I have just read a very interesting article on the BBC news website, entitles, 'Do typefaces really matter?'
It gives some great examples of how fonts can subliminally influence the reader. For example, in logos for more traditional establishments your font needs to reinforce a sense of stability and safety.
There is also a reference to the uproar that the film Avatar recently caused. I don't know whether you would of noticed, but the first thing that struck me when watching the film was the strange choice of subtitle font. Only after reading this article have a realised I was not the only one to dislike it. Apparently there was some sort of anti-Papyrus uproar (Papyrus is the name of the font)on the internet.
This also made me think about other fonts that are laughed at by the design community. For example, the notorious Comic Sans. I found this amusing Hitler short on YouTube:
There is even an anti-Comic Sans website: www.bancomicsans.com which claimes to put the 'sans' in Comic Sans.
The font is even quoted as one of Time Magazine's 50 worst inventions of all time:
"Imagine a whole operating system designed around Clippy, and you get the crux of Microsoft Bob. Designed to be an easier interface for Windows 95 users, Bob envisioned your computer as his house — with you as a guest. Ever so accommodating, he'd even supply cartoon sidekicks to guide you through simple tasks. The software was expensive and overly cutesy, and it failed to compete with Apple's Macintosh, the user-friendly standard. And though Bob is long gone, he left one enduring blight on the Web: Comic Sans, perhaps the worst font of all time, was created exclusively for Bob."