Many contemporary movie posters typeset the credits in an extremely thin font:

Example movie poster extract

Is this just out of convention or is there a particular reason for deliberately making the credits hard to read?

  • 12
    I'm new to ux.se and I do hope that this is on-topic here -- I read the FAQ and, as I understood it, generic UX question, which are not directly related to human-computer interaction, are on-topic as well.
    – Heinzi
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 7:21
  • 1
    I believe it's a historical holdover/convention mostly dictated by hollywood lawyers and agents.
    – DA01
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 7:21
  • 22
    Yes, this is an on-topic question, and a very good one if I may add. I have no clue in who's interest it is to make information illegible. Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 7:28
  • I would discuss it as a topic of computer vision... if it is off-topic here may be moved to another SE site. The question has quite a point anyway.
    – 32746
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 7:41
  • 4
    Star Trek: Into Darkness?
    – Gusdor
    Commented Feb 5, 2014 at 12:15

2 Answers 2


It's a legal compromise really.

From an article on the New York Times:

The design of modern billing blocks illustrates the tension between two intersecting interests: studios want uncluttered marketing materials, and industry organizations want their members prominently and fairly credited.
Thus, it is neither accidental nor for aesthetics that the text in most modern billing blocks is tall and highly condensed. To ensure that billing block credits are legible, the Directors Guild of America (D.G.A) and Writers Guild of America (W.G.A) require that their members' names are at least 15 percent of the size of the type used for the artwork title. (i.e., the name of the movie, as set in the main body of the poster). If the artwork title has words of varying size, the height of every letter is measured and an average calculated. The D.G.A and W.G.A also mandate that the credit titles (e.g., story by or directed by) be no less than half the size of the names to which they refer.

So really, in the face of legal obligations this is probably the best they can do. Still just about legible, fulfills the legal requirements to have the key names prominent while also not compromising the aesthetics of the poster artwork too much.

Unfortunately the source article linked to is an image rather than a text so not very accessible. I've transcribed the most relevant element of it above.

  • 27
    Disregarding the spirit by following the agreement to the letter. Never fails, right? ;)
    – Izkata
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 19:23
  • 3
    @Izkata "to the letter"—I see what you did there. Commented Feb 5, 2014 at 17:05
  • Interesting. I find it strange that they are required to include the credits on the promotional cover, as that's what the end of the movie is for, not the promotional poster.
    – Keavon
    Commented Feb 7, 2014 at 0:32
  • ... and this is the sad history of how the legalese killed UX.
    – Braiam
    Commented Feb 7, 2014 at 3:43
  • 2
    @Braiam I wouldn't say so really. UX involved taking many things into consideration to come up with a solution. We have to consider business requirements, budgetary limits, user needs, aesthetic and branding, and technical restrictions. Coming up with the optional user experience based on these factors (and more) is where the skill of our profession comes in.
    – JonW
    Commented Feb 7, 2014 at 7:12

I think that the closest answer is: a compromise between visibility and legibility (which of course created some standard with time, or even: best practice).

The main purpose for that is the need to fit as much text as possible, while still keeping the letters quite big (this is why the letters are almost always capital here as well). Fonts used here are mainly 'condensed' subsets of bigger families, or dedicated 'condensed' fonts (you can also find extra-condensed, compressed, narrow or similar naming conventions - you can find more about taxonomy of the type here). One great example is UltraThin Condensed. If a standard font was used here, it would occupy too much space; on a contrary, decreasing the font size of the font would lead to the names being smaller and less visible).

I also believe that, with time, more and more text needed to be put on the posters (so far not-so-important actors didn't want to be excluded from official credits on the posters, and also new areas became important - special effects for example). You can feel it when you look through the posters in the Wikipedia article about film posters.

  • 7
    It may also be argued that the aesthetic styling of the collateral around the movie going experience contributes to a particular state of mind and overall experience of the movie going public, and that the purpose of movie posters isn't to impart information per se, but rather to frame the referent in some emotional context and to persuade a course of action. Consequently this credits information is styled in a manner to resist attention, allowing the viewer to instead focus on the main part of the poster. Seriously, do you make movie going choices based on who the "Production Designer" is?
    – Erics
    Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 8:42
  • And this is the other side of the compromise: between the poster art (which aims to draw attention, refers to the movie topic etc.) and the cast and crew who want to be credited. Text does not draw your attention away from the artwork and still is quite big and quite legible even from some distance. Commented Feb 4, 2014 at 8:47
  • @Erics of course.. it's Scott Chambliss!
    – Dave Haigh
    Commented Aug 8, 2014 at 7:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.