Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Watch The First 5 Minutes Of Sucker Punch 
Author Message
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Can I just say that if you're looking for reviews or even just a suggestion of what a film's about, AVOID Empire at all costs - they've even taken to describing entire major scenes just with their set visits, and without warning usually :roll:

Mind you, it's amazing the studio/film-makers let them do that...

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:19 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
cloaked_wolf wrote:
It's not applicable to all trailers but there tend to be ones that show a lot of action, especially behind-the-scenes type stuff, promotional related stuff etc. When Casino Royale came out, the ads pretty much showed everything. The only "new" thing was the parkour type stuff. I'd already seen the "big scene" which was the car explosion in the adverts and promo stuff.


And was that all you wanted to see in the film?


cloaked_wolf wrote:
Sometimes it's annoying when you know the plot and you just basically watch the film to see the plot acted out. It becomes really frustrating. For me, I tend to think "when is xxx going to happen?" or "here comes xxx" - where xxx is the scene that I've seen in the trailers/ads/promo stuff.

Some of the best films I've watched are ones where you know nothing about what happens - you don't really remember the trailer, the advertising wasn't particularly prominent and you can't remember the review from your source. That's when you're more hooked into the film.


Given that the most you're going to see in a trailer would be, what, 30 seconds of a scene, I think you're judging unfairly. I've seen the entirety of Lost described in 140 characters by one of it's creators. Somewhere on YouTube, there's an edit of Lost that goes from the crash to the finale in about 3 minutes. Does that make the rest of the series any less enjoyable? I'd hope not.

If it does, then surely just reading the cast list, the director and the movie title should be enough to 'spoil' the film for you?
'The Other Guys' with Will Ferrel (funny man, so it's probably a comedy), Mark Wahlberg (actioney kinda guy), The Rock and Sam Jackson (both actioney kinda guys), directed by Adam McKay (wrote Anchor Man, Step Brothers, lots of SNL stuff)... I think I see where this is going.

Of course, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do feel the art of the trailer is being somewhat unfairly judged.

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:58 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
ProfessorF wrote:
. I've seen the entirety of Lost described in 140 characters by one of it's creators. Somewhere on YouTube, there's an edit of Lost that goes from the crash to the finale in about 3 minutes. Does that make the rest of the series any less enjoyable? I'd hope not.

As the philosopher says; sometimes the journey is the only thing that matters, not the destination.


Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:08 pm
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
ProfessorF wrote:
. I've seen the entirety of Lost described in 140 characters by one of it's creators. Somewhere on YouTube, there's an edit of Lost that goes from the crash to the finale in about 3 minutes. Does that make the rest of the series any less enjoyable? I'd hope not.

As the philosopher says; sometimes the journey is the only thing that matters, not the destination.


From what I've heard/read, that's probably the best way to look at Lost's ending ;)

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:16 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm
Posts: 10022
Reply with quote
ProfessorF wrote:
And was that all you wanted to see in the film?

No but it's a bit crap when you've seen all of the "exciting" scenes - it really distracted from the story-telling and IMO that's the important thing.


ProfessorF wrote:
Given that the most you're going to see in a trailer would be, what, 30 seconds of a scene, I think you're judging unfairly.

As I said, it doesn't apply to every trailer but some of them practically show the entire movie.

ProfessorF wrote:
I've seen the entirety of Lost described in 140 characters by one of it's creators. Somewhere on YouTube, there's an edit of Lost that goes from the crash to the finale in about 3 minutes. Does that make the rest of the series any less enjoyable? I'd hope not.

1 min from a film is a bit different to 3 mins from an entire series.

Typical film = 120 mins. Trailer = 1/120*100=0.83%
Lost series = 121*45 mins = 5445mins. 3/5445 = 0.055%
That's a 15 fold difference. 3x15 = 45mins would be more accurate and probably give more info.

ProfessorF wrote:
If it does, then surely just reading the cast list, the director and the movie title should be enough to 'spoil' the film for you?

Stop being frick-tard. That info just aids me in deciding whether to bother watching it.

Example: Meet the Fockers - all of the good jokes were in the various trailers released in the film. Consequently the film was a pain in the arse to watch and I actually thought about sticking pins in my eyes. Had I not already seen the jokes, maybe it would have been a bit more bareable.

ProfessorF wrote:
Of course, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do feel the art of the trailer is being somewhat unfairly judged.

There's an art and there's a mess. Some people seem to do amazing trailers that whet your appetite despite giving very little away. These are awesome trailers. Other trailers give away the best bits of the movie and hence spoil it when you do actually watch it. This means it's either a poor film or a film ruined by a poor trailer(s).

_________________
Image
He fights for the users.


Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:16 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
cloaked_wolf wrote:
No but it's a bit crap when you've seen all of the "exciting" scenes - it really distracted from the story-telling and IMO that's the important thing.


How do you know that's all the exciting scenes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl5WHj0bZ2Q
The parkour's in there.
And, FWIW, I think that's a great trailer.
It excited me about the film before it came out, and watching it again kinda makes me want to stick it on again.

cloaked_wolf wrote:
As I said, it doesn't apply to every trailer but some of them practically show the entire movie.


My sources suggest it's only under 1% of the movie. ;)

cloaked_wolf wrote:
Stop being frick-tard. That info just aids me in deciding whether to bother watching it.

Example: Meet the Fockers - all of the good jokes were in the various trailers released in the film. Consequently the film was a pain in the arse to watch and I actually thought about sticking pins in my eyes. Had I not already seen the jokes, maybe it would have been a bit more bareable.


In your example, you should've been able to guess what you're about to sit through from the offset.
Same cast, same director, but it's a sequel. I don't even need a trailer to tell about that. Even if the trailer gave away all the good jokes inside it's 2m30s, aren't they worth repeating?

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:37 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:46 pm
Posts: 10022
Reply with quote
ProfessorF wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl5WHj0bZ2Q
The parkour's in there.
And, FWIW, I think that's a great trailer.

Is that the theatrical trailer? That wasn't as bad as the ones that I saw, and definitely a lot better than some of the "bad" ones.

CR for me was ruined by the TV promos. There were a lot more scenes not in the trailer that were in the promos. The daily mail had their own promo which had loads of scenes. I can't remember if it was ITV or BBC but one of them also had extensive scenes.

ProfessorF wrote:
In your example, you should've been able to guess what you're about to sit through from the offset.
Same cast, same director, but it's a sequel. I don't even need a trailer to tell about that. Even if the trailer gave away all the good jokes inside it's 2m30s, aren't they worth repeating?

I actually enjoyed Meet the Parents. It was great. The sequel however was horrendous and much more painful to watch. You expect the remainder of the jokes in the trailer to be of the same calibre as in the film. But you don't always know until you watch the film and that's when you realise all of the best bits were in the trailer. That frustrates me in a "comedy" as there's no really funny jokes left to see. The jokes you've already seen may not even raise a smile the second time around and I guess that says something more about the writing than anything else.

_________________
Image
He fights for the users.


Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:53 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.