|
SlimGoodbody posted:All of my cousins have hooked up with at LEAST one person I can't stand and those hook-ups weren't even manhandling the ham candle of Cyttorak Dan Slott just, does not get it
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 10:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Sometimes I feel bad for Slott and feel like he gets undue poo poo in spite of the numerous genuine additions he’s written into the 616, and it feels like he really does want to write stories that aren’t creatively bankrupt fetishes fuel unlike say Geoff Johns or Jeph Loeb but then he does poo poo like this or his initial introduction of Silk and it’s like, what the loving gently caress man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 10:39
|
|
|
the juggernaut/she-hulk thing was in chuck austen's x-men so it's fine that it was retconned out imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 10:42
|
|
|
Two lawsuits over studios using fake footage and editing in trailers to trick people about spoilers has finally ended and the judge sided with the plaintiffs in both cases. One of them was from Ana De Armas fans who said they had paid for the movie "Yesterday" because Ana De Armas was featured in the trailers, but she was cut out of the movie. The other was about Marvel using fake footage and edits specifically for Infinity War trailers to trick people about spoilers. Lmao. RIP to moderately deceptive trailers and the millions of fan theories they spawned. https://twitter.com/CultureCrave/status/1605698782774976512
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
This is a really dangerous path to go down; one, it means that studios might start feeling hamstrung about last minute edits if they remove sections previously in trailers, and two it means that studios might end up going back to the old style of trailer that literally just summarized the movie in three minutes over actually preserving some level of mystery. This feels absolutely like it should’ve been done on a case by case basis where intention was weighed, because there’s a crucial difference between false advertising and a misleading/obfuscating trailer. If anything what should’ve been sued into non existence is fanmade trailers pretending to be an officially announced title, aka everything Screen Culture has ever released on YouTube. gently caress that channel and gently caress the scores of imitators it created literally trying to mislead you for clicks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
I wonder if they are still allowed to exclude things, since both lawsuits seem to be based around promising something that wasn't there. Like would the No Way Home trailers be okay?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
That's really dumb. The people putting together the trailers are not the film makers, this basically will lock film makers into using what's in the trailers even it it doesn't fit their final vision of the film. That or it will delay trailers until films are near final edit. Either way it's going to mess with the film making process and that's a bad thing. Also I kinda like how Marvel intentionally leaves things out or adds things to trailers to keep things surprising. I mean as fans that follow the minutiae of this poo poo we all knew that the three Spider-Men were together in the last movie but keeping that from those that didn't until the last moment is a good thing. Let surprises be surprising.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
This came up in the trailer thread as well and: The only ruling so far is that the lawsuit can proceed and not that the studio was actually guilty of anything. I imagine that even if the studio is found to have done wrong, it's not going to change future trailers other than having some disclaimer text in them. Like basically every other type of commercial that exists. Have you ever seen the fine print on a car commercial? "lol if you think the car will look like this" "lol if you think you're getting all these features without buying the special gently caress the Poors Edition" "gently caress you if you try to do any of these cool moves" "lol you think you're gonna be driving an open highway along the coast? you'll be huffing climate change in bumper-to-bumper traffic you basic-rear end commuter monkey"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
The Dave posted:I wonder if they are still allowed to exclude things, since both lawsuits seem to be based around promising something that wasn't there. Like would the No Way Home trailers be okay? Yeah, the lawsuits are specifically about people losing out monetarily because of an explicit promise in the trailers that was made with the knowledge that it 100% wasn't going to be in the movie and was there deceive. It's not likely to have that huge of an impact practically. It's just situations where someone could have conceivably lost money because of a false claim in the ad being the only reason they paid for it. quote:Wilson sought to address that concern, saying the false advertising law applies only when a “significant portion” of “reasonable consumers” could be misled. “The Court’s holding is limited to representations as to whether an actress or scene is in the movie, and nothing else,” the judge wrote. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Dec 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
Lobok posted:This came up in the trailer thread as well and: The studio hasn't lost in this particular case, but the significance is that the federal judge ruled that false advertising laws override first amendment concerns in regards to movie trailers. The concept and precedent from establishing that rule is the significant thing and not the specific suit that hasn't been resolved yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The studio hasn't lost in this particular case, but the significance is that the federal judge ruled that false advertising laws override first amendment concerns in regards to movie trailers. The concept and precedent from establishing that rule is the significant thing and not the specific suit that hasn't been resolved yet. Yes, but false advertising was not invented yesterday. Like we know false advertising overrides 1st amendment stuff when it comes to ads, the significance here is that movie trailers have just escaped notice in regards to being advertisements for a long time. Something like bait and switch (false advertising) is mostly diffused just by saying something like "while quantities last." If a movie trailer starts having fine print at the end with stuff like "some scenes shown may not be representative of the final movie" then I just honestly don't see how studios are going to end up in a creative stranglehold afraid of making trailers or being able to further edit their films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 16:02
|
|
|
Marvel is at the point where they can just show a title card and date and still make a few hundred million, hopefully they go closer to that end than revealing too much
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
if they're forced to be more selective about what footage to use maybe this will lead to trailers actually teasing a little bit and not showing the whole loving movie in a minute and a half again
site fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Dec 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:Marvel is at the point where they can just show a title card and date and still make a few hundred million, hopefully they go closer to that end than revealing too much I'll also accept trailers more like the Deadpool 3 announcement teasers
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
The actual specific case here is that the trailer for this movie ( https://youtu.be/6uqvgPm8U4c ) showed an actress that didn't end up in the final movie and these people were fans of that actress. So I think even if these guys win, which seems unlikely to me, probably something as intangible as "this scene turned out differently" probably isn't enough to actually get folks in trouble. Edit: Indeed the trailer still lists de Armas as starring in the film. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Dec 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The actual specific case here is that the trailer for this movie showed an actress that didn't end up in the final movie and these people were fans of that actress. So I think even if these guys win, which seems unlikely to me, probably something as intangible as "this scene turned out differently" probably isn't enough to actually get folks in trouble. The judge laid out the parameters. quote:Wilson sought to address that concern, saying the false advertising law applies only when a “significant portion” of “reasonable consumers” could be misled. “The Court’s holding is limited to representations as to whether an actress or scene is in the movie, and nothing else,” the judge wrote. It has to be a specific actress or scene that is advertised in such a way to make it seem like it is included in the movie, but also be something that is significant enough for a significant portion of people to decide to pay money to see based exclusively on that scene or actress. It's pretty narrow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
site posted:if they're forced to be more selective about what footage to use maybe this will lead to trailers actually teasing a little bit and not showing the whole loving movie in a minute and a half again  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Lp7m7tJNk
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
Like half of the footage in the Morbius trailers was deceptive and absolutely never intended to be part of the final product so I wonder if we can sue Sony.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Make trailers like this again https://youtu.be/zjPFyINVxW0
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
Video game trailers pretty much all have a little disclaimer on them these days saying something like "Game in active development, not final footage" or "Not actual gameplay" when it's something pre-rendered made just for the trailer. Maybe we end up with some disclaimers like that, or something? But then, game trailers were really loving deceptive for a while. Putting out entire trailers that consist of nothing but pre-rendered footage designed to look like gameplay, but look way better than the actual console could do. I think maybe some of them got hit for false advertising in the UK, or something? Look at this poo poo: it's completely fake, the real game looks nothing like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyqKkDJ-QjU
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Like half of the footage in the Morbius trailers was deceptive and absolutely never intended to be part of the final product so I wonder if we can sue Sony. See that may be more of a case than some of the other instances because they specifically added stuff showing Spider-Man that they knew wouldn't be in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Make trailers like this again https://youtu.be/zjPFyINVxW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LnShmQ_hLc
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Like half of the footage in the Morbius trailers was deceptive and absolutely never intended to be part of the final product so I wonder if we can sue Sony. You'd have to admit you paid to see that movie though. Who would do that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
X-O posted:You'd have to admit you paid to see that movie though. Who would do that? It's the perfect crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
Finally I will feel
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
I only watch movies with trailers that start with "IMAGINE A WORLD"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
Every trailer going to basically end like 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that your average goober doesn't know that the movies are being edited until they're released and a 5 second scene from a trailer that came out 9 months before might have been cut. Having a big name actor in a trailer but not the movie is a different matter though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
I like that this lawsuit is because of a famous actor being edited out, in a movie about famous people being neatly edited out of existence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
There's someone out there that is finally feeling justified in being annoyed that the theatrical release of Twister didn't have a flying tractor tire smashing into something, unlike the ad which did. That person is me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Weren't recent Star Wars and SW adjacent movies famous for having scenes that weren't in the actual movie. I think I remember there being a scene of Darth Vader at the beach in the Rogue One trailer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Weren't recent Star Wars and SW adjacent movies famous for having scenes that weren't in the actual movie. I think I remember there being a scene of Darth Vader at the beach in the Rogue One trailer. No, you're thinking of Return of the Jedi. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
Watched Batman v Superman (ULTIMATE edition) for the first time since it was in theaters and, wow, that movie is really not great. You have to admire the screenwriters/Snyder for taking a very different approach compared to the typical MCU product, but on the whole, it's such a dour, plodding affair. I'm not saying anything new here, but, other than the novelty of seeing Batman brutally merc a bunch of dudes and Jimmy Olsen get executed by terrorists, there's just not much fun to be had. Eisenberg is probably the worst part. He's just comically awful as Lex Luthor and drags down every scene that he's a part of. While she's great in other stuff, Amy Adams is also the worst Lois Lane there ever was. The character is insufficiently plucky and devoid of any of the traits that have made her compelling and likable in other media. On a whole, the movie is so perversely bleak that when Martha Kent quips "It's the cape" to Batman after he rescues her, it feels so incredibly out of place. The philosophical/moral reckoning with Superman is kinda interesting, though. While B v S is really bad, I actually enjoyed ZSJL, ungainly mess that it was. Part of me wishes Snyder got to keep making these movies so we could see how hosed up and miserable they could get.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
War crime https://twitter.com/kyotopill/status/1602735102613606401
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
Why the gently caress would you do that Also the first is one of the only movies where I've thought 3D actually enhanced it so I am super hyped for the theater
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
That poster got roasted in the comments and turned them off
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 21:44
|
|
|
It's like those videos on YouTube that use interpolation and have titles such as "We improved the stop motion on Jason & The Argonauts ". I want to lightly rap them with a rolled up newspaper and be like "Stop it".
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Weren't recent Star Wars and SW adjacent movies famous for having scenes that weren't in the actual movie. I think I remember there being a scene of Darth Vader at the beach in the Rogue One trailer. Rouge One had extensive reshoots (Tony Gilroy basically came in after the movie was shot and saved, apparently. He would later make Andor, the very good Rouge One prequel series for Disney+), so there is a bunch of footage in some of the trailers that weren't used in the final film. Also some stuff just shot for the trailer because it looked good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Karloff posted:It's like those videos on YouTube that use interpolation and have titles such as "We improved the stop motion on Jason & The Argonauts ". I want to lightly rap them with a rolled up newspaper and be like "Stop it". I thought I just wasn't able to see any improvement. Turns out there wasn't any!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 23:26
|
|
