|
Zzulu posted:Maybe the aliens actually won the war and is loving with his mind and making him snuff out the survivors of the human race unknowingly Dude spoilers!!
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
A Glimpse Inside the Mind of edit: This trailer owns bones. Jason Schwartzman looks goofy as poo poo, and it really appears like it's gonna be either really disjointed or Wes Anderson's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Oh man, that looks insane in the best way. I hadn't heard anything about this, but after that I can't wait to see it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 09:23
|
|
|
I just stumbled across this trailer for Mousehunt (1997). I remember quite liking this movie when I was a young kid and liked slapstick, but this (quite bizarre) trailer for it definitely seems to be misrepresenting the tone of the film by a lot from what I remember of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvFeWRpeU1Y Edit: This seems much more ordinary (and accurate?) nozz fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Dec 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m12geJhxPls Even the trailer has a twist!!! Oh M Night. Will you ever make another good movie?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
BlueBayou posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m12geJhxPls Jaden looks just like his father. Hell, I couldn't tell if that was Will Smith, but hey, it was!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
I think that looks like it actually might be good. It'll certainly be interesting if they really do just have two people in the entire movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
BlueBayou posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m12geJhxPls This is gonna make a killer double feature with Pursuit of Happyness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
I don't get the backlash on the trailer, other than "lol M. Night has made a bunch of bad movies so I bet this one will be bad too." Can anyone give me a breakdown of reasons outside of that? I rather enjoyed the trailer. e: Also, Will Smith is in a blockbuster where he's not just playing Will Smith. This is a good thing. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:I don't get the backlash on the trailer, other than "lol M. Night has made a bunch of bad movies so I bet this one will be bad too." Can anyone give me a breakdown of reasons outside of that? I rather enjoyed the trailer. I had no clue it was his film and thought it looked great. His name never popped up in it so I was actually clueless when I saw it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 08:19
|
|
|
Everybody go look up Will Smith's character's name in that movie. I got douche chills.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
Holy poo poo does the Lone Ranger trailer look awful. Just goddamn awful. In all seriousness, you know what would have made that trailer work for me? The goddamn Native American werwolf drug-induced fever dreams that were the only interesting part about the original pitch. That got cut.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 09:39
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:It'll certainly be interesting if they really do just have two people in the entire movie. I don't know if it was a flashback or something to what happened to Earth, but there were people fleeing from the ships opening fire on them. I think the problem with the trailer that I have is that all we have is a setting. I couldn't really tell what the plot was about or anything. I don't mean that I want the entire plot spoiled, but all I have is Jaden exploring a planet and Will either stuck in the ship (?) or going out to find him? Maybe I just watched it too early in the morning, but nothing in the trailer really excited me. The Oblivion trailer at least had hints of things happening, even though it didn't spell out, say, who Morgan Freeman was or what his role was in the film. However, what the Oblivion trailer lacked was more shots of Tom Cruise running. Now that I think about it, is this another Deep Impact/Armageddon thing again, when two studios release competing movies in a close timeframe with superficially similar elements even though they probably have nothing else in common?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Holy poo poo does the Lone Ranger trailer look awful. Just goddamn awful. I still think it looks interesting, however... "FROM THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT YOU" SKULL AND TORCHES! was the stupidest thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
http://youtu.be/KVu3gS7iJu4 Second Man of Steel trailer is out. We get a look at Lois Lane and General Zod in this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:http://youtu.be/KVu3gS7iJu4 I really liked the teaser, and I think don't this looks half bad at all. Focusing on the character, not just the action. Though I guess the gravelly voiceover is starting to become a trope in superhero origin trailers. DanTheFryingPan fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:http://youtu.be/KVu3gS7iJu4 Looks good actually. Who doesn't love Michael Shannon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
PaganGoatPants posted:Looks good actually. Who doesn't love Michael Shannon? I started watching Boardwalk Empire recently and I realized by biggest problem with him is that he's a spitting image of Bill Hader. The new trailer looks fantastic but I still have to be pessimistic- Watchmen had an amazing trailer too, after all..
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
Slackerish posted:The new trailer looks fantastic but I still have to be pessimistic- Watchmen had an amazing trailer too, after all.. And Watchmen turned out to be a fantastic and forward-thinking adaptation with little lost in the translation. What's your point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:And Watchmen turned out to be a fantastic and forward-thinking adaptation with little lost in the translation. What's your point? I guess we'll have to agree-to-disagree, I thought it was at-best an adaptation of what the sparknotes of what the book would look like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 21:02
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Holy poo poo does the Lone Ranger trailer look awful. Just goddamn awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:http://youtu.be/KVu3gS7iJu4 My God that was a beautiful trailer. That music was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:http://youtu.be/KVu3gS7iJu4 This is the most generic, samey trailer I can recall in a while. I'm so sick of the ominous choir score in front of everything- it feels like a relic from the 90's and is an automatic  for me.Someone should do a mash-up of this trailer with the most recent Star Trek one. I'm reasonably sure it would be nearly impossible to tell the difference between half of it. Why does Superman need to go dark? Because Batman did it and made +$2 billion? I have no faith in Zack Snyder whatsoever, especially if he's claiming to focus on the "human element," which has never existed for even the briefest moment in any convincing way in any of his films. I guess a 20 minute childhood prologue (sound familiar?) before blowing half of NYC up is what he considers "intelligent film-making".
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:I still think it looks interesting, however... I liked that part. They had a few notes of the POTC music. But then again I love the POTC franchise more than life itself. I am going to watch the hell out of the long ranger. I bet it will be fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
BlueBayou posted:I am going to watch the hell out of the long ranger. I bet it will be fun. The Long Ranger doesn't get made until The Lone Ranger has enough commercial success that Vivid takes notice. Jewmanji posted:Why does Superman need to go dark? Because Batman did it and made +$2 billion? Uhhhhhhhh
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Why does Superman need to go dark? Because Batman did it and made +$2 billion? Um, yes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 13:47
|
|
|
Man of Steel looks fantastic. I love the direction that they're going with it. Need more grimdark super hero movies. Do a grimdark The Tick next.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
qntm posted:Um, yes? You say that like I'm the dumb one for thinking that's a cynical way to approach films. I love Nolan's Batman movies to death, but not everything has to be a "dark, gritty, realistic" re-imagining. In its case for selling me on the film, the trailer's pitch is essentially "this time we're going to ape Nolan's style so it will be better!" I'm not going to stand up on the hill and proclaim this to be the worst movie of all time (certainly not after only seeing a trailer), but I do think it's a sign of the times that people will get excited for a movie that is a) not original in subject matter or b) not original in presentation. At this point it's like a mix-n-match in the superhero genre. Ok hm... pick a hero... pick an actor... pick a color scheme... got it! So you want to do make a Superman movie? Great, I love Superman, show me something I've never seen before. Oh you're just doing Superman, Nolan-style? gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
Pacific Rim trailer later today 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Oh you're just doing Superman, Nolan-style? gently caress off. C'mon man that is such a simplification of the giant process that is making a movie that involves thousands of people and countless variables. A trailer is designed to get people in seats and so is a movie. If you're looking for a different take on Superman you can't expect a blockbuster, which is a movie designed to get the most people to see it. Unfortunately that means toeing the line between making a smart enjoyable film and pandering to the lowest common denominator. To dismiss it as dreck because it resembles Dark Knight in a 2 minute and 30 second advertisement is short-sighted. I didn't like the Dark Knight series and I'm excited about this. Superman Returns did exactly what you're asking for and guess what it sucked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Superman Returns did exactly what you're asking for and guess what it sucked. To be fair, Superman Returns does have its fair share of supporters, but your point stands. And honestly...let's look at the Batman Begins trailer again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vak9ZLfhGnQ There's a sense here that Bruce Wayne is a broken man who has built himself up as someone entirely different. The trailer has this dark, somewhat mournful, borderline-apocalyptic vibe to it, a vibe that would only increase in later trailers throughout the trilogy. But this trailer finds Clark Kent at a much different place: he's at the very start of his life, figuring out which man he wants to be, and although there's despaired confusion and fear coming from within and without (reflected through the muted color palette), there's also a sense of hope and discovery running through this triumphant imagery and music. I can feel Nolan's influence, but this sure as hell isn't Superman Begins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
I thought that the big superhero movie explosions kind of ruined the Man of Steel trailer, to be honest. Not ruined, maybe, but at least disappointed me a bit. A movie about Clark Kent's internal struggles about becoming Superman without the distraction of a supervillain plot and all its accompanying disasters would be a lot more interesting to me. The trailer seems to be mostly this, but then you have the blockbuster disasters and I just kinda think that's a shame. Looks really good, though, although I don't know how much of that is just a psychological effect of feeling like a Malick movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Here's the sad truth. You make a trailer you have like a hundred cuts of like 15 or so. You test them and find out certain things. Like you get a boost of ten percent or something when you add explosions. Those percentage points are proven time and time again to directly translate to opening-week box office numbers and that's what trailers are for. There are a lot of people who want to know that "this movie has everything", there are people who avoid movies that are too cerebral and there are people who think explosions mean the movie is going to be fun. There are people who quite literally don't want to think in movies. You read enough testing results you become less enamored with the idea of catering to the small percentage of people who, for example, think blockbuster disasters ruin a movie. Blame the American movie-going audiences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Here's the sad truth. You make a trailer you have like a hundred cuts of like 15 or so. You test them and find out certain things. Like you get a boost of ten percent or something when you add explosions. Those percentage points are proven time and time again to directly translate to opening-week box office numbers and that's what trailers are for. I agree that that's how the system works- in some sense I applaud you for looking at this in the most pragmatic way possible, and in fact I agree with everything you wrote. I understand that with an investment as large as a summer blockbuster, every little detail is going to be focus-grouped to death, and that, much like a Top 40 hit (not meant to be pejorative), it has to "have everything" like you mentioned. I do think though, that especially in this genre of film-making, no matter how much the trailers are poured over to achieve maximum effect, they still do a fairly accurate job portraying what you're going to get (or maybe it's just a collective acknowledgement of what we're in for, and a familiarity with the various genres this type of IP will span). But with all of that said, why then should I spend my money on it? If it's meant to entertain as many people as possible, then there's no way it's going to offend or surprise anyone's sensibilities, and therefore it just seems, to put it obviously, like a piece of mindless entertainment. If I was a big enough comic book fan or Superman fan to need to absolutely absorb every single iteration of the character, then I have plenty of reason to see this, but as someone who feels the need to be sold on why I should spend $10 and 2+ hours of my life, what is the value proposition here? If you're the type of person who is just excited about having a generally fun and undemanding 2 hours, then maybe this movie will do it for you. But when I look at this trailer, I feel like I've seen this movie before, a million times over. And I feel like if I don't see the Man of Steel, I'll get to see a movie just like it the next year (or, maybe 2 when the inevitable sequel comes out). Maybe I'm expecting too much from a summer blockbuster, but it's a genre that from its inception has proven to sometimes be more than "just another movie" and can bring something special to audiences. I don't have any faith, from what I've seen, that this is going to be one of those movies, and it's a shame because Superman is a really special character. I'm at the stage where I'm not going to see a Superman movie just because Superman is in it. Why not just watch Donner's again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
I agree with you on that. I'm at that stage with a lot of films too. I just completely avoided Spiderman after the second Raimi one and don't think I missed a thing. I avoided X-Men 3, I avoided the Transformers all together, GI Joe, etc. etc. The longer I spend in LA the more my tastes become refined and I don't waste my increasingly spare time on films that don't spark me (or maybe that is just getting older). I made an effort to watch The Watchmen and loved every second of it. I can't understand why people didn't like it. That's the ultimate alternate take on superheroes. I didn't work on the Superman trailer but I can say that WB post-Harry Potter, post-Dark Knight, post-Lord of the Rings (once those are done) isn't in the business of taking risks in regards to future tent-poles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
kiimo posted:I didn't work on the Superman trailer but I can say that WB post-Harry Potter, post-Dark Knight, post-Lord of the Rings (once those are done) isn't in the business of taking risks in regards to future tent-poles. That's interesting since Pacific Rim is at least some kind of risk, being an original IP. Really hoping it wins hearts and minds, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:That's interesting since Pacific Rim is at least some kind of risk, being an original IP. Really hoping it wins hearts and minds, by the way. We'll never know what went on behind closed doors between MGM, WB, Peter Jackson and Del Toro. But what came out was the Hobbit and Pacific Rim. I don't know really, I'm speculating too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Since we're talking about DC, here's a TV spot that I think qualifies as the worst, most misleading piece of marketing ever for a comic book movie. Its also really, really funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Robert Denby posted:Since we're talking about DC, here's a TV spot that I think qualifies as the worst, most misleading piece of marketing ever for a comic book movie. Its also really, really funny. That takes the cake, but I'm partial to this Prometheus TV spot that implies Idris Elba's character is the protagonist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auo4xPT5Tfo
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I thought that the big superhero movie explosions kind of ruined the Man of Steel trailer, to be honest. Not ruined, maybe, but at least disappointed me a bit. A movie about Clark Kent's internal struggles about becoming Superman without the distraction of a supervillain plot and all its accompanying disasters would be a lot more interesting to me. The trailer seems to be mostly this, but then you have the blockbuster disasters and I just kinda think that's a shame. It also wouldn't have made any money. Most people want to see Superman eventually do Supermany things. That is one problem with Superman Returns, there wasn't enough fun combat action. DivisionPost posted:That's interesting since Pacific Rim is at least some kind of risk, being an original IP. Really hoping it wins hearts and minds, by the way. Didn't it cost $200 million? That's a giant risk. (no pun intended)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 22:09
|
|