Let’s dig into the details
[ ADVERTISEMENT ]
There’s a reason why they are called “stock photos.” But could DC have done better?
Here’s how the Reddit community reacted to the post:
”What did they think stock photos were for?”
“Nothing wrong with using a stock photo. But its not what I’d expect from a big movie studio:”
Studios don’t have time to waste. Stock photos all day, everyday
Nothing wrong with using stock photos, but using a shark photo from the top 10 Google search results for “Shark” is pretty disappointing
DC used the stock photos for the exact purpose they are meant for
Imagine a world without stock images? Actors would have had to do the impossible
“They're trying to keep costs down on a promotional poster.”
“Maybe this is a stupid question, but using stock photos for a film poster does seem a little cheap.”
“I think it's more like he expected a poster graphist to make everything from scratch.“
A beautiful design like that is definitely not a “copy and paste” job
Star Trek fans got extremely upset with the use of stock photos as well
Probably it was taken in the sky
Getty images actually got a honorable mention from the studio
You pay for it. Than you get to download a high resolution version of the picture
In the end, this Reddit escapade showcased the internet's knack for both humor and critique, leaving DC caught in a whirlpool of laughter and diverse expectations from its fanbase.
The Aquaman poster controversy, though amusing, highlighted the evolving dynamics between creators and their discerning online audience.
Do you think the creator pushed the limits of laziness with the Getty stock photos, or was it a creative prerogative?