Movie News | Movies.com: Now that the Avatar sequels are in production and casting news and promotional photos are trickling out, a lot of fun is being had at the franchise's expense. Movie fans are busy debating whether the 2009 original, which was nominated for Best Picture among many other Oscar nominations, was any good to begin with (its Certified Fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes of 84% indicates it was). And this past weekend, Saturday Night Live featured a filmed sketch starring Ryan Gosling that ridicules the typeface (or font) used for the movie's title, which is called Papyrus.
7 comments:
I find the strong opinions about different font use to be very entertaining to hear about. I never had really thought too much about the designers behind each font until I read this article. I had just assumed that most, if not all, of the default fonts were made by one or two people who worked for the computer industry right when the ability to select fonts became available. With regards to Papyrus itself, while I would not use the font in many situations I think that it fits quite well with the movie Avatar. Like the woman said in the SNL skit, "it's tribal yet futuristic." In my opinion the worst font offenders have got to be Comic Sans and Windings. Even so, I think that all fonts have their uses (except for Windings, I can't think of any situation where a medley of random symbols could actually be useful).
While i agree with the people above that the debate is hilarious, I also think that ridiculing any font needs to be thought through - all fonts have designers, just like Papyrus was designed for the Avatar films, and while things like Comic Sans and yes, even Papyrus, are better known to be misused because of their unique graphic appeal to non artists, all fonts can be misused and made to look wrong. It isn't something only attributed to that font specifically, but more noticeable because of how different and unusual it is.
That being said, I also think fonts like Papyrus and Comic Sans CAN be used effectively - honestly, I don't mind it when it's used tastefully like in the Avatar logos, as much as others might hate it. These fonts are all good, it's just their tendency to be overused that makes them obnoxious and annoying. If they had been utilized by graphic designers, I'm sure they wouldn't be as made fun of and parodied as they are now because they would have been made to look polished and finished instead of an afterthought to make something look flashy.
I find it rather amusing how intensely emotions can run over the smallest or most seemingly insignificant design decisions. In this case, the use of a font of all things can spark a debate ranging back several years, decades even. I am also greatly amused that it is the "Avatar" franchise of all things that sparks such a debate, as there has not been an "Avatar" movie released since I was about 10 years old. Can we even call "Avatar" a franchise yet? I mean honestly, of all the things you could critique about the massive black hole of funding that is the decade spanning "Avatar franchise" people are choosing to argue about the font? This phenomena is truly amazing to me. With regard to the titular font itself, I am relatively indifferent. Its pretty kitschy and self-indulgent, but then again, so is "Avatar", so I think it is a good fit.
I always find it interesting when the designer behind something that is taken for granted is mentioned. I've always just thought of Papyrus as a font that just kind of existed and never ever thought about the design behind it. To read about how the original designer feels about the font shows that everything in the world really was created with some purpose. Though the font is kind of the worst, I think that it is important for the designer to be proud of his early design since it is something that he can connect a fond memory to. I think the SNL sketch is hilarious. I love that they make such an insignificant thing so dramatic. With the sketch, they are able to not only parody the use of the font but also the intense movie genre. However, on a personal sense, I think that this anger is fully justified. Avatar is such a well funded movie!! Why didn't the graphic designer for the logo create his own font?! Papyrus definitely seems like an angry choice.
Oh my god I love that there is an article about this, I've literally been watching this video all week. That sketch was a great way to start the new season of Saturday Night Live and they've found a way to make an old movie logo funny. I love that the creator of the font is both finding the humor in this and defending his creation at the same time. Personally I don't have as much of a problem with the font Papyrus as I do with Comic Sans. Just today I went to check if a rehearsal studio was signed out in 25 Live and I noticed that there was Comic Sans on the homepage. It was even highlighted and in a different color to the rest of the text. Are official Carnegie Mellon webpages not even a safe refuge from this disaster of a typeface? Is truly nothing sacred anymore? That font is a literal abomination and needs to stay in pre-school classrooms where it belongs. I would put Papyrus on my headstone if it would mean that Comic Sans would be eradicated from every document I have to see. There are so many viable font options that at this point if you're using Comic Sans you better be doing it for the bit.
I am only commenting on this article because Megan Jones physically forced me to, but I am actually really glad that she did. This video is really funny and actually makes a very good point. Graphic design, including movie posters, logos, and titles, becoming extremely iconic. Just think of the Disney font. I have seen that font used for other things, usually not on huge commercial productions, but still fairly large events, and I have never been able to see the text without immediately thinking of Disney. This may or may not be the actual intention of whoever chose that font, but regardless, it adds a very important extra consideration in any kind of graphic design. While this SNL skit obviously exaggerates the impact that a font choice can have, it definitely makes a huge statement about the choices that any work has made. Its's the whole idea of judging a book by its cover. Sure, in a philosophical sense, don't do it, but in reality a cover can actually say a whole lot.
First ting, This article questions the perfection of the first Avatar movie by questioning if the first one was even any good to begin with. I totally disagree with this statement. Yes, the plot of the first Avatar movie could have used some work, but the graphics were amazing. The CGI was revolutionary for the time. It completely transported you to this other world that was vivid, fascinating The visual stimuli was invigorating. I’ve watched some of the behind the scenes footage of the motion capture work done by the actors and it is amazing. The acting techniques and the methods employed by the cast of this movie that played the blue people must have been interesting to develop.
Now onto the font choices for the promotional flyer. It could have been chosen better. This font tells the viewer nothing about the movie or about the world. The advertisement is the first thing a viewer sees about a movie and it is probably one of the things that inspires a viewer to see a movie. So honestly I think using papyrus was risk because it is uninteresting and it didn’t do a good job at drawing a viewer in on its own which could have potentially cost the franchise thousands, but obviously the font choice wasn’t that important because this film still has a gross income of millions of dollars. What this does bring into question is the importance of designer’s choices, even when it comes to things that seem insignificant, like font choice. Font can say a lot. What message would the poster have sent if “Avatar” was written in Times New Roman?
Post a Comment