« Wish I Could Disagree | Main | Do You Care? »
October 05, 2006
New Outdoor From Paramount


Posted by poland at October 5, 2006 11:33 AM
Comments
Not the greatest photo angle, but that ZODIAC image is killer. Extremely evocative, a little trippy, and sort of discombobulating. DREAMGIRLS is nice, too, but I'm much more a fog-shrouded type than a musical type, so ZODIAC wins. Can't wait to see it up close.
Posted by: Argen
at October 5, 2006 11:41 AM
"From the director of 'Seven' and 'Panic Room'?"
I know "Panic Room" made more money, but I still think "Fight Club" would garner more interest.
Posted by: Josh Massey
at October 5, 2006 11:42 AM
I would have thought that Fight Club would have had a bigger life on video.
But yeah, that's a great ad.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at October 5, 2006 11:44 AM
It's great, don't get me wrong. But heck, that ad could be turds in a blanket, and I'd still be there on opening weekend.
Posted by: Josh Massey
at October 5, 2006 11:48 AM
"Panic Room" was a suspense thriller and that's what they're trying to sell "Zodiac" as.
Posted by: James Leer
at October 5, 2006 11:50 AM
It's settled then... I'm going to Astro Burger for lunch.
Posted by: Crow T Robot
at October 5, 2006 12:17 PM
The Zodiac poster is eye-catching. It bought me so I guess it got its job done. Dreamgirls' poster doesn't do much to me. Not striking in anyway.
Posted by: ployp
at October 5, 2006 12:22 PM
Is it just me or does that Dreamgirls billboard make Jamie Foxx and Eddie Murphy look *really* feminine?
Posted by: Sam
at October 5, 2006 12:24 PM
The ZODIAC poster is one of the best US posters I've seen in awhile for creating the perfect tone for the film. However the translation to portrait for plex light boxes maybe problematic as it the composition at the moment is exact. They'll also need to have a more iconic 'symbol' for the film when they go to the weeklies as that hypnotic lush moody landscape will not port across to b&w ads. I'd love to see them go the extra distance and light those billboards to reflect a real city scape and bridge.
Posted by: Jeffrey Boam's Doctor
at October 5, 2006 01:02 PM
Trash talk, a Byonce Knowles sandwich. DreamG's looks like Christmas to me. (Those dance numbers are cut tight to the beat, which I hear, are very fast paced.)
Posted by: T.H.Ung
at October 5, 2006 01:10 PM
In Fincher we trust
Best poster of the year, and probably best picture of the (next?)year.
Paramount should run this in december for "your consideration".
And yes , i know, too dark, too creepy, but above all, too good ;)
Posted by: tyler666
at October 5, 2006 01:21 PM
That ZODIAC poster ROCKS!! Hardcore!
And..
I'm already sick of DREAMGIRLS. That poster doesn't help any.
Posted by: PetalumaFilms
at October 5, 2006 01:31 PM
Zodiac is great. I wish had more star powering leads to get in the crowds. Hopefully it will anyway.
Posted by: Hopscotch
at October 5, 2006 02:29 PM
Apropos of movies coming out in the next six months . . .
The trailer for "300" is officially one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.
Posted by: Blackcloud
at October 5, 2006 02:33 PM
Whattya mean, it has fricking Iron Man and the less broke of the Brokeback cowboys in it. I just hope it's a proper release and not a January dump.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at October 5, 2006 02:34 PM
re: 300 Mr Blackcloud you speaketh the truth. When finally after all the nerd hype for this project and the reality is finally seen, one is left feeling, that if this is the most anticipated 'geek' film then we are all going to hell in a handcart. It looks like cut scenes from a neo geo video game.
Posted by: Jeffrey Boam's Doctor
at October 5, 2006 02:56 PM
Love the Zodiac image. Very atmoshperic.
Posted by: Aladdin Sane
at October 5, 2006 03:04 PM
The sad thing about the 300 trailer is how much the nerds at Aint It Cool are nutting over it. The film looks truly terrible, like an appalling videogame cinematic from the early '90s, and yet the nerds at AICN deem it the next generation of filmmaking.
I know that AICN talkbackers are comic book nerds as well as pop film nerds, but their hyperbole makes me weep for the future.
Posted by: Wrecktum
at October 5, 2006 04:27 PM
Has anyone seen a cleaner image of that DREAMGIRLS poster online anywhere?
Posted by: jsnpritchett
at October 5, 2006 04:34 PM
Yeah, that 300 trailer looks fairly overcranked and ridiculous. Thre's something about a war movie that stylized that really reeks of a disconnect between movies and reality right now. Considering that Dawn of the Dead was pretty savvy and satirical, it's especially disappointing.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at October 5, 2006 04:46 PM
300 looks like a 0, so far.
them 'uns over at AICN have always made me weep for the future even when they were hip to like (both writers and respondents). I am a comic nerd, yet I do not like being associated with a website that makes us graphic arts afficionados look like we have single digit I.Qs
The AICN reviews also are not Reviews--they are mostly how they "feel" about a film, and I could care less. All hype, little substance. All "inside baseball" of a comic adaptation rather than what I think is necessary--is the movie a quality movie or piece of shit and WHY is that?
Posted by: Lota
at October 5, 2006 07:46 PM
"This is madness!"
"Madness? THIS IS SPARTA!!!"
That didn't exactly sound like a denial, now did it?
You can bet your mortgage that you'll see at least a handful of stories suggesting that Sparta isn't wholly deserving of the glorification it seems to be getting in this movie.
Posted by: Blackcloud
at October 5, 2006 08:13 PM
I watched the 300 trailer again, and, I have to admit, I warmed up to it a little bit. Maybe because Gerard Butler is so wild-eyed insane, the cheesy CG backgrounds are so blatant and the music and tone so inconsistant with the story.
It may be the Flash Gordon '80 of the new century.
Anyway, back to the topic on hand. Did you see Wells' take on why Meryl Streep won't be pushed in the supporting actress catagory this year? It's because Jennifer Hudson is apparently already a lock to win the award for Dreamgirls. Huh?
Sight unseen, an American Idol cast off with no acting experience is suddenly the presumptive winner of the Academy Award? I know Dreamworks has opened the floodgate to get this film the gold (Geffen himself is probably writing personal checks), but this smacks of desperation.
Posted by: Wrecktum
at October 5, 2006 08:24 PM
i like Gerard Butler alot. he can be Hot. but he aint playing Xerxes here, so he shouldn;t be acting too *crazy*.
I will try to preserve an open mind because of the subject material (I was required to take Greek in high school and I actually liked the historical part) but much of the casting is dubious.
and if they are properly attired Spartans I should be able to see alot of men's legs, so it might end up to be the male 'Showgirls' of the graphic world, hence a guilty pleasure.
Posted by: Lota
at October 5, 2006 08:38 PM
The Dreamgirls "outdoor" tells me more about the movie than the Zodiac does. I think they should reference Fight CLub and Se7en; Panic room was not that gripping.
Posted by: Lota
at October 5, 2006 08:41 PM
I'm sure you know, Lota, that on certain occasions "properly attired" for the Spartans meant no attire, so you'd see plenty of leg, and much more besides. If, that is, the filmmakers have gone for historical accuracy. Something tells me that's not the case.
Posted by: Blackcloud
at October 5, 2006 09:35 PM
Do I feel Lucky? Well I couldn;t get that lucky Blackcloud...and Historical accuracy?! Winning Lotto is more likely and I don;t even buy tickets.
Posted by: Lota
at October 5, 2006 09:53 PM
What I admired so much about Snyder's "Dawn of The Dead" was the confidence in the style as much as the drama. Scary was really scary, funny was really funny (the DVD commentary is equally hilarious). The director seems to be a natural at grabbing the audience without resorting to gimmicks and, unlike Rodriguez, he'd rather see his actors act than pose.
I agree with many here... from the trailer, "300" has all the makings of (ugh!) geek overload, but I really hope it steers more toward the hyper grandeur of John Boorman's "Excalibur" or Julie Taymor's undervalued "Titus." Over the top is just fine with me, as long as it has a pulse.
You know, NOT Sin City.
Posted by: Crow T Robot
at October 5, 2006 10:19 PM
I really liked Dawn on the Dead (i still can't decide whether to put it in my Top 10 of that year or not) so I'm intrigued. But I didn't find Sin City all that spectacular (loved the look, but felt that - like the first two Harry Potter movies - it seemed to stick so rigid to the source materials that it didn't flow properly. When the second story finished I was actually annoyed there was a third to still sit through.
The Zodiac billboard raises my interest in the movie. I was psyched about this movie (Fincher! Gyllenhaal! Downey Jr!) but then they dumped it in January. But, yeah, is this the actual poster design?
The Dreamgirls design is much more typical and standard, but we're dealing with a musical with a predominantly african-american cast. I don't think the studio can waste time and money of trying to appear arty and sophisticated. They need to just get it out there.
I feel sorry for Jennifer Hudson. She's gonna be the one people are talking about come Oscar time and she is sure to have the movie's standout moment ("And I Am Telling You") yet she doesn't get on the poster.
I hate the tag line. Doesn't come near Truth. Beauty. Freedom. Love (Moulin Rouge!) or If You Can't Be Famous... Be Infamous (Chicago).
I say Deja Vu has the single worst poster I've seen all year. Just lazy and pathetic and an awful tagline.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at October 6, 2006 12:04 AM
For me, what it ultimately comes down to is that I don't mind the ultra-stylized film noir thing that was Sin City, but the higher stakes of a war movie, set in the near east, in today's world, means that I have a hard time with something also ultra-stylized unless it has a really solid moral core. I cannot tolerate a frivolous comic-book war movie these days.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at October 6, 2006 12:27 AM
The Deja Vu poster isn't any worse than those for other Tony Scott movies. Predicatable, yes, but hardly the worst poster of the year.
The worst poster of the year was Annapolis. Looked like a direct to video DVD cover.
Posted by: Wrecktum
at October 6, 2006 12:38 AM
"Deja Vu" looking to be from the "Virtuosity"/"Fallen" camp for Denzel, which I hate to say because I truly loved "Man on Fire."
Posted by: Josh Massey
at October 6, 2006 05:31 AM
My entire thoughts about why the Deja Vu poster is awful is at my blog. The title in general is shitty. The tagline! The general boring nature of just having Denzel looking over his shoulder! THE TAGLINE!
Ugh.
It doesn't make any sense. But the whole idea of the movie was something I have hated since I first heard about it.
http://kamikazecamel.blogspot.com/2006/10/when-bad-posters-strike-dj-vu.html
Still not as bad as The Reaping's tagline. That was woeful.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at October 6, 2006 07:35 AM
It's funny you should say that, Josh. I haven't seen Virtuosity in years, but I remember liking it, and I thought Fallen was one of the better post-Seven, post-Sixth Sense horror thrillers. And, conversely, I had a viscerally negative reaction to Man on Fire. Just hated it.
It's always just kind of weird when you find someone whose opinions on film are the exact opposite of your own.
Posted by: Eric
at October 6, 2006 08:07 AM
I see nothing wrong with the Deja Vu tagline. *shrugs*
Posted by: Wrecktum
at October 6, 2006 09:24 AM
"If you thought it was just a trick of the mind, Prepare yourself for the truth" ???
It's horrible. Firstly, deja vu isn't really a trick of the mind at all so I know the truth already. And secondly, what is so shocking about deja vu that we have to prepare ourselves for it.
It's almost as bad as In The Cut's "Everything you know about desire is dead wrong."
I know what I know about desire. It's not WRONG.
Seriously, tag lines are a fine work of art. A lot of the time they go awry.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at October 6, 2006 09:02 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)