tranceaddict Forums

tranceaddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- The Dark Knight Rises
Pages (14): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »


Posted by DJ RANN on May-01-2012 22:49:

quote:
Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
Yeah, my point was that this is still quite unusual in context of today's film marketing practice. It's not just Bay; most of the trailers for new movies cover at least 2 acts of the story - in some of them, like in the one for A Dangerous Method, you see almost the whole damn thing. I don't have to be an industry insider to notice this.

Since you're so knowledgeable about all this, isn't it true that directors often don't have any control over what gets shown in the trailers? From what I've read these things are decided by other people who don't even have to be involved in production of the actual film.


Completely depends. For instance with Bruckheimer, nothing airs without at least their approval, and with Bay, he executive produces the trailers himself. Total control freak.

Other directors let the studio do them (i.e. "I don't want to think about it - you do it") and others actually have no say in the matter - this is often a case of the studio being in command and marketing the film the best way they see fit.

One thing you have to compute is that when the first and even second wave of theatrical trailers are made, the film isn't even close to a final draft edit.

On Iron Man, none of the CGI had even been finished (it was all greenscreen picture or big colored block frames in place of FX) when the first traler went out - ILM had to rush just those few scenes to a finished state so the trailer could distribute, and they weren't even close to a finished product (3-6 months away).

Another problem is score - most people don't realise that the score is the very last thing that gets created and added. When the first trailer comes out for most films, the composer has probably only just scratched out the basic themes; no orchestra recordings have been done, no mixing, no overdubs etc. Usually, they just have to hash together the main theme with samples and add a lot of taikos and booms/FX/sound design.

So the short answer is, if it's one of the big name directors (bay, Howard, Favreau, etc) then chances are they are heavily involved in at least artistic approval of the trailers (of course there are exceptions). If not a big name or it's really a studio created vehicle (rather than the personal project of a director/producer/writer) then more than likely the studio solely creates it or even subs it out.


Posted by srussell0018 on May-02-2012 01:55:

DJ RANN


Posted by WittyHandle on May-02-2012 02:14:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN

The voice thing? Fuck, I don't know where to begin. It's part of the costume so he's not just Bruce wayne in rubber. And on the technical side of things, it's a little more complicated than "EQ". He's actually dubs the voice pretty close to that lower register and then they compress, eq and chorus it. It's a specific FX chain on a theatrical voice over performance.


You forgot the extensive use of the flux capacitor and the offset matter / anti-matter ratio. Seriously, no one gives a fuck there DJ Flock of Seagulls. The point is that it was overdone and annoying in Dark Knight and they need to scale it back a bit on this one.


Posted by bananas on May-02-2012 03:29:

quote:
Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
It's funny how quickly Nolan becomes a controversial subject whenever he gets brought up, even on TA.

I think he's great, personally, and can't wait to see TDKR. The last trailer is interesting in that it doesn't tell us anything new about the plot. Compare that with the new Prometheus trailer which seems to give away lots of important information (though I think there'll stil be surprises). I guess TDK was so successful that now they don't have to tease people with another extensive promo campaign.


Posted by Lagrangian on May-02-2012 03:45:

quote:
Originally posted by WittyHandle
You forgot the extensive use of the flux capacitor and the offset matter / anti-matter ratio. Seriously, no one gives a fuck there DJ Flock of Seagulls. The point is that it was overdone and annoying in Dark Knight and they need to scale it back a bit on this one.


HIJACK


Posted by Meat187 on May-02-2012 04:31:

I'm suspecting more and more that this will suck.


Posted by ShabbaRANNx on May-02-2012 05:00:

quote:
Originally posted by WittyHandle
You forgot the extensive use of the flux capacitor and the offset matter / anti-matter ratio. Seriously, no one gives a fuck there DJ Flock of Seagulls. The point is that it was overdone and annoying in Dark Knight and they need to scale it back a bit on this one.


Oh great, you're mixing back to the future with star trek references.

You do fucking realise you're on an EDM forum where people actually *might* just know what the fuck they are talking about before instead of just vomit-posting some BS about "EQ"?

Or was all the intelligence used up when selecting an screen name? Oh, obviously not.

Again, it's the whole point - he's not the same person. You may not like it, but it's all on purpose.


Posted by Quazar on May-02-2012 11:32:

I think those of us who loved Batman Begins and TDK will love this.

But if you didn't care for Batman Begins and only liked TDK, you'll likely be disappointed. This one is obviously going back to being about Batman, as opposed to having the Joker steal the show (Not that it was a bad thing, that's exactly what the Joker should do).

And I, for one, loved the Bat-voice in the first film. It was a bit overdone in TDK, but I'm sure it'll be toned down in this one since a lot of people complained about it.


Posted by srussell0018 on May-02-2012 14:25:

It looks like everyone with the name RANN in their handle are descendants of faggots who inexplicably reproduced with other faggots.


Posted by LAdazeNYnights on May-02-2012 17:28:

quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
It looks like everyone with the name RANN in their handle are descendants of faggots who inexplicably reproduced with other faggots.


yeah, but you are son of thousand shemales.


Posted by DJ RANN on May-02-2012 18:47:

quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
It looks like everyone with the name RANN in their handle are descendants of faggots who inexplicably reproduced with other faggots.


Really? That's it? that's the best you got? Dang, for the amount of trolling you try to do on here, you're pretty shit at this stuff.

Seriously though, I actually always wondered why you're on here. You're the punchbag (if not the punchline) around here yet you still stick around, endlessly maintaining a TA troll persona. I've always thought it must be a kind of a weird existence for your types, hanging about on a trance forum just trying to troll all day long, when no one really cares.

Anyway, carry on.


Posted by srussell0018 on May-02-2012 20:37:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN


Aren't you that person who nobody likes, and then pops in for a few days, realize that nobody likes you, and then leaves for a few months?

And it's not trolling when it's pointing out the obvious fact that you're a fucking bellend and nobody likes you.


Posted by Meat187 on May-02-2012 20:56:

I just wondered why I actually considered The Dark Knight watchable. Because it's a crappy movie if you break it down. The common answer is, of course, the Joker. But why? Is it Heath Ledger's great acting? No, the guy always was a mediocre dick. It's the concept. In TDK the Joker is so utterly chaotic and insane that he becomes credible. He feels like a real person, his traits and actions form an actual personality. That's what saves the movie.
Why saves? Because the Batman universe is bound to fail as a serious business movie. It's a guy in a bat costume. How the heck do you make that work? How do you make the audience believe that's an actual person? TDK failed at that, but it worked for the Joker. I guess Nolan partly realized this problem since he made that Bane or whatever his name is the new villain. He didn't go for someone ridiculous like the Penguin or the Riddler, you can't have them in a serious movie. But he can't get rid of Batman, the main character fucks up the movie. It can't work, I don't see any indication in the trailer that it'll work. Batman is bound to be this comic superhero, a collection of traits and gadgets and people surrounding him and a silly costume. The reason why TDK wasn't shit was because it was about the Joker and the script (with some help from Ledger) managed to make him a real crazy fuckin bastard. Nothing like that will happen in the new movie. It'll just be a shitty comic adaptation with some action and drama and that laughable bat costume.
[/rant]


Posted by srussell0018 on May-02-2012 21:02:

Bane is actually probably one of the best villains in the comic. He's definitely Batman's most worthy adversary, and I believe he even defeated him and broke Batman's back in a fight at some point. I think it'd be pretty satisfying to see Batman getting his ass kicked.


Posted by GoSpeedGo! on May-02-2012 21:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
How do you make the audience believe that's an actual person?


This is a wrong question to ask. Nolan's Batman isn't about "an actual person", his characters usually stand for something more abstract - a concept, an idea, if you will.

You mention the silliness of the costume, but this is exactly one of the film's themes, or at least a part of it. It deconstructs the heroic figure and questions its function and purpose.


Posted by Meat187 on May-02-2012 21:20:

quote:
Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
This is a wrong question to ask. Nolan's Batman isn't about "an actual person", his characters usually stand for something more abstract - a concept, an idea, if you will.

You mention the silliness of the costume, but this is exactly one of the film's themes, or at least a part of it. It deconstructs the heroic figure and questions its function and purpose.


Unless you're talking about Batman Begins, which I haven't seen, that's just not the case. There's hardly anything abstract about The Dark Knight. Of course you can interpret a lot of crap into it. But for me it's straight-forward, cheap and dumb.
You can even find abstract ideas in Transformers if you're trying. Is it intended or not? What do I know? But the Transformers are not a symbol for anything, they are there for action and fights and explosions.
And Batman is there to be Batman. Imho Nolan has failed to attach anything more to him.


Posted by GoSpeedGo! on May-02-2012 22:09:

quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
Unless you're talking about Batman Begins, which I haven't seen, that's just not the case. There's hardly anything abstract about The Dark Knight. Of course you can interpret a lot of crap into it. But for me it's straight-forward, cheap and dumb.
You can even find abstract ideas in Transformers if you're trying. Is it intended or not? What do I know? But the Transformers are not a symbol for anything, they are there for action and fights and explosions.
And Batman is there to be Batman. Imho Nolan has failed to attach anything more to him.


I'm sorry but this is absurd. When you say that Batman is just Batman, you have to agree that Batman is also a superhero. This means he is a masked dude who tries to fight evil. This already means something.

Both films (and TDKR will be no exception) ask "What does it mean to be a superhero?" They are not just straight adaptations of comic book stories, they are very clear deconstructions of such mythology. For example, when Joker demands that Batman has to show his true face or otherwise people will die, he tries to show that it is precisely the symbolic nature of Batman that is a source of his power. What if Gotham knew he's Bruce Wayne? It would probably discredit him completely. TDK then says that for a system to function, a public lie (Batman's true identity) has to be maintained. This, of course, has large implications when thinking about post 9/11 America and it is no coincidence that TDK mirrors this ubiquitous paranoia.

Just like TDKR is obviously going to be about Occupy Wall Street, you can already tell this just from the trailers.

And of course Transformers mean something. Even if their purpose is to mean completely nothing, it still means nihilism - which, coincidentally, is also what Transformers actually represent.

You can't say "there's nothing more", because that's just self-evidently not true. It's a cheap cop-out, intelectual cowardice, refusal to think.


Posted by srussell0018 on May-02-2012 22:14:

You seriously think Transformers means anything at all? The only meaning at all is from the ridiculous Optimus Prime monologue at the end of the movies. You know a movie is completely devoid of any artistic or metaphorical meaning when they actually have to explicitly tell you what it is at the end.


Posted by Halcyon+On+On on May-02-2012 22:19:

quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Transformers is an arthouse film that elaborates on the dangers of technological encroachment within our society. The presence of the decepticons is analogous to the presence of devices and vehicles which serve to separate man from his earnest nature by way of self-preservation, and their status of control over individual spheres of safety given the avarice of the developed world. Even their name, decept-icon, entails a certain reverence for their ability to shift within society as tools of man, and lord over him when it suits their destructive directives.

The ubiquity of commercial presence in the film is in fact meant to be an ironic take on the delivery of advertising in our modern age, as it flaunts it directly and without reservation or coherence, as if to say we are drowning within the deluge of profitable information by way of entertainment as the new standard for competence. The director of the film, Michael Bay, is a subversive fellow staunchly opposed to corporate funding for his works of art, and mocks the fellow Michael Bays of the industry by ensuring an ironic explosion every 30 seconds. It's as though he is saying that, in our world, everything is combustible - a witty comment on the malleability and dichotomy of social and physical structures.

Meagan Fox stars in the film as an everywoman disguised as a supermodel celebrity, representing the inevitability of female empowerment in intuitive roles. Her stolid grace is a juxtaposition on the expected role of women in vital roles of emergence (government, leadership) wrought with the summary expectation of obviously sexist individuals who might idolize her own devices for procreative ritual - which I believe is where the film comes full-circle. If we are to interpret the existence of encroaching mechanical beings as our competetitors for ideological codependence, then certainly there is a place for the machinations of biological imperative within the true understanding of our evolutionary future.

Thank you, Transformers. Thank you.


Posted by srussell0018 on May-02-2012 22:20:


Posted by EddieZilker on May-02-2012 22:21:

quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
You seriously think Transformers means anything at all? The only meaning at all is from the ridiculous Optimus Prime monologue at the end of the movies. You know a movie is completely devoid of any artistic or metaphorical meaning when they actually have to explicitly tell you what it is at the end.


You watched Transformers until the end! *points*


Posted by srussell0018 on May-02-2012 22:22:

Of course I did! This is America!


Posted by GoSpeedGo! on May-02-2012 22:33:

quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
You seriously think Transformers means anything at all? The only meaning at all is from the ridiculous Optimus Prime monologue at the end of the movies. You know a movie is completely devoid of any artistic or metaphorical meaning when they actually have to explicitly tell you what it is at the end.


I don't know if we're talking about the same "meaning". You're probably talking about some kind of a Message that the film's supposed to have. I'm talking about series of meanings that are ascribed to single elements of the film and about meanings that stem from interactions of these elements.

Like, you can't deny that there are "racial stereotype" robots in Transformers. Or that in the last one, the film equates Rosie Huntington with a car and than a dog. In other words, the film is self-consciously misogynistic (and probably also misanthropic). Not to mention the whole conspiracy bullshit and what do the robots and the way they're shown represent.

Transformers are actually the most ideological films of the last decade, and therefore should be thouroughly examined and analyzed. That doesn't mean they're inherently worthy of some artistic acclaim, just that they are culturally important.


Posted by srussell0018 on May-02-2012 22:37:

I never saw the third one, so I can't comment on that, but

quote:

Transformers are actually the most ideological films of the last decade, and therefore should be thouroughly examined and analyzed. That doesn't mean they're inherently worthy of some artistic acclaim, just that they are culturally important.


No.


Posted by GoSpeedGo! on May-02-2012 22:41:

quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
No.


This is a pretty bad answer to what I've just written.


Pages (14): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.