coincidence or not).

The Amityville Horror (1979 & 2005)

While putting this list together I realised that a lot of the posters for the horror movie remakes are far superior to the originals. That being said, I’m not sure this one falls into that category. I’m a big fan of massive, strong typography and the ‘For God’s sake, get out!’ quote makes me smirk every time. That being said, I do love the logotype for the 2005 version, and it does direct the eye better, especially with the far more interesting imagery. But the 1979 version is so killer (hah, get it?) because of that quote.

Bad News Bears (1976 / 2005)

The thing that I can appreciate the most about the 2005 version of the Bad News Bears poster is the fact that the designers behind it decided to directly recreate the original with the new cast in tow. While the illustrations of the original are slightly better because of the strong shading, the layout is not. The 2005 version doesn't hide the title of the movie, which is now filled with colour and a lovely and ever-so-slight gradient and, best of all, the star's name doesn't come first.

Carrie (1976 & 2002)

As I mentioned earlier, in the last few decades, horror movie posters have just gotten better and better. This over the top remake works for so many reasons. A. It's scary as hell. B. It's gross as hell. C. It's so simple! The idea is fantastic, as is the layout. The blood-soaked teenager image used is one that is strongly associated with this film, and is so powerful that nothing more is needed. The colour combination is an all-time winner (it's hard for black, white and red to not look good), but I can't help but wonder if it would have looked better red on white? Could it have been done better? Yeah, sure, of course. But does it work far better than the word-art and (why are they there?) quote marks of the original? Absolutely.

... And The Chocolate Factor (1971 & 2005)

While the vibrant colours of the 2005 poster are beautiful, eye-catching and visually taste like candy, the glove on Depp’s hand creeps me out. The colours used aren’t overly vibrant or bright, something that you would expect for a film mostly aimed at children—they are soft, making for a less obnoxious poster. The wild ampersand employed by the killer title-type in the 1971 original is worth a mention, as is the floating gum-girl trying to be caught by an umpa-lumpa. But it is all over the place – it’s almost hard to tell where to look and what’s important (is the movies name “It’s Scrumdidilyumptious”?), where as the 2005 version has obvious visual hierarchy and is far more appealing.

Dawn Of The Dead (1978 & 2004)

How is it that a poster from 2004 looks like it belongs in 1978 and the 1978 poster belongs in 2004? The giant face and too much text feels like it should be a poster from this decade, where as the simple, illustrated and elegant poster of 2004 seems older, or perhaps more accurately, timeless. Either way, the 2004 is clearly far better than it’s man-with-a-rash older brother.

Day Of The Dead (1985 & 2005)

2005 has it – scary as hell. Although the setting moon/rising sun is a damn nice way to reference Night and Dawn of the (Living) Dead, the splattering of blood, the minimalistic use of blood-red for the text, the textured background and over the top zombie is fantastic, as well as the beautifully bloody typography of the title. That is, except for the sunken A.

The Fog (1980 & 2005)

It’s 1980 and you’re walking down the street. Something catches your eye. It’s beautiful reds and oranges, with a menacing silhouette in the doorway. The coloured fog is so eye catching that you don’t even notice the ‘oh, we need to put it somewhere’ tag line in the top right. Now flash forward 25 years. You’re walking down the street. You miss the poster of someone yawning and go on with your day. K-O.

Godzilla (1954 & 1998)

The 1998 poster succeeds in many ways. It's a small tease to how giant Mr. Lizard Man is, isn't cluttered with type, shows a good deal of restraint on behalf of the designer and has the (as a good friend once told me) best tag line for underwear ever; 'Size Does Matter', but I can't pass over on the 1954 version. He's shooting fire from his mouth!!

Gone In 60 Seconds (1974 & 2000)

The 2000 version gets it. Clearly in the 'if there aren't pretty people on the poster, no one will see it' camp, we get a concerned looking Nicolas Cage and a mouth-slightly-open (as always?) Angelina Jolie. But I do love the type and can't help but think that if you removed the photos of the stars, you'd have one damn nice poster. The textured 60 and the glow of fast-moving cars is just what you need to get a little bit of adrenaline going.

The Grudge (2003 & 2004)

It’s almost hard to believe that only one year separated these two films. Both are fantastic posters, but the emotion felt through the wild-eyed 2004 version is about 10% over the top. The lack of expression due to the flat, blue faced-black eyed child on the left is far scarier, so 2003 wins when it comes to imagery. Sometimes it’s the not knowing that’ll get you. In this case, you don’t know if the kid will put his arms out for a hug, or rip your arm out of it’s socket. However, the 2004 wins for layout, even though title of the film might (I stress might) have been a smidge better with a little tinkering. When it’s bigger, it might look better, but I can’t help but feel a flat red, or only slight red/dark-red horizontal gradient might have worked a bit better? Also, the text is a little too close to the eye as it feels like it’s intruding on a space that should be protected for the damn nice image.

12 pairs of posters down, 24 posters seen.

We got off to a good start with some great posters, especially the Dawn of The Dead remake, and there is plenty more of great, and not so great, posters to come. Aside from being a bit of fun, comparing these works helps to show patterns taken and the kind of things you need to look out for and take into consideration when first starting a design.

For now, have a look at the posters and think about the audience to whom they are being aimed at. All these posters, and almost all 50, feel the same in their pairs. Be it through colours used, the compositions of the images, contrast and amount of type, they are all aiming at the exact same audience, at the same age, just with different years of birth. There are certain conventions that don’t particularly change, so take this with you; always look at what is already out there, not to see how something should look, but how it should feel visually.

The Other Parts

Part I – (A-G)
Part II – (H-L)
Part III – (M-R)
Part IV - (S-Z)


REFERENCES & LINKS

Speakup: Dark and Fleshy: The Color of Top Grossing Movies
A great article on the colour scheme of the higest grossing films, lovingly put together by Armin Vit at Speak Up.

Characters on the Silver Screen - July 2008
A great article at the Fontshop blog about the fonts used in a few movie posters from the last few months.

Wikipedia - List of film remakes
This is where I found all the information needed for the film remakes.

COMMENTS

LaurenMarie - Creative Curio

2008-09-10 09:23:09 + LaurenMarie - Creative Curio's website

Alex, I'm glad you broke down the post into manageable sections. You wrote some great stuff and I think people are more likely to sit and read all of it now! Definitely Stumbled :)

Unfortunately I haven't seen many of these movies, or if I have, I've only seen the remake so I can't comment on how well the original poster did to really capture what the story was about (and often remakes have a totally different story! Think Oceans 11!).

I do agree with you on the Charlie & the Chocolate Factory one though. The 71 poster could use some help, but I think the images better show the weirdness of the factory. The colors in the 05 suit the factory better though. I remember watching the old one when I was little and those Oompa Loompas scared me! "Ooompa. Loompa. Doo-ba-dee-doo. If you're wise you'll listen to me..." Eek!

For The Grudge (remake) I think the title being so close to the eye adds to the tension intentionally (no pun intended). It IS intense, and it works. This is where breaking the rules is a good thing, I think. We are very protective of our eyes and many people cringe when there's any kind of torture or hint of pain around the eye... at least I do!

Oh, and I thought of another, not sure if you have it. Charade was the original (great movie) and The Truth About Charlie is the remake. I didn't like that one as much.

LaurenMarie - Creative Curio

2008-09-10 09:26:15 + LaurenMarie - Creative Curio's website

how can that Wikipedia list not have Psycho??!

Alex Charchar

2008-09-10 11:20:38 + Alex Charchar's website

I'm grateful for the advice! I did write the article to be one long one, which is why the lengths of each entry vary greatly at some parts, but if four parts works better (and I think it will), then four parts it is!

I haven't seen all the movies listed either, but I think that can help in some instances as it means you have no preconceived notions of the film, which is how we all see posters for the first time and can help us in deciding if we are going to see the film or not.

I honestly hadn't thought about the title being pushed up towards the eye as a way to create tension directly, by way of the squimish factor of having something shoved in your eye. it's a good reason, but the spacing just felt so tight! The red/type is strong enough on its own that I thought it could use some breathing room, but that might just be me?

I haven't got Charade/The Truth About Charlie comparison, but I just looked it up and I quite like it because the 2002 version has a direct reference to the original. I think I might do another post down the road with the few combinations I missed out on this time. We're bound to figure out a few more that I missed over the next three to four weeks

LaurenMarie - Creative Curio

2008-09-10 18:11:42 + LaurenMarie - Creative Curio's website

Yeah, I think that Wikipedia article is missing quite a few remakes. Was Ocean's 11 in there? Italian Job? I only searched for a few (Charade and Psycho) and was shocked that the latter wasn't there. I mean, it's a staple horror movie! And I'm sure there are others that have the same story but a different name, like Charade/Truth About Charlie or Dial M for Murder/A Perfect Murder (I know you got that one).

Oh wait... ha. I was only looking at the first group! They do have Psycho. But still no Charade. And Ocean's 11 and Italian Job are there, too.

Alex Charchar

2008-09-12 13:15:54 + Alex Charchar's website

Oh, I'm glad that all the movies you mentioned I covered! Except for Charade and Psycho, but I've put them onto my list of films to do for another article down the track.

I'm also considering doing a wrap up/best of post at the end of the series (so really, it'd make it a five part?), but I might be sick of movie posters by then and want to write something different :/

Jon Lycett-Smith

2008-09-12 16:51:43

Really nice article,

Have to disagree on your opinion of the Fog posters though. I find the original completely misleading in tone, the warm colours give it a cosy feel, which when combined with the figures who could almost be embracing in the doorway, adds up to something that could be a poster for soft Porn.

In contrast the suffocating image of the fog seeping into the mouth and eyes is an EXTREMELY disturbing strong image and the typography isn't bad either. The monotone of the colour scheme is suitably oppressive...for me this one wins hands down.

Alex Charchar

2008-09-13 01:55:23 + Alex Charchar's website

Oh yeah, fair enough, I completely see your point.. When I first sat down I think I preferred the new version, but the more I looked at the pair I started to shift to the original? Maybe I'm drawn to it's tackiness :)

A lot of it comes down to the typography for me to be honest.. the original typography is big, chunky and is suffocating, while the newer title is kind of bland? It's almost too delicate for a film about something that kills people through fog and I don't feel that it has a lot of character..

Jon Lycett-Smith

2008-09-15 13:56:22

Yeah, looking at the typography again, you're completely right on that score. I come from an illustration background and probably got carried away by the imagery a bit...

Maybe a compromise between the two would have been for the best? The title from the older poster would have worked beautifully on the newer poster, maybe in white with a little photoshopping around the edges to make it more insubstantial and wisp like...

Curvball

2008-10-24 15:00:36 + Curvball's website

Sweet collection - it is funny how so many of the originals are just so much better - guess that is what makes them classics.

Chris McDougall

2008-10-28 20:23:21

This is a great article, and it's interesting to compare both old and new. I can't help but notice that some of the reasons why the newer posters end up being "superior" are attributed to dramatic shifts in graphic design technology. Many of the early posters were conceived sans Photoshop, sans a huge gamut of inks, sans computers even. I wonder if it would have been possible for the Willy Wonka poster to have the same color gamut as the Charlie poster. The graphic designers who worked on these posters back in the day didn't have access to multiple undos, transparency, and easily being able to develop textures, so that's saying something! It's much much more apparent whether a poster features bad/good design when the dates are close together (ex. The Ring.)

You really see how time and technology affect design trends and motifs. The two most similar posters in A-G are The Grudge ones, and they are the closest in timespan to each other. In several entries you point out texture and color as being very attractive in the newer posters (ex. The Hitcher). This is definitely a sign of our times since we find many posters that feature grungy text, dirty textures, a mix of muted and bright colors, etc. However, one thing that hasn't changed is when the marketing department pressures the designer, which is pretty obvious to all of us.

It'll be interesting to see where movie poster design ends up going 20 years from now. While technology does not make a design better, it sure will affect trends. Though I wonder how much it will actually advance since we're already in the computer age.

Alex Chachar

2008-11-09 12:02:57 + Alex Chachar's website

Hey Chris, thanks for such a meaty comment, I really appreciate it :)

Good observation about technology changing 'quality' of the posters, which is probably why this kind of article isn't something that will hold up as technology changes, as lot of those posters that I might think are nicer looking now will end up looking tacky, and the older posters will become more and more classical.

I was thinking it might be worth looking at posters from different countries, but for the same film. Ie. the Japanese release of an American Film. Granted, for the most part they'll look the exact same, but there is sometimes different executions.

A good example is the posters for Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make A Porno -- with the US poster being substantially different to the Canadian one because of legal reasons. I'm guessing the censors thought the American audience would be too delicate for the original poster design?

Joe

2008-12-01 10:27:22 + Joe's website

Thanks for the side by side poster comparison. I'd never seen some of them before. I'll stop by to read some more. I am just getting started but would like to write some poster design blogs.

Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Comments:
 
 
 

3.22 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."