Tuesday, March 16, 2010


It was bad enough that the major promotional poster for this film included a blurry Thir13en Ghosts-esque face with inkblot eyes and a sad excuse for skeleton teeth, yet I recently stumbled upon something even worse than this massacre. The OTHER promotional photo for Shutter.

My first question, how much money did Polaroid pay to get this poster gig? I should rephrase that, how much money did Polaroid waste to get their name slapped on a poster for such a god awful film? Did they even watch the film before they attempted a bidding war with Kodak or Fujifilm to get this? My god, I didn't even know people used Polaroid cameras anymore other than hipster kids in Chicago who are rebelling against the technological advancements that weren't created by Mac. It's bad enough that films pretend that every cell phone known to man loses reception at the worst times possible, but to use such an old camera? Come on man. Get with the times.

The tagline is stupid and the font set up looks off center. I know it isn't, but it just doesn't look right. I seriously think I could have made this poster in Picnik. The stupid glare, the stupid text, the stupid text effects...come on dude. It's Photoshop 101.

I also want to point out how this poser is clearly insulting the intelligence of everyone looking at it. Thank you for the giant red circle around the ghost in the photo, the tagline right above it or the weird half invisible character in the frame didn't give it away enough for me. I'd like to thank you considering I don't have the common sense to look at a picture and see more than the title. I didn't know John Madden did movie posters, but after looking at this, I stand corrected. This poster makes me more angry than it does anything. Has society really sunken this low that "reading between the lines" is such a task that marketers have to point it out for us

8 comment(s):

Unknown said...

Wow... I thought you'd added that circle yourself at first... that's ridiculous.

Also, here's my vote for old cameras.

Knarf Black XIV said...

Polaroid couldn't have put up too much, considering they don't even make that type of film any more. (Photo nerds everywhere wept incessantly until they promised to bring it back.)

But yeah, that poster has about four things too many going on in it. Most one sheets are designed to draw your eye to the title, a celebrity's mug, or a single strong image, but this has your gaze bouncing around like a pinball machine.

RahneFan said...

At first glance, what I saw was "Shitter." I'm not shutting you.

James C. Sugrue said...

I laughed out loud at your Chicago hipster comment. Living in NY, I automatically associate hipsters with Brooklyn, or Philly, even LA or Seattle. I guess if you don't live in the mid-west, you forget it exists.

Unknown said...

My decrepit ass owns a Polaroid, ya young whippersnapper! Now get off my lawn! ;-)
Seriously, what that poster looks like is a Polaroid ad that was trying way too hard to be cool.

Davey C. said...

To be fair, I think the use of a Polaroid was necessary for this idea, because it allows you to see the photo almost immediately. That being said, it's not a very GOOD idea.

The red circle is really what does it in completely for me. If they really wanted you to be drawn to a ghostly figure in a picture, then they should have designed the whole poster to draw your eyes there. The red circle is not only ugly and insulting, it's a lazyass cop-out.

Anonymous said...

I was definitely expecting you to tear apart the lame-ass tag-line...

Christopher Zenga said...

I love this film, almost more than any other horror film, EVER. And I agree the red circle is a little much, but the lead character Tun is a photographer, he has a collection of cameras and it would be completely conceivable that he would have an old 80's Polaroid hanging around. AND it is vital to the finale that he has the Polaroid near by, I wont spoil it, but I don't think the poster is that "Terrible" after you see the film

Later days,


Related Posts with Thumbnails