We can tell "what" the colors are because this is a digital image, and we are therefore capable of reading the RGB values for each pixel (Red Green Blue, the three colors used to make up every color in photos, videos, and broadcast).
For our purposes, each Red Green Blue color value for each pixel ranges between 0 to 255 - 0 being absolutely no Red, Green or Blue, and 255 the full amount of Red, Green or Blue. Different levels of Colors will combine to make a new color. For example, equal Red and Green with no blue will give us Yellow. if were only at 100 for red and green, that will be "darker," mellower yellow, well 255 for both red and green will give us a bright, "pure" yellow.
Knowing that, If we take a quick scan of the colors on the dark portion of this dress, the Red value is between 85-130, Green is between 65-120, and Red is 35-90.* So it's definitely dark, but the high reds and low blues would place this color, from a strictly RGB interpretation, in the mustard/gold region.
On the light portion of the dress, however, the Reds are between 75-155, The Greens 92-175 and the Blues are between 105 to 215. That makes this portion of the dress quite "blue," by RGB values.
So, if this stupid argument persists, tell your friends that this dress is definitely "Gray-Orange" and "Medium-Gray-Royal Blue," (as labeled by After Effects, whose colors are based on RGB, only). In that case, we're all half-wrong.
As far as for what color the dress is, you might as well ask what color The Matrix is. We can really only say, definitively, what color is "shown." Cameras, TVs, and color correct software are all mechanical and, for the most part, uniform. The human eye is not.
We understand and differentiate light and color in a much more complicated way. It's an individual, subconscious activity that has grown only more complex with evolution. If you want to get really mind trippy, check out this Ted Talk, which is just the tip of the iceberg.
Really, this is an argument about how we perceive the dress. Most on the post end of things will tell you that the perception of color is highly variable, reliant mainly upon the accompanying colors. In this case, a camera had difficulty balancing between a natural light source and a tungsten light source typically, the human eye in that situation will have figured it's own way to allow both light sources to interact in the same setting.
I've heard someone in the post world argue that those who see "Blue and Black" are "more sensitive to light and high functioning." Perhaps. I would argue that those who see "Blue and Black" are better at compensating for hues at a higher luminance, while those who see "Gold and Black" are better at a differentiating hues at a lower luminance.
In either case, one color strikes the viewer first, and he or she tries to compensate for the poor color balance of the picture in order to understand what the dress "is."
Oddly, those who see the digital colors gold and blue only seem to be computers.
But if you really want to know what this dress is, it's hideous.
*All of my values are quickly eyeballed by reading scopes. Not 100% accurate.
Following up with my commentary on this year's Oscar "winners," (and "losers"), I'd like to introduce my idealist approach to an annual Movie awards show.
I'll base it off the Academy's current, 24 awards, with certain key omissions, additions, and revisions.
Ommissions:
Original Song.
Sorry Common and John Legend. I know your speech was the best part of this year's awards, but this really has nothing to do with film. Now, the Oscars will persist, and this category is a great excuse for additional entertainment for a boring awards show, but in my idealistic awards show, "Original Song," has no purpose. It's just not a part of the industry.
Short film, Animated...and Live Action...and Documentary
I love that this is a part of the Oscars still. They deserve attention, and it makes Oscar pools fun. Short films are a wholly different format, though, and their platform has transformed greatly over the past 10 years. However, If we are celebrating movies, specifically, and not TV Shows or Video Games or the moving image in general, then I draw the line at the short. With the exceptions of festivals and the first 10 minutes of a Disney film, we don't see short films in theaters. We see them online.
Honestly, it's nothing against the medium in anyway. I think shorts are more pertinent than they've ever been. Their current guidelines for entering the Oscars are elitist and archaic, and in my ideal award show, I would honestly advocate building up a specific award show for on-line short form.
Sound Editing
This is nitpicking. See my additions.
Best Visual Effects
This is not nitpicking. See my additions
Best Animated Feature
Again, not nitpicking. See the additions
Additions:
Sound Design
No one knows the difference between sound editing and sound mixing. We did a good job differentiating in this year's awards, but I think renaming the category "Accomplishment in Sound Design," is more accurate. These is not simply "editing" the sound recorded on-set or even recorded for the purpose of the film. This is for all the sounds brought into the film to give it life. This is mind-bogglingly creative and in intense, and I wonder how many people, voters or viewers, understand that when it's called "editing."
Best Licensed Sound Track
I'm going to build up to the better ones, don't worry.
This award is for all the films that use incredible sound track of existing songs for their score. I'm talking 2001 Space Oddssey to Garden State. Even this year, if they found the score to Birdman too derivative, maybe they could have entered this category. You may scoff, but this is a huge career track, and it's an incredibly strong and complex job with very little credit.
Best Visual Effects, Computer Generated
And
Best Visual Effects, Practical
Did you know that Tron was originally not considered for a nomination because they used computers to accomplish their effects? Did you also know that these two fields have almost nothing in common? You probably did, as you're a living creature with rational thought. They don't even take place at the same time in the production process.
It's ridiculous these categories haven't been separated. And on that note...
Best Animated Feature, Traditional
And
Best Animated Feature, Computer Generated
Sure, neither of them are live action. And it is true many CGI animators started in Traditional. There's still a very large gap in the process, as well as the audiences interaction and interpretation of the medium. We shouldn't just lump all "not live action" into one category.
If nothing else (and this applies to Practical Effects, too), the separation of the category would foster more traditional features.
Don't believe me? Look how Disney tries (and succeeds) at winning the animated short every year. You can bet your fucking ass they'll start kicking out traditional animations after two years of losing the "Best Traditional Animation" Oscar to the French and the Japanese.
Best Voice Actor (Male and Female)
This year: Dee Bradley Baker and Tracy Morgan for The Boxtrolls, Will Arnett and Allison Brie for Lego Movie, Cate Blanchett and Craig Ferguson for How to Train Your Dragon 2, Alan Tudyk and TJ Miller for Big Hero 6. (The latter for How to Train Your Dragon 2, as well).
There is a ton of talent in voice acting, and it's becoming more pertinent by the year. Sure, I listed many celebrities off the top of my head, but guys like Baker, who created the voice and "language" for all of the namesake Boxtrolls, deserve attention. It's really brilliant work.
This shouldn't be split into lead and supporting. Nine times out of ten, the supporting characters are the voice actors that make the film.
Which leads me to:
Best Historical Performance (Male and Female)
Are you playing a character that has previously walked on the face of this earth? Then you belong in this category.
Is your physical representation of this character based on (or, in Lincoln, consciously against) the character as we, the populous,understand him or her in a historical context? You belong in this category.
Did your character have a historical background, on that was researched and used to create the character as you, the actor, interpreted him or her? You belong in this category.
For more than a decade, The Academy Awards, especially the Lead Actor category, has been inundated with biographical re-interpretations of known people. Over the past eleven years, 50 percent of the nominations for Lead Actor and eight of the winners were based on living people.
First, many of them are almost strictly impersonations–Jamie Foxx as Ray, Jouquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote.
With others, we don't even know who they are and they still come across as impersonations. This year had both the coach from Foxcatcher and the sniper dude from American Sniper feature actors donning wholly new (and somewhat awkward) personas in their portrayal.
If you removed the context of the biographical picture and considered most of the winners chosen personas as decisions made by the actor, I would argue a majority of these performance would be considered two-dimensional and unbelievable.
Instead, when someone shows the smallest ability to emote through limitations of the character's famous traits, we figure we have to give them the award. So Redmayne cries a tear in one scene, and he's the best actor, hands down.
Not to mention, most of these films are simply vehicles for the lead. I love biopics, but very few of the films have been substantial or even memorable in their own right. Theory of Everything was inconsequential and frivolous. It was practically irresponsible given the scope of the Stephen Hawking's actual impact on the world of science.
In the past 10 years, I would list The Kings Speech, Goodnight and Good Luck and 12 Years a Slave as the only biopics that are strong, challenging films that were structurally tight and a highly successful use of the medium, in their own right. Ironically, only one of those leads won an award for best actor.
Finally, the inundation of historical actor recreations is marginalizing original performances. Performances that require you to decide on the voice, the backstory. The nuance so often missing in all those biopics is taken for granted in original performances because it is necessary to make the character believable.
I would also argue for no supporting/lead spolit. Keeping it to "Best performance) it will lead to films that are less biography and more history. We would get the story of the Enigma Machine where Turing plays a large role, rather than a story that's lost between the Enigma Machine and Alan Turing, a life and Times.
Best Screenplay, Historical
I'd be fine if they lumped all the historical screenplays into "adapted." That's what they are. If they aren't based on a book, than they're based on an article or a series of articles. Otherwise, get the adapted out of the original category.
Best Drama
and
Best Action
and
Best Horror
and
Best Suspense/Thriller/Mystery
and
Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy
and
Best Comedy
and
Best Historical Narrative
I like how the Academy Awards doesn't want to categorize films, but they do want to call some films better than others.
Let's have some praise for genre. Genre is awesome, and they get shit from awards shows.
Your film gets to be in one category. You do not decide which category your film is in, (No Birdman, you're not a comedy). Maximum of three entrees for every genre.
Major Rule Changes
1) No more than three selections for every category, with the exception of...
1) ...The "Best Picture" category, who would select five films pulled from the above sub-categories, as well as the existing "Best Foreign Language Film" and "Best Documentary" categories. No more than two films in the "Best Picture" category can come from the same sub-category.
2) There's no single winner beyond the initial selection. That's just fucking dumb. Everyone selected in that category gets recognition for their outstanding achievements.
We should celebrate artistic accomplishment, but we don't need to turn it into a competition.
The 87th Academy Awards just ended, and with it, all hope and memory of Boyhood becoming a classic, historical installment in the annals American Cinema.
Oh, no, that's not how the Oscars work. Despite so many Linklater-lovers tears of distress, Boyhood's lack of awards means almost nothing. Remember, hardly anyone outside his loyal viewer base had even heard his name before this year. He's never been the awards seeker, his previous films' success has had little to do with the typical the Hollywood circus. He makes little films, mostly about normal people.
This one happened to be bigger, and happened to take a little longer.
If anything, the lack of awards probably just means a smaller kick-back from the studio. Maybe fewer people go after Linklater for bigger projects, but that probably wasn't going to happen, anyway. He'll go back to little films, and little stories, not too different from this one.
Furthermore, it's not as though the Boyhood was slighted in any single category. Patricia Arquette rightfully won the film's lone Oscar. Hawke had a much smaller chance against a very strong supporting actor field. The same is true for Original Screenplay, where Birdman was far more clever and complex.
Editing was, perhaps, the biggest surprise of the night, but Whiplash was far more deserving. While I thought they would give the award to Sandra Adair for shear scope of the project, I'm honestly elated Whiplash won. Editing almost always goes to the best picture winner, because no on knows how to judge editing. Just look at Gravity last year, a film with almost no impact from the editor, winning for Best Editing. Whiplash's Tom Cross just might be the most deserving editor I've seen the Academy Award in years.
So then there's Best Picture and Best Director. Birdman won both.
It's hard to argue with that. This isn't Crash over Brokeback Mountain and Goodnight and Goodluck. This isn't Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. This isn't even Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas. Instead, it's two damn good films that should never be compared to each other. I say that not because one film is far worse than the other (Crash and the field), or because one film won on popularity (Shakespeare). Birdman and Boyhood just shouldn't be compared because they have nothing in common.
Literally nothing. I mean, I guess they're both about a bunch of white people, if you want to make a race statement–which is completely valid. But that's a systemic problem in American Cinema. That's far too fucking deep for me and this post.
So really, the only thing they have in common is that they are both compound words starting with the letter "B."
Sure, there are probably some parallels about identity, purpose, desire, race, and a bunch of other topics one could bullshit into a convoluted thesis for a film 101 course, and they'd probably get an A (by the way, I did that through all of my film courses. Film Theory is bullshit [I did that in philosophy, too {english called me out on that shit, though]]). The truth is, the approach, the production, the technique, the context, the characters, the fucking narrator and the goddamn universe are so wildly different in each film that any comparison between Birdman and Boyhood is baseless. A further attempt to decide which film is empirically better borders on irresponsible.
Yet we do this every year. Why?
Mainly for Hollywood to pat each other on that backs and stroke each other on the cocks. Studios give filmmakers huge bonuses for nominations, and those can double with a win. Slapping an "Oscar Winner" on the cover of your DVD increases sales, and "Best Picture" is even better. Perhaps more importantly the whole event makes Hollywood look as important as they feel.
As for us, the audience, who doesn't love competitions? Art probably shouldn't be competitive, but it certainly make it more fun. The individual praise is even better. Who hasn't imagined standing on the stage, thanking everyone who has lead to you being the most awesome person that year? I mean, the themes of Birdman would appear to be entirely against this idea of praise and elitism, yet even they ran on stage shouting "Yay we won!" Not literally, but I mean...pretty much.
When it comes to the greater import of The Academy Awards, there's not much to say. We only remember most of the winners because they get written down. In time, the victors are slowly worn away with the benefit of hindsight. For the few out there who praise Ordinary People more than Raging Bull, Elephant Man, or The Shining, it has little to do with it's Best Picture oscar, and more to do with that person being wrong.
More importantly, I doubt many will remember The Shining wasn't even nominated that year. For anything (Well, it did get two Razzie nominations). No one's holds that against the film, and no one has forgotten it.
I'm not saying that any of this is directly true with this year's winners and losers. I honestly think we'll remember both Birdboy and Manhood fondly. I'm only saying that the Oscars don't really decide what's important in film.
MPAA: It looks like blood.Universal: No, it's just, like, a really rusty riverbed. 'Cause of all that machinery.
MPAA: It looks too much like blood. Pls fix.
Universal: FINE IT'S FUCKING BLOOD, ARE YOU HAPPY?!
Shot 3 - 0:09
Hey look, a Ghost!
Shot...00? - 0:10
(I don't usually count non-footage, but this time a line is spoken over black, and I want to stay true to the edit. Hence this non-counting shot. [and in that regard, I'm obliged to admit that the previous line, "Ghosts are Real," is actually spoken over Shot 2, not Shot 3. I fucked up and I'm too lazy to fix it.])
Anyway...
Shot 04 - 0:12
Hey MPAA, does this look like blood, bitch?
Shot 05 - 0:14
How bout this? We're just going to blood color all the things that aren't blood. What the fuck do you have to say to that?
Shot 06 - 0:15
"You are cordially invited to the Creepy Ass Ball. This year's color will be Depressingly Orange. Please dress to match."
Shot 07 - 0:16
I instinctively don't trust you. Not because you're Loki, but because you're the only creep here walking around with a lit candle.
Everyone else has champagne. You have fire. The hell is your problem?
SHot 8 - 0:17
"Be yours? Well, It wouldn't be the first time...."
Shot 09 - 0:18
(I can't verify that last statement; I still haven't seen "Only Lovers Left Alive." I do want to see it, so I decided not to look up a synopsis [Given that it's Jim Jarmusch, I assume the synopsis is "random vignettes where people talk about weird shit {and vampires}"].)
But back to this film...
Shot 10 - 0:19
Someone didn't get the memo regarding "Depressingly Orange Attire Only."
Universal continues the trend of re-recording slowed-down versions of previously successful songs to use in a trailer. This week's slowed-down trailer track: Nick Cave's "Red Right Hand,"
Shot 11 - 0:20
Speaking of slowed down, this shot was slowed down in post. And similar to the song, it was done poorly and without purpose.
Shot 12 - 0:22
I call bullshit. How is that candle still lit?
Shot 13 - 0:23
"Take a little walk to the edge of town"? Hey look, it's the edge of town.
Shot 14 - 0:24
...And we enter the house as we hear, "Walk across the tracks." Neat.
If a mansion has fallen to ruin, there's guaranteed to be at least one deranged or clinically insane person somewhere within. This should be a red flag.
Shot 15 - 0:26
You'll have to excuse Murph's offensive nature. She's currently having a hard time solving gravity.
Or whatever the fuck her role was in that film.
Shot 16 - 0:28
Red Flag!
Shot 17 - 0:29
They completely skipped a line of the song, allowing "Where Secrets Lie" to fall right after Murph's statement...
So we're definitely doing that "hit the nail on the head with every line of the song" thing?
Shot 18 - 0:30
To be clear, he is directing, right? Because the studios used this same description for George Lucas and "Strange Magic."
Shot 19 - 0:32
We saw Murphy play the Piano in shot 10, and she was wearing a cleaner version of this same dress in shots 14 and 15. We can pretty well assume the identity of creepy piano fingers...
...But what we really need to talk about is how shitty the CGI smoke looks.
Shot 20 - 0:33
There are shitty CGI butterflies everywhere, a painting of children either cheering or worshiping the conflagration of a wicker man, and you're focused on the circle. It is literally the least troubling thing in front of your face. Also,
Hiring Hieronymus Bosch as their interior decorator should have been red flag number three.
OK, Loki is putting a ton of weight on Alice enjoying this toy. He looks like a motherfucker who just showed his favorite film in the world to his new girl, and she's liking it, but not nearly as much as he does, and now he's reconsidering a majority of his life choices and contemplating either suicide or homicide.
Also, the trailer is putting a shit ton of weight on us enjoying this toy. Why did we just spend six seconds watching two characters react to a clown that vomits ball bearings?
I just don't see anything on the level of "Hellboy" or "Pan's Labyrinth."
Shot 25 - 0:41
Oh. My mistake. This is definitely his "Ultimate Masterpiece." They couldn't say that unless it's true.
Shot 26 - 0:44
It's snowing in this shot, but you can't tell from any of the stills. I guess I'll save my "roof thatching" joke for another trailer...
...Move along..
Shot 27 - 0:45
They aimed for the skin tones to live somewhere between "The Simpsons" and jaundice.
Shot 28 - 0:47
From the looks of the house, it was probably for your own mental well-being.
Shot 29 - 0:49
Alice woke up this morning and asked, "What is the most preposterous thing in my wardrobe?"
Shot 30 - 0:50
Red Flag!
Shot 31 - 0:51
RED. FLAG.
Shot 32 - 0:53
They skipped another four lines to so they could make sure "Creepy House in a Snowstorm" imagery fell on the line, "On a gathering storm..."
Shot 33 - 0:56
"...Comes a tall handsome man." Hey look, a tall handsome man.
I guess if the shoe fits, deconstruct it, remove all but the applicable pieces, then after you stitch it directly onto the foot, piece by piece, hobble around on one bloody stump yelling "look how well the shoe fits!"
Shot 34 - 0:58
Jaundice.
Shot 35 -1:00
...Creeper.
Shot 36 - 1:01
They perfectly inserted this shot so that the action of Loki's hand pulling the lever is in synch with the word "hand" in the titular line, "with a red right hand."
... THIS FRANKENSTEIN SHOE FITS PERFECTLY!
Shot 37 - 1:02
For those who think Guillermo Del Toro has a soft spot for practical effects, I present this piece of shit CGI contraption.
Shot 38 - 1:03
Does that dress cures the jaundice?
Shot 39 - 1:04
I guess not...
Shot 40 - 1:05
A scary sister-in-law, a decrepit mansion, a demonic nursery, and jaundice. I'd listen to your friend Lloyd Haythe. He's a cool guy.
Shot 41 - 1:05
Movie logic: 1) Every time there's a funeral, it rains. 2) Everyone who attends is prepared with nearly identical black umbrellas. 3) Inevitably, someone unexpected attends, but you don't see them until the eulogy, at which point you regard them cautiously with a reserved head nod.
Shot 42 - 1:07
What is this 3D spiral o' spikes? We see nothing similar to this in the footage, so it doesn't work as an allusion to the film's aesthetic. It's so poorly rendered, it makes me wonder if there's that much shitty CGI in the film, or if it's just the titles.
Shot 43 - 1:08
It is not just the titles. You know what died in this house? Guillermo's use of practical effects.
Shot 44 - 1:09
This looks like an amateurish, poorly applied blending mode. It looks like something I would do, think it's kind of cool, then never show anyone because deep down I know it's terrible.
And I show these shitty breakdowns to people, so you know I have a low filter.
Shot 45 - 1:10
"Not specifically. They were more *generally* violent..."
Shot 46 - 1:11
"...And they're ghosts now, so they aren't specifically dead."
Shot 47 - 1:12
Guy we've never met will eventually die in a generally violent manner.
Shot 48 - 1:12
Quickly scroll through all the images in this album. These titles stand out like a sore thumb. The majority of the green in the footage is nearly pure green, and is used as a strong accent to the orange and jaundice. This is a muted cyan green that clashes with the film's pallet.
I'm not even close to done with how horrible these title cards are...
Shot 49 - 1:13
Hey, that's almost scary.
You know what would actually be scary? Actually having someone crawl through the floor with real smoke coming up around them.
Shot 50 - 1:16
It might help her to actually have something to respond to, as well.
Shot 51 - 1:16
"Right now–Oh thanks, tea!"
Shot 52 - 1:17
That's the big scare? A foot stepping out of the bathtub? I'd never expect that.
Granted, it is scarier than CGI floor girl.
Shot 53 - 1:18
The thin weight of the font and the similar hue to the background keep the words from popping. It's as if they don't want you to read them at all.
Which is reasonable, once you read copy all together and see it's just mindless drivel.
Shot 54- 1:20
After Effects labels the color of the snow in this shot as "Pale Magenta-Red."
It also labels Lloyd's skin tone as "Jaundice."
Shot 55 - 1:21
Somebody forgot to color grade this shot. It looks gorgeous.
Shot 56 - 1:21
Pinky massage time!
Shot 57 - 1:22
FUCK YOU, TABLE.
Shot 58 - 1:22
WHY DID YOU STAB MY TABLE, BITCH!?
Shot 59 - 1:23
Hey Loki, were you raised on a barn?
Then close the fucking door!
Shot 60 - 1:23
Weeeee!
Shot 61 - 1:25
Who the hell are you?
There have been no little girls in this trailer. Don't throw in some random child to get my feels all worked up.
Shot 62 - 1:27
As if the titles weren't atrocious enough, the letters smoke dissolve onto the screen. I make a lot of (bad) jokes.
Honestly, this really isn't a bad trailer...until you drop in the titles. Then it's terrible.
Shot 63 - 1:31
Look a red right hand! Get it?! RED RIGHT HAND!!
Shot 64 - 1:28
You have 8 months to fix this shit, Guillermo.
Conclusion
With the extreme color grading choices, shitty CGI, a dearth of practical effects and nothing indicating any originality in story telling or perspective...I'm sadly underwhelmed for the film.
It's not a bad trailer, by any means. I actually like the song, they just didn't need to be so see-and-say with every line.
But then those fucking title cards...
Title cards are the only original content you put in a trailer. You need to make damn well sure those cards represent the film accurately, and do nothing to detract from the film, aesthetically.
There's a reason most film titles are simple text on a black background.
"Hi, I work for 'The Newspaper.' You know, the one. Here are my credentials that say 'The Newspaper,' and my title, 'Interviewer."
Shot 2 - 0:05
That is the definition of an interview.
Completely-Unremarkable-Girl-Who-I-Think-I-Recognize-From-The-Social-Network is incredibly startled by the elevator doors opening. She must be from one of those small towns that don't have elevators.
Shot 3 - 0:09
[Their copy machine looks kind of like an R2 unit.]
Shot 4 - 0:12
Four shots in, I've seen no establishing shots of a city.
Shot 5 - 0:13
Two shots of walking down a hallway, and no generic stock footage of a city. Where am I?! I need to know my spatial relationship to this fictional story!
Shot 6 - 0:17
Okay. We're in a city. Whew. I was getting a little anxious there.
Shot 7 - 0:18
It's definitely not New York, Chicago, DC, LA or San Francisco, otherwise they would have established that with Skyline/Statue of Liberty, Sears Tower, Capital Building, Smog or Golden Gate Bridge, respectively.
To Recap, Girl is getting "just an interview" for "the newspaper" in "some city."
I'm surprised this film isn't called "Movie."
Shot 8 - 0:21
Polite? You look like you're about to get assaulted!
Oh...right...
Shot 9 - 0:24
Focus...Focus!
Shot 10 - 0:28
Cue intimidating desk tap.
Shot 11 - 0:30
Interests? Yes. R-Rated sex. It was BDSM, but the MPAA is pretty much limiting me to R-Rated sex. So, like, really shitty, not at all worth it sex.
Shot 12 - 0:32
"Okay, um, buy me a drink sometime? But this is your interview. For 'The Newspaper.'"
Shot 13 - 0:35
That's not entirely true. Your fear of elevators is a unique trait...
Shot 14 - 0:37
...Your emulation of Paula Broadwell is another.
Shot 15 - 0:41
"...And I agree, you are rather unremarkable."
Shot 16 - 0:43
"As are you, Sheriff Graham. As are you."
Shot 17 - 0:45
Girl must have told Sheriff Graham about her fear of elevators. That's why he personally escorted her back to the elevator.
Shot 18 - 0:45
"The doors are going to close, but they'll open again on the first floor. Just hit the 'L' button and wait. Yes, the 'L' button, there is no '1.' Now when the doors open again, there's going to be another 'ding.' That's okay. That's supposed to happen. The elevator might stop at other floors and pick up more people. Don't exit until it reaches the first floor. That's marked 'L.' You can follow on the numbers above the door.
"I believe in you. You can do this."
Shot 19 - 0:49
Nothing says excitement like a camera flash at a photo shoot.
Shot 20 - 0:50
There's a flash, but the photographer is clearly taking a fucking light reading. And he's doing it about four feet away from his subject, so he's doing it wrong.
[I like that Lego corrected this glaring mistake.]
Shot 21 - 0:51
"My success is mainly due to a complete lack of character and not having to drive anywhere."
Shot 22 - 0:52
Did she do a shit job the first time, and is now completing a second interview in the woods? Also, do they do it in the woods?
Shot 23 - 0:53
What? How is that at all a logical response?
Also, seriously, how is this interview still going on in what appears to be a food court?
Shot 24 - 0:54
Completely cheated reaction shot in an entirely different location from the previous.
Shot 25 - 0:55
Drag your significant other to see the shitty, sex-less version of the lady-porn you were reading two years ago.
Shot 26 - 0:58
All these focus pulls are being done in post. You can tell because the foreground and background come into focus at the same time.
...Cheaters.
[I like that the Lego version actually did the focus pull in camera.]
Shot 27 - 0:59
So set decoration said, "Hey, you know what this elevator needs? A random Jazz Festival advertisement. That's something one would typically find in a residential elevator, right?"
Either that, or there's a jazz festival pivotal to the plot. Although that would necessitate a plot.
Shot 28 - 1:01
Sheriff Graham is serious about helping Girl get over her fear of elevators.
Shot 29 - 1:03
Imagine if there was a novelization of a Sasha Grey porno, and we purchased that book for our wives or girlfriends and gave it to them on Valentine's Day.
Yeah, that wouldn't go over well.
Don't fucking take us to this film.
Shot 30 - 1:04
Look at all of her new-found self-confidence! If you can ride an elevator, you can go anywhere!
Vertically speaking. Sheriff Graham will get to the horizontal lessons later in the film.
Shot 31 - 1:05
A private pilot license requires a minimum of 40 hours flight time, typically averaging 60 to 70 total hours, including a minimum 10 hour cumulative solo cross-country flight, along with 7 paper exams. You don't just wake up and say "I'm going to fly a helicopter now."
Shot 32 - 1:06
...So when Girl asked you what your interests were outside of work, how was "Flying a helicopter," not your immediate response?
Shot 33 - 1:07
R-Rated BDSM...
Shot 34 - 1:08
...AKA, dancing.
Shot 35 - 1:09
I was told there would be hardcore sexy times...
Shot 36 - 1:10
...yet all I've seen is fond touching and some elevator lessons.
Shot 37 - 1:11
After "Avengers" slowed down "I've Got No Strings," the producers of "50 Shades of Grey" were like, "what song can we slow down to make our trailer intense?"
Slowing down well known songs is the new "Inception Boom" in the trailer editing bag-o-tricks.
Shot 38 - 1:12
The Lego city scape is more realistic than the city scape in the actual footage.
Shot 39 - 1:13
Shirt was off, now it's back on.
Shot 40 - 1:14
If you have your hood up when you go jogging, that means you're a stoic individual with a troubled past...
Shot 41 - 1:15
...It also means you like to tie your parter up before fucking them.
Shot 42 - 1:16
[Deadpool?]
Shot 43 - 1:17
I guarantee you, this is about as hardcore as the film gets.
[And yes, I'm referring to the Lego image here.]
Shot 44 - 1:19
This looks like Girl's bedroom (unless Sheriff Graham has a vanity mirror and floral wall paper). She's doing pretty damn well for just an interviewer with "The Newspaper."
Shot 45 - 1:21
Here's a whole bunch of fuckers we won't see for the rest of the trailer.
Shot 46 - 1:22
Really? The whole helicopter ride over Some City was pretty romantic. As was the elevator lesson. This even seems like a pretty romantic gest--
Shot 47 - 1:23
....you just touched her vagina, didn't you? That's totally her "You just touched my vagina" face.
Shot 48 - 1:24
Can I get a C-3PO, on the rocks? Make it a double.
Shot 49 - 1:26
"I like Helicopters. That's it." "And this mask...."
Shot 50 - 1:27
"...And yummy fingers..."
Shot 51 - 1:28
"..And myself. I like myself a lot."
Shot 52 - 1:29
"Oh, and I like you. Well, you're alright. Kinda plain, but I guess lack of character is pretty much the point of this story."
Shot 53 - 1:30
"I fly a glider too?"
Shot 54 - 1:31
"Shit, I'm pretty cool. I like myself a lot."
Shot 55 - 1:32
Insinuated ecstasy. Probably about as close as you can get to an orgasm with an R-Rating.
Shot 56 - 1:33
Building up to this completely normal sexual interaction...
Shot 57 - 1:34
...Followed by completely normal sexual interaction....
Shot 58 - 1:35
...Followed by a typical sexual tension increasing dramatic pause...
Shot 59 - 1:37
...And it's time for the horizontal lessons!
Shot 60 - 1:42
Take note. If you're very rich, your "spank bank" is an actual room where you bring living people.
Shot 61 - 1:44
To be fair, it's a bit harder to hide than simply saving your porn in a folder titled "Edit Logs, 2010."
Shot 62 - 1:47
Alright! We've got some handcuffs...
Shot 63 - 1:47
...One whip...
Shot 64 - 1:48
...Two whip...
Shot 65 - 1:48
...Bath...time..?
Shot 66 - 1:49
...sleepy time...
Shot 67 - 1:49
...normal handcuffs...
Shot 68 - 1:50
...Blindfold and handcuffs.
I know this is a trailer and all...but...this can't be all the hardcore sexy stuff everyone was going crazy about a few years ago. He's got to have a few more intense toys locked away in his man cave.
So you can't show much, but you can use your words, right? I know that's asking a lot from these writers, but maybe a little dominant/submissive language. Just something to set you apart from a high budget SkinaMax picture.
Shot 69 - 1:54
Heh heh...69.
Conclusion
Having literally read nothing directly about the book or the film, and only knowing about the series based on 2-year-old buzz and this trailer, here is my summation of the film:
Girl reporting for "The Newspaper," has an incredibly long and poorly constructed interview with Rich Guy who enjoys flying small aircraft and brooding. Rich Guy teaches her to overcome her fear of elevators, and then takes her up in his helicopter and a glider. He feels her vagina at a dinner party, and eventually they engage in somewhat intense, but still fairly mellow foreplay. They follow this with air-humping, a few shots of boobs but no genitalia. The film ends after they've done this a few times, with intermittent walking in the woods and some R-Rated sexual innuendo.
It ends arbitrarily. Rich Guy will not get over his brooding, because they need enough of something going on to require a sequel.
Advertisers tried a new approach to the Big Game this year: Let's make everyone cry.
Fuck laughter and feeling good about our brand. Forget that this all surrounds a form an escapist entertainment used mainly as an excuse for celebration during a time of year that's already depressing enough. Let's call 911, threaten parents lives, and kill children. Brilliant.
So grab your tissues and let's jump into the worst commercials of Super Bowl XLIX history.
No.6 - Coca-Cola's IT Ineptitude
Typically, Coca-Cola can shit in a paper bag, scribble the word "Joy" on it, and call it a success. Their whole brand is about spreading Joy, and what better way to do that than over the internet?
Granted, this is not how the internet works. Spilling Coca-Cola on a server is just going to fry a few drives, and cause a slight blip in the user experience while other drives take over. This is Coke, we know their campaigns. We accept diabetic Polar Bears and tiny colonies inside Coke machines. If the tone is handled right, I can accept some Coca-Cola becoming all electric magic happiness.
But the problem in the commercial is that the tone is too serious. The dictates an approach too realistic for me to accept that this makes any sense. If they were in a glossy server room, some ethereal place with "THE INTERNET" molded in a gold gate over the entrance, I could accept the concept. But it looks like they tried to create a believable "internet" set. It lacks the whimsy of many of the classic Coke commercials
That seriousness permeates to each situation–two politicians fight on a news program, a woman crys at a bus stop, and a boy on a bus (super creative situation, by the by), reads "NO ONE LIKES YOU." That's not my emphasis, that's how it's written in the commercial. That's fucking mean.
Sure, Coke fixes all these problems...well, not really, but it makes them all happy again. So joy is spread and they fit their brand, right?
Not quite. By creating this initial sad scenario for each person, it puts the audience in a bad place. It's forcing us to realize the negativity of our reality in relation to it's brand. Coca-Cola should be spreading Joy simply because that's what Coca-Cola does. You don't need to be all fucking sombre about it.
Also, it generally underwhelmed, and I expect more from Coke.
No.5 - Dodge Turns 100
There were two decent car ads this year. BMW's Electric car, and Fiat's "Blue Pill." I guess Mercedes tried really hard with "Fable," but for all it's hype and design, it was empty.
The Super Bowl is a trap for car commercials, and outside of Volkswagen, very few auto manufacturers have a strong track record. Ford has given up on the game completely, and I think that's a great decision. Consider what Lexus did this year. I bet you can't remember Lexus at all. They actually had two commercials air during the game. Neither of them said anything beyond "cool car, bro." They got great search metrics, somehow, but I can't see how they expanded their brand.
Almost every car commercial was giant circle jerk, and none more circley-jerkley than Dodge. It was just bunch of old people telling me what to do with my life. Maybe it's not depressing, but it is serious, and not remotely fun.
It culminates with Dodge tugging themselves off for turning 100 this year.
Congrats. You made it. I hope the big birthday present to yourself was worth it.
No.4 - Fuck You, Ray Rice
Before the football season started, Ray Rice knocked his wife out in an elevator and got away with it. A week into the season it turned out Adrian Peterson beat his child with a stick, causing fantasy football owners everywhere to cry out in anger. Oh, and people who are good parents were probably upset, too.
Now the NFL has tried to make up for it. Well, not really, but they are airing a shit ton of domestic abuse commercials. I guess that's penance.
Honestly, this is a very well done spot. Ignore the fact that most 911 operators are not this good, nor are most abused women this clever with this much clarity and control. But It's an affective PSA.
It just falls flat with the viewing context of the Super Bowl. No one wants to watch this right now. They just want to enjoy their nacho cheese dip, and hope both teams loose.
There's a reason we don't see PSAs during the big game. They don't work. Well, and they cost a lot. We only saw one this year because of Ray Rice.
So again. Fuck you, Ray Rice. You abhorrent human being.
No.3 - Harry Chapin Should've Driven a Nissan
First, the commercial is a minute and a half long. Whhhhhhhyyyyyy? The only important moment, the car wreck, happens at exactly :30 seconds. After we see the dad is alive, the commercial inexplicably continues for another 50 seconds. In that time, pretty much nothing happens. It's just the lyrics to the song, dragged down by a boring commercial.
And about that song...Harry Chapin's "Cat's in the Cradle," is one of the saddest songs ever written. What a fucking cheap way to tug at your heart strings. My wife has walked in on me alone and weeping because that song came on the radio. I don't want to be sad! Stop making me feel things other than laughter, commercials!
Also, Harry Chapin died in a car wreck. Did none of the creatives know this? Were they not briefed on their own approach? They really had no idea a commercial featuring his song and a car wreck would be completely insensitive?
No.2 - Budweiser's Worst Commercial Ever
This isn't depressing, it's just awful. We're talking brand destructing stuff here.
First, the basic approach and substance just isn't Super Bowl material. It's some pretty shots and extremely simple typography. This is a Ford Truck commercial. This is a forgettable regular season beer commercial. This is the style of commercial you have year-round so people don't forget your brand exists. So before we even get into how bad the creative is, Budweiser should have never paid for this commercial to air during the big game.
But the creative is really, horrendously bad.
"This is the only beer beechwood aged."
There's a reason for this. The Beechwood does not add flavor. In fact, they leech all of the flavor out of the chips beforehand, and the beechwood is only used to speed up the fermenting process of the lager. So "aged" is really a loose term here.
You don't know that, and neither did I until I researched it. That makes this the best line in the entire commercial.
Outside of that bullshit beechwood chips, "Crisp, Smooth Finish," and "Golden Suds" are literally the only things positive they have to say about their product. Everything else about this ad is simply the name "Budweiser," and the message that enjoying other beer is bad. We shouldn't "dissect" and "fuss over" beer. We should just drink it. Other beer and those who drink it are all stuck up and elitist.
The problem is, if you believe this message, you likely already drink Budweiser. That doesn't do Budweiser much good. They are trying to win over a growing portion of the micro-beer drinking populous, mainly people between the ages of 21 and 35, who have no interest in their company.
Budweiser's approach? Belittle them and their interests.
Here's a good idea for an ad campaign for any major brand: don't alienate anyone. People who like micro brews drink macros, too. They just don't do it as often. When they walk into a bar and only Coors, MGD and Bud are on tap, don't give them a reason not to pick yours.
Beyond that, every micro brew you're competing with has great fodder to fuel their own positive campaign. Budweiser's too biggest advantage are money and brand. They just used both against themselves.
And don't give me this "All publicity is good publicity" bullshit. That's never been true, and certainly isn't in the digital age. Everyone knows who Budweiser is. They had the great frog commercials when we were kids, and the brilliant "Wassssssup" from Super Bowls long past. We won't forget them anytime soon. They aren't Locktite, who's just happy to get their name out there to a wide audience. Once you have a household brand, a name known as widely as "Budweiser," the importance is getting the name out there, it's keeping the brand strong, positive, and inclusive.
Sure, Budweiser spiked in post-Super Bowl queries on google, but read what people are saying. Understand that metrics can be a bad trend, too.
Also, one more nugget of to anyone advertising for a big brand. Do your research. If you make fun of "Pumpkin Peach Ale," maybe make sure that none of your companies recent acquisitions actually makes that beer.
No, it wasn't on purpose. The creative claimed they were trying to think of the most preposterous combination, and the former Elysian owner was none to happy when he saw the ad air.
As Russell Wilson can tell you, "Oops," is not something you should say on Super Bowl night.
No.1 - The Kid is Dead
You're fucking kidding me, right? You want me to buy insurance because I might accidentally kill my kid?
Fuck you. Fuck you harder than Nissan and Ray Rice combined.
Once the Seahawks and the Patriots wound up in Super Bowl XLIX, we knew the night was going to be hard enough. Advertisers decided to go ahead and rub salt in our wounds by inundating us with the most somber, depressing advertising since the last time Sarah McLachlan forced us to change the channel.
However, there were a few ads that rose to the occasion.
Okay, there was really just one. This one. For what it's worth, Snickers "The Brady Bunch," was fucking genius, and would still be the best if this were a strong year.
I could nerd out a bit in a large conversation about how they did it, but honestly, I'd just be plagiarizing an article from fxguide.com. Instead, I'd rather discuss why it's such a good commercial.
Like any good commercial, it starts with a fantastic, brand forward creative. BBDO has had a successful and a highly recognizable campaign with "You're not you when you're hungry." It's a pretty simple formula that started at the Super Bowl five years ago, and single-handedly led to a resurgence in Betty White's career. Start with a familiar situation, get a famous, recognizable personality being a "Diva," or going crazy, or whatever fits their personality, and then hand them a snickers. For the button, introduce another celebrity in the same vain.
The problem is, it's a little bit too formula for the Super Bowl. Coming into the Superbowl with a new brand approach would be risky, and kind of dumb considering this campaign hasn't lost steam. But another simple celebrity comedy spot would get lost in a sea of shitty T-Mobile commercials. So BBDO was faced with propelling the campaign without creating a retread.
Whoever thought of the Brady Brunch deserves a raise. Honestly, I'm sure they got one. I hated the show as a kid, but still recognize it from the first few notes and the horrid 70s decor, which is exactly how this spot opens up. I also love that they kept the spot 4:3, which feels surprisingly fresh after all the pretty cookie cutter commercials.
Three shots in, we see Machete, fully integrated into the Brady Bunch environment. Honestly, I should have known by this point that it's a Snickers advert, but the image of Machete perfectly (and i mean perfectly) composited into that famous living room was just too shocking to register anything but laughter.
One of the things that keeps the brand fresh for Snickers is that they don't pick celebrities to simply have a cameo. They're picked for a personality that immediately permeates their performance. Many people have no idea who Danny Trejo is, but they know he does not belong in this environment.
I recognize the brand after about four of five shots, but then, that's not a bad thing. This is an ad, after all. More importantly, the copy is strong, and I'm still laughing. "An Eye for Eye, that's what Dad always said!" cut to the calm response of Papa Brady.
The editor does a fantastic job of keeping the timing of the delivery where none such really exists. Comedy is already one of the most difficult things to master as an editor, and when you don't have a true reaction to time your jokes, it gets harder.
Then you have to consider he's cheating the existing footage of the Brady Bunch to match their new lines seamlessly. There was SFX done to cheat the lips for the new lines, but most of that is covered with the new footage of Machete.
This was the one commercial that actually made me LoL. Though a few made me want to shoot myself in the face, which, as a life long Broncos fan, is a feeling I hadn't had since last Super Bowl Sunday. So thanks, Nationwide.
If I have one complaint about this spot, it's that Steve Buscemi looks like a tiny, tiny man at the top of those stairs. But then, he is a tiny tiny man.
****
The spot was directed by Jim Jenkins at O Positive, and edited by Geoff Hounsell at Arcade Edit. I wasn't at all surprised to find out that The Mill was the company behind the special effects, led by creative director Ben Smith.
"Terminator: Genisys" Big Game Spot - A Completely Unnecessary, Shot-by-Shot Breakdown
In Most Super Bowls, there's a least one major summer release who blows a few million dollars to debut the first look at their highly anticipated new feature.
I probably should have gone with one of those, but I've been wanting to talk about Terminator more than Divergent, and I'm pretty sure we've seen at least a teaser for every other live-action film that bought ad space (Tomorrowland, Kingsman, Hot Tub Time Machine 2, Furious7, Fifty Shades of Grey, Jurassic World, Pitch Perfect 2, Ted2).
To preface, I don't understand this film. I've watched the full trailer, and I still don't understand it.
I mean, I get that gist. I know there's time travel and all, but it's not rational. The first two films in this franchise showed that time is locked. John Connor wouldn't even be born if he hadn't sent Kyle Reese back in time to impregnate his mother. This forces a reality where there is no parallel universe, no chaos theory, just a single strand of reality that is identical no matter how we travel through it.
So under any reality this film as erected, this storyline is implausible.
More importantly, in the third film, Judgement day happened. In the fourth film the war is raging. It's too late to go back.
Also, Governator is pretty fucking old now.
But whatever, it's Terminator, so I'm excited!
Link to the orignal imgur album, if your allergic to tumblr
Shot 1 - 0:00
Generic stock footage of the Golden Gate Bridge.
Shot 2 - 0:01
It's not a Terminator film without jumping a bike off an overpasses.
Golden Gate Bridge in the horizon makes Shot 1 unnecessary.
Shot 3 - 0:02
Speed 3, Back to School?
You're clearly not saving anyone on this empty bus, and school busses typically have a governor on the engine that tops out at approximately 60 mph. But I'm sure there's a good reason you chose this vehicle for a chase.
Daenerys impressively asks "Where is he?" without moving her mouth.
Shot 4 - 0:02
We're literally on the Golden Gate Bridge. Shot one is less necessary than my post.
The guy suddenly standing behind her on the bus should probably sit down.
Shot 5 - 0:02
The wreckage is now gone. You've hit nothing. Good Day, Sir.
Shot 6 - 0:03
Someone has watched too much Christopher Nolan and too little Bill Nye.
Shot 7 - 0:04
Obligatory Po po.
Shot 8 - 0:05
We hear tires screech in the previous shot–I guess it's sensible that the car is now stopped dead, tangental to the road.
T-800s are cyborgs covered in living tissue–I guess it's sensible that the Governator has aged 30 years.
(That is, if you ignore the fact that every T-800 model we've seen has been destroyed, and infinitely better upgrades have replaced him.)
Shot 8 - 0:06
Although the bus flipped parallel to the road, with full forward momentum, it has somehow been forced off the side of the bridge.Science.
Shot 9 - 0:06
Guy who wasn't wearing a seatbelt not only survives unscathed after a mid-air flip and sudden forceful push off the side, he even has the wits to jump to safety as the bus falls.
With reactions like that, maybe this shit wouldn't have happened if he were behind the wheel.
Shot 10 - 0:06
Grandpa Terminator.
Shot 11 - 0:07
...So this happens.
Shot 12 - 0:08
Grandpa's Gun!
Shot 13 - 0:08
I will Ignore for a moment (or 2 hours) that this modern day ret-con is completely irreconcilable in the greater canon of the series. But whiny little Daenerys is a horrible replacement for one of the greatest heroines in the history of cinema.
Unless she brings her dragons.
Shot 14 - 0:09
Who the fuck she think she is, telling the Governator to "load up"? You don't think he knows how to use a gun?
Shot 15 - 0:09
Apparently not. Apparently the old-timer is relegated to "hold me" duties around Daenerys.
Shot 16 - 0:10
Same threat...
Shot 17 - 0:11
...A Terminator.
Shot 18 - 0:11
Unless we're counting exploding ceilings among the "new threat." That doesn't really compare to a terminator, though.
Shot 19 - 0:12
Bikes = Terminator Franchise.
Shot 20 - 0:12
Four films later, people still think you can just burn a terminator.
Shot 21 - 0:13
Same mission...
Shot 22 - 0:14
...Stop a T-1000.
Shot 23 - 0:14
I'm assuming it's a T-1000. T-X was a huge fucking downgrade. Really, how do you upgrade a T-1000? The *only* way to kill is to melt it.
Shot 25 - 0:15
I guess you can make it throw parts of it's own body. Seems wasteful...
Shot 26 - 0:15
Wouldn't the T-X gun/arm be more effective ? Or did Skynet never work out the kinks.
Shot 27 - 0:16
Same Fate.
Shot 28 - 0:17
Literally the exact same fucking fate. Fucking Judgement Day. It already fucking happened.
Shot 28 - 0:18
"Everything has changed."
No shit. Terminator's old, you're young, it's 2015, John's not born, Judgement days is "delayed," and you British accent is showing.
It's still the same story, though.
Shot 29 - 0:18
Official cola of Super Bowl XLIX!
Shot 30 - 0:19
"I'm Sorry, honey, but I have to call you back. The Former Governor of California just entered the room."
Shot 31 - 0:19
...And caused GROUND FIREWORKS!
Shot 32 - 0:20
That shoulder looks familar!
Shot 33 - 0:21
Thank God that bitch Daenerys is not around. I finally get to use my guns.
Shot 34 - 0:21
This is laughably terrible. This is worse than his "cameo" in "Terminator: Salvation." We did not need to see this. No one needs to see this.
Shot 35 - 0:22
This does not work. This never works.
Shot 36 - 0:22
We here a second gun shot, but there is no muzzle flash. Just a flash frame. Cheaters.
Shot 37 - 0:23
Obligatory helicopter. Just the one.
Shot 38 - 0:24
"I'll be back."
Yeah, but why?
Shot 39 - 0:25
What do you mean "what"? It's what he fucking says every fucking film!
Shot 40 - 0:26
The Governator acts on the shared feelings of the audience, and bails on the bitch.
Shot 41 - 0:26
*This film is not yet rationalized.
Shot 42 - 0:27
The Governator's trajectory takes him directly through the helicopter's rotors, yet he passes them, leaving the blades completely undamaged before he impacts into the side of the helicopter.
The low end of the rotor speed for an average helicopter is 450 revolutions per minute, or 7.5 revolutions per second. Multiply that by four, one for each blade, and that's an even 30 blades passing a single point every second.
With 1/30th of a second to pass through the blades, and the Governator's height of 1.9 meters, he would need to be falling at a minimum velocity of 57m/s, or 127mph for those of us in the States. Wiki tells me that "Stable freefall head down position has a terminal speed of 240–290 km/h (around 150–180 mph)."
Shit...that's technically possible.
Oh, but that doesn't take into account the change in air pressure directly above and below the blades! He would have to be falling significantly faster, as he would slow significantly upon hitting the air pocket beneath the rotors. Even if he passed through, there would have been a noticeable deceleration, likely compacting the front of his body as the rest falls...
...You don't give a shit, do you? The Governator just smashed into a copter from another copter, and it was fucking cool.
Shot 43 - 0:28
You spelled "five" wrong.
Conclusion
God damn that was a lot of shots. This was a 30 second TV spot, and it had nearly as many shots as AntMan's two minute teaser. If you count the production card up front, that's 44 shots in 30 seconds, an average shot length of just over 16 frames. Titles are a bit longer, so footage alone clocks in at 15 frames per shot.
I guess I should say that it feels like it's super rushed...but honestly, that was a pretty tight TV Spot. Usually TV Spots suck. They try to pack in a ton of copy, maybe a few quotes, get in all the famous people...it's easy for a film to end up as shit soup in a 30 second spot.
I hate to say it, but this was pretty exciting, and very clear. For all their trying to say this is "new," the real message is that it's a return to the old. It's what the film was the first two or three times. Governator running around Terminating things to save someone in the Connor family. I get what they're trying to do now.
So for my third teaser, I'll be covering...another Marvel superhero.
I promised myself I wasn't going to do a third Marvel entity in a row. I was going to branch out and cover a wider range of trailers. I even had a Terminator: Genisys post all ready to go.
Then Marvel released this trailer.
God Damn it. Fine...
Original Imgur link, For the purists
Shot 1 - 0:02
You had me at "Marvel."But only because I recognize your chrome logo. That white logo could be any shitty Spiderman sequel.
Shot 2 - 0:03
An ugly shot of New York City clearly slowed down in editorial. But at least it's not stock footage!
Is that a Ford Taurus*? What year is it?
...Seriously, what year is it?
*I've been informed this is a Buick Regal. Still don't know the year, though...
Shot 3 - 0:04
Fade in and out on shot of a stick...yet again slowed down in post.
Shot 4 - 0:07
Ah. That was this a blind guy's stick.
Seriously, though. The first thee shots we see of your new production are all artificially slowed down? Not fucking cool.
Shot 5 - 0:08
Blind guy. Church. Priest. Well composed and not artificially slowed down.
Thank God.
Shot 6 - 0:12
Fuck it's dark. Even the blind guy's like, "I don't need my fucking glasses."
Shot 7 - 0:13
Low saturation, low light, no bright colors. This is not your ABC TV Marvel Series.
Shot 8 - 0:14
The only light in this shot is pointed at jack shit.
Shot 9 - 0:15
Your eyes moved, Tristan. I saw your eyes move. Faker.
Shot 10 - 0:17
...Does he hear in color?
Shot 11 - 0:20
It's a real gun! Not a "Night-Night"!
Shot 12 - 0:20
That truck also looks about 15 years old. I'm going to assume this take's place in 1990s Hells Kitchen.
Shot 13 - 0:21
Once again, the lone bright light in this scene is illuminating fuck all.And all four cops know some shit's about to go down right below it.
Shot 14 - 0:22
Fuck your Infinity Stones and Tesseracts and Obelisks. We're dealing with the real shit. Cocaine!
Or is that heroin? That's probably heroin, isn't it. I don't really know drugs...
Shot 15 - 0:23
I would call you "Jessica," but I have honestly never seen "True Blood," or anything you're in, for that matter. I'm going to call you "Inevitable Love Interest." Inevitable Love Interest looks like she's in trouble.
Shot 16 - 0:24
Bash Brother is a good guy, though, so she can't be in too much trouble, right?
Shot 17 - 0:25
Shit, is that red blood?
Shot 18 - 0:26
You can't show red blood in a trailer!
Shot 19 - 0:27
Alan Shepherd is a much more convincing blind guy than you are, Tristan.
Shot 20 - 0:28
Your lips clearly don't match your words. But you wouldn't know that, because of your blindness.
Shot 21 - 0:29
Ominous chain clinking in time with the music will surely be pivotal to the plot.
Shot 22 - 0:30
We interrupt this trailer to bring you a David Lynch short film.
Shot 23 - 0:31
If any of those turn out to be infinity stones, I'm going to flip my shit.
Shot 24 - 0:32
Why the fuck did they artificially slow this down, too? It's a eight fucking frames.
Shot 25 - 0:32
I bet this is the kind of guy that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around.
Shot 26 - 0:35
I think that's Abernathy? Fuck it's dark. They're really trying to give us the full "Daredevil" experience, aren't they?
Shot 27 - 0:36
Gettin' pretty bright. Better put my glasses on.
Shot 28 - 0:37
We've seen this shot already. ENTERTAIN ME DAMN IT!
Shot 29 - 0:40
Fuck that's an awesome shot. Maybe not so much for the blind guy, but an awesome shot.
Shot 30 - 0:43
I like this piece, but why not already have the mask down? Why even stand at that corner? Is that vantage point useful? Does he get hysterical sightedness?
Shot 31 - 0:47
This is seriously bold. They dropped a 14 second shot in the middle of their trailer. I have some definite faults with a number of the choices they made in the edit, but this is damn good. This is the shot that says "watch my series."
Shot 32 - 1:02
Nice little jump cut and some flashy things. We know shit's gonna get real after that last long shot.
I also dig the massive cut on the arm. Nothing like a vulnerable superhero. Are you taking notes, Marvel? Oh wait...
Shot 33 - 1:03
Candles? Was there a power outage or are they holding a seance?
Shot 34 - 1:04
Don't bring a knife to a Daredevil fight. Bitch.
Shot 35 - 1:05
This reads more "Kick-Ass" and less "Daredevil," but I'm assuming he hasn't designed his billy club yet.
Shot 36 - 1:05
Bullseye?!
Shot 37 - 1:06
...Clearly not Bullseye.
Shot 38 - 1:06
Some nice acrobatics...
Shot 39 - 1:06
If you're a window in a teaser, there's a good chance you'll get fucked up.
Shot 40 - 1:07
As a window, it's all about staying on the right side of the action...
Inevitable Love Interest is falling in love...I guarantee you he doesn't notice you.
...Because of the blindness...
Shot 41 - 1:07
I'd say that's more like falling with style.
Shot 42 - 1:08
I told you that chain was going to come into play!
Shot 43 - 1:08
Okay, we've seen Daredevil in his black get-up for about 30 seconds. They're building to the full red suit, right..?
Shot 44 - 1:09
...explosions are cool too...
Shot 45, 46, 47, 49 - 1:09
Technically, there are three jump cuts of the same shot, but I'm not going to fucking post them all.
If you know Daredevil, you can assume that blurry guy is Kingpin, and that's legitimately exciting. But if you're the rest of the fucking world, this is a really boring shot sandwiched into an otherwise good section of the trailer. All the quick cuts to black don't hide that.
Personally, if you really felt the need to have this shot in here, I would follow it with the explosion from the previous shot. It gives a lot more context and purpose to each piece.
Also, why is Tristan compelled to look at him?
Shot 50 - 1:09
Whenever a body falls onto the hood of your vehicle, immediately put your car into park. Safety first, everyone.
Shot 51 - 1:10
Do you think Daredevil wanders around knowing how bad-ass he looks? Like, "I'm gonna hang out right at the corner of this building for a few minutes" or "I better pause here in the window. It'll look bitching."
Shot 52 - 1:15
I have to be honest, this is far too polished for the trailer I just watched.
Everything is dark and faded. Their promo poster is his Double D burned into lower Manhattan. I want this title hastily painted on the side of a brick wall. Something rough and edgy. At least a strong texture behind it. In 2D the design is fant4stic, but fuck this 3D shit with soft edges. This is clearly not a soft show.
Shot 53 - 1:20
Fuck yes. This is a hook. You aren't often introduced to a superhero face down in a puddle of his own blood.
They are taking full advantage of the fact they can show red blood, and honestly, what a brilliant way to do so. Scan back through all of these shots. Besides the titles, how much red do you see? Strong bright, red? It's all dirty and muted blues, greens and yellows. Even this shot, they stay in that greenish blue darkness.
Then a shockingly red stream of blood pours from his mouth.
We will see him draped in red. And it will be glorious!
...At least...I assume it'll be glorious...
Shot 54 - 1:23
I already called in sick.
Conclusion
My first impression is that, visually, this is exactly what we have all been waiting for from a Marvel Studios series. The first 20 episodes of Agents of Shield were inoffensive to the point of boredom and disbelief. It was all colorful and light and fun, and our heroes didn't even use guns! Thank God Captain America: The Winter Soldier forced them out of that cycle of shit, or the show may have never caught on.
We've seen some great things from the short run of Agent Carter. They certainly aren't afraid to shoot anyone. But their still have ABC TV's bright color pallet and that weird soft focus that seems to come straight out of classical Hollywood. Not to mention, they aren't really dealing with heavy shit. It's mostly just sciecey destruction stuff. And some of Cap's blood.
*Daredevil* looks darker than most of Marvel's films. And apparently they will be getting an TV-MA rating. They could be even darker than R-Rated. TV is awesome.
As for the trailer...those first few shots are unconscionable. The opening shot might as well be Stock Footage of New York City. It's from the Brooklyn side, and Hells Kitchen is only viewable from the Jersey City side, so their ugly shot isn't even on the right section of Manhattan. Then they slowed it down in post, adding that hideous motion blur. After the following two shots of Murdock, I was really scared for the first 15 seconds of this trailer.
After that, though, they nailed it. I'm not fully with them on the out-of-focus shot of Kingpin, but they clearly made a decision not to show too much of anything. No Kingpin and no Daredevil in red. To that extent, maybe they showed too little, but it's better to err on the conservative side than to show too much.
If only they had this editor cut the Ant-Man trailer.
"Ant-Man" Teaser - A Completely Unnecessary, Shot-by-Shot Breakdown
Admittedly, I’m incredibly excited for Ant-Man. This is definitely the ballsiest character Marvel has featured, and I, for one, am quite surprised “ballsiest” is an acceptable word according to Google’s spell-checker. I’ve been following the Ant-Man project since the early days with Edgar Wright, and I might be one of the few people who became more excited once Peyton Reed was attached.
I don’t know anything about Ant-Man, and I kind of don’t want that to change. I know he gets small and I know he communicates with ants. I’m not sure how small he gets, if he has various levels of small, or if he can communicate with other, non-ant insects. Personally, I can’t fathom any of this stuff being useful. But I do find it all rife with comic relief.
Initially, so did Marvel. From the hilarious use of negative space in their official poster to their “Ant-sized” meta-viral-youtube-promo for the above teaser, I was sure they wouldn’t shy away from the funny.
Alright! Who else is ready to laugh! And laugh and laugh and laugh…
Imgur Mirror Here...since that's where this started
Shot 01 - 0:06
Generic stock footage of a seemingly random port city. The Hill indicates either San Francisco or Oakland. Not Newark, a place that could actually use a superhero.
Dip to black…
Shot 02 - 0:10
Fade up on some dude under arrest. This is a much better place to start. Forget that last shot. I can’t help but wonder who it…
Shot 3 - 0:12
Well, a crossfade answered that question before it was even asked. It’s “Scott!” I know because the Voice in the Sky told me. But I’m going to call him “Mike from Friends.”
Dip to black…
Shot 04 - 0:14
A Hacker that is definitively “old school.” His battle station has big, square, light-up buttons a la “War Games,” and 16 of his 21 screens are CRTs. The other 5 screens are flat panels he uses to track pollen. I’m guessing this Mr. Hacker has severe allergies.
Mr. Hacker is the Voice in the Sky who has been “watching [Mike from Friends] for a while now.” We know this because of the numerous cinematic feeds of Mike’s arrest that no one could possibly ever have.
…Dip back to black…
Shot 05 - 0:17
Nice use of mirror reflection to symbolize Mike’s self-reflection.
…Another dip to black…
Shot 06 - 0:21
Fade up on someone who is clearly Mike from Friends, now in plain clothes as he is escorted from prison. Clearly it’s him. No doubt in my mind. No need to focus on it…
Shot 07 - 0:22
Yep. Still him…
Side note: is every scene with Mike from Friends shot at 60fps? We’re only 7 shots in and this is his fifth slow-mo.
…Another dip to black. Why not?
Shot 08 - 0:23
Wait…why the fuck did we have that first shot? This is a far better establishing shot. It has a noticeable landmark, and the lone car traveling towards the city tells a story. Empty bridge stock footage tells me you’re lazy.
(Also, as a New Yorker, thank god Ant-Man lives on the other coast. It’s about damn time.)
Voice in the Sky tells us ”Now don’t let anyone tell you that you have nothing to offer.” Voice in the Sky is Mr. Rogers.
Dip to black…again…
Shot 09 - 0:29
Introducing Michael Douglas as Mr. Rogers’ Voice in the Sky.”Second chances don’t come around all that often…”Don’t you dare fucking fade to black!
Shot 10 - 0:33
Goddamn it. Mr. Hacker Rogers wasn’t even done talking.
Unsurprisingly, Mike from Friends even responds to real-time comments in slow motion.
Shot 11 - 0:36
Marvel Studios, the people who actually brought you “Iron Man,” “Iron Man 2,” “Thor,” “Captain America,” “The Avengers,” “Iron Man 3,” “Thor 2,” “Captain America 2,” “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.,” “Agent Carter,” the upcoming “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” “Daredevil,” and “AKA Jessica Jones.”
And who really don’t want you to see “FANT4STIC.”
Also, kudos to them for leading with their product and not another studio’s branding…unlike some upcoming superhero movie trailers I’ve covered.
Shot 12 - 0:39
Really random shot of what appears to be a road. It’s just used briefly for texture. For what it’s worth, I like how it connects the two shots.
Shot 13 - 0:40
Coming this summer, more scientists create more shit in more old garages!
Shot 14 - 0:43
“This is your chance…”
To perform server maintenance? I don’t know. It’s more visually stimulating crossfade filler. Unless someone far more tedious than me can find some easter egg in this shit.
Shot 15 - 0:45
Another slow motion contemplative Mike from Friends.
Shot 16 - 0:46
“To earn that look in your daughters eyes.”
Except that’s not Mike. That’s some random woman in a plaid shirt (“Random Woman,” “Mother,”…whatever).
Don’t play me like that.
Shot 17 - 0:49
This is where high end, smart, money, tech stuff goes down. You can tell because people are wearing suits. And because everything is blue.
Shot 18 - 0:50
Branches and shit. Super important to the plot.
Shot 20 - 0:52
This light switch has been brought to you by Buck Rodgers in the 25th Century.
Shot 19 - 0:52
First fucking hard cut in this whole fucking trailer. This cut should hit like THUNDER.
Nope. it’s just another slow-motion reaction of Mike from Friends thinking, “Whoa, that’s a weird light switch.”
Dip to black…way to get my hopes up…
Shot 21 - 0:56
The building says “Pym.” Fans familiar with the comics rejoice. Tens of dozens of them.
People who like the ocean, palm trees, and ugly cement buildings fucking up the skyline also rejoice.
Shot 22 - 0:57
HARD CUT, YES!
Senator Russo, lookin’ like a motherfuckin’ bad ass.
Look, I know nothing about Ant-Man, because let’s be honest, he’s a pretty obscure and seemingly useless superhero. He just gets really tiny and talks to ants. Even Aquaman is like “How often is that really necessary?”
Still, this edit has told us something pivotal. Mr Roger’s Voice in the Sky, aka “Hank Pym,” is not actually in charge of Pym Industries. Senator Russo is. And he’s gonna fuck it over just like he fucked over Pennsylvania.
And that’s editing, bitches.
Shot 23 - 0:58
Two hard cuts in a row? Be still my heart.
This is the room where Russo inevitably becomes a supervillain.
That, or he gets black-out drunk and crushes my soul for a second time.
Shot 24 - 1:00
Yes, another crossfade, but it’s beautiful, so I’m not going to harp on it.
Also, I’m starting to think servers play a huge role in this film.
(Also also, Kate from Lost’s hair looks awful.)
Shot 25 - 1:01
This crossfade is now shockingly ugly compared to the previous.
Yet another contemplative slow motion shot of Mike from Friends, thinking about how “It’s not about saving our world…”
Shot 26 - 1:03
There’s that look in his daughter’s eyes! Though it’s less, ”You’re my hero,” and more, “I”m really tired and cranky and want to take a nap.”
"…It’s about saving theirs."
Is Ant-Man an environmentally conscious superhero? I’m cool with that, I just don’t want a Captain Planet on our hands…
Shot 27 - 1:04
Slow motion Mike from Friends pulls his daughter in close and gives her a contemplative, slow motion kiss on the head.
Followed by…
Yay! Hard cut to black!
Shot 28 - 1:08
One last contemplative slow motion shot of Mike (That’s 12 total, for anyone counting).
"[Mike from Friends,] I need you…
Shot 29 - 1:09
“…to become the Ant-Man.”
(Cue Cinemasins “Roll credits.”)
Fuck yeah, a…red-eyed gas mask? It kinda looks like Star-Lord, but whatever! This is the juicy shit we’ve been waiting to see! I’m PUMPED!
(Side note, Mike from Friends was clearly in the passenger seat of car in the previous shot. If this is his eyeline, that’s a bizarre dashboard.)
Another hard cut to black! Now we’ve got a little rhythm going.
Shot 30 - 1:14
No. No no no. They just ruined their own joke. Half of Mike’s performance was lost in the fade up, and his response was drowned in the music swell.
Instead, kill all audio, and cut abruptly from black just as he slowly opens his eyes to mutter, “Huh.” Allow the funny to happen!
…Balls…
Shot 31 - 1:17
That’s rather specific. What season will it come out?
Shot 32 - 1:18
A good use of a crossfade with a good completion of a title card:
"On July 17th…[We will see Ant-Man]."
Boom.
Also, badass suit…slightly overshadowed by the fact he’s standing in an old shower.
Shot 33 - 1:19
Is he going to have to push a button every time he gets small? I would imagine that’s limiting. His superpowers are getting less applicable by the minute.
Shot 34 - 1:19
Flash of light and a little whoosh. It’s a nice effect. Maybe not the same level as The Thing, but not bad…
Shot 35 - 1:20
HOLY SHIT THAT’S A COOL SHOT.
Okay, I’m excited now.
Shot 36 - 1:22
Michael Pena is in this film, everybody. He runs security for the servers.
Shot 37 - 1:22
Cop Cars. If there are cop cars somewhere in your movie, they will end up in the trailer. Nothing get’s the blood running like the po po.
Shot 38 - 1:23
Alright…we need to talk about winged ants here for a second.
If you are an ant with wings, you’re either a virgin female future-queen looking to get fucked, or you are a virgin male looking to fuck. That’s it.
The potential female queen will use her wings to fly away from her own colony to avoid inbreeding. The males of other colonies exist only for the purpose of pursuing that potential queen. The males are far smaller, and typically have difficulty chasing after the queen in flight. Most of them will die from exhaustion, and that’s if they’re lucky. Otherwise, they catch the queen, and after acrobatic, mid-air copulation, their genitals will erupt inside of the queen, followed shortly by death. I am not making this shit up.
After the female lands, she will rip off her own wings, set out to kill another colony’s Queen, and finally lay her eggs now fertilized by the exploded sex organs of her lovers.
Ants fly once. It’s terrifying and disgusting and ends poorly for everyone involved.
Also, ants can’t fly in inclement weather. That includes fog, San Francisco.
I hope they address this in the film.
Shot 39 - 1:25
Your new wallpaper. You’re welcome.
Shot 40 - 1:26
If you watch this shot over and over and over and over (like I have), you will realize that Mike from Friends fights like a girl.
Shot 41 - 1:26
To break up the action, we go to a wide shot of Pym Industries. Apparently Pym is really into pollen. Not only does he always watch it on at least four monitors, he incorporates it into his logo and his lawn art.
Shot 42 - 1:27
She is totally faking sleeping.
Shot 43 - 1:28
Gun shots are always more violent after shots of innocent little girls (faking) sleeping.
Shot 44 - 1:28
Ant-Man fighting full-sized. Why? Does the suit make him stronger? Is he an Iron-Man that shrinks instead of flies?
Shot 45 - 1:29
…If Iron-Man suddenly developed the ability to get small, would we care? Would he?
Shot 46 - 1:29
What was I saying? Um…. I’m pretty sure we need one of him, too.
Shot 47 - 1:30
I’m sorry, I take back what I said about Mike fighting like a girl. That was completely sexist and offensive. Especially to you, Kate.
Shot 48 - 1:30
Hmmmm…You actually seem a bit more….effective than Ant-Man. And by effective, I mean sexy.
We’ve got, like, eight sexy guys already? I change my mind. We’ll go with you, Ant-Woman.
Shot 49 - 1:30
At some point, they bust a drug lord in Mexico.
Shot 50 - 1:31
Senator Russo looks really pissed about the drug bust, though he’s clearly in a separate location.
Shot 51 - 1:32
Kate, your hair looks like shit again. Put the sports bra back on and go kick Ant-Man’s ass
Shot 52 - 1:32
Ant-Man running full sized. Does the suit also make him faster?
Shot 53 - 1:33
Ant-Man is either full-size running through a city, or small-size running through servers. I’m guessing small, because lights get all pingy and blown out when he’s small.
Though maybe the lights just cover scenes with incomplete special effects.
Shot 54 - 1:33
Does ant riding really save time? Wouldn’t full-size walking be faster?
Shot 55 - 1:34
Apparently, when you’re really small there are lens flares everywhere.
That at least explains JJ Abrams’s body of work. He can’t be much bigger than Ant-Man, right?
Shot 56 - 1:36
…
…So are his genitals going to explode?
Shot 57 - 1:39
Don’t fade up! I thought we left that behind 30 seconds ago.
Also, this line really isn’t important, it just bridges us to the next line…
Shot 58 - 1:40
…Which doesn’t match the previous shot at all.
90% of the time, you get away with that in a trailer. But not this time This is your hook. This is the big line at the end to pull it all together. And that raised hand is fucking distracting.
If they really felt the needed the “One Question” line, they could have had it over black or cheated a reverse reaction of Mr. Douglas/Voice in the Sky/Pym/Hacker. Don’t fade up to a shot that doesn’t even match. It distracts from the funny. And you should always edit to the funny!
”…Is it too late to change the name?”
That’s a funny line! let’s bring in a funny cue!
Shot 59 - 1:43
[…audible sigh…]
After a line like that, don’t fade the title up. Don’t build dramatic music. Hard cut to a title with booming music.
Look, it’s not terrible. I love the idea of the hook, it’s right fucking there, but…it’s just poorly executed. We know the movie doesn’t take itself seriously. It’s a tiny superhero who rides around on ants. The poster (which is brilliant) is an itty-bitty man in the middle of giant white void. It’s funny. Yet they only had two comic moments in a two minute trailer, and the editing fell flat on both.
Did they not watch the Guardians of the Galaxy trailer? God forbid the same studio take some elements from their own work. It was only the second highest grossing film of 2014…
Conclusion:
Still, in the end, I dig it. Fades and dissolves included, it’s good work.Marvel took what should have been a 60 second teaser and stretched it into two minutes of material, and the editor did a great job within those constraints.
"FANT4STIC" Teaser - A Completely Unnecessary, Shot-by-Shot Breakdown
So there I was, talking to my brother about Miles Teller's performance in Whiplash and his future as an actor, when my brother says "well, I guess he's a legitimate major actor now that he's a super hero."
I scoffed, Fantastic Four? That's not going to be a real super hero movie. Fox was just in a pissing war with Marvel Studios. They had a few months to start production before the property defaulted back to Marvel. Marvel didn't want to pay Fox when they were about to get the rights back for free, and Fox didn't want to give Marvel the rights back for nothing. An epic game of chicken ensued. I mean, why would Fox cast a skinny little kid as The Thing, then seemingly ignore the most important brother-sister relationship in the Marvel Universe by making the siblings different races? Seriously, diversity aside, you think you could make them both black (or hispanic or asian. you know, one of the other races). Then they cap it off with a director that has one independent film under his belt. Who do they think they are, Marvel?
I continued my rant, insisting it was all just to keep the rights out of Marvel's hands. It's just a contractually higher budget repeat of the 1994 Fantastic Four fiasco made famous in Arrested Development. Even if it's a flop, at least it's seven more years until Marvel can reclaim the rights. Specifically 7 years from the date of the release, so Fox will push this film as long as they can. They won't be releasing it any time soon.
One hour after that rant, out of the fucking blue, Fox debuts this teaser, along with a release date...
Alright, let's see if I'm right...or just an asshole...
The original imgur album, where it all began...
Shot 01 - 0:06
From the people who brought you "Iron Man," "Iron Man 2," "Thor," "Captain America," "The Avengers," "Iron Man 3," "Thor 2," "Captain America 2," the TV series "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.," and "Agent Carter," the upcoming "Avengers: Age of Ultron," "Ant-Man," and the Netflix original series "Daredevil" and "AKA Jessica Jones."
But a different Studio. Wholly unrelated to those properties.
Shot 02 - 0:10
Stock footage of New York City
Shot 03 - 0:12
Stock footage of a wholly inconsequential mountain.
Shot 04 - 0:17
Generic footage of a studio backlot -- with minor changes in post to give the house some importance to this particular narrative -- quickly composited with a shot of a starry night sky. Side note: Who the fuck writes their name on the side of their house?
Edit: Someone kindly informed me that the house says "Salvage" in small letters for a few frames below "Grimm." What fucking city do they live in where they can turn their suburban home into a scrap yard?
Shot 05 - 0:21
First original shot: sweet asa farm footage with a car driving past in the background. You know what Marvel has been missing? Farms.
Shot 06 - 0:22
Hey that's the car that was just really far away! I'm sure this car will play a large role in this trailer.
Shot 07 - 0:24
Wavy science things happening to a toy car. I guess the logic from an editorial stand point is that there was a car in the previous shot, and then this shot has a car in it. but the car doesn't come in until the very end, and it's easy to miss.I'm guessing at one point in the edit they probably went straight from a pan down to land on Grimm's house (reversing Shot 04), and then shot 08 followed by this shot and then into shot 09, as that makes more sense.
The car doesn't really make much sense in the beginning of the trailer. But some studio exec was like, "No, we need more farm. And write 'Grimm' on the side of that house. You know, so they know it's Grimm's"
Shot 08 - 0:25
Glasses kid is very nervous for his Matchbox car. Skinny kid is nervous for his ears.
Shot 09 - 0:27
Alright, a story evolves! Little kids playing scientists in the garage are now scientists in a bigger, much dirtier garage. Farms, old dusty cars and really old space equipment...I'm getting a bit of a "Interstellar" vibe, but maybe that's just me. Hopefully I see the character that's inside of that canister so I can tie this whole story together...
Shot 10 - 0:28
Oh. No. The door closes too quickly, and those windows are two old and dirty to see through. Why even install the windows? Can we at least get some Windex up in this bitch? This just doesn't look like a sanitary environment for science.
Shot 11 - 0:30
This is the superhero franchise we're known for. Not the other ones. Forget the other ones. Except the name. The name "Marvel" sells.
Shot 12 - 0:34
Nothing says excitement like old white guys in suits staring vacantly in a board room. That's why this generation just can't stop watching C-Span.
Also, who the fuck designed this board room? So there are screens on either side of the room showing the same thing? Why not just one screen? Our government is so fucking wasteful. And you know it wouldn't be a strict divide like it is here. The people in the middle would be all awkward, not sure which screen to look at, someone at one end would be all confused and looking the wrong way...
Shot 13 - 0:37
So they set up this whole ridiculous boardroom just to motivate this shot of Carl looking the wrong fucking way. Fuck you, Carl. Look to your left like everyone else. Don't build fake tension by looking a different direction from everyone else.
Shot 14 - 0:38
Glasses kid grew up to be Scientist Miles Teller! I know, because he's wearing glasses...and because of the admittedly good casting for young Scientist Miles Teller. Seriously can't fault them there.I really can't say anything bad about this casting at all, honestly. He was great in "Whiplash," and Reed Richards was so fucking awful the last two films, I won't complain at all.
Glad to see he cleaned up the garage. This is a really long shot....commence with the introduction of the remaining three!
Shot 15 - 0:42
1) Hacker Zoe Barnes. How do I know she's a Hacker?
Shot 16 - 0:44
...Because she has seven screens in front of her! Everyone behind her in the previous shot just gets one. She gets seven. And none of them have a recognizable GUI, and this is Hollywood, so she must be a hacker. If she's not a hacker, I bet you she can be if the plot suddenly requires it.
(Also, apparently there's an IP address in this shot that links to a wiki page that maybe implies a villain that is not in this trailer, so I won't discuss it.)
Shot 17 - 0:46
2) Famous baseball player Ben Grimm, famously protecting his ears.This trailer is totally avoiding the fact that The Thing is played by Jamie Bell. We literally never see his face again.
Shot 18 - 0:48
3) Johnny Barnes under the hood of our car friend (Hi Car! Glad to see you made it back into the trailer).
I'm a little confused as to how he's supposed to be the younger brother of hacker Zoey Barnes AKA Sue Storm, but I'm assuming it's from another mother.
I am looking forward to a black Captain America, though.
Shot 19 - 0:50
Okay, I no longer care about how they explain Johnny and Sue's sibling-ship. That is a sexy man.
Shot 20 - 0:51
Why didn't they put the date here? Why did they put this here at all? They never finish the thought. This summer...helmets are being put on? I think they just wanted to fill the gap with something.
Shot 21 - 0:54
HELMETS ARE BEING PUT ON!
Shot 22 - 0:55
STEPS ARE BEING WALKED UP! P.A.s ARE STANDING IN THE SHOT TAKING LUNCH ORDERS ON THEIR iPADS!
Shot 23 - 0:56
That looks kind of like the dirty old quad cylinder capsule thing from shot 09...Glad to see they cleaned up the garage.
Shot 24 - 0:58
So Sue Storm's dad is an older black man, and it's not Samuel L Jackson or Morgan Freeman? This film really is promoting diversity. And that is not a sarcastic statement.
Shot 25 - 0:59
Science is happening!An entire generation of scientists will grow up only to to face the disappointment of discovering they have absolutely no shot at actually becoming a superhero. At least they'll be scientists though. And not just another lawyer.I'm looking at you, Matt Murdock. Fuck you.
Shot 26 - 1:00
Now we can see inside the capsules, because they cleaned the windows.
Side note: I'm assuming Scientist Miles Teller built this thing, based mainly on all the garages and the glasses and whatnot. But why is he inside it? Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin didn't build the spaceship stuff for getting to the moon. That was done by scientist on the ground. You know, the ones that don't make good superheroes.
Though Buzz and Neil would have made pretty awesome superheroes...
Shot 27 - 1:02
Aw fuck...after all of those sciencey shots, I was just about to be swept away. Then this shit. Could we get a more generic shot to establish the presences of government oversight?
Shot 28 - 1:03
Zoey Barnes special powers now include hacking and being blonde.
Shot 29 - 1:05
Shit's real. Shit is on fire, people are crawling through wrecked shit, helmets are all fucked up. I know shit is gonna get real at some point now. Alright. You're building me back up.
Shot 30 - 1:06
This isn't good. The glass to his helmet's all broken and shit. That glass was probably there for a reason, and now that reason is gonna fuck whoever this is. And I'm not sure who this is, because the image is too dark to make out. I don't think I see glasses, so maybe it's Ben. But even if it is Ben, I'm not counting this as showing Jamie Bell, because I can't fucking tell it's him.
But awwww yeah, shit's gettin' real...
Shot 31 - 1:07
The fuck is this shit?! We interrupt this teaser to bring you a boring ass plane comped into a shot of some empty region. Good choice, Fox. This was the fucking shot that got me to watch your fucking movie.
Shot 32 - 1:08
Did you know Miles Teller was in this film?
Shot 33 - 1:09
Alright. This is pretty fucking awesome. Totally made up for those previous two shit shots. Now we're going somewhere...
Shot 34 - 1:09
And that somewhere is surveillance footage of an empty parking lot.
Shot 35 - 1:10
Johnny informs Sue that they are not blood relatives. At this point, we all collectively get over it.
Shot 36 - 1:12
A tentative hand comes in to examine a clearly dead body. Well composed shots like this - shots that are intriguing but not quite telling of the whole situation - can always be used in place of a generic shot. lt could replace, for example, a group of suits walking down the hall or a fucking airplane.
Shot 37 - 1:13
Torchin' it up. Sweet! We got a nice little taste of The Thing and of The Human Torch. Only two to super powers to go!
Shot 38 - 1:14
Stock footage of New York gets blow'd up. If you live in a superhero movie, get the fuck out of New York.
Shot 39 - 1:15
Crawling on some crazy planet. Cool space stuff. Another great example of shit you can shot that is not stock footage or a fucking airplane.
Shot 40 - 1:16
Is this Jamie Bell? Maybe. I don't know. I'm starting to forget what you looked like, Jamie.
Shot 41 - 1:17
This is cool. I have no idea who this villainy guy is. He's in almost complete darkness (probably darkened specifically for this trailer), and seems to be good at easily killing people.
Shot 42 - 1:18
Though he is nowhere near that villain or even in the same setting as the action, Johnny is not cool with whatever that fucker just did.
Shot 43 - 1:19
Torch with/against(?) blue blob thing! Is that how they're showing Sue's superpowers? Is this a sibling fight?! I'm going to say yes, that's Sue, even though I can't quite make out a full human form behind that blue blob. Awesome! Okay, only a couple frames, but we've got three of the four! We're building towards the end, here comes Mr. Fantastic...
Shot 44 - 1:19
There's Dr. Teller, panicking, looking around for help, can't find any, and he reaches out...
And we cut. Fine. Fuckers. You're most likely to fuck this super power up, but whatever.
Shot 45 - 1:21
Fant4stic...Fantfourstic...FANT4STIC
That really only works in all caps...
Shot 46 - 1:29
Some hackers in the foreground, Dr. Teller looks at a dude in a suit on a bed.
Hey...is someone *not* the narrator talking? "Be ready for what's coming."
Shot 47 - 1:31
If you were scared, rest assured: there will be dialogue in this trailer.
"What is coming?"
Let's be honest, this really isn't much of a hook. This is kind of a nothing. It's neither funny nor informative. You literall just told us what's coming. It's the FANT4STIC. And let me guess, you're about to show us...
Shot 48 - 1:34
The four. The four some may call fantfourstic four. Honestly, this shot's a good way to end the trailer.
That beam of light probably means something to a FANT4STIC fan. But I'm not a FANT4STIC fan, as you may have guessed. Nor am I a Halo fan.
Conclusion
This is a decently well compiled collection of shots -- stock footage and fucking random planes aside. I'm not sure if I'm creaming myself over it. They know just how much to give away, and what I'm left wanting are definitely things they intended (such as Mr. Fant4stic's power). I only wish it built to something of a compelling hook, a why.
As for my original hypothesis...the jury is still out. Seriously, I didn't even touch on the voice over in this trailer. That shit is so damn generic you could play it over just about any sci-fi/fantasy/superhero movie released in the past decade and make it look cool. Case-in-point, someone edited the 2005 Fantastic Four film to this audio, and now I kind of want to watch it.
At the very least...I'm forced to concede...it doesn't look like the heaping pile of shit every other Fantastic Four film.
Some Awesome French Site Think's Von's Fake Trailer is Real Enough
So some crazy French pop-culture website has embedded Von's Trailer for "The Thing" on one of their posts.
Given that their French and I'm American, I'm going to assume they are completely fluent in English, and are therefore capable of reading the part of the title where it says "COMPLETELY UNOFFICIAL TRAILER." In addition, I'm certain they saw the part of the title that says, "The Following Preview has not been approved by ANYONE WHO MADE THIS FILM."
Knowing they saw that and posted it to their site anyway, I'm sure we're all good here, right?
Now, given I'm American and therefore not multi-lingual, I have to rely on Google to translate that page for me. I think Google speak French maybe solely fine plenty:
I love John Carpenter's "The Thing" which movie! Is the director of "gender" par excellence science fiction, thriller, horror, fantasy, action and adventure ... his filmography is impressive so it includes an impressive number of reference works. In addition to being talented, John Carpenter has a unique style, an ability to create a very special atmosphere in the course of his stories. MAX LINDER invites us to shiver, March 15 with: Assault, The Thing and In the Mouth of Madness.
I'm pretty sure I agree with this guy, though he got a little too French with "which movie! Is the gender" part. We can still agree that Carpenter is one of the greats, "par excellence science fiction" for sure.
All in all this is pretty awesome, provided no one gets in trouble.
prguitarman
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
origamiaround
titsay
snowghoul
theartofmadeline