Although the film is not due to be released until next year, the reboot of the ‘Spider-Man’ franchise is already attracting a lot of attention. To further spur on excitement for the film, Marvel Studios have been releasing the occasional set photo to whet fanboys’ appetites.

Latest in this line of marketing shots is the reveal of the official logo for the film. While this does not provide any insight into the actual film it does serve purpose as an official establishment of this re-envisioned brand, however I think there is a fatal flaw in the typography.

The designers have chosen to use lower-case for “the amazing” presumably in order to make “Spider-Man” stand out as the most significant part of the title, however the flaw here is that “amazing” should be emphasising the character of ‘Spider-Man’, and lower-case lettering simply does not achieve this. As a designer myself I look for these things, and as sad as it is to say, one small typography decision like this is enough to make me question how “amazing” the new ‘Spider-Man’ will really be! Another thing is that from production shots so far, the new costume appears to be more roughly stylised, and this is certainly not reflected in the smooth typography.

I think that people, especially those in marketing, should be more aware of small design considerations like these and how people interpret them, however I would be keen to find out what other people think as this is only my interpretation. There is no right and wrong for this design, and I must admit I do like the subtle infusion of red and blue, however I do feel that perhaps not all possible interpretations were considered when signing off on this finalised design.

I was surprised by “Thor” as I did not expect much from the looks of the trailer, however it was an excellent film. In terms of design, a particular point of enjoyment for me was the depiction of Asgard.

The architecture was immense and other-worldly, unlike anything Marvel has done before. Thor is such a fantastical character that it would have been a complete disservice to render his world as anything other than a spectacle of aesthetics and design:

Thor – Asgard Bifrost

It was a shame that when the film was set on Earth the setting completely paled in comparison to Asgard and Jotunheim; the realm of the Frost Giants. Perhaps this was a deliberate move on the filmmakers’ part to make Earth look insignificant in comparison to the other realms, and if this is the case then it worked well, however I would have liked to have seen Thor doing battle with the Destroyer in an urban metropolis.

Admittedly I did not see the film in 3D as I do not think it would have added to the film; I find that 3D tends to blur areas of your vision when separating the layers, which I find detrimentally affects such spectacular CG sequences.

With films like “Fast Five” going back to basics by using limited CG, this is a film that bucks the trend of unnecessary CG by utilising it in a way that allows the audience to experrience worlds that would not be remotely believable by any other means.

Too often these days film posters are filled to bursting point, and often the key information can be lost by over-working the design. While scouring the internet for an unrelated image earlier today this simple poster appeared in the search results:

Mr. Popper’s Penguins – Silhouette Poster

I feel that this poster is much simpler compared to other posters this for the summer film season, and as such it makes it stand out where perhaps a smaller film like this could get lost amongst the blockbusters. It can’t have taken long to produce, but contrastingly to the similarly constructed ‘X-Men: First Class’ silhouette posters, this poster demonstrates thoughtful use of colour, contrast, layout and typography.

One of the film industry’s greatest problems in terms of aesthetic is the fact that a separate company will handle the marketing compaign and therefore oftenthere will be in-film differences; an example of this may be that a lot of work will go into the design of a film’s title on a poster, and yet in the film perhaps a simple black font will be used in the opening title sequence.

As a designer I like visual consistency across the entire medium, and am somewhat disappointed when a credit sequence is lacking compared to the marketing that came before it. As the marketing campaign always comes first, a form of brand awareness and visual identity is instilled in the consumer which is then expected to carry over to the final film. I often wonder why films which big budgets often resort to simple ineffective titles.

‘Your Highness’ is a film that does not suffer from this growing trend, with title sequences that fit perfectly within the marketed aesthetic of the film. You can view the opening title sequence here:

Your Highness – Opening Title Sequence

Ultimately marketing and film production are two completely separate entities, however I feel that the outcome is always better when a visual consistency is maintained across the whole brand.

Did ‘Sucker Punch’ hit anyone as hard as it should have done?

Although I enjoyed the film, I expected to be blown away from what the trailer promised. The effects were good but the trailer suggested that the action environments would all be unique, and this was not the case. I felt that all the action took place in the same place, with slight variations.

I feel that the footage shown in the trailer was very selective and not indicative of the actual film as there was no sense of all these dream sequences being interlinked, which they were to a large extent. I think keeping the environments relatively restrained was either a conscious effort to expand upon a singular dream world or maybe a contribution to restraining the budget.

The opening sequence was excellent and set up the film very powerfully, but I do not think the strength and quality of the opening resonated with the style and tone of the film as a whole.

I think making each dream sequence radically different would have added significantly to the film, adding more weight to the concept of becoming lost in different music.

Months before ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is even due to start filming, Warner Brothers have announced that they will be rebooting the Batman series… again!

With news that Christopher Nolan will be keeping his ties with the franchise by staying on as an executive producer (much in the same capacity as he is on the forthcoming ‘Superman: Man of Steel’) I have started to think about a few things.

Firstly I wonder if a new version will share the same universe as the upcoming Superman reboot. Also with Nolan’s Batman films firmly grounded in reality, I wonder if someone with such a distinctive style as Zack Snyder is what the franchise needs in order to stand out from previous interpretations.

Another point is that the current film continuity hasn’t left it open for some arcs which are considered integral to the Batman lore; for instance the idea of Batman’s protege Robin becoming disillusioned with his take on justice, and becoming his own hero in Nightwing. What about a proper sequel to ‘Batman Returns’ using the ‘Batman Beyond’ concept?

In terms of design, if we concede to the fact that this reboot will happen, how should the film look visually? Should the studio try something different and go for an all CG film? What do you think about this?

The ‘Fast Five’ name is apparently not testing very well in the UK and Australia, according to market research. A very quick decision has been made to change the name to ‘Fast & Furious 5: Rio Heist’. Check out the first new poster:

Fast Five – New Title Poster

The film is due out on April 21st in the UK, and posters and trailers are already being shown in cinemas under the title ‘Fast Five’… why would the great marketing gods suddenly decide to pointlessly change the title this close to release?

As a sort of quasi-celebration of Kurt Russell’s 60th birthday, I wanted to start a discussion on one of his best films; the truly groundbreaking “The Thing”.

As many will know, there will be a prequel released this year, also named “The Thing”. The debate here is not so much on whether this should happen or not (I know where I stand), the debate is rather with the visual effects.

The new film will be using CGI extensively throughout to portray the creature(s), but one of the best facets of the the original John Carpenter film are the incredible prosthetics and animatronic effects, masterfully created by Rob Bottin.

Do you think using CGI will undermine the original film if you are to take this film as part of the original canon? Do you think the new film should be able to stand on its own as a hallmark of this era, showcasing current effects as the original did in the 1980′s? Do you think it adds realism to the horror if the effects are real over computer-generated?

I have just returned from seeing Battle: Los Angeles. There was no explanation of the alien enemy in the film, but we saw enough (maybe too much) to know that they were a substantial threat. I then began to wonder how much do we need to know about aliens in cinema, and how much do we need to see?

As a starting point to this thread, I want to look at the Alien and Predator franchises. Both began with a singular terrifying threat but have descended into popcorn-films that give the creatures as much screen-time as the protagonists. Is this a case of appeasing the fans of the creatures? In the AVP films, the idea of both creatures being locked in combat appealed to some, but the idea of a human working with a Predator completely destroyed the terrifying nature of the original Predator. Also Ridley Scott is revisiting Alien territory in the forthcoming “Prometheus” prequel, explaining the origin of the xenomorph and destroying the mystique of its unknown purpose.

Does knowing too much take away from the fact we fear these creatures on a base level?

On another note, with every influence on each franchise, a different facet of the creatures have been introduced. Was the xenomorphic Alien a more terrifying creature when it was alone hunting its unarmed prey in darkness, or did it garner more fear when they worked in numbers to completely outsmart and overrun an advanced colonial marine unit? Was the Predator a more fearsome foe when clad in armour and invisibly stalking from a distance, or was it more frightening when ‘up close and personal’, eventually unmasking to reveal it’s truly alien features?

What do you think about the way aliens are depicted in films?

Unlike the current trend of DC Comics films grounded in reality such as ‘Batman Begins’ and ‘The Dark Knight’, ‘Green Lantern’ is at its core science fiction, heavily relying on the concept of life on other worlds.

In Green Lantern lore, a Lantern’s ring gifts the wearer with near-limitless abilities, including the ability to fabricate a costume when worn. The producers of the upcoming film have decided to render the protagonist’s costume entirely in CG, with the belief that using a man-made material would deter from the other-worldly power that the ring bestows.

Do you think the costume looks too artificial, or is there weight in why the producers decided to go with the CGI costume? Do you think the CGI is of a high enough standard to justify its exposure, or is this surreal style key in making it appear distinctly alien?