�
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
CSM |
OT: 2012 (Disaster Extravaganza!) |
Lead | |
|
�
CSM
|
|||
tintronic |
|||
|
Part of me is mildly giddy but the other part of me thinks it looks outrageously ridiculous. So, I'll probably go.
|
|||
comicart |
|||
tintronic wrote: LOL |
|||
cinemarts |
|||
|
THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW seemed remarkably prescient in some overheated ways.
Emmerich is getting very good at apocalyptic cinema, a kind of Cecil B. DeMille of the CGI generation. And John Cusack... hhmmm... can't recall seeing him in anything that wasn't at least interesting. |
|||
cinemasterpieces |
|||
|
it looks awesome....but it probably won't be. I'll stand in line though!
David A. Lieberman
CineMasterpieces.com Visit Our Ebay Store! * Movie Posters * Star Wars Posters James Bond Posters * Our Ebay Auctions |
|||
jrosen |
|||
|
The special effects look really good. I don't understand the obsession with the Mayan calendar, but whatever works.
-------------------
"Respect The Professor!!!" - Peanut Dave's disapproval rating is only very slightly worse than God's. Not bad. - Flyingsaucerman and you are right....I'm sure deep down she loves me and wants to have my little CineMasterbabies. - Dave L. http://nssrolled.smugmug.com/ - for the largest high resolution Star Wars poster website |
|||
posteropolis |
|||
|
Awesome trailer, though it looks like it has all the money shots in it, which kind of spoils the surprise. Looks like an updating of When Worlds Collide.
At least it's not based on the awful book of the same title by Whitley Strieber...
Canadadave
Posteropolis Vintage Movie Posters www.posteropolis.com Check out the Bargain Bin! Visit my eBay Store. |
|||
magnum55 |
|||
|
Special effects look cool -- the rest, predictably horrible.
That Independence Day White House destruction effects shot alone has generated at least 10 subsequent movies
Eric
|
|||
comicart |
|||
posteropolis wrote: yea they do that too often don't they.. Like when they show you all the best gags for a tv show in the commercials. Entirely anti-climactic |
|||
CSM |
|||
|
I think an explanation for why so many trailers give away most of the plot is simply due to the fact the opening weekend has become so important in gauging the
financial success of a movie (for better or worse - probably for worse)
CSM
|
|||
magnum55 |
|||
CSM wrote: Agreed - it is generally horrible how often trailers give away the entire movie and run it.� Versus this - I mean how fucking GREAT was this one:
Eric
|
|||
lackery |
|||
- I mean how fucking GREAT was this one: The best by far - from a time when trailers repected the audience and enroused curiosity. As for the 2012 trailer it looks great but as has already been said, I feel as though�i've seen the film already now. Simon ��
I have decided to live forever or die in the attempt.
|
|||
magnum55 |
|||
|
Or this one:
/v/6Chq_92_KXU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">
Eric
|
|||
the archie leach experience |
|||
lackery wrote:Those are some rose colored glasses their, pal... Alien is right with the best, but for every Alien there were hundreds of craptacular offerings, just as spoiler-filled and unimaginative as today, that are only entertaining in the kitchiest sense. The Thing has a really good trailer, but gives away too much. The one difference is that the majority of studio trailers have become standardized in length (around 2:30). I have a great teaser trailer for the Shining (can't find online), that I like better than the one you posted. �(I tried to put the thing at the bottom but it just doesn't want to go...)
I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and
was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any
such slander at any time in the future.
|
|||
cinemarts |
|||
|
I think an explanation for why so many trailers give away most of the plot is simply due to the fact the opening weekend has become so important in
gauging the financial success of a movie (for better or worse - probably for worse)
I've actually heard it said by an exhibitor head honcho - IF IT ISN'T GOING TO MAKE MONEY IN WEEK ONE, WE AREN'T INTERESTED. Got get as many people past that candy bar as fast as possible is what it's all about. Shovel them in and out like a ride at Disneyland. Theatrical squawks about dropping cinema attendance. Oh, poor us. Nothing to do with ridiculous ticket pricing, increasingly shoddy presentation (including previously used mylar for the prints where 35mm prints are still used) lack of cleaning between sessions, zero security et al making a day at the movies an outrageously expensive exercise for the average family of 4 - and yes, movies used to be a family event. Least of all does it have to do with the quality of the "product". It's all about MacMovieGoing. Units sold for the lowest wages and operating costs nut. The home market will tell you (but never publicly) that the real money is in the home market and other ancillaries, and a big theatrical BO is both studio's icing on the cake, and means a bigger home market for a smaller home marketing spend and a bigger return. Smaller and/or indie films are being squeezed out, and the old adage of letting a film find its audience with a little time, nurturing and word of mouth no longer applies. THAT all happens on the DVD market. Theatrical really doesn't care that much... and they care less as the whole delivery system of HOW people watch movies, and the fact there is now a whole generation who watch "other data" other than movies (i.e. more choice in digital entertainment) are just some of the reasons why films as most of us think of them, are rapidly declining. Fake IMAX (ghastly!) might generate a bit more interest... but until cinema comes up with new technology and more importantly gives viewers a wider range of films to choose from. I fear that's not going to happen. The majority of this generation are sufficiently dumbed down already.... and so it looks like a lot of fun to see Roland Emmerich destroy everything in increasingly spectacular fashion. |
|||
cinemarts |
|||
|
As for THE THING trailer. Maybe they used a different approach in UK where Carpenter had an enormous following (almost Hitchcock-like by the time of THE THING)
but I distinctly recall far less explicit THING trailers there.
|
|||
lackery |
|||
C'mon Archie their my glasses and my past. Always thought the teaser trailer to Aliens was pretty damn good aas well but seing as my YUku account is fucked I can't post any picture of clips. Simon
I have decided to live forever or die in the attempt.
|
|||
cinemarts |
|||
|
So Yuku has become Fuku for you, Simon?
Phil |
|||
lackery |
|||
|
I've been twidddling with this account for weeks trying to get the picture and clip thingy to work but to no avail. It was working fine a few weeks back.
Simon
I have decided to live forever or die in the attempt.
|
|||
the archie leach experience |
|||
cinemarts wrote:I've spoken with a number of film marketing people who tell me that all of the research shows people want trailers to lay out everything. They can't handle anything vaguely vague. As for fake Imax, it's still better than regular digital projection, but not 'four bucks a ticket' better...
I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and
was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any
such slander at any time in the future.
|
|||
comicart |
|||
lackery wrote:I upgraded to IE 8 on the work computer.. it won't let me insert images, smileys etc |
|||