Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/21/2013 10:50:13 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 9956
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

They don't do CGI because the love it, necessarily. They do it or the movie doesn't get made.


Totally agree, but do a little research or get a technical advisor to reel these CGI guys in. The Command & Conquer massed air attacks just look awful, let alone the speed these aircraft are often shown maneuvering.


We aren't the audience.


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 31
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 1:53:27 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 366
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
I'm waiting for the Masters of the Air miniseries, now in development, by the same folks who made Band of Brothers and The Pacific. My understanding the focus will be on the 100th Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 32
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 6:00:21 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4718
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Triple post! Speaking of technical advisors, what the heck is up with a triple post?


Check your index finger vibrations, bio-metric-field induced changes to the magnetosphere, and watch for sudden air humidity increases. Spammer.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 33
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 9:26:12 AM   
obvert


Posts: 9140
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yep, well said. You want to see a good movie? How about this one? They built the bridge, then found a train, ran it over the bridge and blew it all up.. No CGI here.

http://movieclips.com/pXkuw-the-bridge-on-the-river-kwai-movie-what-have-i-done/


I wonder what that movie runs in 2013 dollars? They don't do CGI because the love it, necessarily. They do it or the movie doesn't get made. There's no audience to support a $350 million war movie in theaters.


Interestingly though, to give more motion to planes, to add 500 fighters to the background, to have all of those bombers in shot all moving that wound't be there if they were correctly spaced, would all cost less money to make!!! That's what kills me. The guys doing that would have 1/4 the work if they actually made it look more realistic! It's silly.

So somewhere on the production side studio execs are saying 'more, more , more, don't worry about the time and money.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

They don't do CGI because the love it, necessarily. They do it or the movie doesn't get made.


Totally agree, but do a little research or get a technical advisor to reel these CGI guys in. The Command & Conquer massed air attacks just look awful, let alone the speed these aircraft are often shown maneuvering.


We aren't the audience.


Saying 'we aren't the audience' is simplistic, and assumes 'the audience' (whoever they are) wouldn't and can't enjoy a film that is well made and makes some serious attempt at realism. That's simply not supportable based on evidence of past successes that did get things close, if not perfect. Saving Private Ryan isn't my favorite, but it's head and shoulders above this one, and it was a blockbuster. Look at the similar films to this, like Red Tails, and they didn't make a splash, and didn't make budget.


So 'the audience' is a bit more interested in quality film-making that it would seem by the amount of trash that still comes out of Hollywood.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 34
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 12:47:48 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 9956
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
If you can get Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg on every war movie project, yeah, you can get realism. If you have $35 million, not so much. The theater audience wants flash and stuff blowing up, with a romance or a racial story or an alchoholic leader or similar. The "real" miniseries you cite were on HBO. They were ten hours not 90 minutes, and audiences had to vote with their dollars to view them at home. Just a different market entirely than "Red Tails." I saw that one on pay cable, and it's not even really a war movie as people here would describe the genre. You get no history from it really. It's a story about race. An important story and an interesting one. But it's not a movie about the air war in the ETO any more than "The Thin Red Line" is a war movie about the PTO. Different objectives, different art.

I'm used to having this discussion with Canoerebel.

BTW, "Kelly's Heroes" is a GREAT movie. But it's not a "war movie" either. (Maybe that will flush him out.)

Edit: Your numbers are correct but not adjusted for inflation. US movie tickets are roughly 40-50% more now than in in 1998. Also, many movies lose money domestically and make immense sums overseas. Sometimes now major US movies open overseas on purpose for this reason. The DVD market is also very different than in the late-90s. Netflix has killed it here and those revenues aren't "clean" to report like DVD sales were.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 11/22/2013 1:53:07 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 35
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 1:24:34 PM   
obvert


Posts: 9140
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

If you can get Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg on every war movie project, yeah, you can get realism. If you have $35 million, not so much. The theater audience wants flash and stuff blowing up, with a romance or a racial story or an alchoholic leader or similar. The "real" miniseries you cite were on HBO. They were ten hours not 90 minutes, and audiences had to vote with their dollars to view them at home. Just a different market entirely than "Red Tails." I saw that one on pay cable, and it's not even really a war movie as people here would describe the genre. You get no history from it really. It's a story about race. An important story and an interesting one. But it's not a movie about the air war in the ETO any more than "The Thin Red Line" is a war movie about the PTO. Different objectives, different art.

I'm used to having this discussion with Canoerebel.

BTW, "Kelly's Heroes" is a GREAT movie. But it's not a "war movie" either. (Maybe that will flush him out.)

Edit: Your numbers are correct but not adjusted for inflation. US movie tickets are roughly 40-50% more now than in in 1998. Also, many movies lose money domestically and make immense sums overseas. Sometimes now major US movies open overseas on purpose for this reason. The DVD market is also very different than in the late-90s. Netflix has killed it here and those revenues aren't "clean" to report like DVD sales were.


You miss the idea that to make it more realistic would actually make it more economically viable as well by cutting CGI/production time spent on effects that aren't necessary to telling the story. I site other films, and could site others, but there are really few that try to get it right, and generally the ones that have have been widely and popularly successful. That's the point.

I'm also not sure what your definition of a 'war movie' as people here would describe the genre. I'm one of the people here, () and The Thin Red Line is my single favorite 'war movie' yet made.

TMTSNBN did just what you're talking about by going overseas and making triple what it made domestically, which had only barely covered original budget. Maybe Red Tails will do the same.

No idea what this new 8th film costs. Couldn't find numbers, but I bet it's about the same as Red Tails. Where does your 35million figure come from?

Your point about time is interesting, but in my comments I mentioned the mini-series as examples far above, talking about getting the realism closer to correct, (and they used some CGI too, just a bit more judiciously).

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 36
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 1:45:58 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 9956
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58Edit: Your numbers are correct but not adjusted for inflation. US movie tickets are roughly 40-50% more now than in in 1998. Also, many movies lose money domestically and make immense sums overseas. Sometimes now major US movies open overseas on purpose for this reason. The DVD market is also very different than in the late-90s. Netflix has killed it here and those revenues aren't "clean" to report like DVD sales were.


You miss the idea that to make it more realistic would actually make it more economically viable as well by cutting CGI/production time spent on effects that aren't necessary to telling the story. I site other films, and could site others, but there are really few that try to get it right, and generally the ones that have have been widely and popularly successful. That's the point.


If you can get Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg on every war movie project, yeah, you can get realism. If you have $35 million, not so much. The theater audience wants flash and stuff blowing up, with a romance or a racial story or an alchoholic leader or similar. The "real" miniseries you cite were on HBO. They were ten hours not 90 minutes, and audiences had to vote with their dollars to view them at home. Just a different market entirely than "Red Tails." I saw that one on pay cable, and it's not even really a war movie as people here would describe the genre. You get no history from it really. It's a story about race. An important story and an interesting one. But it's not a movie about the air war in the ETO any more than "The Thin Red Line" is a war movie about the PTO. Different objectives, different art.

I'm used to having this discussion with Canoerebel.

BTW, "Kelly's Heroes" is a GREAT movie. But it's not a "war movie" either. (Maybe that will flush him out.)


I'm also not sure what your definition of a 'war movie' as people here would describe the genre. I'm one of the people here, () and The Thin Red Line is my single favorite 'war movie' yet made.

TMTSNBN did just what you're talking about by going overseas and making triple what it made domestically, which had only barely covered original budget. Maybe Red Tails will do the same.

No idea what this new 8th film costs. Couldn't find numbers, but I bet it's about the same as Red Tails. Where does your 35million figure come from?

Your point about time is interesting, but in my comments I mentioned the mini-series as examples far above, talking about getting the realism closer to correct, (and they used some CGI too, just a bit more judiciously).


http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/why-did-red-tails-fail-to-soar-at-the-box-office

makes some good points about "Red Tails" in particular. The movie didn't fail because it was realistic or not-realistic. It failed because it's a terrible movie.

My point about "realistic" is realism doesn't give the trailer shots needed to market to the US first-weekend theater market in 2013. I don't know how long you've been in the UK but movie marketing here has changed a lot in a decade, and a tremendous amount in the last five years. Massive budget, A-list movies like "Ender's Game" generally get one weekend to make the money. The up-front marketing is a blanket. TV, trailers, on-line, social media. Then one weekend, with numbers reported by Sunday evening on most major "news" outlets. (Why a non-investor cares which move "won" the weekend I have no idea, but it's news.) The next weekend there's a new new movie. Usually you'll see a third-weekend push on the first movie to get the crowd that waits for reviews and word-of-mouth and hates first weekend crows and then . . . that's it. DVD and overseas. Next player at bat. "Ender's Game had huge stars, hundreds of millions in marketing over several years, re-works, PR tours out the wazoo, and it stank up the joint its opening weekend. And now it's five-day-old fish. In that enviro if you can show 100 B-17s when reality says show 5, you show 100 and you play stirring, patriotic music in the trailer. Oh, and you "lie" that the thing is about history and not race so white folks won't be scared to go. It's just the reality of the industry now.

(Man, this line-wrap thing is making it almost impossible to post. The lione above is over 800 characters wide on my posting window.)

A "war movie" as I define it for the people here is "Tora, Tora, Tora." Facts, history, not much or any character development. "The Red Badge of Courage" is not a war movie. It's a human factors movie. A character study with a war as the backdrop and motivator for the character action. But you dont' learn about ACW campaigns reading, or watching, it.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 11/22/2013 2:49:36 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 37
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 2:20:17 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 8425
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Just a friendly warning. Do a quadruple post and Matrix rolls your post count back to zero. I know, a bit harsh, but we can't have that sort of thing going on in the war room....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 38
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 3:26:56 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
After seeing the manoeuvre in a perfect "TOP GUN" style made by a P-51D against a Me109 in Red Tails, I am not surprised to see that they keep on producing movies making the same old mistakes.
Don't understand why it's more "cool" to make a "maverick" manoeuvre than a well done rolling scissors or an Himmelmann...

How can it be so difficult to make these movies with a GOOD consultant who assists the filmmaker?!

Take Oleg Maddox and make him do the dogfights!

...this kind of crap seems to be an History Channel documentary

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 39
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 3:29:27 PM   
Schanilec

 

Posts: 4047
Joined: 6/12/2010
From: Grand Forks, ND
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

After seeing the manoeuvre in a perfect "TOP GUN" style made by a P-51D against a Me109 in Red Tails, I am not surprised to see that they keep on producing movies making the same old mistakes.
Don't understand why it's more "cool" to make a "maverick" manoeuvre than a well done rolling scissors or an Himmelmann...

How can it be so difficult to make these movies with a GOOD consultant who assists the filmmaker?!

Take Oleg Maddox and make him do the dogfights!

...this kind of crap seems to be an History Channel documentary

Greyjoy; I love you man. `Immelmann'.

_____________________________

This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 40
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 5:05:01 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schanilec


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

After seeing the manoeuvre in a perfect "TOP GUN" style made by a P-51D against a Me109 in Red Tails, I am not surprised to see that they keep on producing movies making the same old mistakes.
Don't understand why it's more "cool" to make a "maverick" manoeuvre than a well done rolling scissors or an Himmelmann...

How can it be so difficult to make these movies with a GOOD consultant who assists the filmmaker?!

Take Oleg Maddox and make him do the dogfights!

...this kind of crap seems to be an History Channel documentary

Greyjoy; I love you man. `Immelmann'.


Isn't that correct? HAve I misspelled once again?

(in reply to Schanilec)
Post #: 41
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 5:35:31 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 9956
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schanilec


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

After seeing the manoeuvre in a perfect "TOP GUN" style made by a P-51D against a Me109 in Red Tails, I am not surprised to see that they keep on producing movies making the same old mistakes.
Don't understand why it's more "cool" to make a "maverick" manoeuvre than a well done rolling scissors or an Himmelmann...

How can it be so difficult to make these movies with a GOOD consultant who assists the filmmaker?!

Take Oleg Maddox and make him do the dogfights!

...this kind of crap seems to be an History Channel documentary

Greyjoy; I love you man. `Immelmann'.


Isn't that correct? HAve I misspelled once again?


A Himmelmann is a little guy figurine on the mantel.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 42
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 6:07:09 PM   
Schanilec

 

Posts: 4047
Joined: 6/12/2010
From: Grand Forks, ND
Status: offline
You guys Hummel me.

_____________________________

This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 43
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/22/2013 6:29:37 PM   
Wuffer

 

Posts: 339
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert




Interestingly though, to give more motion to planes, to add 500 fighters to the background, to have all of those bombers in shot all moving that wound't be there if they were correctly spaced, would all cost less money to make!!! That's what kills me. The guys doing that would have 1/4 the work if they actually made it look more realistic! It's silly.

So somewhere on the production side studio execs are saying 'more, more , more, don't worry about the time and money.'




Obvert, I agree with you on most aspects, but I think digital stuff is really cheap nowadays.
all you need is adding as much layers as you want.

here was the real work:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/77d644e0a89d85617004e87c798a873a/tumblr_mkjlsaowZ91s889qvo1_1280.jpg

:-)

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 44
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/23/2013 8:40:36 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schanilec


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

After seeing the manoeuvre in a perfect "TOP GUN" style made by a P-51D against a Me109 in Red Tails, I am not surprised to see that they keep on producing movies making the same old mistakes.
Don't understand why it's more "cool" to make a "maverick" manoeuvre than a well done rolling scissors or an Himmelmann...

How can it be so difficult to make these movies with a GOOD consultant who assists the filmmaker?!

Take Oleg Maddox and make him do the dogfights!

...this kind of crap seems to be an History Channel documentary

Greyjoy; I love you man. `Immelmann'.


Isn't that correct? HAve I misspelled once again?


A Himmelmann is a little guy figurine on the mantel.



Mmmmm...i'm pretty sure i did this everyday when playing on IL2...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immelmann_turn

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 45
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/23/2013 10:51:10 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 7608
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
GJ, This is what you wrote...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Himmelmann...


< Message edited by JocMeister -- 11/23/2013 5:17:32 PM >

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 46
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/23/2013 12:22:48 PM   
obvert


Posts: 9140
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Interestingly though, to give more motion to planes, to add 500 fighters to the background, to have all of those bombers in shot all moving that wound't be there if they were correctly spaced, would all cost less money to make!!! That's what kills me. The guys doing that would have 1/4 the work if they actually made it look more realistic! It's silly.

So somewhere on the production side studio execs are saying 'more, more , more, don't worry about the time and money.'




Obvert, I agree with you on most aspects, but I think digital stuff is really cheap nowadays.
all you need is adding as much layers as you want.

here was the real work:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/77d644e0a89d85617004e87c798a873a/tumblr_mkjlsaowZ91s889qvo1_1280.jpg

:-)



With some limited searching I can't find anything that gives evidence to well done CGI being cheaper than it was previously. Better, yes, more possible, yes, but not cheaper. It's human hours, and any business person will remind you that cost of employees is always the highest. Adding stuff that doesn't need to be there is always going to take more hours than not doing that, and making things 'move' more, or more things move, is going to take more hours.

I've used some 3-D rendering programs and I can tell you from first hand experience it's not quick work, no matter how you do it, but it's quicker the fewer things you have to deal with. You don't just add a layer to pt a new plane in. You also give it different shading, you make it move differently, you throw stuff at it and get smoke trails made coming out of it. It's not just another layer, it's a new design.

Looking at the film 'Gravity' I found a pretty interesting note from someone working at Framestore that did the CGI, (seemingly the best work to date).

He said that if they'd had one single for processor machine running the rendering for it it would have needed to start working in the 5th century BC to finish by the time the film was released!

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Wuffer)
Post #: 47
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/25/2013 2:05:25 AM   
Wuffer

 

Posts: 339
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
With all respect, Eric, have a look at 2:07 plse - how many clones?

I might propose a 'solomonic' agreement: At least it looks very cheap and I don't think it's the compression of youtube. And they have definitely paid too much for this job. :-)
Everything is like a cheesy B-movie, they spared on the actors, probably the plot, colour-correction, cut, camera movement...

Btw, I could understand your argument really well; while neither a prof photog nor a filmmaker, pictures and (short) movies being part of my daily work and I hate the idea what could have done with THAT etat. :-(
Regarding the Thin Line (dunno the original title) we could agree - one of the movies you could never forget which is working in your mind. Could not imagine how to illustrate the story better!

Did you know of a good adaption of Catch22?


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 48
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/25/2013 6:35:22 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2443
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: Victoria, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

It just sucks when you know they can do it well. Band of Brothers and The Pacific are two great examples that aren't prefect but get the pace, feel and emotion without the over-dramatization to the point of silliness.


You may note that these series may have been bankrolled by Hollywood, but they weren't made by Hollywood........



_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 49
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/25/2013 12:34:08 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 9956
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

It just sucks when you know they can do it well. Band of Brothers and The Pacific are two great examples that aren't prefect but get the pace, feel and emotion without the over-dramatization to the point of silliness.


You may note that these series may have been bankrolled by Hollywood, but they weren't made by Hollywood........




I was shocked by obvert's budget numbers on "Red Tails", so I looked it up. About $40 million of the number was for marketing. The rest, about $58 million, included no A-list actors, limited location shoots, and three dollars for a script. Terrible, terrible film-making on a dollar-results basis.

OTOH, this weekend I saw "Cloud Atlas", a film that garnered the spectrum of critics' opinion but which I thought was an utter masterpiece. A knock out. It had Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, and a bunch of other A-list and high B-list talent, many expensive locations including a sailing ship at sea, the South Seas, and a futuristic Seoul that was stunning, plus a huge amount of futuristic computer effects and various expensive sets. Independent, non-Hollywood (German in fact) movie. Budget around $100. In 100 years film students will be studying it. "Red Tails" will be long forgotten.

Cloud Cuckoo Land.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 50
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/25/2013 12:58:43 PM   
Agathosdaimon

 

Posts: 632
Joined: 7/8/2012
Status: offline
CGI is the pits really, it is okay to be used here and there but having it try to up the action over realism just makes it all the more of an empty feeling. I am sure Battle of Britain prob has its hollywood moments, but its not trying to emulate some Sci-fi mega battle when it was portraying WW2 and its special effects never got in the way of the atmosphere - i wish money would be spent of real physical props aircraft/etc or even just good models rather than CGI - its like comparing raw sugar to artificial sweetener, in that the latter initially seems a better alternative but soon tastes distinctly lacking and in the long term is actually worse for ones health than actual sugar.

In fact, 10-15 years ago watching movies at the cinema, especially the big hollywood stuff was something i was doing all the time but now i just cant bear wasting such time, as the writers limitations are just too obvious in regard to taking advantage of deeper narratives, original dialogue - their lack of attending to these things i should say. Actors are not protraying reality just a hollywood hyperreal version of reality one that many come to take for real and are then easily fooled by the scripted crap trying to pass for 'reality tv'

The movies made well before my time, seem now infinitely more stimulating with their lengthier dialogue, and usually enormous numbers of Extras - lole Abel Gance's Austerlitz or the 1970's Waterloo films.
I think Memphis Belle was a great film though, great like Das Boot

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 51
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/25/2013 1:46:40 PM   
obvert


Posts: 9140
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

It just sucks when you know they can do it well. Band of Brothers and The Pacific are two great examples that aren't prefect but get the pace, feel and emotion without the over-dramatization to the point of silliness.


You may note that these series may have been bankrolled by Hollywood, but they weren't made by Hollywood........




I was shocked by obvert's budget numbers on "Red Tails", so I looked it up. About $40 million of the number was for marketing. The rest, about $58 million, included no A-list actors, limited location shoots, and three dollars for a script. Terrible, terrible film-making on a dollar-results basis.

OTOH, this weekend I saw "Cloud Atlas", a film that garnered the spectrum of critics' opinion but which I thought was an utter masterpiece. A knock out. It had Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, and a bunch of other A-list and high B-list talent, many expensive locations including a sailing ship at sea, the South Seas, and a futuristic Seoul that was stunning, plus a huge amount of futuristic computer effects and various expensive sets. Independent, non-Hollywood (German in fact) movie. Budget around $100. In 100 years film students will be studying it. "Red Tails" will be long forgotten.

Cloud Cuckoo Land.


Great film! Even a better book.

I've been asking a colleague with more knowledge of the film industry where to find breakdowns of film budgets. Seems tough to find CGI numbers, but since I'm doing a stop-motion unit with students I thought it would be interesting to bring it to the contemporary and get into what happens now with CGI.

Did you find a good resource for the breakdown of film budgets into categories?

As to the above, and whether Band of Brothers is Hollywood, it certainly seems Hollywood when HBO and Dreamworks are the main players, even though the BBC did pay in $10 million of the $125 million budget, and it was shot in the UK. A lot of films are now multi-national and multi-company productions, but it would be hard to argue it's not a Hollywood production. The Pacific was all Dreamworks, HBO and Playtone, with no BBC contribution.

The real idea I'm trying to put forward is that trying to be historically accurate is a choice, not a sliding scale where the more accurate something is, the less marketable it is. A tension filled ride through German flak filmed well, with more realistic CGI, lots of intense noise and fighters darting down out of clouds to hit the bombers with tail-gunner POV shots would certainly be dramatic and action-filled enough to play well in a trailer. It's kind of a mystery to me why bad films are made at all with as much money on the line as there is these days between success and failure.



_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 52
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/25/2013 4:27:56 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 9956
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


Great film! Even a better book.

I've been asking a colleague with more knowledge of the film industry where to find breakdowns of film budgets. Seems tough to find CGI numbers, but since I'm doing a stop-motion unit with students I thought it would be interesting to bring it to the contemporary and get into what happens now with CGI.

Did you find a good resource for the breakdown of film budgets into categories?

As to the above, and whether Band of Brothers is Hollywood, it certainly seems Hollywood when HBO and Dreamworks are the main players, even though the BBC did pay in $10 million of the $125 million budget, and it was shot in the UK. A lot of films are now multi-national and multi-company productions, but it would be hard to argue it's not a Hollywood production. The Pacific was all Dreamworks, HBO and Playtone, with no BBC contribution.

The real idea I'm trying to put forward is that trying to be historically accurate is a choice, not a sliding scale where the more accurate something is, the less marketable it is. A tension filled ride through German flak filmed well, with more realistic CGI, lots of intense noise and fighters darting down out of clouds to hit the bombers with tail-gunner POV shots would certainly be dramatic and action-filled enough to play well in a trailer. It's kind of a mystery to me why bad films are made at all with as much money on the line as there is these days between success and failure.




The film makes me a little scared of the book. My understanding is the book has the six stories in chron order, then an ending that weaves them. I thought the power of the movie in large part came from the interactive weaving and juxtaposition. And not without humor. SPOILER!!! The Jim Broadbent scene where he escapes from the old folks home and goes trotting down the sidewalk yelling "Soylent Green is people!!!" is already an obscure movie and book reference for most of the audience. But then they put it against the horrifying fabricant scheme . . . Wow.

I don't know of a site that breaks things down, but I'm sure there are some in movie-Web-land. There's a lot of issue with Hollywood "above the line, below the line" accounting schemes that mask true costs. My impression had ben that CGI is much cheaper than it used to be, but maybe it's just faster to render. I think one reason, of several, CGI has taken over so many movies is it allows schedules to be flexible on the back-end. The prime talent can come and go for principal shooting and then the movie can be finished over a period of years and released to fit perceived market conditions. There's a lot less reliance on keeping so many of the on-set people around for months eating groceries. Some of the CGI can even be done before principal shooting. IT works the assets harder from the money peoples' POV.

As before, I think BOB is a different genre of art than a movie. A movie is a short-story, BOB was a novel. What would "Saving Private Ryan" have been a s a mini-series ten hours long? Different for sure. Pacing different. Harder to stay focused on the goal, which was a human story and not to show the first month after D-Day. They're both great, but they're different things.

As for trailers I agree with you that you could show a tail-gunner's POV, but if that's all you showed, and no 3rd person POV from outside with the sky, and smoke, and fighters, and 50 planes, you're going to get push-back from the money people. They have to live in a marketplace where the other guys are doing the 3rd person POV. As I said, over her you get one weekend. This past weekend (it's Monday) "Hunger Games" made $161 million over the weekend. The second-place movie made $16 million. I think it was "Thor." Three weeks ago "Thor" was making centi-millions. I think I saw that the third made $14M. The "Hunger Games" trailer wasn't slow panning shots of the heroine's face for sixty seconds with a voice-over. It was action, big shots of future cities, fire, crowds, evil villains, and archery. In that sense I think it was an honest portrayal of the product. That's the product that makes $161 million in three days. Just the reality of the big theater, big budget business. Fortunately we have the HBOs to stay small and make Swiss watches.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 53
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/25/2013 4:42:30 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 23098
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: online
Hi all,

Just like with the "Red Tails"... the air combat sequence depicted in trailer is another Hollywood style fantasyland... shame...

But, as others have already posted, this movie was not made for us Grognards... it is for general population...



Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Footslogger)
Post #: 54
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/25/2013 4:49:14 PM   
obvert


Posts: 9140
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


Great film! Even a better book.

I've been asking a colleague with more knowledge of the film industry where to find breakdowns of film budgets. Seems tough to find CGI numbers, but since I'm doing a stop-motion unit with students I thought it would be interesting to bring it to the contemporary and get into what happens now with CGI.

Did you find a good resource for the breakdown of film budgets into categories?

As to the above, and whether Band of Brothers is Hollywood, it certainly seems Hollywood when HBO and Dreamworks are the main players, even though the BBC did pay in $10 million of the $125 million budget, and it was shot in the UK. A lot of films are now multi-national and multi-company productions, but it would be hard to argue it's not a Hollywood production. The Pacific was all Dreamworks, HBO and Playtone, with no BBC contribution.

The real idea I'm trying to put forward is that trying to be historically accurate is a choice, not a sliding scale where the more accurate something is, the less marketable it is. A tension filled ride through German flak filmed well, with more realistic CGI, lots of intense noise and fighters darting down out of clouds to hit the bombers with tail-gunner POV shots would certainly be dramatic and action-filled enough to play well in a trailer. It's kind of a mystery to me why bad films are made at all with as much money on the line as there is these days between success and failure.




The film makes me a little scared of the book. My understanding is the book has the six stories in chron order, then an ending that weaves them. I thought the power of the movie in large part came from the interactive weaving and juxtaposition. And not without humor. SPOILER!!! The Jim Broadbent scene where he escapes from the old folks home and goes trotting down the sidewalk yelling "Soylent Green is people!!!" is already an obscure movie and book reference for most of the audience. But then they put it against the horrifying fabricant scheme . . . Wow.

I don't know of a site that breaks things down, but I'm sure there are some in movie-Web-land. There's a lot of issue with Hollywood "above the line, below the line" accounting schemes that mask true costs. My impression had ben that CGI is much cheaper than it used to be, but maybe it's just faster to render. I think one reason, of several, CGI has taken over so many movies is it allows schedules to be flexible on the back-end. The prime talent can come and go for principal shooting and then the movie can be finished over a period of years and released to fit perceived market conditions. There's a lot less reliance on keeping so many of the on-set people around for months eating groceries. Some of the CGI can even be done before principal shooting. IT works the assets harder from the money peoples' POV.

As before, I think BOB is a different genre of art than a movie. A movie is a short-story, BOB was a novel. What would "Saving Private Ryan" have been a s a mini-series ten hours long? Different for sure. Pacing different. Harder to stay focused on the goal, which was a human story and not to show the first month after D-Day. They're both great, but they're different things.

As for trailers I agree with you that you could show a tail-gunner's POV, but if that's all you showed, and no 3rd person POV from outside with the sky, and smoke, and fighters, and 50 planes, you're going to get push-back from the money people. They have to live in a marketplace where the other guys are doing the 3rd person POV. As I said, over her you get one weekend. This past weekend (it's Monday) "Hunger Games" made $161 million over the weekend. The second-place movie made $16 million. I think it was "Thor." Three weeks ago "Thor" was making centi-millions. I think I saw that the third made $14M. The "Hunger Games" trailer wasn't slow panning shots of the heroine's face for sixty seconds with a voice-over. It was action, big shots of future cities, fire, crowds, evil villains, and archery. In that sense I think it was an honest portrayal of the product. That's the product that makes $161 million in three days. Just the reality of the big theater, big budget business. Fortunately we have the HBOs to stay small and make Swiss watches.


Seeing the Hunger Games this Thursday. The lady is very excited!



_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 55
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 11/25/2013 5:01:15 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 9956
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Seeing the Hunger Games this Thursday. The lady is very excited!



We still haven't seen the first one. Keep waiting for it to show on premium cable, but may never. The DVD is about $10; might be under the tree.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 56
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 12/2/2013 2:33:47 PM   
jamesjohns

 

Posts: 80
Joined: 12/2/2013
Status: offline
This could be so good but Hollywood always wants to make it more dramatic and have bigger special effects. Like the real stories of flying a B-17 in WII are not dramatic enough??!!

Hollywoods U571 vs Das Boot always stays in my mind of how Hollywood can take a real historical event and really mess it up.

I still have hope, Tora, Tora, Tora was well done, esp. vs that more recent unmentionable movie about the same historical event.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 57
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 12/2/2013 2:58:43 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 2620
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Well Tora used actual historical documents to create the film so there was not much of backstory script that was needed like in a lot of other films. Plus they wanted it to as accurate as possible so as to honor the people that died at Pearl. Many of these points are lacking in more modern films about the war.

(in reply to jamesjohns)
Post #: 58
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 12/2/2013 6:52:56 PM   
icepharmy

 

Posts: 265
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline
Memphis Belle was also partly based on a true story/plane. Originally it was a composite story based on a real well made and pretty realistic propaganda documentary film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LZP5R109yo

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 59
RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer - 12/2/2013 9:59:17 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Oh my that was so sad. Why does BSwood constantly dismiss history? Plenty of sources available, just not there.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: The Mighty Eight... trailer Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.219