They are a waste of time. They lack life, colour, ingenuity or artistic pretense. They have only one task: to clearly and concisely present a film using the typical poster format in order to promote the fact that it will be showing in a cinema near to you, now or soon. Stop. Period. Boring! How did the movie industry allow the quality of movie poster to fall to this parlous level?

Not too long ago, cinemas were fun places to be and look at. The cinema chains back then were much smaller and spread out, so each cinema had its own unique character, whether it was the carpet-upholstered, garishly coloured chairs, or the icecream lady begging for business during the intermission. Oh, and back then the cinemas actually showed x-rated films. (Mostly b movies with lots of them!) The cinemas back then showed x-rated films (mostly b movies and lots of them!)

The only place you can watch a movie these days is at a concrete carbuncle multiplex, where six or seven films are shown on a huge number of screens. Most of the films have adult themes but they're watered down into a 12a to make them more suitable for tweens and teens (and may like them too). The only way to fit everyone is with one size, and it's not very comfortable. The seats are more comfortable than before, but they still make my derriere hurt more than ever. What does all of this have to do with the deterioration in the quality of movie posters today?

There are fewer independent cinemas and movie theatres today. It's only at large concrete multiplexes - capitalist churches - that I can watch a movie. It's not like it used to. In my hometown, I had four independent cinemas within a mile of one another 40 years ago. As a UK-based resident, I can't speak for other western countries but I'm sure it is the same situation. Modern movie theatres are dominated by the big studios. There is no competition because they have multiple screens that show the same films to ensure maximum exposure. Up until the late 1980s, the early years of cinema had more studios, independent cinemas, and a different system. The competition between studios and films was much more even. The length of a film's run was another story. If a film didn't do well in its first week, it was pulled and replaced with another. If it performed well, it would be kept in place for several months. (I remember as a child when Star Wars was released and how it played at my local cinemas for many years. Some cinemas change movies as often as twice a week, resulting in a huge turnover of films. Movie posters were therefore an important tool to get people on the seats and ensure a film ran as long as possible. The movie posters were a great way to help people decide whether they wanted to see Scanners, Table for Five or both. This brings me to the second point.

People rarely knew what they wanted to watch when they went to cinema in the past. In those days, there wasn't much to do at night in a small town. My father would go there every Saturday. He would go to the movie theater to have something to do, and decide later what film he wanted to see when he arrived. People know what movie they will watch before they even enter the cinema. Why is there a change? Simply put, it's the media. The internet is the dominant media for film promotion. We can view trailers and watch making-of videos. The hype begins earlier. The media attention builds up gradually, starting with a drip and then a trickle. It culminates in a tsunami of coverage as the film is released. What chance does any other film have in the face such a media deluge. The film industry is rubbing its hands in glee when they see that the current target market is a naive, gullible and young audience. Who needs a bad film poster to promote a movie at the cinemas? You don't need to! The item has already been sold.

It also brings me to a second point: the changing demographics of cinemagoers. In the past, there were more adults who went to the movies than today. This led to more adult-oriented films and more b movies. Film posters were better because of this (despite the fact that many films were substandard). It would be difficult or to create a poster for a b movie if the film was an exploitative nazisploitation like "Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS".

It pains me to admit it, but films in the cinema are much higher quality today than they were a few years ago. The movie poster is no longer as important a marketing tool for movies, especially with the increased media coverage. In the past, your local cinema used to have a wider range of films in terms of quality and subject, including b movies soap2day. This was more of a scattergun approach. It was a "let's show as many movies as possible and see which works" approach. There were many bad films. The movie poster is a great promotional tool. The poster and sound of the film are both interesting. It must be a good movie, right? Wrong! The poster's appearance does not mean that the film was successful! A good movie poster will always give that impression. The majority of films in cinemas are produced by large studios and have high production value, even though the content is often not up to par.

How can movie posters still be made? If you look hard enough, there are still high-quality movie posters being produced for brand new films. The new Darren Aronofsky movie Black Swan, for example, has a number brilliant posters. For every Black Swan, there are dozens of Toy Story 3 posters. I'm forced to the conclusion that quality of movie posters is not as important in today's movie industry. It only needs to function, and until the Internet explodes or the public abandons multiplex cinemas for independent art-house cinemas (if you can find them), this is how it will stay.