Coming Soon

[MagGnome]

I'm not a huge fan of Steve Carell, but that looks wonderful.

[Superman's Dead]

Originally Posted by Krispy

Fucking cool. I will so enjoy this.

That is definitely what Caped Crusader and I believe.

[muddi900]

Martha Marcy May Marlene came out last year.

Also, that IMDB review, like all IMDB reviews, is stupid.

[Narradisall]

The Divide looked really good, but fucking hell I hate trailers that give away all the twists and turns of the fucking plot. So It'll be a DVD for me.

[menage]

Originally Posted by evilgoodwin

Don't know how folks feel about Steve Carell, but I kind of want to see this.

That looked brilliant, might be his Truman Show.

The Divide looked really good, but fucking hell I hate trailers that give away all the twists and turns of the fucking plot. So It'll be a DVD for me.

Agreed. In the end I had no need to see it anymore.

That sleeping Beauty one looked disturbing, but I didn't have a clue what it was about. I'm not even sure what kind of movie it really is. Interested.

[muddi900]

Did the news spoil Invictus for you?

[menage]

Originally Posted by muddi900

Did the news spoil Invictus for you?

??????????

Sometimes you're really reaching.

[muddi900]

No, because all I saw in that trailer is a some explosions, a generic cabin fever movie and cranky Kyle Reese.

[menage]

Comparing a true based story with a fictional wtf is going here thriller and saying that it doesn't matter if you get too many info beforehand is reaching yes. You go into both with a totally different intent.

But I haven't seen Invictus or it's trailer so what do I know.

[Entropy]

Bullhead is a Best Foreign Picture nominee...

EDITED

Damn you Fitbabits...didn't see your post

Originally Posted by menage

In the end I had no need to see it anymore.

I always scratch my head when I hear people say stuff like this. A movie trailer at best is 2-3 mins long. A typical feature length film is 90-120 mins. Worst case scenario is that you've seen 3% of the movie.

So the other 97% doesn't offer anything different from the trailer? It's just filler or fluff?

[menage]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Bullhead is a Best Foreign Picture nominee...

EDITED

Damn you Fitbabits...didn't see your post



I always scratch my head when I hear people say stuff like this. A movie trailer at best is 2-3 mins long. A typical feature length film is 90-120 mins. Worst case scenario is that you've seen 3% of the movie.

So the other 97% doesn't offer anything different from the trailer? It's just filler or fluff?

Spoilertags exist for a reason.

I have no problem with watching 3 minutes of movie to get my interest piqued, but when those 3 minutes are basically a summary of the whole thing bar the ending. It just seems a waste of good material to already show you key moments of it all. I If I already know a swat team comes dashing at some point where's the surprise the movie makers probably intented to have, then I'm just waiting for it to happen. Was it really necessary to show that???

I've seen trailers that still manage to keep a lot of events under wraps. But these kind of trailers just want to cranck out as much information about the whole thing so you know what you're getting. Like wrapping a gift in cellophane and putting it under the christmas tree, it can still be a nice gift, but hardly fun to unwrap. Sometimes surpise is half the fun.

I'm not saying you can't tell a bit or lift the curtains a bit, but a lot of Hollywood trailers really have a nack for just telling you the whole thing.

Imo, 90% of trailers these days could scrap 50% of they're content and I would see a whole lot more of the actual movies they're trying to sell.

[Narradisall]

Originally Posted by Entropy

I always scratch my head when I hear people say stuff like this. A movie trailer at best is 2-3 mins long. A typical feature length film is 90-120 mins. Worst case scenario is that you've seen 3% of the movie.

So the other 97% doesn't offer anything different from the trailer? It's just filler or fluff?

There's an attack, a group of people are confined in a fallout, things start to fall apart.

It then goes on to show you that containment groups turn up, and try to kill them, so they're infected with something, but thankfully the world isn't over.

They start killing each other over food etc and really there's only a handful of ways given the info provided in the set up that the film can go.

--

I prefer trailers that don't spoon feed you an overview of the entire plot in the trailer. They could have cut the whole armed squads coming for them, and the whole scene showing you who is what stereotype and even that they become infected.

The first seconds of the trailer set up the whole scenario, without giving away any of the major plot turns etc. To me, it ruins a film when I know in advance how it's going to play out.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by menage

That looked brilliant, might be his Truman Show

That would be Dan In Real Life.

[muddi900]

Originally Posted by Narradisall

There's an attack, a group of people are confined in a fallout, things start to fall apart.

It then goes on to show you that containment groups turn up, and try to kill them, so they're infected with something, but thankfully the world isn't over.

They start killing each other over food etc and really there's only a handful of ways given the info provided in the set up that the film can go.

--

I prefer trailers that don't spoon feed you an overview of the entire plot in the trailer. They could have cut the whole armed squads coming for them, and the whole scene showing you who is what stereotype and even that they become infected.

The first seconds of the trailer set up the whole scenario, without giving away any of the major plot turns etc. To me, it ruins a film when I know in advance how it's going to play out.

Originally Posted by menage

Comparing a true based story with a fictional wtf is going here thriller and saying that it doesn't matter if you get too many info beforehand is reaching yes. You go into both with a totally different intent.

But I haven't seen Invictus or it's trailer so what do I know.

Yeah, all of that shit is in every third-rate bottle episode of every second-rate procedural on TV. If 'surprise' is your metric for enjoying films, then I don't know if you guys like any movies.

Also, that Bullhead trailer is exactly how you not cut a trailer; a bunch of vague shots from the movie. I know less about the movie than before.

[Exodus]

Originally Posted by Narradisall

There's an attack, a group of people are confined in a fallout, things start to fall apart.

It then goes on to show you that containment groups turn up, and try to kill them, so they're infected with something, but thankfully the world isn't over.

They start killing each other over food etc and really there's only a handful of ways given the info provided in the set up that the film can go.

--

I prefer trailers that don't spoon feed you an overview of the entire plot in the trailer. They could have cut the whole armed squads coming for them, and the whole scene showing you who is what stereotype and even that they become infected.

The first seconds of the trailer set up the whole scenario, without giving away any of the major plot turns etc. To me, it ruins a film when I know in advance how it's going to play out.

I'm on board with ya on this. I didn't have to know a containment team shows up. The more they showed of things like hey they're rationing food, hey they're dropping lines about eating each other for food like so many survivor scenarios and hey they're going crazy. It's like great, I know what to expect from point A to point B.

They could throw some curve ball twist in the end but...now I just feel like I can just watch this movie on fast forward.

[menage]

Originally Posted by muddi900

Yeah, all of that shit is in every third-rate bottle episode of every second-rate procedural on TV. If 'surprise' is your metric for enjoying films, then I don't know if you guys like any movies.

So you're saying movies can't be surprising?

[J Arcane]

Is it really that surprising when a post-apocalyptic film uses a scene that is straight out of the intro to Fallout 2?

[roboninja]

I believe I want to see very movie in this thread.

Wait, forgot Resident Evil was in here.

[Narradisall]

Originally Posted by muddi900

Yeah, all of that shit is in every third-rate bottle episode of every second-rate procedural on TV. If 'surprise' is your metric for enjoying films, then I don't know if you guys like any movies.

Also, that Bullhead trailer is exactly how you not cut a trailer; a bunch of vague shots from the movie. I know less about the movie than before.

Surprise isn't my only metric, but I fail to see how showing some of the info was required. I actually tend to ignore US type 'trailers' for next episodes at the end of TV shows as well for the same reason.

You can lay out a trailer without giving away most of the major plot points. Heck, I would say the Resident Evil trailer was better than the other, although that has the advantage of you already know what you are getting yourself into with a RE film (for better or worse).

By your logic they should have cut the Sixth Sense trailer showing Bruce Willis realising he is dead at the end.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Narradisall

but I fail to see how showing some of the info was required.

So define for us the minimum amount of information that should have been shown in a trailer for a movie you've never seen.

I think it's the fact that you've never seen the movie is why I'm struggling to get your perspective. You don't even know what the other 120 mins of the movie contains yet seem to be in a position to comment on what the major plot points are.