|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Author
|
Topic: Film Trademarks
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 06-17-2007 05:09 PM
Since the discussion with trademarks in the "Ratatouille" topic in the "Features info and trailer attachment" forum, I though we'd better take this topic over here to continue and to follow forum rules in that previous forum pertaining on chit-chatting to be continued to a new area.
One person mentions of the new Disney trademark (which I think is the best thing that has came out of the "House of Mouse" since they redid the "Buena Vista" trademark when Disney quit going through RKO for their features..(and the RKO trademark is shown in the comedy "Are We Done Yet") and began "BV" release with their first CinemaScope feature "20000 Leagues Under the Sea"
One person said about the Pixar trademark..and said that the Universal trademark was tops.
How many of us remember the numerous trademarks that UNI went through..with the airplane circling around the globe (the B/W days..), then the Universal International trademark, how the 'saturn' rings came into focus and surrounded the globe for the Universal trademark of the 60's and 70's, and the current one we have now (which was derived from the opening sequence of WaterWorld..*gasp*).
Now, we shift over to Columbia Pictures - the famous statue of Columbia and it's variations during the B/W era. Plus, Columbia had their sense of humor as well with the 1963 film of "A Man Called Flinstone" with a cartoon descript of the trademark with Wilma posing as Columbia..
Paramount had their mountain, but the two best trademarks from Paramount came from: when they would present "VistaVision" afterwards with the mountain in the background, and the highly detailed artwork of the mountain with red hues for the opening trademark of "the Ten Commandments" (and how many of us remember the little cross symbols that were flashed in the upper right hand corner after each changeover of those 12 reels of film to remind of us of how the widescreen image is supposed to be centered on the screen...) - from "A Paramount Picture" to "Gulf+Western", "Paramount Communications Company", then the present "A Viacom Company"
MGM had Leo .. what can we say. Just that Leo didn't move and roar on the front of "BEN-HUR" and he was completely left out at the beginning of "2001:a Space Odyssey" in choice of a simple drawn circular form in black with a blue background. MGM had their small changes as well with their merger with UA and the gold MGM banner was changed to add in the UA merger in that banner that surrounded LEO. Now, it's back to normal, but one can tell that the trademark is rather a tired one - one can see the graininess of using old negatives...
Warner Bros known for their shield. Yet, in 1966 they dropped the shield for the "W7" since of the merging with "Seven Arts". Then the short lived "A Kinney Company" soon afterwards. Later on in the mid 70's, they went artistic with the simple "W" being of a part of Warner Communications Company. Finally, the shield returns.
..but nothing compares to the superb classic FOX logo with Lionel Newman's "Fox Fanfare" composition hearlding which would begin before the fade-in of the trademark.
Then as the fanfare contiues after the opening segment, the second section of the fanfare would begin with the added script in gold letters on a dark blue sky background:
20th Century-Fox presents a CinemaScope Film
The fanfare wasn't included on the first two FOX CinemaScope films - being of "the Robe" and "Demetrius and the Gladiators", since Newman had to come up with the second movement of his fanfare to present CinemaScope with the trademark..
Then, a rare addition to the CinemaScope trademark was added for the 55mm process:
20th Century-Fox presents a CinemaScope Film in CinemaScope55
(for the King and I, and Carousel)
It was disappointing when FOX started to use Panavision lenses for their cameras that the "CinemaScope" section of the trademark was taken out.
Yet it was a massive improvement for FOX to switch over to those lenses from using those B&L's that they were using from the inception of anamorphic photography..being that "CinemaScope" is their trademark name.
-Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-18-2007 01:39 PM
I guess I should have a little more enthusiasm than I do for the motion graphics "logos" major movie studios have on the front of their features these days. Many of the new branding schemes look great. But then I have a sort of "so what" feeling about them at the same time.
The problem is the technical challenges on creating those motion graphics designs are relatively minor. Sure, some are still costly to make, requiring hundreds or even thousands of man hours to model and animate. The best ones take some beefy render farms to produce. But there's hardly any visual idea that is just plain impossible to produce like it might have been a couple decades ago.
Many of these new motion graphics intros are produced using off the shelf software like Autodesk Maya, Studio 3D Max and Adobe After Effects. Some may use more expensive solutions like Autodesk's suite of high end systems it acquired from Discreet (Flame, Flint, Inferno, etc.). The process is simple enough that even some smaller indie companies and other production companies are developing impressive looking motion graphics branding of their own.
In decades past it was a pretty big challenge to come up with a film distributor brand motion graphic that looked visually impressive and tasteful at the same time. In the 1980's and into the early 1990's we would see a lot of smaller studios lay on the cheesy disco starburst effects and other laughable crap like that.
The late 1960's and 1970's had a decent amount of experimentation with minimalistic graphics. The un-animated MGM lion graphic from 2001: A Space Odyssey was visually stark, but functioned more like a pure logo. Many people use the word "logo" far too loosely, applying it to complex (and often cluttered) graphic designs and even illustrations. Studios like Paramount, Warner Bros and others did similar experiments. Mere remnants of those experiments only survive now on movie poster one sheets where the studios still try to have their brands live up to the true definition of a logo.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 06-22-2007 05:04 AM
The 20th Century Fox logos (clips, snipes, whatever you wish to call them) have always been my favorite, especially those featuring the “CinemaScope Extension.” One exception: I dislike the use of the full fanfare when used on contemporary non-scope films, where I find its use inappropriate and running counter to the original concept of the “Extension” music.
I especially enjoy seeing some type of gag or stylization incorporated into a studio logo. (For humorous examples, see Fox’s “The Cannonball Run” or MGM’s “Strange Brew.” Or for visually interesting examples, see Paramount’s “Indiana Jones” movies where the animated logo mountain dissolves into a photographed opening-shot mountain or Universal’s “E.T.” where the logo was played in reverse.)
This month, by the way, marks the 40th anniversary of the retirement of the “Fox Fanfare with CinemaScope Extension” with the release, in the United States at least, of the final official CinemaScope production: “Caprice”*.
Fox would bring the full fanfare out of retirement in 1994, although it did occasionally make an appearance inbetween ’67 and ’94, most notably on “Star Wars” and “Die Hard.”
[*Sources vary on whether the final official CinemaScope film was “Caprice” or if it was “In Like Flint.” I’ve seen references to “Flint” being the last, but I think there may be some question over which one commenced principal photography first vs. the one that was last to be released.]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|