Not defensive, just saying that even if you are well versed in all things concerning film, I doubt you have any more of an inside track on this particular production than I do. That's like saying anyone with experience in music can pinpoint every nuance of Abbey Road or Thriller.
No, but all films share certain common aspects of workflows, and it affects what's available for trailers. So you can't assume that they have everything available for them if you're looking at shots in later trailers that didn't make it into the first, or ones that were carried over, etc. That's why looking at it as a sign of negligence or what have you is ultimately unfair. There's a lot that isn't evident from just watching the finished product or behind-the-scenes stuff on DVDs. Different movies may have different things available, but the people who put together the trailers and such generally all follow the same protocol of doing the most with what they have, and what they're prepared to show.
Point taken, but still irrelevant on certain levels, as I stated above. Still, I can respect your point of view, I just like that same level of respect, and you sometimes come across as holier than thou when speaking about film intricacies. Given your position, it's understandable, but I like to be addressed how I address others, that's all. Claws retracted
If I didn't respect your point of view, I wouldn't have responded to it in such detail. So there you go. If anything, I would hope that it would alleviate some of your misgivings. Some things can't be helped at certain points in getting a film out to theaters.
Once more, I never said anything about them not doing their job as well as they could, I was simply stating and giving examples of prior footage from different films that contained visibly unfinished effects, even to the untrained eye.
I really don't think it's as obvious as you're making it out to be outside of people who make a note of those kinds of things.
Ironman was moving herky jerky, the background looked unfinished, and the shot was still cool. I'm not suggesting I felt gipped, if anything, if they had the capability to produce a better trailer, they shortchanged themselves.
Maybe they didn't want to have jerky unfinished stuff in their trailer like Iron Man did...even if it was cool...if it really is that 'noticeable to the untrained eye'.
And again, just because Iron man had that shot in that state doesn't mean that GL had one equally as cool in a similarly unfinished state. Every trailer for any of these major movies tries to use whatever they can that's deemed presentable for a variety of reasons. People at that level of work wouldn't just gloss over that. So we might want to give them the benefit of the doubt keeping that in mind.
The issue is the average person may not care about Green Lantern period. That's the problem with first impressions not hitting the mark. Regardless of what quality the full movie ultimately has, a sour taste in one's mouth may not be so quick to recede as you think.
That, I agree, could be an issue. GL could be a hard sell...but...you can't just change the natural flow of processes in prepping a film for release to compensate for that. Especially with effects that haven't been tried before.
Honestly....if not making GL out to be cheesy were a concern, I'd be much more worried about that GL mother-goose rhyme that you touted for being in the WonderCon ftg. than anything in the first trailer. I think they were wise not to put that in without a whole lot of other eye candy to cushion the groan.
In an ideal world, if you didn't have enough to make a trailer 'epic' or what not, you'd simply not put out a trailer until you have more. But those deadlines have to be met, so you make do with what you have, and hope that the work that's taking as long as it is will pay off in the theaters.
I still think you're overreacting to the first trailer, though. It wasn't an atrocity. It was just 'meh'. The fact that people (outside of comic fans) tend to forget those kinds of things quickly is, if anything, comforting when you hit them with something better later on.
Batman Begins was nearly 10 years after the fact of Batman & Robin, and plenty of people had no desire to see that movie until after TDK came out. I think it's safe to say the stigma of what that franchise became had a lot to do with BB not having the same initial impact of it's predecessors, even though good word of mouth was the ultimate equalizer. You just want enough people in the seats to mouth the good word to begin with...
Batman and Robin is a 'special case'.
That movie created waves of ridicule not seen with many other movies in history. The first GL trailer wasn't even close to making an impact like that.
By the way, the 'unfinished effects' weren't what made the first trailer 'bad'. If anything it was the wisecraky feel to it and the fact that it felt like any other superhero movie. But if (hypothetically) they didn't have a lot of money shots to work with at the time, they had to come up with something or else not have a trailer at all. But really...it's hardly a ripple. If you take comic-fan-pride out of the equation, it was just another trailer for an upcoming effects/superhero flick. And that may be at the root of the resentment over the first trailer...that it was just ordinary....which for some folks could be even worse than being outright crappy.
t:
