Example of a trailer with noticeable, unfinished effects?

[BigThor]

The most obvious example I can think of is Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong. There was a world of difference between the Kong of the first trailer and the Kong of the finished movie. Compare the roar at the T-Rex from the end of trailer 1 to the one in the movie. It's night and day. The scars, the pronounced snaggle tooth, the dirty hair. It's an almost completely revamped design.

There were huge differences in color timing, atmospherics, and even the look of CG people in the first Avatar trailer as compared to the final product. Not as drastic as the Kong differences, but they were there.

Seeing as there's a 7 month window from the release of the trailer to delivered film (minus maybe two weeks to actually lock the picture and strike and ship the physical prints), I have no doubts that we're going to see an up in VFX quality when Green Lantern finally hits the screen. I don't think they're even that bad so far. It's no Avatar(especially in regards to those CG characters), but not every movie can be the new envelope. I'm happy just seeing bright, colorful, fantastic alien vistas.

I agree with all of the above, especially the GL comments towards the end (the FX were decent).

 

[Octoberist]

This is just the period where all 3 movies (Green Lantern, Thor, and Capt. America) are not really in the public's lexicon. So they'll just judge it compulsively. Time will pass and it'll get better.

 

[BigThor]

This is just the period where all 3 movies (Green Lantern, Thor, and Capt. America) are not really in the public's lexicon. So they'll just judge it compulsively. Time will pass and it'll get better.

Yep, just like they did with all of the other superhero films.

Honestly, I think Thor, Cap, & Green Lantern are all going to be pretty good films.

 

[moviedoors]

Yep, just like they did with all of the other superhero films.

Honestly, I think Thor, Cap, & Green Lantern are all going to be pretty good films.

For the most part, yes. But Superman, Batman, and Spiderman? No. Those are household names. My grandmother knew who they were before any of the movies came out. Iron Man? The Hulk? Blade? X-Men? The Fantastic Four? Not a chance.

But, I agree. I think those 3 movies are going to be solid entertainments that pull in the bucks.

 

[BigThor]

For the most part, yes. But Superman, Batman, and Spiderman? No. Those are household names. My grandmother knew who they were before any of the movies came out. Iron Man? The Hulk? Blade? X-Men? The Fantastic Four? Not a chance.

But, I agree. I think those 3 movies are going to be solid entertainments that pull in the bucks.

Yeah I was talking about "unknown heroes", I guess I should've been more specific

 

[DieSmiling]

The most noticable one was the Iron Man tank scene. The original version from the Super Bowl teaser looked terrible, final version looked great.

I remember the "ripping off the black suit in the bell tower" scene from SM-3 being noticably different from the first trailer to the movie as well.

 

[powerbomb1411]

For the most part, yes. But Superman, Batman, and Spiderman? No. Those are household names. My grandmother knew who they were before any of the movies came out. Iron Man? The Hulk? Blade? X-Men? The Fantastic Four? Not a chance.

But, I agree. I think those 3 movies are going to be solid entertainments that pull in the bucks.

Everyone knew who Hulk was also.

 

[BigThor]

^ True, mainly because of the television series from the 70's & 80's.

 

[JAK®]

Everyone knew who Hulk was also.

And X-Men.

 

[BigThor]

And X-Men.

Yeah of course them too, how could I forget

 

[JAK®]

Green Lantern is probably vaguely known by people in their late teens-early adulthood, due to the Justice League cartoon. Unfortunately, that was the Jon Stewart Green Lantern...

I actually heard a group of black kids talking about upcoming movies at the bus stop the other day, one of them mentioned Green Lantern. The other said "I could swear he was black in the cartoon!'

 

[DieSmiling]

Green Lantern is probably vaguely known by people in their late teens-early adulthood, due to the Justice League cartoon. Unfortunately, that was the Jon Stewart Green Lantern...

I actually heard a group of black kids talking about upcoming movies at the bus stop the other day, one of them mentioned Green Lantern. The other said "I could swear he was black in the cartoon!'

The idea of various characters as the same superhero (Hal Jordan/Kyle Rayner/Guy Gardner/John Stewart or Barry Allen/Wally West/Bart Allen, for instance) is one of those things non-comic fans don't understand. It just seems silly to them, which is understandable, especially when most of the big dogs (Supes, Bats, Spidey) have one defined identity.

 

[JAK®]

The idea of various characters as the same superhero (Hal Jordan/Kyle Rayner/Guy Gardner/John Stewart or Barry Allen/Wally West/Bart Allen, for instance) is one of those things non-comic fans don't understand. It just seems silly to them, which is understandable, especially when most of the big dogs (Supes, Bats, Spidey) have one defined identity.

Obviously they don't know (nor should they have to) but with Green Lantern it can create problems.

 

[dnno1]

The idea of various characters as the same superhero (Hal Jordan/Kyle Rayner/Guy Gardner/John Stewart or Barry Allen/Wally West/Bart Allen, for instance) is one of those things non-comic fans don't understand. It just seems silly to them, which is understandable, especially when most of the big dogs (Supes, Bats, Spidey) have one defined identity.

Most superheroes have dual identities.

 

[powerbomb1411]

Most superheroes have dual identities.

I'll disagree with that unless you mean secret and real world.

 

[dnno1]

I'll disagree with that unless you mean secret and real world.

That's exactly what I mean. I know what DieSmiling meant, but technically you could say that a superhero plays two different characters. Green Lantern is a special case in that he is a member of someting that is much bigger and in essence multiple characters play the same superhero role. If people can buy the U.S. Army or Marine Corps or Jedi Knights, then they could by the idea of mulitple people playing a Green Lantern.

 

[powerbomb1411]

That's exactly what I mean. I know what DieSmiling meant, but technically you could say that a superhero plays two different characters. Green Lantern is a special case in that he is a member of someting that is much bigger and in essence multiple characters play the same superhero role. If people can buy the U.S. Army or Marine Corps or Jedi Knights, then they could by the idea of mulitple people playing a Green Lantern.

when it's explained as a Universal Police force it's easy to understand. But I was the fan that was very confused with the different characters from DC.

It was when you had Barry, Bart, Wally, multiple Superman from different Earth's and then Alan Scott and Hal Jordan.

It got confusing, so when you mix multiple earth's with golden, silver and modern age. It was just a giant "WTF?".

 

[dnno1]

when it's explained as a Universal Police force it's easy to understand. But I was the fan that was very confused with the different characters from DC.

It was when you had Barry, Bart, Wally, multiple Superman from different Earth's and then Alan Scott and Hal Jordan.

It got confusing, so when you mix multiple earth's with golden, silver and modern age. It was just a giant "WTF?".

I started reading comics around the time they had the Crisis on Two Earths in the Justice League titles and became familiar with the differentiation between the Golden Age and Silver Age characters and the idea of multiple personalities playing the same (named) hero. I guess it all depends when you come into reading the comics (if you do at all) as to your comprehension of the concept of multiple charaters. But then again, it is explained in every summary of the film that Jordan is part of a universal police force that uses a power ring to fight crime, so it should be easy to understand.

 

[Saint]

Hi guys, this isn't completely related to Green Lantern, but it was Green Lantern's trailer that made me wonder:

Whenever we see vfx in trailers, some people always say that the effects are not finished yet and will be better in the movie, but I don't ever remember a trailer for any movie where the vfx was noticeably different.

Just asking coz this is an argument that crops up alot, and has no doubt came up many times on this board.

Iron Man superbowl spot:

Iron Man final film:

The first Watchmen trailer (note the Owlship at 33 seconds):


And the finished version of that same Owlship shot (right at the beginning of this video):

 

[BigThor]

I don't see really see much difference in the FX quality of those Iron Man pics, one just looks darker than the other.

The only thing I noticed different in the shot of the Owlship is the water trailer from it.

 

[KalMart]

I don't see really see much difference in the FX quality of those Iron Man pics, one just looks darker than the other.

The only thing I noticed different in the shot of the Owlship is the water trailer from it.

Atmospheric/debris effects, battle damage to the armor, more detail/focus in all the surroundings in brighter light, reflections...and we're not seeing it in motion, but the animation of the walk was probably more refined too. Now...it's still I.M. walking away from an explosion over his shoulder in the distance...so it's not like a night and day difference of one shot or sequence being better than the other.

The whole subject of different effects in trailers vs. released film arose from some worries over the first GL trailer...and how typical or 'un-epic' it felt. Some may find some comfort in the possibility of the effects still being fine-tuned for final release. But for others who may find, for example, the idea of big glowing green fists, a rather cartoonish green bodysuit, goofy one-liners, and other things a bit silly.....the 'finished' effects probably won't help that as much as exactly how they're incorporated into the final story/film as a whole.

 

[ohmshalone]

Atmospheric/debris effects, battle damage to the armor, more detail/focus in all the surroundings in brighter light, reflections...and we're not seeing it in motion, but the animation of the walk was probably more refined too. Now...it's still I.M. walking away from an explosion over his shoulder in the distance...so it's not like a night and day difference of one shot or sequence being better than the other.

The whole subject of different effects in trailers vs. released film arose from some worries over the first GL trailer...and how typical or 'un-epic' it felt. Some may find some comfort in the possibility of the effects still being fine-tuned for final release. But for others who may find, for example, the idea of big glowing green fists, a rather cartoonish green bodysuit, goofy one-liners, and other things a bit silly.....the 'finished' effects probably won't help that as much as exactly how they're incorporated into the final story/film as a whole.

You nailed it.

Edit: That being said, the GL trailer is looking more and more epic the more I see it.

 

[KalMart]

To me, the level/quality of the effects in the trailer seemed fine...basically on par with any other current effects-heavy movie. Not really 'oh my god', but not terrible either. It's just that the trailer made it feel like it was just going to be another superhero movie...with some heavy effects, some comedic stuff, etc. But honestly, that's all I was expecting the movie to be anyway, whereas others who may be avid GL or comic fans may have felt a bit underwhelmed or that they aren't trying hard enough.

Put it this way....were people really wondering if the trailer for, say, the new Star Trek movie had finished effects or not? And are they comparing them now that the movie's already been out? Maybe, maybe not. But to me, the difference between the Star Trek trailer(s) and the GL one isn't necessarily how good the effects were...it was just that the Star Trek trailer made you feel like what was coming was an event not to be missed. And the movie was pretty good, to boot.

I have the feeling that a lot of GL fans want the GL movie to make at least that kind of impact, but that first trailer makes it feel like just another variety of a lot of other things to choose from, and that it doesn't stand out. Well...it'll take more than finished/better effects to change that.

 

[BigThor]

Atmospheric/debris effects, battle damage to the armor, more detail/focus in all the surroundings in brighter light, reflections...and we're not seeing it in motion, but the animation of the walk was probably more refined too. Now...it's still I.M. walking away from an explosion over his shoulder in the distance...so it's not like a night and day difference of one shot or sequence being better than the other.

Cool, now what about the differences in the scene with the Owlship coming out of the water?

 

[BigThor]

I could definately see why they decided to have Spider-Man slide in between a crane in the finalized shot, and the final shot of him falling beside a building is also much cooler.