Looks like Star Wars posters messed up 1977!? http://www.vijayp.ca/movies/index.html#1977
Hmm again in 1980:
http://www.vijayp.ca/movies/index.html#1980
Maybe Lucas really was a visionary!
Distribution of colors in movie posters between 1914 and 2012
31–40 of 85 posts
Re: Distribution of colors in movie posters between 1914 and 2012
#32Cool! Color combinations form sinusoid throughout the history.
Re: Distribution of colors in movie posters between 1914 and 2012
#33Looks like Star Wars posters messed up 1977!? http://www.vijayp.ca/movies/index.html#1977
Before clicking I thought it was Jaws, but wrong year.
Re: Distribution of colors in movie posters between 1914 and 2012
#34I wonder what happened in 1921. It was out of control!
The most interesting part of 1921 is that the original(?) Brewster's Millions was released. In the original movie, the protagonist had to spend $2mil in a year and remain unmarried to inherit the full $10mil. By 1985, the remake dropped the marriage requirement (honestly, being a single rich guy in the 1980s wasn't too bad) and upped the spending requirement to $30 mil in 30 days to inherit $300 mil.
My, how times change. I wonder what Montgomery Brewster will have to do in 2049 to earn his inheritance.
Re: Distribution of colors in movie posters between 1914 and 2012
#35Interesting to watch the color gamut open up as color printing technologies improve over time. Blue/Cyan is the hardest pigment to work with, and you can see the blue-range grow over time as the technology to support it improves.
Re: Distribution of colors in movie posters between 1914 and 2012
#36In the associated blog post he says: Methodology: I downloaded ~ 35k thumbnailed-size images (yay wget -- “The Social Network” inspired me to not use curl) Could some who's seen the film enlighten me on why wget is better than curl? Thanks.
I think this is mostly one line in which Mark Zuckerberg says something along the lines of "time for a little wget magic". Certainly not a major plot point. Here's what I think is the relevant scene on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odOzMz-fOOw
Wow, I was surprised on how realistic that was. Maybe I should watch the movie after all.
Re: Distribution of colors in movie posters between 1914 and 2012
#37Interesting to watch the color gamut open up as color printing technologies improve over time. Blue/Cyan is the hardest pigment to work with, and you can see the blue-range grow over time as the technology to support it improves.
I would say the color gamut has narrowed recently.
Really good blog post on Hollywood going mad with teal and orange: http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.ie/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hol...
Re: Distribution of colors in movie posters between 1914 and 2012
#38I immediately starting scanning the colors to see if this blog post from a couple of years ago was vindicated about all movies being teal and orange:
http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-ho...
It is.
Re: Distribution of colors in movie posters between 1914 and 2012
#39While beautiful, only a seriously limited amount of movies was analysed for this and the selection seems weird. The year 2000 for example only has 48 movies in this. I am not sure you can interpret anything from it.
Re: Distribution of colors in movie posters between 1914 and 2012
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nowhere does he say that he spent all of the 2 weeks working on this entirely. My guess would be that he did a 2-day sprint to hack the prototype and a bit more to polish it across the 2 weeks. Point is - he would not bill 2 working weeks were it a contracting gig. But then again, where'd you get such a motivated contractor (cf. working on own project)?
If he did it in a 2-day sprint, that makes it even more amazing -- which was my point. It seems unlikely to me that I could find someone to do the same quality of work as a contracting gig (whether it took 2 days or 2 months) and charge less than tens of thousands of dollars.
That's why people spouting "open-source is always less quality" and "without paying artists there would be no culture" are so dead wrong. People who feel the urge to create and do, will do so. And to me, things that were created for one's own enjoyment are pretty much always better than things created to be monetised.