|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0HAwp3DQZc First look at the big CW TV Crossover
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
Maybe this Inhumans thing won't suck? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Edit: Y the Last Man is a go at FX? https://creators.co/@Scodonnell1/4146553 Rhyno fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Nov 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I guess we know why the Inhumans movie didn't happen. Marvel TV is doing a TV series next year instead (on ABC). was under impression it didn't happen because it was Perlmutter's weird baby no one else was super keen on. When he get booted off the movie side, it went with him. He's still the big boss on TV side (I believe) so I guess kept this dream alive. No idea why he wants Inhumans to happen so bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:No, you misread. IMAX is financially participating in the entire series. To what end? They are technically participating if they pay for camera stuff, which won't really help that much if we end up with special effects and action scene budgets similar to normal primetime TV. This could actually be far above average if they do a limited series 8-10 episodes, but they are also aiming for a fall release, where they will be competing with baseball. Vishass posted:was under impression it didn't happen because it was Perlmutter's weird baby no one else was super keen on. When he get booted off the movie side, it went with him. He's still the big boss on TV side (I believe) so I guess kept this dream alive. No idea why he wants Inhumans to happen so bad. He doesn't have X-men to play with. Also, I was kind of under that impression as well, which is why I found it weird for Feige to say it's still on the table for later if he knew they were doing a TV show instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:To what end? They are technically participating if they pay for camera stuff, which won't really help that much if we end up with special effects and action scene budgets similar to normal primetime TV. This could actually be far above average if they do a limited series 8-10 episodes, but they are also aiming for a fall release, where they will be competing with baseball. Per the NYT article, IMAX has equity participation in the entire series. And it's an eight-episode miniseries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
So it sounds like Inhumans is ABC trying out a premium series that you would normally expect on AMC or FX or something. That's cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:So it sounds like Inhumans is ABC trying out a premium series that you would normally expect on AMC or FX or something. That's cool. I hope it is successful and that they find a way to give AOS a similar treatment (shorter, better funded season), but it might be a bit late for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
gently caress that I want agent carter s3
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:gently caress that I want agent carter s3 Same.  In a perfect world. Instead of a full season of SHIELD, we'd get three 8 episode mini-series spread through out the year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
I'm confused, There's dome-OMNIMAX which I remember from museums in the 80-90s where a curved screen (and cameras/film to accomodate it right) made for really immersive panorama movies, but has pretty much died out now. Then there's theater-IMAX which is an extra-large flat screen that shows the same movies as normal screens but charges extra because it's bigger. Am I missing something else that's out there also called IMAX, or is the news just "the show's gonna be in theaters, then continue on TV"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:I'm confused, There's dome-OMNIMAX which I remember from museums in the 80-90s where a curved screen (and cameras/film to accomodate it right) made for really immersive panorama movies, but has pretty much died out now. Then there's theater-IMAX which is an extra-large flat screen that shows the same movies as normal screens but charges extra because it's bigger. Am I missing something else that's out there also called IMAX, or is the news just "the show's gonna be in theaters, then continue on TV"? The current IMAX typically used for movies shoots a bigger image than typical 32mm film cameras. So the second one you posted is partially correct. I forget the measurement, I want to say 60mm. Granted, I am positive it's all digital now, so basically its just an 8K camera as opposed to 4k? The jump to digital kind of makes it pointless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
AoS would be so much better if they cut it down to 13 episodes with higher budgets and cut a lot of the fat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:AoS would be so much better if they cut it down to 13 episodes with higher budgets and cut a lot of the fat. Network TV generally needs those longer seasons to justify higher budgets unlike premium or streaming though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
AngryBooch posted:Network TV generally needs those longer seasons to justify higher budgets unlike premium or streaming though. Oh I get that. But I feel like the concept would work better on a Netflix or FX schedule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Karnak's been fun with ellis writing him, just make him this huge nihilistic dick in the show. I'd watch that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
AngryBooch posted:Network TV generally needs those longer seasons to justify higher budgets unlike premium or streaming though. It could only work if Disney figured an alternate way to monetize the shows. This IMAX thing is one I guess (but I am not really seeing how this ultimately makes much money for IMAX). The only other thing they can do is to try to find away to get money for streaming as well. Disney has big deals with both Hulu and Netflix, so the possibility is there, and since ABC is a broadcast network, they shouldn't be as beholden to any weird cable dealings with content like AOS. They can try to push hard with selling people one watching the show on streaming services by having them up there asap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Karnak's been fun with ellis writing him, just make him this huge nihilistic dick in the show. I'd watch that. Too bad it's running way behind schedule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:Per the NYT article, IMAX has equity participation in the entire series. I can see Marvel wanting an epic mini series. A super hero Game of Thrones sort of thing. They just better not gently caress up Lockjaw.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
greatn posted:The tv people seem to hate the movie people, they are always retweeting #itsnotallconnected David Boreanaz is getting syndication money from 3 shows, the most recent has lasted twice as long as S.H.E.I.L.D.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Scyantific posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0HAwp3DQZc Hey cool they kinda adapted the "Invasion" crossover and the dominators.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
The thing that worries me most: the series is supposed to premiere less than a year from now. That's absurdly rushed by the standards of prestige television.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:I'm confused, There's dome-OMNIMAX which I remember from museums in the 80-90s where a curved screen (and cameras/film to accomodate it right) made for really immersive panorama movies, but has pretty much died out now. Then there's theater-IMAX which is an extra-large flat screen that shows the same movies as normal screens but charges extra because it's bigger. Am I missing something else that's out there also called IMAX, or is the news just "the show's gonna be in theaters, then continue on TV"? Theater IMAX isn't just a bigger screen, but the differences are barely noticeable on those smaller IMAX ones that are all over now. There are still a few of the gigantic IMAX screens around, but they're limited. If this Wikipedia list is up to date, there's only like 5 in the whole state of California. But IMAX didn't have Hollywood-capable cameras until last year. Some movies shot some sequences with their giant film cameras, but it was basically always exterior stuff. I saw The Dark Knight on one of the huge IMAX screens, and you could definitely tell when that IMAX footage kicked in. So I guess once Infinity War comes out we'll see if there really is a difference between shot entirely on IMAX, and just remastered on IMAX when it comes to those small screens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:The thing that worries me most: the series is supposed to premiere less than a year from now. That's absurdly rushed by the standards of prestige television. This is also a thing that has me kind of weirded out. They now have less than a year to make this thing that is supposedly going to have really high quality effects. That's a pretty tall order considering that isn't really how high quality things are made at all. It makes me think they are really overselling just about everything involved with this project. Aphrodite posted:Theater IMAX isn't just a bigger screen, but the differences are barely noticeable on those smaller IMAX ones that are all over now. There are still a few of the gigantic IMAX screens around, but they're limited. If this Wikipedia list is up to date, there's only like 5 in the whole state of California. Also note that IMAX was a bigger deal when film was the standard and few people were seriously even looking at digital cameras outside of like, George Lucas and a few others. It was a film frame nearly double the size of normal. Now that digital 8k is a thing, I am not really seeing what makes IMAX special, outside of the theater itself having a bigger than normal screen. Any theater with a bigger than normal screen and an 8K projector is going to be pretty much giving you what most IMAX theaters could at this point, barring the giant ones maybe? Having never seen an 8K film attempted to be projected on a screen that big, I can't really say that there would be an issue or not. But seeing as many films were shot in 4k for years and now they are being shot at double the normal resolution, the novelty of IMAX is quickly wearing off. I think they might even be moving past 8k at this point for the giant digital cameras.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Didn't they make Ant-Man in about that timeframe?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Hey cool they kinda adapted the "Invasion" crossover and the dominators. honestly stripping the dominators improves their design a lot also makes them less weirdly vaguely racist
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
greatn posted:Didn't they make Ant-Man in about that timeframe? To be fair, it was a film in development hell for years. Most films are shot and edited within a year, but also have a decent amount of development time. They also spent about 130 million dollars making Ant-Man. Game of Thrones, the most expensive show on TV, IIRC, is around 60 million for a season of 10 episodes, and even they have to have their "cheap" episodes. Also they are on a subscription based network.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:To be fair, it was a film in development hell for years. Most films are shot and edited within a year, but also have a decent amount of development time. They also spent about 130 million dollars making Ant-Man. Game of Thrones, the most expensive show on TV, IIRC, is around 60 million for a season of 10 episodes, and even they have to have their "cheap" episodes. Also they are on a subscription based network. Hasn't Inhumans also been in development hell for years? The budget of course is quite an issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Also note that IMAX was a bigger deal when film was the standard and few people were seriously even looking at digital cameras outside of like, George Lucas and a few others. It was a film frame nearly double the size of normal. Now that digital 8k is a thing, I am not really seeing what makes IMAX special, outside of the theater itself having a bigger than normal screen. Any theater with a bigger than normal screen and an 8K projector is going to be pretty much giving you what most IMAX theaters could at this point, barring the giant ones maybe? Having never seen an 8K film attempted to be projected on a screen that big, I can't really say that there would be an issue or not. But seeing as many films were shot in 4k for years and now they are being shot at double the normal resolution, the novelty of IMAX is quickly wearing off. I think they might even be moving past 8k at this point for the giant digital cameras. IMAX digital cameras still film at that triple wide resolution so they do something unique, but I don't know what difference that ultimately makes. Tons of movies are on-board with them right now though, so whatever they're doing directors like it. But if nothing else, their projection system that allows you to have the seating so much closer has to be worth something. You can make a more compact theater with IMAX. The room has to be taller, but vertical space is something we have plenty of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
greatn posted:Hasn't Inhumans also been in development hell for years? The budget of course is quite an issue. Has Inhumans had any significant development like having screen writers, directors, or producers attached to it? When Marvel announced it a a year or two ago, I don't recall them ever following up on it. And even if they have, I'm sure those plans have been thrown off since there is still clearly a division between TV and film. I'm really concerned about this project as well. Even the Netflix shows can look cheap in some cases, and are made to not have these big, world ending, high CGI/high end special effects. Luke Cage, in particular, looks really cheap in some episodes as does AOS. To do this in a year where virtually nothing about this show is set in stone would be monumental, unless they heavily rely on the world building Agents of SHIELD has done and even then that only takes care of some casting and not anybody behind the camera. notthegoatseguy fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Nov 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
The main guy doesn't even have to talk, we can knock this out in a week. I would imagine they have to start by the new year. GoT seems to do about 9 months lead time, but that's for 10 episodes and multiple productions across multiple continents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:IMAX digital cameras still film at that triple wide resolution so they do something unique, but I don't know what difference that ultimately makes. Tons of movies are on-board with them right now though, so whatever they're doing directors like it. Looking up IMAX's recent cameras, it seem the big draw for the last few years has been their Digital 3D stereo 4k cameras. So there's the answer. IMAX 3D tickets are expensive. 3D tickets are expensive in general. They also have a new 2D digital camera, but that is basically a fancy Alexa, which has been pretty popular for years. Another note. IMAX estimates that their classic 65mm film is roughly equivalent to a 12k digital image, and like I mentioned before, 8K will likely be the normal for digital within the next couple of years. I'm assuming that Inhumans is shooting on their digital cameras, because their 65mm film was stupidly expensive even when film was the gold standard for Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:I would imagine they have to start by the new year. GoT seems to do about 9 months lead time, but that's for 10 episodes and multiple productions across multiple continents. I've never thought about it before because I'm not a fan of the books and don't watch the show, but GoT must be a logistical nightmare to make.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
The IMAX 65mm cameras can also only hold 3 minutes' worth of film and take a long time to reload. And apparently they're too loud to shoot dialogue so then you have to dub all that in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Danny Devito as Karnak Kristen Schaal as Medusa Lou Ferrigno as Gorgon Neil Patrick Harris as Lockjaw
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
So between people saying Tiny Superman is good and there being an impending crossover, is Supergirl worth watching? I watched two episodes of season 1 and found it pretty unremarkable, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
TwoPair posted:So between people saying Tiny Superman is good and there being an impending crossover, is Supergirl worth watching? I watched two episodes of season 1 and found it pretty unremarkable, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. This season it is one of the better CWverse shows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
TwoPair posted:So between people saying Tiny Superman is good and there being an impending crossover, is Supergirl worth watching? I watched two episodes of season 1 and found it pretty unremarkable, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. If the current season continues as it has been it will be one of my favorite seasons of any superhero show ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:David Boreanaz is getting syndication money from 3 shows, the most recent has lasted twice as long as S.H.E.I.L.D. He's actually getting hosed on the Bones end and was suing Fox about not getting any money out of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
At first I was going to applaud the fact that The Flash managed to make Savitar look so much better than the comic book version, but considering how awful the comic costume is, I guess that isn't much of an accomplishment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:This season it is one of the better CWverse shows. Dammed by faint praise
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 05:06
|
|