Thursday, July 29, 2010

"Thor" Comic-Con trailer!

Who knows how long this will stay up, but The Pursuitist has a (non-embed) copy of the Thor reel that was shown at Comic-Con up.  So go watch it already HERE: http://pursuitist.com/arts/thor-comic-con-trailer-watch/

Looks pretty damn good if you ask me. The way it's cut looks a lot like what the first "real" trailers will probably look like: A "story" trailer with lots of fanservice in the margins. It's not quite the "holy shit!" of the first Iron Man trailer, but we do get to see how everyone "looks" under proper lighting and post-production, all the main guys in full armor and helmets, how the hammer fighting/throwing is being staged, what the basic story is (Thor depowered and busted-down to Earth, has to prove himself as a hero so he can get his hammer and powers back), how/where it "fits together" with Iron Man 2 and how Destroyer looks in motion. With a few moments snipped for time, this could (and SHOULD) be playing in theaters now.

21 comments:

Dave Kraft said...

If THIS is the post-production work then I am nothing short of seriously disappointed. The CGI seems a bit dodgy, the baddies remind me of the Putty Patrol, Thor is never shown making lightning from his hammer (though the one stock reel of lightning in the trailer also reminds me of the intro to Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers), the glowing hammer is kind of meh and is the same special effects quality of that collar glow in the trailer for Legion, and we don't even see Thor fly. Donald Blake appears as though it's going to be an earthly alias for him instead of that alter ego like in the comics, and other than Anthony Hopkins' dialog as Odin the acting is flatter than Debra Messing's chest and that one Valhallan entourage stride down the alleyway reminds me of something out of Sex and the City or some shitty '80s flick *points finger at Clark Gregg (who portrays SHIELD agent Phil Coulson) for a QED on all three points*.

I have no expectations for this film. I think it'll be OK at best, perhaps coming close to Iron Man 2 (which wasn't all that great and outright sucked compared to the first film).

On a different note, Zach Snyder's new film, "Sucker Punch", looks REALLY good.

However, just because it LOOKS good and the casting and/or design choices made seem to make perfect sense on a fanboy level doesn't mean the movie won't suck the long, high and mighty one. We should've all learned that from the reaction to the Spider-Man 3 trailer versus the actual film and the casting choices of comic character lookalikes in Wolverine: Origins versus their actual performances.

I'll reserve the remainder of my judgment until I see the films, but regardless I don't have high hopes for Thor, the Avengers movie, or the GL movie (mark my words, it WILL suck).

Ramzeltron said...

I can't wait for this, it's going to be awesome!

akkuma420 said...

I dunno bout this...... honestly looks kinda weak from what I was expecting.
Still definitely gonna see it, cause who knows, could be amazing. cant judge a book by its cover or a movie by its trailer.
Feel kinda disappointed though.

@Dave Kraft
How could you possibly know The Avengers movie and GL are gonna suck?
Have you seen them?
Did you direct them?
Where you involved with both the movies somehow?
Didn't think so...... why don't we just keep the judgment to ourselves until there is at least a TRAILER to judge.
I have very high hopes for The Green Lantern.

Filmduck said...

@Dave Kraft: Seriously dude I cant remember the last time I disagreed with a post more than I do with yours... You seem to think everything sucks arbitrarily and your reasoning is nothing more than a series of witty but ultimately empty statements... Maybe you are right and it will suck, but alas the way in which you argued against this trailer could make every comic book movie look dreadful...

emxthree said...

I'm with Filmduck.

Thor wasn't a character I followed very much in his comics, I usually remember him as the guy who would get trashed at the Avengers mansion, but this looks really great, I'm happy with how everyone looks, I mean, Loki kept his horns without looking stupid! This is my first experience with the Destroyer, and I'm really psyched to see more of him.

Sssonic said...

Hmm.

Hm, hm, hm.

Hm hm hm hm hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I'm split. On the one hand, it may just be that the trailer's poorly put together, but the story seems a bit iffy. The premise is good, but the execution doesn't feel right just yet; I get a disjointed vibe from a lot of parts. Again, I'm more than willing to chalk that up to the trailer being poorly put together, but we'll see. I'm also not sure I like our Thor actor, but I'm also not sure I dislike him either. His snarky, "This is Earth, isn't it?" struck me as interesting, but the rest of the time, not so much.

The visuals, though? The aesthetic? THAT just looks spot on. Destroyer looks great, Asgard and Odin and Loki look great, and so help me God they'd better show us more of Thor in his helmet, because the one shot of that we get in the trailer is just. Plain. GLORIOUS.

So yeah. I'm split so far...but hopeful.

Dave Kraft said...

akkuma420: I find it humorous that you answered all your questions for me. I'll be tabling at the New York Comic Con alongside some of my buddies. Maybe you should stop by in October and ask me those questions to my face then? I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised to know who I've worked under and done design work for. OR, you can wait a few months after the NYCC for my studio's site to go live.

You have high hopes for GL WHY? We haven't seen anything substantive. The SDCC footage didn't show him in the suit, only some quick unfinished special effects. There's also a decent probability that the GL suit will change between now and the film's release due to the reaction fans had to the suit's design. That still doesn't change the fact that the script is suffering more than ever given ramming Geoff Johns' revisionist take on a certain specific character into a pre-Crisis take on Hal Jordan where it doesn't belong, and the script continues to receive changes here and there.

I will also not make any judgments on a trailer or preview images, as they are compositions made from a few minutes of all the film's flashy moments designed to reel you into the theater. For all you know the remainder of the film could be horrible. I thought we learned these lessons from Spider-Man 3 and Wolverine: Origins? Yeesh. I'll judge the film on its own merits AS A FILM upon its release, thank you very much.

As far as my Thor trailer comment goes, most of it was with regard to Bob's assertion that these were post-production. If they were, boy would they be bad. So allow me to clarify: these aren't post-production. The movie isn't even done, and the film is set for a release date nine months away. The CGI isn't finished, and that much I can tell you with a great deal of certainty (as while I'm not working on the film I know people who are). The Destroyer looks neat but what you're seeing is partially-rendered CGI. It's not done yet so it has a very..... how to say..... "plastic" look to it which jitters in a weird way when the contrast shifts over the metal as he lets loose with his energy beam thing. Budget-dependent of course, the creatures I analogized to the Putty Patrol will look less lame.

@Filmduck: I don't think everything sucks. I enjoyed Iron Man and the recent DCU animated flick Under the Red Hood. However, like akkuma420, I was ultimately underwhelmed by the trailer. You seem to think you know a lot about me by generalizing a single post of mine to my entire personality or view on these characters when you don't know a damn thing.

I believe I made a single witty statement which was an in-joke to those of us who are a bit more familiar with Clark Gregg's other work. One. Single. Comment. Not a series. If you understood it (which I'm guessing you didn't based on your response) you would've understood the substance in it, as well as the substance in my other observations which have been reflected by others. Perhaps you should learn to read a little better? I also haven't argued against other comic films the way I did this trailer (I didn't even realize I was arguing anything.... just expressed my observations and opinions, which I am entitled to do).


I also never said the Avengers or Thor would suck. I just don't have high expectations for them.

Dave Kraft said...

emxthree: I agree with you about the designs and the horns on the characters. They really do look amazing (I agree wholeheartedly with Bob's comments about using the original, Kirby-esque designs), and seeing Thor in action makes me a whole lot happier than the shitty pass for concept art (fun fact: the Cap ones were poses plagiarized from old Jim Lee artwork. Some people spotted it and I don't think he was very happy about it). The digital paintings of the fight between Loki and Thor look amazing and I'm hoping the film's more spectacular moments live up to that.

As far as the trailer goes, I can already see the narrative taking on a whole "fallen angel" story, and the formulaic plot is already predictable and underwhelming. I never really followed Thor comics but I was honestly hoping to be surprised by this film. Instead I feel underwhelmed having already figured out most of the plot from the trailer alone. The acting is pretty flat and the characters seem like caricatures of themselves rather than believable figures (except for Odin. I gave Hopkins props; he's a great actor and does the role well from what I can see).

I'm not some candy-assed yes-man who praises everything just because it looks cool. I try to treat everything as objectively as possible, and even go as far as to suspend my own fan fanaticism for the sake of being objective. At least give me credit for not being a yes-man and giving credit where it's due.

Perhaps all of you should stop making wild assumptions about who I am, what I do and how I always must think based on posts you disagree with. You don't have any clue about me. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, so to speak.

By no means am I trying to say that I'm better than you (I can see that argument coming from a mile away) but unfortunately, I can't honor any part of your statements about me, because rather than address what I ACTUALLY wrote you all got really defensive about this film you got really eager to see and hyperbolized account of what I wrote and what you assumed I was thinking, in addition to who you all think I am.

I'll be sure to let you all know where I'll be tabling at the NYCC once I get my pro badge and the final paperwork in the mail. Then we can continue this in person in October if you feel like making colossal asses of yourselves in public.

In the meantime, it's been great but I've got to get back to the drafting table. Break's over and I've got designs to do.

Dave Kraft said...

Sssonic: I agree wholeheartedly. :D The Destroyer will look lots better after the rendering is finished. I wish there was a higher resolution clip of this though so I can show you guys what I mean about the rendering. Guess you just had to be at the SDCC to see the crisper footage.

(btw sorry for the triple-post, didn't see Sssonic's post earlier)

white templar said...

That was lame. Its a pity a mention of Tony Stark in a 3 minute trailer is the only good thing about it.

Dave Kraft said...

@white templar: Yeah, I thought that part was yet another forced attempt at trying to make this part of a film continuity, but "forced" here is kind of the operative word throughout (acting, script foruma, etc.). But you're right, it is one of the only redeeming elements of the narrative.

Anyone else notice how Coulson is smiling all the time when he's trying to be serious? It's like Clark Gregg wants to burst out laughing at how ridiculous this whole thing is but is trying really hard not to.

Moshi said...

I think dave kraft is a pretty cool guy, eh makes fanboys butthurt and doesn't afraid of anything

akkuma420 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
akkuma420 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
akkuma420 said...

@Dave Kraft
If I lived in NY I would gladly stop by and shoot the shit with you about said topics, but since I don't there really is no way for me to "say those things to your face then"
As far as who you "worked" with or who you "know" guess it really doesn't matter since it has nothing to do with the movies at hand.
You can respond to this by dropping all the names you want, don't matter to me, cause I could easily sit here and do the same.
How exactly did I answer all my own questions? Don't really get that statement.
I judge what I see from the trailer, not the movie as a whole.
You on the other hand come out and say "These movies will suck, trust me" yet they aren't even out yet?
How does that work?
What I really don't understand about your whole statement is how you sit there and tell me that nothing is even close to done on GL yet, the suit will most likely change and the script is constantly being changed, but "It will suck, trust you" how can you possibly come to that conclusion when nothing is even close to being put in stone yet?
It seems as though you didn't really read my first comment before deciding to respond.
The "Thor" trailer looks weak, and I'm pretty disappointed so far.
I have had very low expectations for this film since I heard it was being made.
But I will reserve judgment until I see the movie.
Cant judge a book by its cover nor a movie by its trailer.
Good luck with your site by the way. Hope all goes well.

Dave Kraft said...

Moshi: LOL! Thanks, I guess :D]

akkuma420: To answer your first question, you wrote:

"How could you possibly know The Avengers movie and GL are gonna suck?
Have you seen them?
Did you direct them?
Where you involved with both the movies somehow?
Didn't think so...... why don't we just keep the judgment to ourselves until there is at least a TRAILER to judge.
I have very high hopes for The Green Lantern."

While you happen to be right in that I didn't work on these films specifically, your snide "Didn't think so" comment was rather presumptuous. I do happen to work in this field and for all you could've known I might be a higher-level industry type who chose NOT to work on these projects because I was offered the job but didn't feel comfortable working on a flacid cash-in with a weak narrative structure and lackadaisical working environment (yay for politics within the industry! :P), but you didn't know that. In fact, you don't know who I am, who I work for and thus who you were making presumptuous statements to or about. For all you know I could be Jon Favreau himself, bashing Iron Man 2 under a false name because I'm upset that corporate and Hollywood nonsense led the film to deviate from my creative vision, thus making me dissatisfied with my own overall product and hence the critical reception being worse than that of its prequel (once again, hooray for industry politics).

But you don't know that, and you don't know anything about who I am or what I do.

See, there's two kinds of authoritative voices: 1) speaking from a position of knowledge (i.e. knowing what you're talking about) and 2) speaking from a position of ignorance (i.e. speaking authoritatively when you DON'T know what you're talking about). In this situation you did the latter.

Additionally you paraphrased me in saying:

You on the other hand come out and say "These movies will suck, trust me" yet they aren't even out yet?

Yet you put that statement in quotes. This is a very dangerous thing to do, as it wasn't exactly what I said, only your paraphrasing of it. If you are going to repeat what I said and put it in quotes, make sure it is a direct quotation. Otherwise all you are doing is putting words in my mouth and this does nothing but weaken the efficacy of your overall argument.

I wasn't judging the movie by it's trailer. I believe I made copious statements to the very contrary, citing Spider-Man 3 and the Wolverine movie as examples. Of course, rather than have to repeat this (at least) three cocking times it would help a great deal if you addressed what I ACTUALLY said (which requires some reading comprehension skills) rather than harping on the same old argument I already debunked a few posts back.

I was in fact judging the film's effects if they were indeed post-production, as Bob had alleged (in which case the effects on the big screen would suffer from the same CGI issues as X-Men Origins: Wolverine..... ughh, CGI claws...... ). The fact of the matter is they're not, though how finalized the rendering will be is largely dependent on $$$$$$$$$$$$.

Dave Kraft said...

As far as the Green Lantern film goes, the changes to the script are more on the detail level (with the exception of a major change to a particular *ahem* character (I use the term loosely( in particular (not who you think it is) which is extremely troublesome because it doesn't belong. The problem with the script is the very plot premise and the foundation on which it has been written (not to say that Green Lantern has a bad plot; it doesn't, but the particular story that is being told in this film does, which is why it's so problematic). Rather than utilizing the rich narrative of Emerald Dawn and THAT portrayal of Hal - which defined him into Emerald Twilight and through Final Night and Rebirth - the foundation of the script is largely in Hal's pre-Crisis origin with some Geoff Johns material swapped in for other things. If this were post-Crisis GL it wouldn't be a big deal but the choices transparently don't belong.

A movie is like a building: even if the detail is meh the building will be able to stand tall if it has a good, solid foundation. No changes to aesthetics or narrative detail will ever be able to fix the flaws of a premise based in a faulty foundation.

It also doesn't help that the support beams/pillars of this particular building (i.e. the cast) is really weak. And boy do I mean REALLY weak. The philosophy behind the casting was to get big names and soap opera stars into roles where they will mildly excel (at most) and then hope that's enough to get people into theaters (as opposed to getting genuinely appropriate actors and over-qualified semi-unknowns for a great film). This is precisely what they did with Superman Returns, and is Warner Bros' favorite approach in casting for no other reason than it's cheaper and requires less effort (thus more cost-effective). Believe me when I say not everyone in Warner Bros. is particularly happy about that casting philosophy.

Alexander said...

Dave...dude...there have to be better things for you to do than write these walls of text. You can get porn on computers now, you know.

akkuma420 said...

I have to agree with Alexander.
I get it man, you think your awesome and we all are not worthy to be talking to you because after all you could be "John Faveru" (did i quote that right this time?)
Your commenting fucken novels, keep it short and sweet.
And if your such an important person in the film industry as you claim to be, isn't there other things you should be doing rather than arguing with me.
yea......

Dave Kraft said...

I do get to take breaks now and then, and have been a fan of Bob's videos since before my current line of work. It takes me all of less than a minute to type something like this up, but I guess you're a bit on the slow side, eh?

Alexander: Some of us happen to be fortunate enough to feel the regular touch of a woman. Have fun playing with yourself.... or would you rather refer to it as a menage-et-un? Hey, whatever floats your boat.

akkuma420: Wow, your ignorance astounds me. You totally missed the point and once again, you responded to something other than what I said. I don't believe I've been at all specific as to what I have or haven't worked on but once again you go ahead and put words in my mouth. *facepalm*

Congratulations on quoting the name of a celebrity. What, do you want a cookie? You still can't spell for shit and your grammar is laughable.

Short and sweet? Not my style, and I don't take orders from some fanboy. You need to learn to fucking read and smarten up because your comments wreak of poor reading comprehension, improper spelling and punctuation and zero attention span. You're an idiot incapable of forming cogent arguments so you resort to cheap insults to make up for your lack of knowledge. Go troll up some Call of Duty or whatever you kids do these days.

But hey, if you think you know so much, just come meet me at the New York Comic Con and feel free to shoot your mouth off.

Oh, I forgot, mommy and daddy won't pay for you to come. Awww....

Oh hey, aren't there better things you could be doing right now than picking fights with people? I mean, last time I checked I've been on the defense this whole time as you've ignorantly antagonized my original post (read: the very first post of the goddamn thread).

It doesn't matter how many of you gang up on me. It isn't a popularity contest. You're still a moron.

This is seriously good comedy. Before I laugh my ass off all the way to my drafting table I'd like to point out your username is also misspelled, but the pot reference in your username is probably a good indicator of why (and your apparent lack of brain cells).

Go read a fucking book or something.

akkuma420 said...

@Dave Kraft
Like I said before I would gladly go to NY to meet you, but since I don't live in NY and I'm not willing to spend cash so I can fly to the opposite side of the country just so I can call some Fanboy an ignorant jackass.
Like I said before, if your such A super important person involved in the film industry as you claim to be, shouldn't you be doing something else....
Rather than arguing with a mere mortal such as myself.
you know, I'm done with this, I didn't feel I was starting some kind of argument, rather voicing an opinion against what you said, I mean if you cant take a little criticism, 1. you shouldn't have posted and 2. how the hell do you ever expect to make it in the film industry??? lol
Eat a dick you queerbate, no one is buying it, no one thinks your cool.