|
Indolent Bastard posted:Additional Dialogue Recording. When the sound they recorded doesn't work for any reason they have the cast re-record the dialogue in a sound booth. The results are often bad. ADR is used on pretty much every movie that has a scene taking place outdoors.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Terminator: Genisys looks absolutely terrible, but if your concern is having all the twists spoiled, keep in mind that we haven't seen anything at all of the apparently-major role that Matt Smith will be playing. He's going to play a similar role to Terry Crews in the last one I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Terminator: Genisys looks absolutely terrible, but if your concern is having all the twists spoiled, keep in mind that we haven't seen anything at all of the apparently-major role that Matt Smith will be playing. I was gonna say, where's the dude who was screaming in that parking photoshoot with the rest of them
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Oh god, Connor is the villain? Why couldn't they save that for the loving movie and not spoil it in the trailer? Movie probably tracking very poorly realized oh poo poo. We need people to start putting eyes on it. "Hey Guys, Hey Guys, Connor is the villian. Please come see this probably terrible movie because you have to see how that occurs."
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
The previous trailer made it look like a dumb remix of the previous movies, so there's a logic to letting us know that they have dumb new ideas as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:Full length Ant-Man trailer dropped today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdKf3MneyI This got me more interested than the teaser trailer did. I hope there are a lot of bits with stuff like the train and when he hopped onto the gun, I want to see as many tiny man shenanigans as possible that said I'm still not sold on it, probably wait till after the main run and see it for a matinee at a cheap theater. Hakkesshu posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXsQkWwFftk No kidding, they spoil a huge twist and make it look even more boring. Liquid Metal man is back! John Conner is a Terminator! Ahnold fights a younger Ahnold (Aka remember the worst part of Salvation?)! Excessive Reused catchphrases from past movies! Flip the bus like in Dark Knight! I've never seen a movie look so desperate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
The cocky hero fighting the bald villain wearing a seemingly superior super-suit is so Iron Man 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:The cocky hero fighting the bald villain wearing a seemingly superior super-suit is so Iron Man 1. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:Additional Dialogue Recording. When the sound they recorded doesn't work for any reason they have the cast re-record the dialogue in a sound booth. The results are often bad. Or, you know, the producers. I'm currently in one trailer I can't name. It's a last resort and you hope you can get the actual talent to record it in a booth but soundalikes are the next step and the last resort is like, whoever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Terminator: Genisys looks absolutely terrible, but if your concern is having all the twists spoiled, keep in mind that we haven't seen anything at all of the apparently-major role that Matt Smith will be playing. Spoilers for Smith's entire role in the film: He's the soldier who turns into the nano-bot cloud that infects Connor. He's in the background of the first fight scene and never features again. He's major because he's playing Skynet, but he's not in it again after Skynet becomes Connor. The entire film is in that trailer, including the ending.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Spoilers for Smith's entire role in the film: He's the soldier who turns into the nano-bot cloud that infects Connor. He's in the background of the first fight scene and never features again. He's major because he's playing Skynet, but he's not in it again after Skynet becomes Connor. Fair enough then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Anyone have a link to the rumors about bad test screenings? All I can find is articles saying the test screenings went well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Man, what a terrible trailer. That makes me legitimately sad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Yeah, I was hoping if it was at least T3-competence it would be fun enough to see once just to see Arnold having some fun. That just looks like too much all over the place. I mean, CG T1 Arnold (again!), Asian T2 cop, pseudo-T3 liquid-robot, and old man Arnold. The effects don't even seem like the big stunts are going to look good. They should've combined T5 and JP4 into one movie and salvaged the best of them so we'd at least see some dino-terminators.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Get Out frog moment at 1:40
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
It seems like the Terminator folks heard about the internet wide disappointment that they bailed on the original ending for T4, then brainstormed on how to shoehorn that into another time travel plot while making it as "edgy" and Genysys is the result.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
The only other trailer i've seen in the last several years that 100% guaranteed displayed scenes from the ending was the Ender's Game trailer. This is a bad thing and while I know that 9 out of 10 trailers these days show waaaaaay too goddamn much, showing the ending is just loving terrible and studios need to stop doing that. It's not all that surprising, though. After reading all that Sony film studio stuff that was posted in Cinema Discusso last year, it's obvious that Hollywood marketing departments are run by complete imbeciles who have no idea how to sell things that should be able to sell themselves. The Smurf movie/consumer marketing info charts displayed that quite nicely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
From what I've read, the best empirical evidence is that, on average, spoiling a movie increases the odds of someone seeing it and doesn't decrease how much they enjoy it. Sorry I don't have a source on hand to cite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:From what I've read, the best empirical evidence is that, on average, spoiling a movie increases the odds of someone seeing it and doesn't decrease how much they enjoy it. Sorry I don't have a source on hand to cite. No, it's okay; that sounds about right. I know people who read spoilers for shows like Game of Thrones and then get ultra hyped for (insert character here)'s death.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:From what I've read, the best empirical evidence is that, on average, spoiling a movie increases the odds of someone seeing it and doesn't decrease how much they enjoy it. Sorry I don't have a source on hand to cite. This is true, it let's people just enjoy the ride instead of scrutinizing every frame to try to figure what the big twist will be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
What does it say about the state of modern american film that the special effects in Terminator 5 and Jurassic Park 4 look worse than Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park 1 (the former, I'll remind you, is now a quarter century old)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Not a lot
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
What does it say about the state of modern american film that the special effects in Jaws 3 and Star Trek VI look worse than Jaws 1 and Star Trek II ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Not a lot 1991 - The Gulf War, Bush 1, Street Fighter 2, Rodney King, and that year John Connor went back in time to swap future CGI tech between Terminator 2 and 5. feedmyleg posted:What does it say about the state of modern american film that the special effects in Jaws 3 and Star Trek VI look worse than Jaws 1 and Star Trek II ? Jaws and Jaws 3 came out 8 years apart. Star Trek was 9. Jewmanji fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
I kind of expect two of the greatest filmmakers of all time to turn out better-looking movies than the directors of Safety Not Guaranteed and Palookaville
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
We might see Universal's best and most profitable movie this year be Fast & Furious 7 and that is not a bad thing at all. Jurassic World might still make plenty of money, though. That's a pretty diverse bunch, having your 3 top moneymakers of the year being about S&M, car superheroes, and dinosaurs. edit: Coming Summer 2018: Christian Grey hires Dominic Toretto's crew to rescue Anastasia Steele from Isla Nublar. The MSJ fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I kind of expect two of the greatest filmmakers of all time to turn out better-looking movies than the directors of Safety Not Guaranteed and Palookaville  I concede the point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:We might see Universal's best and most profitable movie this year be Fast & Furious 7 and that is not a bad thing at all. I'd watch it
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:Full length Ant-Man trailer dropped today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdKf3MneyI Still doesn't look good and it's blatant on its face that no one on the production has the slightest bit of respect for what the character could represent as a stand-alone--admittedly tricky as gently caress, especially when selling to a mass audience used to giant scales and stakes--but it at least looks like it isn't a total bomb now. The special effects, while rough, look inventive and fantastic while Rudd and Douglas are clearly trying to make it all work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
From the Comic Book Movie thread.CelticPredator posted:Speaking of Ant Man, I wanted to try something with the trailer. Testing the waters out here first before I publish it to the YouTubes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Still doesn't look good and it's blatant on its face that no one on the production has the slightest bit of respect for what the character could represent as a stand-alone--admittedly tricky as gently caress, especially when selling to a mass audience used to giant scales and stakes--but it at least looks like it isn't a total bomb now. The special effects, while rough, look inventive and fantastic while Rudd and Douglas are clearly trying to make it all work. Honestly I'm still amazed that they ever thought an Ant-Man film would be a good idea. Hank Pym and Scott Lang are characters that have never even been able to carry their own comic for very long. That doesn't mean it'll be a bad movie, it just feels completely out of place with everything Marvel has done with their films since the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
It probably seemed like a much better idea when you have a talent like Edgar Wright behind it. I get that the through-line is about a thief finding redemption, but there's clearly a lot of people who were terrified no one would want to see the movie if it didn't involve high stakes (why the gently caress does Pym want to stop miniature soldiers in a world of Iron Men and Ultrons? There might be a good answer in the movie but in the trailer it comes across as Caveman Sci-Fi "do not play god" nonsense that's immediately contradicted by Pym using the exact same tech with Lang) and the constant poking fun at the name says "no faith." It's obvious they're angling for a Guardians of the Galaxy tongue-in-cheek thing like the whole "Star-Lord" gag but they don't seem to realize that even in the adverts there wasn't much fun being poked at the concept and in the finished product the name "Star-Lord" had an unexpected payoff that tied a neat bow onto the protagonist's arc right when everyone had forgotten it was even a thing. In the adverts what was being advertised for GotG was fun and aside from the Thomas, punch, and break-in gags there really isn't a lot of fun going on. It's all deathly serious bullshit with a generic score that the gags completely undercut, even though it's clear that the people in charge of the action scenes and CGI found an amazing sense of play and fun available with a character who can shrink and fight. Like seriously Marvel, no one is going to buy or care about anything related to Pym particles being used for eeeeeviiiiiilll and a hero that shrinks by definition isn't going to be playing on a world stage for stakes, so why the gently caress didn't y'all lean hard and fast into the "thief thrust into a strange new world looking for redemption" angle? Quit this self-conscious "yeah we're doing Ant-Man, no we didn't choose the name" bullshit and remember that GotG and all of your prior risks (The Avengers, Thor, even Iron Man and Captain America and the Hulk relaunch) paid off because you confidently stood your ground and said "this is what we're doing and it's going to be fun."
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Jaws and Jaws 3 came out 8 years apart. Star Trek was 9. My point is, sequels are generally lower budget, lazy cash grabs, or done by filmmakers with far less skill than the original. More often than not a sequel's effects are worse, unless the first film was really pushing a new technology ala Phantom Menace. Hell, Star Trek TMP still has the best effects of the lot because it was done with such care and craftsmanship, just like Jurassic Park. I can guarantee you that the digital effects artists who worked on Jurassic World didn't have to take movement classes, study animal behavior, and use custom-built physical rigs to create grounded realistic effects like the Jurassic Park team. The Thing prequel looks like garbage compared to The Thing, The Matrix sequels have some really terrible digital effects that are far worse than anything in the first film, Crystal Skull is laughable at points compared to the grounded reality of Raiders, Son of Kong fails to capture the magic of the original effects, etc. Something like Empire Strikes Back is the exception, not the rule. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:It probably seemed like a much better idea when you have a talent like Edgar Wright behind it. I get that the through-line is about a thief finding redemption, but there's clearly a lot of people who were terrified no one would want to see the movie if it didn't involve high stakes (why the gently caress does Pym want to stop miniature soldiers in a world of Iron Men and Ultrons? There might be a good answer in the movie but in the trailer it comes across as Caveman Sci-Fi "do not play god" nonsense that's immediately contradicted by Pym using the exact same tech with Lang) and the constant poking fun at the name says "no faith." The last three campaigns I worked on the client mentioned GOTG no less than 20 times, minimum. This town is obsessed with that campaign and shoehorning dumb replacement cues to be the next Spirit In The Sky or Hooked On A Feeling. Nobody seems to realize you need a fun movie to start with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:Additional Dialogue Recording. Automatic Dialogue Replacement. Pleb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Trump posted:Automatic Dialogue Replacement. Pleb. Automated Dialogue Replacement. Prole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:It probably seemed like a much better idea when you have a talent like Edgar Wright behind it. I haven't followed all the debate, but I was under the impression that the script was still almost entirely Wright's. Wouldn't he be the one with "no faith" to include those jokes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Electromax posted:I haven't followed all the debate, but I was under the impression that the script was still almost entirely Wright's. Wouldn't he be the one with "no faith" to include those jokes? I can't really look up a source but I recall reading that Paul Rudd and Adam McKay basically did a rewrite to make it all fit in with Marvel as what Wright wrote wasn't going to work with the studio's long-term goals. Even if it was provably Wright's idea to include no-faith jokes they're still a bad idea that simply isn't working. I love Wright but even as a genius not all of his ideas and writing are winners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Watch Joe Dirt travel back in time in 'Joe Dirt 2' teaser trailer -- exclusive
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I can't really look up a source but I recall reading that Paul Rudd and Adam McKay basically did a rewrite to make it all fit in with Marvel as what Wright wrote wasn't going to work with the studio's long-term goals. Even if it was provably Wright's idea to include no-faith jokes they're still a bad idea that simply isn't working. I love Wright but even as a genius not all of his ideas and writing are winners. The Cap writers did a polish of Wright's script (after Marvel told Wright that the script was good to go and he had started in on pre-production with animatics and casting - which is what made Wright go "okay, forget it, I'm done"), and then McKay and Rudd were given it in the period before they got Peyton Reed on to replace Wright. And then, finally, they went back to the Cap writers to polish the polish of their polish one last time, probably to incorporate every exec note that Wright and/or McKay & Rudd had balked on including. Bringing on someone to doctor or polish up a script right before production isn't unusual, but in general doing it to a writer who's also your director is looked on as kinda poo poo to do (Gunn got rewritten on GOTG for example, but he was at least informed of it beforehand and got a chance to tweak the script a little more back to his voice afterward) and I can't think of the last time a studio played hot potato with a script so openly with like two months before shooting would start. The jokes are going to be all over the place in this movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:06
|
|
