The trailer for Marvel Studios’ “The Avengers” is here, and it kicks all kind of arse. It looks remarkable, and just the thought of such iconic Marvel characters on screen at the same time is the stuff that fanboy dreams are made of.
Which is why it’s somewhat ironic that the poster sucks so much (which is not everyone’s opinion). I get that there was probably some clause in their contract that said that they had to show everyone’s faces, but it could have been done a bit more artfully.
By the way, what is that huge thing chasing Iron Man at the end? It almost looks like the aliens from “Battleship” did a stop-over.
Nordling at Aint It Cool News says the latest trailer for “John Carter” is “…the best (official) one yet.”
And I agree with him. It tells what the film is about, as well as the stakes, better than any of the trailers that came before.
That being said, the problem is, when your film costs upwards of $200 million dollars, you don’t get too many chances to get it right because most people aren’t going to wait till they see something of interest in the trailer before deciding whether or not to see your film.
In other words, if this were a low-budget film–or something virtually guaranteed an audience, like “The Dark Knight Rises” or “The Avengers,” or you happen to be Ridley Scott, releasing a film that may be somehow connected to the ‘Alien’ films–then I can see pursuing a strategy of playing it close to the vest, coyly revealing the interesting bits at your own pace.
But John Carter isn’t either of those films, and it can’t afford (nor can Disney, to be honest) to eventually get it right.
And speaking of Scott and “Prometheus,” the first trailer was so good that I want to see it on the strength of that alone, despite that I think the original “Alien” (which I expect this film to be somehow connected to, despite comments to the contrary from various camps) was interesting, but a bit more clinical than it needed to be.
Louie C.K. is a funny comedian. He has this self-depreciating manner that sometimes makes his (more often than not) bawdy material entertaining. That being said, his series, “Louie” is a bit of a downer. I have been watching it on Neflix, and the first five or six episodes started promisingly, but a very moralistic tone has come over the remainder, most obviously in the episodes “Bully,” “Dentist/Tarese,” & “God.”
And I think that I understand what’s he’s trying to do: He’s letting us know that there’s often some really painful stuff behind humor, and that it sometimes acts as a defense in a very tough world.
Here’s the second, and probably final, post about what ‘John Carter’ needs to succeed, and is unfortunately it’s not something that Disney can do anything about at this point.
If they want this film to be successful, they should have called it almost anything but “John Carter.”
Now, keep in mind, this movie is based upon a book from Edgar Rice Burroughs called “A Princess of Mars.”
That’s not the best title I have ever heard, and films with ‘Mars’ in the title haven’t been all that successful at the box office, if “Ghosts of Mars,” “Red Planet (which is, basically, Mars),” “Mission to Mars,” and “Mars Needs Moms,” are any indicator, but ‘John Carter?’
Really? I know that Andrew Stanton explained why that title was chosen, but ‘John Carter?’ Does ‘John Carter’ really embody everything that this film is about? Does it tell potential viewers what the film is about?
Quite possibly the greatest movie in the history of films.
The first thing that Disney’s “John Carter” has to do–attract enough viewers to justify its $200 million dollar price tag–is what it probably will have the most trouble doing, which is to appeal to the greatest amount of individuals as possible.
This problem came into rather sharp focus when I was watching “The Dark Crystal” last night, which started me thinking of “John Carter.” ” The Dark Crystal,” which essentially is the Muppets with subtext, nonetheless convincingly evokes the feel of a fantasy world beyond the experience of most viewers, which is something that “John Carter” will have to do, and make a huge profit while doing so.
Congratulations to Martin Scorsese, and the crew that put together “Hugo,” which has won ‘Best Art Direction,’ ‘Best Sound Editing,’ ‘Best Sound Mixing,’ and Best Visual Effects.’
Sony’s upcoming “The Amazing Spider-Man’s” main baddie is The Lizard, who was never one of my favorite villains in the Spider-man canon (I have never really thought why, though it probably has something to do with him being little more than The Hulk, with scales).
If the film makers weren’t going to go with Mysterio, they should have considered The Rhino, who’s one of Spidey’s better villains.
Here’s The Rhino from 1967’s Spider-Man’s television show. Pay no attention that Spidey seems to shoot webs where there are no buildings–or anything else, for that matter–for them to attach to, after all, the cartoon was made in the Sixties.
Those of you that read Robert Kirkman’s “The Walking Dead,” know who ‘The Governor’ is (and I don’t mean Arnold Schwarzenegger), and with the Third season of the zombie series he will be played by David Morrissey.
He’s the second British actor in the cast, the first being Andrew Lincoln, who plays Sheriff Rick Grimes.
Here’s the latest trailer for Jonathan Liebesman‘s “Wrath of the Titans,” though his record (as far as I am concerned) is a bit spotty. “Darkness Falls” was a good idea hidden in a mediocre film, and “Battle: Los Angeles” was OK, but didn’t show us anything new.
The ‘Wrath’ trailers look interesting, but that’s what trailers are designed to do.
By the way, I also noticed that Sam Worthington appears to have stopped even trying to disguise his Australian accent, which makes scenes where he has to talk a little bit…odd (if “Clash of the Titans” was any indicator).
By the way, thanks to PANOS for finding a way to embed Springboard code into WordPress blogs that laypersons can easily understand.