|
ThePineapple posted:Didn't see it posted. The interior shots in the trailer look weird, almost like a TV series. I wonder why. Also, Natalie Portman is everywhere, even in Keira Knightley's face.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
ThePineapple posted:Didn't see it posted. My wife will love it (she adores Pride and Prejudice for the score, the visuals and that drat Mr. Darcy!). I disliked the novel so I do not see much to interest me. I will admit that many shots look good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
The standard running time for trailers is 2 minutes, 30 seconds. Believe it or not this is enforced by the MPAA. Each studio gets the opportunity for one trailer running over 150 seconds each year. Some of the best examples are James Cameron movies. The trailers for "Titanic" and "Avatar" effectively say "These are going to be the biggest movies of the year." The last movie to have a trailer like this? "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo".
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
We just cut a 3 minute trailer for CineEurope for Argo. The way that thing is testing certainly helped. Also I need to mention again how much I loving loved Dragon Tattoo. I didn't read the book or see the Swedish version. But man I loved it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
kiimo posted:We just cut a 3 minute trailer for CineEurope for Argo. The way that thing is testing certainly helped. I'm immensely excited for Argo, and hearing that it is testing well only fuels the fires for me. I also, by the way, love Dragon Tattoo. I've never read the book or seen the Swedish version either, and it took a couple of viewings, but I rate it alongside Finchers best now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Uh. Here's a thing. Not sure if it's a real thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCQVcckG4-M My god, the Narration. Who approved the narration? Who approved anything about this, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Uh. Here's a thing. Not sure if it's a real thing. "Like my mother used to say... quack, quack, quacker... Time to die, motherfucker!" That... that doesn't even rhyme. That is insane. Granted, that might be the point, but jesus. Then those actor names popping up near the end is like a bunch of mangled bodies floating to the surface.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 10:06
|
|
|
1. There's a Gray's Sports Almanac in that trailer. 2. Apparently, Lance Henriksen will do ANYTHING for money. 3. I was born in the early eighties, and I don't ever recall a lot of high school students wearing letterman jackets driving around in cars from the mid-40's during that decade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 10:36
|
|
|
Robin Sparkles? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8pEzi1E5Og No, Ruby Sparks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4RJYlSgDKM The people behind Little Miss Sunshine got drunk and took in a double feature of Stranger than Fiction and Weird Science.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
It's an episode of the Twilight Zone, "A World Of His Own".
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
I think that looks rather sweet. Of course, I loved Little Miss Sunshine, so I might be smack dab in the middle of the target audience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
I've mentioned too many times my irrational hatred of Paul Dano and that actually looks good. I might actually see that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:It's an episode of the Twilight Zone, "A World Of His Own". Simpsons did it
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 08:15
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Uh. Here's a thing. Not sure if it's a real thing. Holy poo poo this loving movie. I need to see it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
So I just saw Paul Verhoven's "Flesh + Blood" and decided to look at the trailer included with the DVD. Not only does it seem cobbled together randomly, there's almost no dialogue, nothing revealed about the plot (which admittedly is rather hosed up), and feels altogether extremely rushed and unfinished. Somehow, in spite of being nearly incoherent, it gives most of the movie away including several of the final shots of the film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
Tom Cruise is Jack Reacher. Never read any of Lee Child's books, since they have no appeal to me, so I don't have any baggage about it, but apparently he's like some sort of man-mountain. Tom Cruise is not that. http://youtu.be/QrH1Q1bJkrc
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
zenintrude posted:The people behind Little Miss Sunshine got drunk and took in a double feature of Stranger than Fiction and Weird Science.  Apologies for what may be an overreaction, but this looks really goddamn creepy. Little Miss Sunshine owned so I think and hope that it'll be somewhat aware of the creepiness of its premise and not enshrine it, but just from the trailer there's a big sense of "It's totally awesome that I made this rape victim manic pixie dream girl that will now do anything I say". Like I said, the movie's probably gonna end up being pretty good and is probably gonna poke at some of the ramifications of its hosed premise. But gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
zenintrude posted:The people behind Little Miss Sunshine got drunk and took in a double feature of Stranger than Fiction and Weird Science. Dude looks like Clark Duke. Only less charming and more weird looking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
zenintrude posted:Robin Sparkles? How is it that a movie written by a woman and co-directed by a woman can wind up as Creepy Adolescent Male Fantasy: The Motion Picture?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Farbtoner posted:How is it that a movie written by a woman and co-directed by a woman can wind up as Creepy Adolescent Male Fantasy: The Motion Picture? Maybe that's just how they're trying to sell it, and it's instead an empowerment tale for Ruby? Hey, we can hope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
Some hearsay spoilers based on what advanced screening folks are saying: It seems like the movie does in fact get pretty dark and examine the hosed up implications of its creepy adolescent male fantasy premise. No word on whether it's an empowerment story for Ruby or just a condemnation of Paul Dano, but folks who've seen it say it's way less of a feel-good wish fulfillment than the trailer indicates. But, holy gently caress, that trailer. gently caress that trailer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
Maybe it's like Funny Games and exists to tell the audience "gently caress you for thinking this scenario sounds cool".
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
This is one of my favourite trailers ever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZtGOef5aCg
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
Oh man that's some bad copy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
I might just be a giant nerd, but no matter your thoughts on the reboot, I think this is one of the best trailers of the last few years, especially the music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyJszxnJydA&hd=1
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Who disliked the reboot?? Those people, in a universal blanket statement, are morons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Who disliked the reboot?? People that wanted a Star Trek movie instead of an action movie. (I liked the reboot.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
nm
kiimo fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Jul 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
You're just begging to derail the thread by calling out people for disliking the reboot. People dislike it because it betrays most of the things that people liked about Star Trek to begin with (dealing with ethical issues in a sci-fi context, characters grappling with their mortality, professionals logically figuring out solutions to a problem, unique/interesting villains) in favor of a generic sci-fi action movie with splosions. Personally, I think that even if you want to put all that aside and just view it as dumb summer fun blockbuster space-opera, I think judged purely on it's own terms, it has a weak villain, bad camera-work (constant shaky-cam and camera movement), and a really disappointing score (one of my least favorite of all the star trek movies). Not a bad movie by any stretch, but vastly over-rated in my opinion, and worse than most of the original series Star Trek films.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 09:25
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:Not a bad movie by any stretch, but vastly over-rated in my opinion, and worse than most of the original series Star Trek films. You're saying all of the original Trek movies are good? Woof. I dunno, boss. I'd say Star Trek 09, Wrath of Khan and Galaxy Quest are the best Star Trek movies by a large stretch. Here, to keep it on topic, check out the teaser trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkZFWr0vR8Q Soooo good. I will compliment you for not ragging on len flare. I loved the lens flare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
Ya, Teaser is great, love the vintage voice-over through the whole thing. Also, just to be specific, I said "most" not all. I like Star Trek 1 (because of the ballsiness of being a hard-sci-fi movie), 2, 4, and 6 better than the reboot. And Galaxy Quest rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
It always bugs me that dude at the start tells Kirk to enlist in starfleet. If he becomes and officer, wouldn't he commission, not enlist?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
BlueBayou posted:It always bugs me that dude at the start tells Kirk to enlist in starfleet. If he becomes and officer, wouldn't he commission, not enlist? What's the difference? (The point I'm making is that I think a lot of people don't know there's a difference.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
BlueBayou posted:It always bugs me that dude at the start tells Kirk to enlist in starfleet. If he becomes and officer, wouldn't he commission, not enlist? Star Trek has historically paid very little attention to how rank works. (See: Miles O' Brien, apparently the only enlisted man in the entire fleet.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Star Trek has historically paid very little attention to how rank works. (See: Miles O' Brien, apparently the only enlisted man in the entire fleet.) I know, but it still bugs me. He could have just said "Join starfleet" instead of "enlist in starfleet"
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:This is one of my favourite trailers ever. "The most highly developed nuclear flowerpots COULD NOT STOP IT!" I love you Troma.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Star Trek has historically paid very little attention to how rank works. (See: Miles O' Brien, apparently the only enlisted man in the entire fleet.) A military full of officers. And not a single Powerpoint slide seen in all the series. Nobody called it realistic
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
So, having purchased the movie Videodrome from its original investors after writer/director David Croneberg's Scanners topped the box office, Universal Pictures found itself with a problem- they had no idea what the Hell they had just bought or how to sell it. A test screening was a disaster, and they didn't know if it was a horror movie or an art film or what. First they tried this teaser, which is kinda straightforward and points to the central shock image of the picture. They went really sci-fi on the end title treatment. Then they decided that, well, Deborah Harry is in this movie, we can sell it to her fans, and they came up with something that could I guess be used as a club background, set to a Blondie song and using the finest graphics that Commodore 64s could produce. This was the result. Finally, for the official trailer, Universal combined the psychedelic cyberpunk imagery with actual footage from the movie and an actual attempt to explain what it was about. They almost succeed. You'll note that none of the trailers use the title treatment that actually became the official one for the movie, which I guess only really stuck via the home video release. Needless to say, Universal did not make their money back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
Truthfully I really like the original Videodrome teaser. It shows a compelling image that represents the film well, and doesn't spoil anything else about the movie. It's a shame the other trailers suck balls.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 07:26
|
|