With most art, critics do not use content as a reason to say a poster or work of art is horrible. Things like illustration, composition and actual manufacture of the poster are legitimate criticisms if it is indeed crappy.
Did Drew paint a horrible likeness of Dr. Frankenstein or the monster? Did Drew and Ken make poor decisions in composing the art and the lettering for the movie? Was the screen printing process by D & L inferior in any way? Those things would be legitimate areas of discussion and debate.
I get the impression that Phishbeatles didn't think the poster was crappy for those reasons, but because he disliked the subject matter, a movie poster for an 80 year old movie as he so eloquently put it. Never once did I say that Phish posters were crappy in any way. I haven't spent any time looking at them to reach a decision if they are poorly made, designed or illustrated. The only Phish poster that comes to mind is this poster from '95.
Pretty awesome poster regardless if you like the content or not.
Phishbeatles also didn't get the fact I was busting his balls due to the fact he mostly collects Phish posters, not the fact that he likes Phish. If you have narrow tastes in any particular subject, your opinion about something you don't collect, like or understand is not going to be received with any real respect by your peers. I didn't see one movie poster in his collection and it was comprised of well over %50 of Phish and Phish related memorabilia. No mention if he had actually seen a Frankenstein in the flesh either.
And lastly, being a noob doesn't preclude one from calling out someone for being a thread shitter. Remember, he didn't just trash me, but anyone who liked this poster.
As you said Earlgrey, this forum is no longer about Phish but the poster world in general. It's for everyone that likes posters no matter what the subject matter.
Congrats to Ken and Drew for giving us this landmark, screenprinted poster. Well deserved poster of the year.
Apologies for the crap camera.
