On the one hand, this trailer really didn't reassure me Gal Gadot can pull of Wonder Woman.
Then again, Snyder managed to drain all the charisma out of Henry Cavill, so her affect of "this is a thing we're doing I guess" might not be her fault.
I thought the BvS and Suicide Squad trailers looked terrible; like I watched the bohemian rhapsody one and it was like, sure but precisely how bad would this have to look for bohemian rhapsody not to make it seem fun? (someone recut one of the LotR trailers with rhapsody played over it and generated the same effect.)
Man of Steel did have a couple trailers that looked good
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The CGI however is terrible and seems rushed, which is bad because the villains look to be entirely CGI. Cyborg is the biggest offender here.
The demons looked better in Batman vs Superman, so I kinda expected the same or better in this trailer...
I'm seeing the crapiness of the CGI excused as "It'll be fixed by the time of release!". Yeah, if you can't put finished product in the trailer, or can't focus the CGI efforts for trailer specific purposes, that just shows a level of amateurishness that shouldn't be glossed over.
ESPECIALLY when WBDC have lost all benefit of the doubt. When they show an unprofessional trailer, I'm not going to expect more until they prove they're capable of it. 7/19 adequate or better since Keaton's Batman (5 Batman's, Watchmen, and Constantine, yeah, I know, but I liked it). 0/3 under current management.
Even if the trailer was flawless, I'd still be skeptical until I saw the movie. But as KingofMadCows said on the previous page, Sigh... borg (stealing it!) shows they're not even deserving of that.
I'm pretty sure there were marvel movies that didn't have the final CGI for their trailers. I want to say gotg?
The CGI however is terrible and seems rushed, which is bad because the villains look to be entirely CGI. Cyborg is the biggest offender here.
The demons looked better in Batman vs Superman, so I kinda expected the same or better in this trailer...
I'm seeing the crapiness of the CGI excused as "It'll be fixed by the time of release!". Yeah, if you can't put finished product in the trailer, or can't focus the CGI efforts for trailer specific purposes, that just shows a level of amateurishness that shouldn't be glossed over.
ESPECIALLY when WBDC have lost all benefit of the doubt. When they show an unprofessional trailer, I'm not going to expect more until they prove they're capable of it. 7/19 adequate or better since Keaton's Batman (5 Batman's, Watchmen, and Constantine, yeah, I know, but I liked it). 0/3 under current management.
Even if the trailer was flawless, I'd still be skeptical until I saw the movie. But as KingofMadCows said on the previous page, Sigh... borg (stealing it!) shows they're not even deserving of that.
I'm pretty sure there were marvel movies that didn't have the final CGI for their trailers. I want to say gotg?
While that's not good if true (though I don't recall it), it doesn't change my main point above. If it was GotG, that's the tenth movie of the MCU. Arguably, with the exception of the Hulk, that's 8 movies that established a quality that gave them benefit of the doubt. WBDC haven't shown they deserve that yet. Now, WW could be the turning point, or maybe it'll be JL1 that is. Maybe they never do. But given how badly the first three have been received, they simply can't afford slip-ups, or anything that show anything but professionalism, until they prove deserving of it.
There's only so many times you can get kicked in the proverbials, before you start protecting yourself.
The CGI however is terrible and seems rushed, which is bad because the villains look to be entirely CGI. Cyborg is the biggest offender here.
The demons looked better in Batman vs Superman, so I kinda expected the same or better in this trailer...
I'm seeing the crapiness of the CGI excused as "It'll be fixed by the time of release!". Yeah, if you can't put finished product in the trailer, or can't focus the CGI efforts for trailer specific purposes, that just shows a level of amateurishness that shouldn't be glossed over.
ESPECIALLY when WBDC have lost all benefit of the doubt. When they show an unprofessional trailer, I'm not going to expect more until they prove they're capable of it. 7/19 adequate or better since Keaton's Batman (5 Batman's, Watchmen, and Constantine, yeah, I know, but I liked it). 0/3 under current management.
Even if the trailer was flawless, I'd still be skeptical until I saw the movie. But as KingofMadCows said on the previous page, Sigh... borg (stealing it!) shows they're not even deserving of that.
I'm pretty sure there were marvel movies that didn't have the final CGI for their trailers. I want to say gotg?
While that's not good if true (though I don't recall it), it doesn't change my main point above. If it was GotG, that's the tenth movie of the MCU. Arguably, with the exception of the Hulk, that's 8 movies that established a quality that gave them benefit of the doubt. WBDC haven't shown they deserve that yet. Now, WW could be the turning point, or maybe it'll be JL1 that is. Maybe they never do. But given how badly the first three have been received, they simply can't afford slip-ups, or anything that show anything but professionalism, until they prove deserving of it.
There's only so many times you can get kicked in the proverbials, before you start protecting yourself.
It's actually pretty standard for movies with intense CGI, that's why I don't hold that against the JL trailer. Whether it'll look great in the movie is another story.
The CGI however is terrible and seems rushed, which is bad because the villains look to be entirely CGI. Cyborg is the biggest offender here.
The demons looked better in Batman vs Superman, so I kinda expected the same or better in this trailer...
I'm seeing the crapiness of the CGI excused as "It'll be fixed by the time of release!". Yeah, if you can't put finished product in the trailer, or can't focus the CGI efforts for trailer specific purposes, that just shows a level of amateurishness that shouldn't be glossed over.
ESPECIALLY when WBDC have lost all benefit of the doubt. When they show an unprofessional trailer, I'm not going to expect more until they prove they're capable of it. 7/19 adequate or better since Keaton's Batman (5 Batman's, Watchmen, and Constantine, yeah, I know, but I liked it). 0/3 under current management.
Even if the trailer was flawless, I'd still be skeptical until I saw the movie. But as KingofMadCows said on the previous page, Sigh... borg (stealing it!) shows they're not even deserving of that.
I'm pretty sure there were marvel movies that didn't have the final CGI for their trailers. I want to say gotg?
Yeh, Guardians' whole intro scene with Star-Lord running away from the ninja turtles is unfinished in the trailer, the view outside the temple as well as the slow mo shot of Quill jumping towards the camera are quite different.
Age of Ultron's trailers also have some very weird stuff, like a shot of Wanda collapsing in a completely different location than in the final movie, implying a very different sequence of events, or that whole church location was CGI'd in later.
Spider-Man caught a lot of flack for looking like a cartoon in the original trailer for Civil War. The word was then that he'd look better when the cgi was done, and he did.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I'm more willing to forgive GotG on the CGI because their trailer had a lot of focus on the characters and humor. JL was all action/shooty/explodey stuff going on, and if that's what you're pitching then it better look good. The only humor was Batman's "I'm rich." line, which is what you get if you take Stark's similar quip from The Avengers and force it to watch its parents get murdered in a dark alley.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I dunno. Action shots being unfinished is one thing.
But that shot of Sigh...borg with his face floating there doesn't make a good first impression.
Especially for the character that is arguably most unfamiliar to a general audience.
There was some pretty bad floaty-face Iron Man in the final product for Civil War, as well. It wasn't nearly as ugly as Cyborg in this trailer, but it's apparently a hard trick to pull off.
Which is especially weird since I seem to remember Iron Man's closeups looking markedly better in previous movies. Did they just stop making the practical-effect suits in order to save some more cash for the CGI?
BloodySloth on
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
edited March 2017
Iron Man in Civil War might have looked a lil more uncanny valley because of the helmet design, all of a sudden it can fully retract, so showing RDJ's face isn't just a visor sliding up, it's the entire helmet folding away in an instant. I dunno if he ever had his face CGI'd into the Iron Man model, tho? Surely it's the other way around? :P
ed; on the practical suits, they went with a fully CGI model in Iron Man 2, but back to semi practical in the later movies. RDJ usually wears a prop of the chest and neck for the suit, and as impractically form fitting as the Civil War armor is, there was indeed a practical prop for it!
Yet another sign JL will consider itself a thuddingly self-important Epic. Yaaaaay.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
physi_marcPositron TrackerIn a nutshellRegistered Userregular
We're months away from release. I am very skeptical that somehow, with months of editing and post-production left, they have a final runtime. Besides, why should anyone trust a random, unsourced edit on IMDB?
Switch Friend Code: 3102-5341-0358
Nintendo Network ID: PhysiMarc
+3
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I am sure executive producer Deez Nuts will get Snyder to trim that runtime a bit.
We're months away from release. I am very skeptical that somehow, with months of editing and post-production left, they have a final runtime. Besides, why should anyone trust a random, unsourced edit on IMDB?
I agree with this, but there's also the whole benefit of the doubt thing. Which WB definitely doesn't have.
Plus they're introducing 3 new heroes--4 if you want to count the non-murdering version of Batman.
A good 3 hour movie is a good 3 hour movie, doesn't matter if it's a comic book-based one or not.
(I don't have faith in DC to make a good one.)
While I agree with you in principle, I doubt a good three hour super hero movie is possible to general audiences. I'm sure a director could cut a critically good three hour super hero movie, I'm not sure if the more mainstream audiences would tolerate it, especially people that take their kids. I hear complaints from people at work about the length of some of them now.
I am PRAYING that the WB execs are petty enough to feel that the best way they could stick it to Marvel is to let the Avengers guy do whatever the hell he wants.
Eh, Joss was suppose to direct a WW flick to some time ago. With WB track record with director I'll believe it when the actually start filming something.
+7
Options
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
His wonder woman script was real bad
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Thinking of Simmons as Gordon that makes sense for a teenish Babs
A good 3 hour movie is a good 3 hour movie, doesn't matter if it's a comic book-based one or not.
(I don't have faith in DC to make a good one.)
While I agree with you in principle, I doubt a good three hour super hero movie is possible to general audiences. I'm sure a director could cut a critically good three hour super hero movie, I'm not sure if the more mainstream audiences would tolerate it, especially people that take their kids. I hear complaints from people at work about the length of some of them now.
Civil War was almost 3 hours, wasn't it? That runtime breezed by. I had issues with the movie but great pacing can make any runtime seem like nothing.
Again, whether or not WB/DC can pull this off is a whole other story, but 3 hour superhero movies have been kicking around for a while now and audiences seem to be tolerating them.
A good 3 hour movie is a good 3 hour movie, doesn't matter if it's a comic book-based one or not.
(I don't have faith in DC to make a good one.)
While I agree with you in principle, I doubt a good three hour super hero movie is possible to general audiences. I'm sure a director could cut a critically good three hour super hero movie, I'm not sure if the more mainstream audiences would tolerate it, especially people that take their kids. I hear complaints from people at work about the length of some of them now.
A good 3 hour movie is a good 3 hour movie, doesn't matter if it's a comic book-based one or not.
(I don't have faith in DC to make a good one.)
While I agree with you in principle, I doubt a good three hour super hero movie is possible to general audiences. I'm sure a director could cut a critically good three hour super hero movie, I'm not sure if the more mainstream audiences would tolerate it, especially people that take their kids. I hear complaints from people at work about the length of some of them now.
Civil War was almost 3 hours, wasn't it?
2 hours, 27 minutes.
Ah, for some reason I thought I had remembered two hours and forty-seven minutes. Two and a half hours is still nothing to sneeze at, though.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
As Ebert used to say, no great movie is too long, no bad one too short.
Agree, TDKR felt every bit of it's length and Civil War did not. I'm still not confident that either Marvel or DC could really pull of a 3 hour movie without the length being felt. Some of my favorite movies are really long. I just don't know how well a superhero move of that length works. If someone comes along and proves me wrong, cool. I am just very doubtful.
And then when FX shows it they either edit it way down or it takes 5 hours to show because of how many commercials they cram into their movie showings.
Posts
Then again, Snyder managed to drain all the charisma out of Henry Cavill, so her affect of "this is a thing we're doing I guess" might not be her fault.
Man of Steel did have a couple trailers that looked good
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm pretty sure there were marvel movies that didn't have the final CGI for their trailers. I want to say gotg?
There's only so many times you can get kicked in the proverbials, before you start protecting yourself.
It's actually pretty standard for movies with intense CGI, that's why I don't hold that against the JL trailer. Whether it'll look great in the movie is another story.
That was just part of Batman's plan to weaken Superman.
Yeh, Guardians' whole intro scene with Star-Lord running away from the ninja turtles is unfinished in the trailer, the view outside the temple as well as the slow mo shot of Quill jumping towards the camera are quite different.
Age of Ultron's trailers also have some very weird stuff, like a shot of Wanda collapsing in a completely different location than in the final movie, implying a very different sequence of events, or that whole church location was CGI'd in later.
But that shot of Sigh...borg with his face floating there doesn't make a good first impression.
Especially for the character that is arguably most unfamiliar to a general audience.
There was some pretty bad floaty-face Iron Man in the final product for Civil War, as well. It wasn't nearly as ugly as Cyborg in this trailer, but it's apparently a hard trick to pull off.
Which is especially weird since I seem to remember Iron Man's closeups looking markedly better in previous movies. Did they just stop making the practical-effect suits in order to save some more cash for the CGI?
ed; on the practical suits, they went with a fully CGI model in Iron Man 2, but back to semi practical in the later movies. RDJ usually wears a prop of the chest and neck for the suit, and as impractically form fitting as the Civil War armor is, there was indeed a practical prop for it!
Looks more like Ben Affleck than RDJ.
As a point of reference, Avengers was 2 hrs 23 minutes.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Nintendo Network ID: PhysiMarc
I agree with this, but there's also the whole benefit of the doubt thing. Which WB definitely doesn't have.
Plus they're introducing 3 new heroes--4 if you want to count the non-murdering version of Batman.
PSN : Bolthorn
(I don't have faith in DC to make a good one.)
A bad three-hour movie is "oh my god why won't it stop kill me now."
While I agree with you in principle, I doubt a good three hour super hero movie is possible to general audiences. I'm sure a director could cut a critically good three hour super hero movie, I'm not sure if the more mainstream audiences would tolerate it, especially people that take their kids. I hear complaints from people at work about the length of some of them now.
PSN : Bolthorn
Well then.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
Civil War was almost 3 hours, wasn't it? That runtime breezed by. I had issues with the movie but great pacing can make any runtime seem like nothing.
Again, whether or not WB/DC can pull this off is a whole other story, but 3 hour superhero movies have been kicking around for a while now and audiences seem to be tolerating them.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Ah, for some reason I thought I had remembered two hours and forty-seven minutes. Two and a half hours is still nothing to sneeze at, though.
And it feels it because it's bad.
Civil War doesn't feel that long because it's damn good.
Yep, and it feels like it'll never end when you watch it. :?
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
And then when FX shows it they either edit it way down or it takes 5 hours to show because of how many commercials they cram into their movie showings.
PSN : Bolthorn