So I was wandering around the internet in search of fonts, and somewhere along came upon BBC’s article, “Do Typefaces really matter?” article. I found it to be very amusing and similar in the way that our assigned reading of comparing Arial vs Helvetica was, but more intriguing because of the cat fight that goes on behind the scenes of the typeface world. The article made a good elaboration on the importance of type faces not just for movies such as Avatar, but the importance for typefaces in establishing company identity. It reminded me of the incident two years ago in which the GAP dared to change it’s logo from its long thin letters to “tacky” Helvetica, then quickly responded to angry customers by reversing its decision. And the year before that was IKEA, which changed its font from Futura to Verdana. In both their cases, I agreed that the changes were visually displeasing, but the degree to which average customers responded reinforces what we have been learning in class; that there is always a subtle identification going on in the words we see.
I thought it most amusing though that Avatar would use Papyrus in its subtitles. As a noob to the design world, I don’t mind Papyrus in posters. If it’s cliche then it must have been doing something right is my opinion. But for subtitles, I can understand the absurdity of someone having to read a font with uneven edges for an entire movie. I’ve had to myself deal with the rage of terrible WHITE subtitles on black and white film on a re-released dvd. Why can’t everyone stick with a standard yellow font??