Mondo Poster News & Rumors

[mfaith]

No title blocks is a deal breaker for me. Or for a large majority of movie posters. Otherwise they're basically a licensed art print instead of a poster.

Really? That's still a thing? Then you must not be buying most of the movie related prints released anymore. Not a ton of them have credit blocks nowadays. And seriously what does it matter? I agree, it's super nice to have when they have them, but does it really completely kill the poster for you? Like it could have the most amazing art on it ever, but you'd pass because it doesn't list a bunch of names on it, too? It's not like the ones that do have credit blocks on them are hanging in theaters or are used in any way differently than the ones that don't... I'm not antagonizing you; just trying to genuinely understand that sentiment.

The last movie related poster I got was the good, bad, and ugly variant about 2 years ago. I'm at a point where I won't have wall space to hang everything if I get more combined with the larger edition sizes has me not as crazy as I have been in the past. In my mind no title blocks makes it a licensed art print instead of a movie poster. Nothing wrong with that but the art needs to be that much better (like the good, bad, and ugly that I bought). If it was the most amazing art ever I probably wouldn't pass because I still like art. They're just different to me then a movie poster. Kinda like how a gig poster is different from the art print versions.

Not sure if that makes sense. But that's how I've been lately since I haven't been impressed with what I've seen out there the last couple years.

Fair enough. I guess I could understand the gigposter analogy a bit more if art prints of gigposters still referenced the band in some way, which usually they don't. The posters without credit blocks are still tightly coupled with the movie property. Art prints of gigposters usually have nothing to do with the bands themselves. So it's not quite the same. At least in that sense. I feel like most of the time when I see people say that, it more often is just a limiting factor that they've placed on themselves so they don't buy too much. Which is totally understandable. It makes perfect sense to set some standard to apply to your collecting so you don't end up broke. But at the same time it's not really a knock to the publishers or art directors either, which sometimes people make that stretch. Anyway, just thinking out loud. Thanks for explaining

[bdm105]

No title blocks is a deal breaker for me. Or for a large majority of movie posters. Otherwise they're basically a licensed art print instead of a poster.

Really? That's still a thing? Then you must not be buying most of the movie related prints released anymore. Not a ton of them have credit blocks nowadays. And seriously what does it matter? I agree, it's super nice to have when they have them, but does it really completely kill the poster for you? Like it could have the most amazing art on it ever, but you'd pass because it doesn't list a bunch of names on it, too? It's not like the ones that do have credit blocks on them are hanging in theaters or are used in any way differently than the ones that don't... I'm not antagonizing you; just trying to genuinely understand that sentiment.

The last movie related poster I got was the good, bad, and ugly variant about 2 years ago. I'm at a point where I won't have wall space to hang everything if I get more combined with the larger edition sizes has me not as crazy as I have been in the past. In my mind no title blocks makes it a licensed art print instead of a movie poster. Nothing wrong with that but the art needs to be that much better (like the good, bad, and ugly that I bought). If it was the most amazing art ever I probably wouldn't pass because I still like art. They're just different to me then a movie poster. Kinda like how a gig poster is different from the art print versions.

Not sure if that makes sense. But that's how I've been lately since I haven't been impressed with what I've seen out there the last couple years.

Fair enough. I guess I could understand the gigposter analogy a bit more if art prints of gigposters still referenced the band in some way, which usually they don't. The posters without credit blocks are still tightly coupled with the movie property. Art prints of gigposters usually have nothing to do with the bands themselves. So it's not quite the same. At least in that sense. I feel like most of the time when I see people say that, it more often is just a limiting factor that they've placed on themselves so they don't buy too much. Which is totally understandable. It makes perfect sense to set some standard to apply to your collecting so you don't end up broke. But at the same time it's not really a knock to the publishers or art directors either, which sometimes people make that stretch. Anyway, just thinking out loud. Thanks for explaining

Yeah it's not the greatest analogy I know. But they are slightly different categories to me. But I know I'm not the only one who thinks that way. I do recall seeing Moss say he won't do any new Star Wars posters for the new trilogy without the credits for instance.

[aldobishalini]

Speaking of setting limits, what kind of limits do people have personally? Handful of artists? Styles? Simply a monthly budget? I'm curious bc I feel like I have one sometimes then I end up with a bunch of random unrelated posters over the span of a couple weeks.

[mfaith]

Speaking of setting limits, what kind of limits do people have personally? Handful of artists? Styles? Simply a monthly budget? I'm curious bc I feel like I have one sometimes then I end up with a bunch of random unrelated posters over the span of a couple weeks.

Mine's pretty weak lol. Not really rules at all, so much as loose guidelines or ideals. Like if it's a movie poster, it should be for a film I'm super into. If it's a concert poster, it should at least be for a band I really care a lot about (doesn't have to be for a show I've attended, though I know people who have that as a criteria...). For art prints, which I honestly buy more of than anything else, the subject and composition have to be compelling. But really at the end of the day, all of those things can be overridden by an amazing looking piece of art, or be by someone that I collect their work in general. So yeah, very loose boundaries, which don't do a very good job of holding me in for any single instance, but generally keep me moving in the right direction over time.

[NickoRay]

No BF announcement is a bummer. Hopefully they have something in store.

[35mmpaul]

credits aren't always a deal breaker for me. but i prefer them.

[comountaingolf]

Speaking of setting limits, what kind of limits do people have personally? Handful of artists? Styles? Simply a monthly budget? I'm curious bc I feel like I have one sometimes then I end up with a bunch of random unrelated posters over the span of a couple weeks.

Mine's pretty weak lol. Not really rules at all, so much as loose guidelines or ideals. Like if it's a movie poster, it should be for a film I'm super into. If it's a concert poster, it should at least be for a band I really care a lot about (doesn't have to be for a show I've attended, though I know people who have that as a criteria...). For art prints, which I honestly buy more of than anything else, the subject and composition have to be compelling. But really at the end of the day, all of those things can be overridden by an amazing looking piece of art, or be by someone that I collect their work in general. So yeah, very loose boundaries, which don't do a very good job of holding me in for any single instance, but generally keep me moving in the right direction over time.

I've often pondered what a psychoanalyst would say about my all over the drymounting map collection. Fun times but I could use a little direction... after I dump around a 1000 prints to make some room for the new

[ccsmd598]

Speaking of setting limits, what kind of limits do people have personally? Handful of artists? Styles? Simply a monthly budget? I'm curious bc I feel like I have one sometimes then I end up with a bunch of random unrelated posters over the span of a couple weeks.

Just ask yourself, do I really want to put this on my wall? --> do I really want to go spend money on a frame/custom framing to put on my wall?

Most times the answer is no, and ya move on.

[raphulysses]

No title blocks is a deal breaker for me. Or for a large majority of movie posters. Otherwise they're basically a licensed art print instead of a poster.

Really? That's still a thing? Then you must not be buying most of the movie related prints released anymore. Not a ton of them have credit blocks nowadays. And seriously what does it matter? I agree, it's super nice to have when they have them, but does it really completely kill the poster for you? Like it could have the most amazing art on it ever, but you'd pass because it doesn't list a bunch of names on it, too? It's not like the ones that do have credit blocks on them are hanging in theaters or are used in any way differently than the ones that don't... I'm not antagonizing you; just trying to genuinely understand that sentiment.

The last movie related poster I got was the good, bad, and ugly variant about 2 years ago. I'm at a point where I won't have wall space to hang everything if I get more combined with the larger edition sizes has me not as crazy as I have been in the past. In my mind no title blocks makes it a licensed art print instead of a movie poster. Nothing wrong with that but the art needs to be that much better (like the good, bad, and ugly that I bought). If it was the most amazing art ever I probably wouldn't pass because I still like art. They're just different to me then a movie poster. Kinda like how a gig poster is different from the art print versions.

Not sure if that makes sense. But that's how I've been lately since I haven't been impressed with what I've seen out there the last couple years.

Fair enough. I guess I could understand the gigposter analogy a bit more if art prints of gigposters still referenced the band in some way, which usually they don't. The posters without credit blocks are still tightly coupled with the movie property. Art prints of gigposters usually have nothing to do with the bands themselves. So it's not quite the same. At least in that sense. I feel like most of the time when I see people say that, it more often is just a limiting factor that they've placed on themselves so they don't buy too much. Which is totally understandable. It makes perfect sense to set some standard to apply to your collecting so you don't end up broke. But at the same time it's not really a knock to the publishers or art directors either, which sometimes people make that stretch. Anyway, just thinking out loud. Thanks for explaining

Just chiming into your convo with some of my recent feelings on the credit block issues/non-issue. I have been more lenient on a no credit block print if the print in question is clearly a film print. Aspinall's Goodfellas is clearly a print for the film because there just isnt much Goodfellas art or spinoffs out there. Marvel/DC/Genre prints definitely gain so much appeal with a credit block since that is what separates it from the miscellaneous spinoffs/comic/reboots/fan art

[aldobishalini]

Speaking of setting limits, what kind of limits do people have personally? Handful of artists? Styles? Simply a monthly budget? I'm curious bc I feel like I have one sometimes then I end up with a bunch of random unrelated posters over the span of a couple weeks.

Mine's pretty weak lol. Not really rules at all, so much as loose guidelines or ideals. Like if it's a movie poster, it should be for a film I'm super into. If it's a concert poster, it should at least be for a band I really care a lot about (doesn't have to be for a show I've attended, though I know people who have that as a criteria...). For art prints, which I honestly buy more of than anything else, the subject and composition have to be compelling. But really at the end of the day, all of those things can be overridden by an amazing looking piece of art, or be by someone that I collect their work in general. So yeah, very loose boundaries, which don't do a very good job of holding me in for any single instance, but generally keep me moving in the right direction over time.

Yeah I'd say your loose guidelines are generally how most collect. Although I had the thought of only getting gig posters of bands I like, but NC Winters has me buying his Primus prints and I don't like Primus at all... Except for Les of course. The art on those primus prints are too hard not to buy. Only one of the gig prints I own is from a show I actually attended.

[bmd1191]

I know companies like Mondo have to follow the legalities of having credit blocks on prints or not which does suck for most of us who would prefer them.

But does anyone else fall in the camp that they don't care if the prints are "officially licensed" and would rather have awesome prints without the "approval" of the studio/company etc. I miss the old days of mondo and other companies that just release what they wanted without approval. Obviously they do things by the book now and can't go back but i'll always miss those days.

But to me when companies come out and say "Oooh it's an officially licensed screenprint" that literally does nothing for me if they can't put likenesses and credit blocks on it for the studio to approve it.

But if the art is great enough, i wont mind a lack of credits.

[BENYOUNG20]

Lets see some bootleg screens of people putting title blocks on over the regular mondo print.

[ccsmd598]

I know companies like Mondo have to follow the legalities of having credit blocks on prints or not which does suck for most of us who would prefer them.

But does anyone else fall in the camp that they don't care if the prints are "officially licensed" and would rather have awesome prints without the "approval" of the studio/company etc. I miss the old days of mondo and other companies that just release what they wanted without approval. Obviously they do things by the book now and can't go back but i'll always miss those days.

But to me when companies come out and say "Oooh it's an officially licensed screenprint" that literally does nothing for me if they can't put likenesses and credit blocks on it for the studio to approve it.

But if the art is great enough, i wont mind a lack of credits.

I totally agree. I think people are forgetting that this whole hobby, licensed or not is just fan art. Not of this fudge was ever intended to be used in a movie theater so whatevz. No one will every ask you if your print is officially licensed when they see it on your wall.

[hunterjax]

credits aren't always a deal breaker for me. but i prefer them.

This. And not because I have to have the credits, but because (and this is a huge generalization) they usually add balance to a poster.

I think in the case of the Woodson Bullitt it doesn't bother me, because I like the look of it as a pulp paperback cover. With 2001, I think Woodson did a fantastic job of making it look like credits to balance all the art.

Kurtz's open edition TDK is basically an artprint to me and one of the few I bought despite not having credits.

[35mmpaul]

eh. legality is not really the point.

if it is officially licensed it's part of the official promotion campaign for the films. and get used potentially all over the world for covers, or products and such. I mean look at Olly's Star Wars.

To bemoan galleries who work through official channels and it doesn't have the likeness or credits you want, shows a lack of understanding in working with someone elses intellectual property.

The company that made the film it gets to decide how art created from it. It's pretty simple.