• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

JUSTICE LEAGUE: PART ONE (11/17/17)
5 5

Started by Bosco685,

2,041 posts in this topic

drotto

drotto

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, chrisco37 said:

Trailer looks just OK.    As others have said, Cyborg looks terrible.  He belongs in a Transformers movie looking like that.   I don't really like Flash's costume either, but the speed force effect looks great!    

I dunno.   The trailer should get you excited about a movie.  I didn't get that from this one.  WW and Spider-Man both are better trailers. 

The issue with Cyborg is they are trying to do it with CGI. The audience is getting to the point where it expects CGI it be seamless, not just look cool because we can almost make it look real. So they obviously have a guy is a green suit that they are overlaying the effects on. Despite what movie makers seem to think, the human eye and brain is very hard to fake out, especially when you have a real reference point. It is the reason other big budget movies are actually trying to do more practical effects again.  Like someone already said, with Iron Man they will use a partial suit at times.

 

As a more timely comparison, Ghost in the Shell has allowed Adam Savage a lot of access to its effects for the movie for his YouTube channel. The geisha robots in the trailer are costumes, and masks, even the scenes where you see the faces open up.  Major's internal skeleton was actually completely constructed using 3D printing and looks amazing. And finally the almost infamous Skin suit was actually made out of silicon (which apparently has never been done before), and really exists. Most films would have done all of this as CGI now. It may not determine if the movie is good or bad, but these little touches make it look tons better than CGI.

 

I truly hope Cyborg is just first or second pass on the CGI, because if that is final it is going to be distracting during the film. It does make me question why they put so much of him in the trailer though, if they did not feel it was close to ready.

Edited by drotto
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, drotto said:

The issue with Cyborg is they are trying to do it with CGI. The audience is getting to the point where it expects CGI it be seamless, not just look cool because we can almost make it look real. So they obviously have a guy is a green suit that they are overlaying the effects on. Despite what movie makers seem to think, the human eye and brain is very hard to fake out, especially when you have a real reference point. It is the reason other big budget movies are actually trying to do more practical effects again.  Like someone already said, with Iron Man they will use a partial suit at times.

Your comparison with Iron Man is apt but for the opposite reason you're describing.  Marvel has it easy with him because when he's totally in the suit they can more easily make it pure CGI because there's no human parts that the human eye is trained to know inside and out for them to have to match any expectation with; they just have to make an unrealistic battle suit look vaguely realistic.  But with Cyborg, the human parts stick out, so they don't have that same luxury.  When you see Downey wearing a real suit, he isn't in action, he's just sitting or standing there.  They can't only show Cyborg in motion fully suited up without CGI because his prosthetics don't cover his body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Get Marwood & I

Get Marwood & I

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Batman said:

You mean they didn't do it any justice...? :wink:

I've missed you Batman. Don't lurk in those shadows too long from now on eh? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kagenish

kagenish

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, drotto said:

The issue with Cyborg is they are trying to do it with CGI. The audience is getting to the point where it expects CGI it be seamless, not just look cool because we can almost make it look real. So they obviously have a guy is a green suit that they are overlaying the effects on. Despite what movie makers seem to think, the human eye and brain is very hard to fake out, especially when you have a real reference point. It is the reason other big budget movies are actually trying to do more practical effects again.  Like someone already said, with Iron Man they will use a partial suit at times.

 

1

 

6 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

Your comparison with Iron Man is apt but for the opposite reason you're describing.  Marvel has it easy with him because when he's totally in the suit they can more easily make it pure CGI because there's no human parts that the human eye is trained to know inside and out for them to have to match any expectation with; they just have to make an unrealistic battle suit look vaguely realistic.  But with Cyborg, the human parts stick out, so they don't have that same luxury.  When you see Downey wearing a real suit, he isn't in action, he's just sitting or standing there.  They can't only show Cyborg in motion fully suited up without CGI because his prosthetics don't cover his body.

 

the one thing we need to remember is once they have finished Cyborg CGI and keep using him it'll get better like Ironman it'll start to look better. plus if I remember correctly Marvel has been using full CGI for Ironman even when his faces is showing since Ironman 2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ciaran Hinds Reveals Justice League Villain Steppenwolf Details

ciaran-hinds-justice-league-steppenwolf-

Quote

Ciaran Hinds also said he never read the comics as a kid, received advice from Liam Neeson and compares Batman vs. Superman to Excalibur, of which he played King Lot in the 1981 movie.  

 

“They were great fans of Excalibur, Zack and his team. Maybe that’s how I got the role [in Justice League]! Who knows? There’s a bit when they’re walking in Gotham City and suddenly on a marquee of a cinema you see Excalibur playing.” Then there was the moment Superman is impaled by a large spear. “That’s exactly what happened in Excalibur, with Nigel Terry [who played King Arthur] pierced by Mordred.” 

 

A previously released plot synopsis for Justice League also mentioned Ciaran Hinds, Steppenwolf and Darkseid.

 

In the wake of Clark Kent/Superman's (Cavill) death at the hands of Doomsday in BvS, vigilante Bruce Wayne/Batman (Affleck) reevaluates his extreme methods and begins reaching out to extraordinary heroes to assemble a team of crime-fighters to defend earth from all kinds of threats. Together with Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gadot), Batman seeks out cybernetically enhanced former college football star Vic Stone/Cyborg (Fisher), speedster Barry Allen/The Flash (Miller) and Atlantean warrior king Arthur Curry/Aquaman (Momoa). They face off against Steppenwolf (Hinds), the herald and second-in-command to alien warlord Darkseld, who is charged by Darkseid with hunting down three artifacts hidden on earth. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted
On 3/27/2017 at 10:52 AM, drotto said:

I think I am in the same place as you. The trailer was fine, overall the movie looks fairly good, but there was nothing there to get me really excited. Cyborg needs work. Now the WW trailer has me much more positive and excited by the film.

That seems to be the consensus in that it is good,but nothing compared to the excitement level of the Thor trailer that just came out.

I think Justice League will be a very good movie,but my main concern is its box office, as it is sand-witched in between Thor: Ragnarok and Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
It is going to be a real battle for JLA at the box office.  So one one hand I could see BvS numbers,but on the other hand I could see Man of Steel numbers. hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimik

kimik

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

That seems to be the consensus in that it is good,but nothing compared to the excitement level of the Thor trailer that just came out.

I think Justice League will be a very good movie,but my main concern is its box office, as it is sand-witched in between Thor: Ragnarok and Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
It is going to be a real battle for JLA at the box office.  So one one hand I could see BvS numbers,but on the other hand I could see Man of Steel numbers. hm

I am not as concerned re: Thor Ragnarok. I expect it to do similar numbers to Thor: The Dark World which is great for a second tier Marvel Movie Franchise, and in-line with most super-hero flicks. 

The WW flick is sort of the reboot for the DCEU and will be the key for this movie IMHO. If WW does $500M+ then JLA will do better than BvS. If WW can hit SS numbers, then JLA could go even higher. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chezmtghut

chezmtghut

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, kimik said:

I am not as concerned re: Thor Ragnarok. I expect it to do similar numbers to Thor: The Dark World which is great for a second tier Marvel Movie Franchise, and in-line with most super-hero flicks. 

The WW flick is sort of the reboot for the DCEU and will be the key for this movie IMHO. If WW does $500M+ then JLA will do better than BvS. If WW can hit SS numbers, then JLA could go even higher. 

Ragnarok & JL should both be billion $ films but the fact that they're coming out 2 weeks apart will hurt both imo. Star Wars coming out 4 weeks later doesn't help either. There are 6 Superhero films this year & they should really be released at least 6 - 8 weeks apart for the best box office results. Both films would do better if Ragnarok was released Oct 6th. If they spend 250 - 300 mill on each film & both bring in less than BvS, they'll only have themselves to blame. They moved BvS to March specifically for that reason, otherwise it probably would have made around 700 mill & Civil War would be closer to 900 mill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, kimik said:

I am not as concerned re: Thor Ragnarok. I expect it to do similar numbers to Thor: The Dark World which is great for a second tier Marvel Movie Franchise, and in-line with most super-hero flicks. 

The WW flick is sort of the reboot for the DCEU and will be the key for this movie IMHO. If WW does $500M+ then JLA will do better than BvS. If WW can hit SS numbers, then JLA could go even higher. 

Thor Ragnarok will blow past Thor Dark World easily. It has great buzz, has Hulk and became the viewed Marvel Youtube trailer of all-time this week with over 120 plus million views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chezmtghut

chezmtghut

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Thor Ragnarok will blow past Thor Dark World easily. It has great buzz, has Hulk and became the viewed Marvel Youtube trailer of all-time this week with over 120 plus million views.

I agree. I only see 24+ mill views on the trailer though, but it's only been a few days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, chezmtghut said:

Ragnarok & JL should both be billion $ films but the fact that they're coming out 2 weeks apart will hurt both imo. Star Wars coming out 4 weeks later doesn't help either. There are 6 Superhero films this year & they should really be released at least 6 - 8 weeks apart for the best box office results. Both films would do better if Ragnarok was released Oct 6th. If they spend 250 - 300 mill on each film & both bring in less than BvS, they'll only have themselves to blame. They moved BvS to March specifically for that reason, otherwise it probably would have made around 700 mill & Civil War would be closer to 900 mill.

I agree some people with families are not most likely going to go out and see three movie in 4 weeks. Are they going to take their family to see the fun Thor in the trailer or do they take them to see Justice League with memories of the serious BvS still lingering?  Also I hear Justice League might be close to a 3 hour movie? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ComicConnoisseur

ComicConnoisseur

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, chezmtghut said:

Check for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=CAM%3D&q=thor+ragnarok+trailer

hm

The article does say this, and if you Google "Thor movie trailer most viewed" there are dozens of articles stating about the same thing.

Here is from the article I used as a source.

The trailer for Thor: Ragnarok, which was unleashed Monday by Disney, the parent company of Marvel, has garnered more than 136 million views in only 24 hours.

It becomes the not only the most viewed Marvel trailer ever, but also the studio's most viewed trailer ever across all its brands, which includes Disney's live-action and animation divisions, Pixar, Star Wars, as well as Marvel.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
5 5
Go to topic listing