Entertainment desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 14

Movie poster technical details

I'm really struggling to find answers on this. Poster says movie posters are printed on silk paper. Is this the case for movie posters hanging outside/inside U.S. theaters? Are movie posters silk screened, and would inkjet printed posters look or feel as professional? (I'm thinking of printing a few posters, and as far as I can find, the easiest sources for making posters seem to use inkjet printers.) Bonus question: anyone know what resolution movie posters are printed at? Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silk screen has nothing to do with using silk paper, the former refers to a method of producing the image, while the latter refer to the medium the image is printed on. I have some posters printed on silk paper in my home, and they are MUCH more durable than the cheapo stuff you usually get. They almost feel like wallpaper, much more durable than the usual poster stock. Movie posters may be printed on such paper because, while it is more expensive up front, it allows the same posters to be circulated among theatres with less likelyhood of damage, which would require them to be replaced less, which would ultimately save on cost. --Jayron32 05:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WAR (2007 FILM)

1. Rogue's about to murder Crawford, but Tom manages to shoot Rogue in the face. Rogue's presumed dead.

2. Rogue's still alive. Rogue locates Tom's house. Crawford believes that Rogue killed Tom, Tom's wife, and Tom's daughter.

3. When Rogue uses a sword to fight Shiro Yanagawa, Rogue says, "My real name's Tom. I killed Rogue. I used plastic surgery to change my face." Shiro hired Rogue to kill Tom & Tom's family.

4. Since Shiro sent Rogue to Tom's house, it's because Crawford gave Tom's address to Shiro.

5. When Tom fights Crawford, Crawford realizes that Tom's still alive & Crawford realizes that Tom killed Rogue.

6. Crawford says, "I thought that you killed Rogue at the beginning of the movie. Shiro told me that his henchmen were going to beat you up for shooting Rogue. I didn't know that Shiro wanted you dead. I didn't know that Shiro wanted your family dead. I'm sorry Tom. Please forgive me." Tom still killed Crawford.

6. At the beginning of the movie, Tom shot Rogue in the face & Rogue fell into the water. Rogue was presumed dead. Tom & Crawford thought that Rogue died. Before Rogue went to Tom's house, Crawford gave Tom's address to Shiro. When Crawford gave Tom's address to Shiro, did Shiro tell Crawford that Rogue's still alive? When Crawford gave Tom's address to Shiro, did Shiro tell Crawford that his henchmen were going to beat up Tom? When Crawford gave Tom's address to Shiro, did Shiro tell Crawford that Tom's family was going to die? When Crawford gave Tom's address to Shiro, did Shiro tell Crawford that Tom was going to die? Since Crawford gave Tom's address to Shiro, is it because Crawford was forced to do it or did Crawford choose to give Tom's address to Shiro?

7. Is Crawford sorry for the death of Tom's family? Is Crawford sorry for giving Tom's address to Shiro?(Sean Archer123 (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

If you're going to give away numerous plot details of a relatively recent film (or book, etc), it's considered courteous to post a prominent "SPOILER" warning up front so that people can avoid having all the surprises given away before they've had a chance to enjoy the work. As to your very numerous questions, I haven't seen the film (and now probably won't bother), but perhaps someone who has will have the patience to address some of them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.205 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not do spoiler warnings. This is an encyclopedia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In articles, obviously not, since one knows when deliberately accessing an article that it will inevitably give away plot details. In a RefDesk question, however, I'd have thought it polite even if not mandatory. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.79.217 (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the film were more recent, maybe - but anyone who wants to see a 4-year-old movie has likely seen it by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have a list of movies I haven't seen, but would like to, spanning from 1942–2011. —Akrabbim^talk 14:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should also give those pre-War films a chance. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]