Look at this! Everyone save for some few ones has a DreamWorks face.
And they even re-released fucking Space Chimps in this line.
What is with this trend of only having the main character/s and a background, the title and maybe the local age rating and the studio logo for the cover? It makes their films look generic and pandering to people with OCD.
Even Disney and Pixar is joining the bandwagon, though to be fair, they have the original poster renders or something from a re-release so they don't do a DreamWorks face.Studio Ghiblidoes this right with their Blu-ray releases though for some reason as they are not shameless re-releases unless you consider the Blu-ray remasters re-releases. And their minimalist silhouette on single color style really catches the eye.
>>78466713
NoStudio Ghibliexamples?
Almost every movie poster wants to be The Social Network.
>>78466713
>implying the studios contracted a single company to design these covers
>>78466713
Most of them don't have Dreamworks face though
>>78466746
They only do the minimalist cover art style in Japan, Germany and Hong Kong and only the Blu-ray versions.
>>78466713
>this trend of only having the main character/s and a background, the title and maybe the local age rating and the studio logo for the cover
The necessary qualities for a member of the public to decide whether they want to see the movie:
>establishing shot of a lead character (there may be multiple leads and therefore multiple solo posters), on a plain background that doesn't overwhelm or clash with the character; this may also be a "hero" prop or location, something which features heavily in the film but isn't per se a character with lines
>the name of the film
>the rating and studio, both of which are contributory factors in the decision making process that leads someone to join the film's audience
It's not a new thing.
>>78466713
>Anastasia and ferngully not doing the face
Based Bluth
>>78466713
you got Shrek 3 2 times.
>>78466713
How can a re-release be more or less shameful?
I'm confused here.
>pandering to people with OCD.
I refuse to believe you're that autistic.
>>78467316
>Ferngully
>Bluth
>>78466713
You put Shrek the Third on there twice and forgot Coraline.
![IRZhism[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cO1zC8o.jpg "IRZhism[1].jpg")
>>78466796
>>78466746
They are outlines, which means that these covers actually are minimalist unlike the OP.
Speaking of, anyone reminded of the time when minimalism was a short fad on the internet? That was awful.
It's 20th Century Fox, all of these movies use them for distribution.
It's also just the cardboard box that has that design; when you remove it the actual case underneath has the normal boxart.
>>78466713
You got Shrek 2 twice and you're missing Book of Life.
>>78466713
>space chimps
>everybody's hero
Someone get me a hammer and bleach, it's crucial I forget about these movies forever
>>78466713
>Everyone's Hero
>>78471172
I like that movie.
>>78469469
These look really nice. What's more I may just go to amazon to buy me a copy of that Porco Rosso and Kiki's Delivery Service.
