To me it seems a lot simpler. The perspective of the shot juxtaposes a lone man always against something much larger than himself - facing it head on. It's an archetypically heroic pose. If it has to do with anything Kantian I'd think it would have less to do with his moral philosophy and more to do with the realm of the noumena and phenomena and his transcendental philosophy as contemplated by a lone man who for the first time sees something of the shape of things from a vantage point above the fog.
Excellent observation! To me the picture evokes Byron rather than, Kant - solitude, reflection on the state of the world from a distance, from a subjective higher ground. Ultimately, growing up and away from being one with peers, to being an independent being, defining your own person by rejecting what it is not.
"Briefly, the categorical imperative states: “Act only according to the maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” Whoa! That certainly describes the extreme nature of tons of the protagonists/antagonists of these various films. From Bane and Batman in The Dark Knight Rises to everyone in Inception, the idea of finding a universal truth and then applying it (sometimes forcefully) onto everyone seems to be exactly what’s at the core of all these movies."<p>Philosophy grad here. Absolutely none of these characters are exemplary of Kantian moral philosophy. That goes for about 99% of blockbuster heroes.<p>The key thing to understand is that 'universal' is a technical term in Kantian philosophy. Kant doesn't use this term to designate a relationship like that between a genus and its species, a class and its instances, or a set and its members. 'Universal' in Kant is synonymous with 'necessary', as in, "all stones necessarily fall back down to the ground if I throw them in the air." So what the categorical imperative really says is, "Live your life as if it were a force of necessity", or a more humanist formulation, "Live your life as if you were fulfilling your duty." If that sounds weird, realize that Kant doesn't think altruism qualifies as a foundation for morality because it's still based on pleasure, which for him brings us right back to egoism.<p>In terms of blockbusters, Watchmen's Rorschach or The Dark Knight's Joker are better approximations.
More like most blockbuster movies from the last two to three years. Neat trend, but hardly representative of all film posters in general. When I think of blockbuster movie posters, I think of Drew Struzan's work for Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Now that's iconic.
The lone hero is reminiscent of the archetypical Kantian concept of Übermensch ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch</a> ).<p>Interesting article, but blockbuster posters come in a myriad of formats - I was actually expecting a "hero prominently at the center, sidekicks scattered around the background of the frame" kind of thing, much like that GI Joe: Retaliation movie (cf links). I just checked a few on the top of my head, and the only one that follows the painting style is I Am Legend for obvious reasons.<p>Armageddon: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0232500/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0232500/</a><p>Fast and Furious: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0232500/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0232500/</a><p>Avatar: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/</a><p>Transformers: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/</a><p>GI Joe: Retaliation: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1583421/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1583421/</a><p>I Am Legend: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480249/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480249/</a>