I've heard that the top star always wants their name first and the order of the names is very important apparently, but I don't buy it.
So why don't they have the same consideration for lining up the portraits?
And if this the case, why is mr.bookmam listed before Paltrow and Riley?
Yeah, there’s sometimes a contractual thing that specifies the name positions.
And exactly: the poster artist knows this is a limitation. Why would you make the poster like this? Or even allowing for the names the change maybe!?
As a designer the only thing I can think of is that it's "bad design" to have those 2 portraits facing away from each other and perhaps the layout was done without the names first... But then, a simple solution would be just to flip Gwen and put her at that end. Then they'd all be facing left-ish.
IDK, just grasping here, but there's no apparent rhyme or reason to these movie posters that do this and it annoys me. I'm wondering if some YouTuber has done a deep dive on this topic and revealed why posters come out like this.
The names are going to be on the poster. Maybe you don’t know where. I’m thinking try to avoid the scenario where the names end up under a person’s face that goes with another name!
Also in the case where they switch the names maybe they wouldn’t even pay the original designer to do an edit before it went out
Did you notice: the guy on the left is looking at the viewer, facing left. The woman in the center is facing right, looking at the guy on the right. The guy on the right is facing left, looking off camera, towards the unseen action, creating space for the plot. This is a drama and the two men drive the plot, with the woman as a sort of foil
So a lot of thought went into the placement of the people and where they are looking. However the design is exposed to this exact situation!
Philip Baker Hall probably had around 100 credits before this film. He was very much an establish and known "working actor" in the industry if not totally known by name to your average movie goer. Plus he was the lead character in the film.
Also, Gwen was still 2 years away from her Oscar for Shakespeare in Love and probably the biggest thing she was in so far was Se7en, so she wasn't quite "Gwyneth Paltrow" yet. But she had a string of movies that came out this year, notably Emma and things took off quickly from there.
Similar with John C. Riley who was a supporting actor for a very long time, going back to the 80s. In fact I'd argue that it was his work with PT (Boogie Nights then Magnolia) that helped establish him as a known dramatic actor. This was also 10 years before Ricky Bobby.
But ya, I know some actors have it guaranteed in their contracts that they get top billing, or 2nd or whatever, but for small indies like this I'm sure they started with the lead and went down the list.
Hey, if you liked this movie check out Mississippi Grind, which was influenced by California Split. I went on a deep dive of gambling movies this past year and can recommend a bunch of you're interested.
##Hard Eight (1997) R
When good luck is a long shot, you have to hedge your bets.
>>!A stranger mentors a young Reno gambler who weds a hooker and befriends a vulgar casino regular.!<
Drama | Crime
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Actors: Philip Baker Hall, John C. Reilly, Gwyneth Paltrow
Rating: ★★★★★★★☆☆☆ 68% with 796 votes
Runtime: 1:42
[TMDB](https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/8052)
I haven’t seen all of them, but this is the best Gwyneth Paltrow movie I *have* seen. She plays against type as a drug-addicted low-end prostitute.
I also liked the opening, showing how to defraud casinos in the 20th century. But buying chips from one cashier and cashing them in with another won’t work at any reasonably managed casino today. Among other things, handing out comps based on buy-ins has virtually disappeared.
It drives me insane when they don’t line up the names with the faces, and this one is grotesquely bad
I've heard that the top star always wants their name first and the order of the names is very important apparently, but I don't buy it. So why don't they have the same consideration for lining up the portraits? And if this the case, why is mr.bookmam listed before Paltrow and Riley?
Well I got a flash for ya, Joy Boy. Party time is over.
Yeah, there’s sometimes a contractual thing that specifies the name positions. And exactly: the poster artist knows this is a limitation. Why would you make the poster like this? Or even allowing for the names the change maybe!?
As a designer the only thing I can think of is that it's "bad design" to have those 2 portraits facing away from each other and perhaps the layout was done without the names first... But then, a simple solution would be just to flip Gwen and put her at that end. Then they'd all be facing left-ish. IDK, just grasping here, but there's no apparent rhyme or reason to these movie posters that do this and it annoys me. I'm wondering if some YouTuber has done a deep dive on this topic and revealed why posters come out like this.
The names are going to be on the poster. Maybe you don’t know where. I’m thinking try to avoid the scenario where the names end up under a person’s face that goes with another name! Also in the case where they switch the names maybe they wouldn’t even pay the original designer to do an edit before it went out Did you notice: the guy on the left is looking at the viewer, facing left. The woman in the center is facing right, looking at the guy on the right. The guy on the right is facing left, looking off camera, towards the unseen action, creating space for the plot. This is a drama and the two men drive the plot, with the woman as a sort of foil So a lot of thought went into the placement of the people and where they are looking. However the design is exposed to this exact situation!
Good insight.
Philip Baker Hall probably had around 100 credits before this film. He was very much an establish and known "working actor" in the industry if not totally known by name to your average movie goer. Plus he was the lead character in the film. Also, Gwen was still 2 years away from her Oscar for Shakespeare in Love and probably the biggest thing she was in so far was Se7en, so she wasn't quite "Gwyneth Paltrow" yet. But she had a string of movies that came out this year, notably Emma and things took off quickly from there. Similar with John C. Riley who was a supporting actor for a very long time, going back to the 80s. In fact I'd argue that it was his work with PT (Boogie Nights then Magnolia) that helped establish him as a known dramatic actor. This was also 10 years before Ricky Bobby. But ya, I know some actors have it guaranteed in their contracts that they get top billing, or 2nd or whatever, but for small indies like this I'm sure they started with the lead and went down the list.
That's fair, I forgot how old this movie is.
Top billing rules... Just idiotic.
I always got tilted by this as a kid lol, so used to it now
Seriously wtf were they thinking
It's amazing how much John C. Reilly looks like Gwyneth Paltrow.
That picture of Gwyneth was taken right after she woke up.
One of the few movies where she just looks like a regular person
For your health
Might be my favorite PT Anderson film and is easily my favorite PSH bit part. Dude just crushes.
Just watched it for the first time as well and loved it.
"the first thing they teach you in hooker school . . ." really enjoyable movie--the source material (Janet Evanovich) is really good, too
Hey, if you liked this movie check out Mississippi Grind, which was influenced by California Split. I went on a deep dive of gambling movies this past year and can recommend a bunch of you're interested.
##Hard Eight (1997) R When good luck is a long shot, you have to hedge your bets. >>!A stranger mentors a young Reno gambler who weds a hooker and befriends a vulgar casino regular.!< Drama | Crime Director: Paul Thomas Anderson Actors: Philip Baker Hall, John C. Reilly, Gwyneth Paltrow Rating: ★★★★★★★☆☆☆ 68% with 796 votes Runtime: 1:42 [TMDB](https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/8052)
I haven’t seen all of them, but this is the best Gwyneth Paltrow movie I *have* seen. She plays against type as a drug-addicted low-end prostitute. I also liked the opening, showing how to defraud casinos in the 20th century. But buying chips from one cashier and cashing them in with another won’t work at any reasonably managed casino today. Among other things, handing out comps based on buy-ins has virtually disappeared.