Steven Spielberg and the one-sheet of Doom.
By Burbanked on Aug 14, 2007 in Blogging, Henry Jones Jr., Movie Marketing 101, Movies, One-Sheetery | 2,609 views |
As the hot summer days of August continue to sludge on by, 31 Days of Spielberg at Damian’s Windmills of My Mind continues to hold me in its intellectual grip, each day spooling forth more analysis, anecdotes and insight into The Bearded One’s formidable filmography.
Today Damian looks at Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and I was struck by the advance one-sheet that he featured at the top of his post, pictured at the right (click here or on the thumbnail for a bigger version). Not only is it thrilling to recall what a great poster it is, but also how much exposition it provides us and indeed how much it telegraphs that this second movie in the franchise was decidedly not destined to be like the first.
There’s an entertaining debate going on at Damian’s site – one in which I weigh in and somewhat histrionically defend Temple of Doom against any and all boo-hooers who felt that the movie was too dark, ugly, gory or just generally unpleasant as a follow-up to Raiders. By all means head over there and read Damian’s post as well as the terrific comment string.
But what I love about this poster is how much it tells us:
- It incorporates the name of Indiana Jones into the title, which was not the case with Raiders, and reinforces it with the tagline. This establishes the naming convention of future installments, as well as positioning this one as a continuation and reference to the throwback nature of the franchise’s serial roots.
- Look at the colors in this poster, at the bright oranges, yellows and reds that are glowing behind where Jones is standing. It hints at the fire and the danger that are involved in the story. It’s a portend of what’s to come, a warning that it won’t all be fun like last time.
- Indy’s holding both a machete and his whip. This is to let us know that he’ll be fighting in a different way, in addition to offering us as moviegoers the comfort of seeing his signature weapon.
- And just look how badass Indy appears. The swagger, the confidence. There’s no fear in that stance, no world-weary uncertainty of the first film’s “I don’t know, I’m making this up as I go.”
My point over at Damian’s comment string was basically that Temple of Doom can be forgiven a lot of inconsistencies with Indy’s character because it functions essentially as a prequel, and the character hasn’t yet become the guy we meet at the beginning of Raiders. I think Indy’s stance in this one-sheet is wholly created to convey that idea and – again – let us know that we’re in for something different this time. That this is the “fortune and glory” Dr. Jones, not the “it’s not the age it’s the mileage” Jones.
It’s easy, of course, to pick this apart 23 years after the fact. But marketing materials like one-sheets are supposed to be crafted with a mission, with a reason and a message and a direct connection to the thing they’re promoting. We’d do well to demand such treatment from today’s studios where the Big Floating Head monstrosities have become all too common.
Not only did the director of Crystal Skull find Michael Bay’s movie to be “awesome”, but in Michael Bay’s opinion, Spielberg might even feel that the movie is perhaps Michael Bay’s best. Awesome news for Michael Bay fans of Michael Bay movies! (
(
© Copyright
damian | Aug 15, 2007 | Reply
Once again, thanks for the mention, Alan. I appreciate your feedback over at Windmills as well.
Like you, I have always loved this poster. It might even be the best of all the “Indiana Jones” posters (although the original one-sheet for Raiders has always been one of my personal favorites) for all the reasons that you mention. In fact, I seriously considered doing a “parody” of it for “31 Days of Speilberg.” I’m a bit of an artist myself and wanted to create a poster that featured Steven Spielberg (in his trademark baseball cap and jeans) standing in the same doorway holding a camera on his shoulder and a movie slate in his hand. The tagline would’ve read: “If cinema has a name… it must be Steven Spielberg.”
Wisely, I chose instead to devote my time to the writing of the essays, but if I do decide (after all of this is said and done) to try and turn this into a book, I will defintely campaign for that image being on the cover.
Burbanked | Aug 16, 2007 | Reply
I’d kind of forgotten about this poster before seeing it on your site. I’ve also got the original Raiders one-sheet (grievously, a reprint and not an original, which are fairly valuable); it’s the only one-sheet I’ve got that I had professionally framed because of how damn great it is.
GREAT idea about the Spielberg mock-up. I’ll be the first in line to buy that book!
mariengarr | Aug 21, 2007 | Reply
Damian’s blog on Spielberg has been accused of plagiarism, on the spielbergfilms.com forum discussions:
http://www.spielbergfilms.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3
Burbanked | Aug 21, 2007 | Reply
mariengarr – I read the comment string on spielbergfilms.com, and I’ll keep the link to it in your comment for anyone else who wants to decide for themselves, but I don’t give the claims much weight.
The fact that Damian and the book that the forum cites both describe scenes in similar words is pretty inconsequential in and of itself. Further, the thread’s author hasn’t done a very convincing job in positing his/her case; it’s all along the lines of “look how similar the phrases are” and “Damian realizes that he has copied, so he then tries some trivial alteration” and so on.
Damian is a good writer and has previously proven himself as an avid Spielberg fan. I really don’t think he needs a book to tell him how to describe a scene in which a “headlight fills the frame”. It’s safe to assume that two writers, describing that shot, could come up with similar phrasing for it, especially if it’s important to the scene and the description of Spielberg’s cinematic tricks.
I’m sure that Damian will answer this on his own site, because I see that someone has sent him the link as well. I’ll let him address anything specific in the claims made on spielbergfilms.com.
damian | Aug 21, 2007 | Reply
I have addressed the claim and hopefully to the satisfaction of anyone concerned with it.
I also hope it was clear that my previous statement about publishing this was intended as a joke. mostly I was trying to emphasize what a good idea I thought the “Spielberg as Indy” poster would be (and I would hope it would clearly be a case of “parody” and not plagiarism). I never intended–nor still do–to publish these writings in book form in any way.
mariengarr | Aug 22, 2007 | Reply
You trivalize the plagiarism by citing just one example. “justanotherfan” wrote:
“The blog author, Damian Arlyn, shadows and imitates the phrasing, as well as the analyses and evaluations, found in Directed by Steven Spielberg, all without acknowledgment.”
http://www.spielbergfilms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7812
This (and the several examples) suggests the plagiarism is systematic. The owner of the spielbergfilms.com website, Steven Awalt, initially set out to champion Damian’s blog over the academic books he criticizes. But Awalt has now decided to take off his site his praise for Damian’s website:
“Unfortunately, it turns out that the author at the blog was cribbing entire passages (rewritten ever-so-slightly) from at least one book that I criticize below. I can’t in good conscience link to any source that plagiarizes from another author, so I have removed mention and the link for this reason.”
http://www.spielbergfilms.com/general/1500
Burbanked | Aug 22, 2007 | Reply
mariengarr: My intention was certainly not to trivialize an act of plagiarism, and I’ve read a little more about it and I see – at least partially – your point. I would NOT, however, refer to this as “systemic”
Damian has apologized and mitigated the issue here. His explanation is good enough for me and I remain a supporter of his Spielberg project.
Eddie | Sep 13, 2007 | Reply
damian admits that he is a plagiarist. in defending him, you are actually contradicting him. ironic, no?
Burbanked | Sep 13, 2007 | Reply
Gosh, Eddie, welcome to Burbanked. Did you get bored baiting the Damian-hate over at his site? Please tell me that you’re going to be bringing your particular brand of dull, repetitive and generally pointless commentary here as well.
Damian’s apologized and has tried to make amends. I’ve expressed my opinion both here and on his site, so unless you’re bringing something new to the table, feel free to move on.
Eddie | Sep 14, 2007 | Reply
i repeat myself only because his defenders keep reiterating their illogical support. why don’t you and your ilk consider changing YOUR tune?
Burbanked | Sep 14, 2007 | Reply
On behalf of me and my ilk, thank you. It would be unfortunate if we were simply left to ourselves to judge Damian’s acts and contrition, so what a joy it is for all of us that we’ve got you to explain it to us, Eddie. No one before you has ever quite understood the evils that men do and has explained it with such clarity and logic before.
The difference between our arguments is that no one is asking you to change your mind. You have a right to be as indignant and angry as you choose to be. I’m just bored with how you’re expressing it.
Eddie | Sep 14, 2007 | Reply
someone stole something. you don’t have to make up your minds about anything, buddy.