New Green Lantern Trailer #3! (3-D Trailer)

[Jick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjQXvE8TFKk

Thanks.

Who is doing the score, by the way?

 

[Shazam]

The narration really brought this one to life!! Great shots of the Guardians too.

 

[Alientraveller]

Thanks.

Who is doing the score, by the way?

James Newton Howard. The score is due for release on June 14 if you're wondering.

 

[Motown Marvel]

did you guys notice in the circle of guardians the broken stool that once was Krona's?

 

[S.A.A.D.]

I still maintain that if GL is actually good that it will end up being the highest grossing comicbook movie of the year domestically and probably worldwide.

It's one of my limb predictions but I'm sticking by it unless I start seeing bad reviews.

EDIT: Because one person didn't understand my post.

Because the movie critics always get it right.

 

[dru-zod2501]

Epic is as Epic does, which is what this trailer does.

Now after 12 viewings I notice the broken throne of Krona in that scene, good catch; I was too preoccupied with wrapping my head around why the Guardians have transparent hair

 

[Mako]

did you guys notice in the circle of guardians the broken stool that once was Krona's?

I hadn't noticed it, good eye

 

[DaveMoral]

I suspect that Krona may very well be joined with Parallax, that glowing yellow head looked awfully Guardian-like. Even the shape of Parallax's head in his billowy smoke form could be either Guardian-like or Hector Hammond.

I love that they are just going fully into the GL mythos. It's so great. Very exciting.

 

[Chris B]

This has been my favorite trailer for GL out what we've gotten so far. I hope Tomar's narration is the opening one for the film.

 

[Metropolis_Man]

Has anyone found this one on iTunes yet? Just tried searching for it but no luck. I need to add it to the other trailers and WonderCon footage on my iPod touch

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Whoever cut this trailer deserves a raise and I hope he/she cuts future DC movies.

 

[The Riddler]

Ofcourse I meant of the year, it's too bad that one person didn't get that when everyone else did.

yes, because your original post made that so clear. i'm smart, but i'm no mind reader.

 

[The Riddler]

She obviously meant highest of the year, not all time.

obviously? what was so obvious about it?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It's obvious because only a moron would predict this movie to obtain bigger grosses than The Dark Knight domestically and Spider-Man 3 internationally when that movie has had as shakey a start as GL has on the marketing front and without any reviews. Plus it's not a sequel, which those movies are.

 

[Rowsdower!]

As far as the space scenes go, there is no other movie that looks like it this year. Now the run of the mill Superhero fullfilling his destiny stuff isn't exactly new but the space stuff is new or more unique than the other movies coming out this summer.

They don't make too many big budget space adventure films. Yes, like all CGI fests, it reminds me of a cartoon but that certainly didn't hurt Avatar at the boxoffice or with critics. (I know these effects are as good as in that film but only nerds complain about effects not being groundbreaking.)

The movie definately had a shaky start, the marketing campaign has been far from perfect and the movie might look too silly for all I know so I know it has things working against it that can kill it at the boxoffice. But unless it gets bad reviews I see it doing very well.

Yeah, as far as the CGI goes, I think any movie that uses excessive amounts of it is going to get the "bad CGI" label, even if it's flawless. Because there are scenes in this film and many like it that you know HAVE to be CGI because no creatures or landscapes exist that look like that... so therefore, based on that, it must look FAKE!!! When in reality, it doesn't. Its just that, because people know it isn't real, they just label it "bad."

But like all things, it's subjective. A guy that is one of those pro-Marvel/anti-DC people will tell you every scene in Thor was flawless, while every scene in GL was crap, and a pro-DC/anti-Marvel guy will preach the exact opposite. And an Avatool will tell both of them how both movies sucked and no one in the history of the world will ever create a film as visually stunning as Avatar, as evidenced by Avatar's superior box office numbers. And they'll both tell him that Sigourney Weaver's Avatar looked like a reject from Cats: The Musical and remind him that no amount of groundbreaking CGI can make Sam Worthington a good actor.

 

[dnno1]

Yeah, as far as the CGI goes, I think any movie that uses excessive amounts of it is going to get the "bad CGI" label, even if it's flawless. Because there are scenes in this film and many like it that you know HAVE to be CGI because no creatures or landscapes exist that look like that... so therefore, based on that, it must look FAKE!!! When in reality, it doesn't. Its just that, because people know it isn't real, they just label it "bad."

But like all things, it's subjective. A guy that is one of those pro-Marvel/anti-DC people will tell you every scene in Thor was flawless, while every scene in GL was crap, and a pro-DC/anti-Marvel guy will preach the exact opposite. And an Avatool will tell both of them how both movies sucked and no one in the history of the world will ever create a film as visually stunning as Avatar, as evidenced by Avatar's superior box office numbers. And they'll both tell him that Sigourney Weaver's Avatar looked like a reject from Cats: The Musical and remind him that no amount of groundbreaking CGI can make Sam Worthington a good actor.

That's not true. I don't see anybody saying that films like "Monster House", "Finding Nemo", "Cars", "The Incredibles", or even "Avatar" as bad and they used high amounts of CGI. The truth of the matter here is the fact that people don't like the idea that it is not real, and if the film makers said nothing act all about what was used to create the effects, you would get a lower amount of criticism over it.

 

[Man in the Suit]

That's not true. I don't see anybody saying that films like "Monster House", "Finding Nemo", "Cars", "The Incredibles", as bad and they used high amounts of CGI.

That's because they're animated films...

 

[dnno1]

That's because they're animated films...

All of the films that I mentioned are animated films (even "Green Lantern" is as well). They specifically use 3D models to create the illusion of character movement and actors (in the background) to voice the characters, which falls under the definition of animation.Yet films like Green Lantern get's criticism because there are a number of people out there who think that the best practice for a live action film is to use live action character and to use real props even though it is a lot more difficult to perform similar effects using CGI.

 

[mcallima]

Not a fair comparison dnno1. Animated films can only be compared to other animated films. There, it's a comparison between CGI animation and traditional animation. Realism is never the intent. At best, you could compare Green Lantern to a movie like Alvin & the Chipmunks, which mixes live action with 100% CGI characters. But even there, the comparison is flawed.

Like Avatar, Green Lantern is a live action film which uses CG SFX in place of practical effects and physical sets/actors.

 

[Karelia]

Green Lantern & Tron could be compared kinda... Maybe, I dunno.

Was anyone else impressed with the 3D in the new trailer, because I sure was.

 

[dnno1]

Not a fair comparison dnno1. Animated films can only be compared to other animated films. There, it's a comparison between CGI animation and traditional animation. Realism is never the intent. At best, you could compare Green Lantern to a movie like Alvin & the Chipmunks, which mixes live action with 100% CGI characters. But even there, the comparison is flawed.

Like Avatar, Green Lantern is a live action film which uses CG SFX in place of practical effects and physical sets/actors.

It's fair. An animated film uses 2D or 3D images or models to create the allusion of character or object movement. Green Lantern has animated characters in it (thousands of them). That counts as much as an animated film as "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" (only that one used 2D charters, but same result). "Avatar" falls in the same boat. In fact that film won a VESA award for Best Animated Character.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It's not fair to compare an animated film that uses no liveaction elements to one that does.

 

[The Riddler]

It's obvious because only a moron would predict this movie to obtain bigger grosses than The Dark Knight domestically and Spider-Man 3 internationally when that movie has had as shakey a start as GL has on the marketing front and without any reviews. Plus it's not a sequel, which those movies are.

how is it obvious?

from your post, it was far more probable you were said "moron".

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

how is it obvious?

from your post, it was far more probable you were said "moron".

Oh this Convo is over hon. If you want to believe that I predicted GL to make 1bil, feel free to believe a lie conjured by your own mind.

Eventhough I have posts older than that one showing that I was in the 250mil range, you can continue to believe your little fairytale of the Case of I SEE SPIDEY predicting 1bil for the Green Lantern.

Why don't you bump that fantasy prediction up to 3bil while you are at it? I'm sure somewhere in here I said that it would outgross Avatar.

 

[dnno1]

It's not fair to compare an animated film that uses no liveaction elements to one that does.

I am going to withhold further comment until more information comes in. Apparently, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences considers an animated film one that is longer than 40 minutes and uses characters whose movements are created using a frame by frame technique. Although motion capture is not considered an animation technique, the question now is how much of a role did the CGI characters have in the film? If the CGI characters (Parallax, the Guadians of the Universe, and the GL Corps aliens) and other animation were used in 75% of the film it can be considered and animated film. We already know that Klowog, Tomar-Re, Parallax, and the Guardians and significant characters in the film.