MCU's THE ETERNALS (11/6/20) 8 8

[@therealsilvermane]

On 5/26/2021 at 10:57 AM, Broke as a Joke said:

At the end of the trailer why didn't they say Ms. Marvel would be the new leader of the Avengers?  Feige should be outraged.

Kamala Khan will not have made her MCU debut yet when Eternals takes place this fall, so what you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

[Gatsby77]

3 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Kamala Khan will not have made her MCU debut yet when Eternals takes place this fall, so what you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

Bwahahaha 

But fun fact - I picked up Ms. Marvel # 1 only by mistake - part of a full run I bought in a collection 12 years ago just for the Mystique appearances.

only read 1-4, 17-18. All of them were...underwhelming, 

[drotto]

33 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Those are either dolly shots or steadicam shots you're talking about in the trailer, where the camera moves in space. With panning shots or zoom shots, the camera is in a fixed location and the lens does all the work.

In the case of the shots in the Eternals trailer, the moving camera adds energy to the scenes where the characters stand still and also explores the space around them as if we are discovering this space as said characters do. It's evident from Chloe Zhao's previous films The Rider and Nomadland that she likes space and likes to explore it with her camera. For a film about characters that are living in and discovering an entire planet and its people, Chloe Zhao, when considering her past films, seems to have been the perfect choice for the way Marvel has agreed to approach the Eternals' story.

To me the trailer was just kinda dull. I do not think the moving camera with somewhat static characters was interesting at all.  I am not writing off the movie, but think that Zhao may be a mismatch for this type of movie and the audiences that it will be targeted at. The nuances you talk about will be 100% lost on the average comic movie viewer. She comes across as a more contemplative director, and movie goers for action films tend to like visuals with more pop and kinetic energy. People going to super hero movies like character development, but not necessarily character studies (with Joker being the one noted exception, although the nihilistic aspect I think drove this film for many).  I have yet seen anything that suggests she can direct action, and without a few big action set pieces comic fans will be disappointed. 

 

Again, I am not questioning that Zhao has talent, but sense her style is not something that average comic movie will not appreciate. Let's be honest, having a director with only 4 credits to her name and a total aggregate box office of $19,730,218, is a massive risk. That is not the box office of a director that has wide appeal (despite the Oscar for Nomadland which only grossed 9.2 million and was won in a Pandemic weakened field), and she seems to be lacking in experience. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of Marvel movie fans have no clue who she is, and likely do not care. I still have hope for this film, but the trailer did not drum up much excitement for me.

Edited May 28, 2021 by drotto

[@therealsilvermane]

16 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Bwahahaha 

But fun fact - I picked up Ms. Marvel # 1 only by mistake - part of a full run I bought in a collection 12 years ago just for the Mystique appearances.

only read 1-4, 17-18. All of them were...underwhelming, 

I'll admit the Ms Marvel 1977 run isn't Gerry Conway or Chris Claremont's best work, but there are some good stories in that run IMO, like particular issues that tackled Carol Danvers personal life like issue #13 or #19. As I've said, Carol Danvers Ms. Marvel was conceived to be Marvel's answer to Wonder Woman, but I don't think Marvel knew what to do with a solo female super-hero series back then. She-Hulk and Spider-Woman, the other two major female hero titles didn't fare so great either. Chris Claremont was arguably Marvel's best writer of women, but they still seemed to fare better when part of a team until they finally figured it out in the 90's.

[drotto]

1 minute ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I'll admit the Ms Marvel 1977 run isn't Gerry Conway or Chris Claremont's best work, but there are some good stories in that run IMO, like particular issues that tackled Carol Danvers personal life like issue #13 or #19. As I've said, Carol Danvers Ms. Marvel was conceived to be Marvel's answer to Wonder Woman, but I don't think Marvel knew what to do with a solo female super-hero series back then. She-Hulk and Spider-Woman, the other two major female hero titles didn't fare so great either. Chris Claremont was arguably Marvel's best writer of women, but they still seemed to fare better when part of a team until they finally figured it out in the 90's.

Best thing that ever happened to MS Marvel was Rogue stealing her powers.

[@therealsilvermane]

8 minutes ago, drotto said:

Best thing that ever happened to MS Marvel was Rogue stealing her powers.

Not sure about that, but I did have a chat with Michael Golden once at a Con, and I asked him what was the purpose of Rogue stealing Ms Marvel's powers as he signed my Avengers Annual 10. He said the reason why was because Chris Claremont wanted Carol Danvers to confront the Avengers at the story's end as a normal human woman. Claremont felt Carol calling out the Avengers (for allowing her to be kidnapped and raped by the interdimensional Marcus in Avengers #200) without her Superman-like powers would have more resonance and impact, and Carol would have to rely more on her words rather than fighting the Avengers in retaliation.

At the time, that was the only reason they had Rogue steal Carol's powers. It turns out that Rogue became a fan favorite while Carol Danvers has had to claw and fight her way back to getting her own title and now has her own billion dollar MCU movie. So all things work themselves out in the end.

[bentbryan]

19 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Not sure about that, but I did have a chat with Michael Golden once at a Con, and I asked him what was the purpose of Rogue stealing Ms Marvel's powers as he signed my Avengers Annual 10. He said the reason why was because Chris Claremont wanted Carol Danvers to confront the Avengers at the story's end as a normal human woman. Claremont felt Carol calling out the Avengers (for allowing her to be kidnapped and raped by the interdimensional Marcus in Avengers #200) without her Superman-like powers would have more resonance and impact, and Carol would have to rely more on her words rather than fighting the Avengers in retaliation.

At the time, that was the only reason they had Rogue steal Carol's powers. It turns out that Rogue became a fan favorite while Carol Danvers has had to claw and fight her way back to getting her own title and now has her own billion dollar MCU movie. So all things work themselves out in the end.

Lol “has her own billion dollar movie”. 
 

You really cannot help yourself, can you? 

[@therealsilvermane]

19 minutes ago, drotto said:

To me the trailer was just kinda dull. I do not think the moving camera with somewhat static characters was interesting at all.  I am not writing off the movie, but think that Zhao may be a mismatch for this type of movie and the audiences that it will be targeted at. The nuances you talk about will be 100% lost on the average comic movie viewer. She comes across as a more contemplative director, and movie goers for action films tend to like visuals with more pop and kinetic energy. People going to super hero movies like character development, but not necessarily character studies (with Joker being the one noted exception, although the nihilistic aspect I think drove this film for many).  I have yet seen anything that suggests she can direct action, and without a few big action set pieces comic fans will be disappointed. 

 

Again, I am not questioning that Zhao has talent, but sense her style is not something that average comic movie will not appreciate. Let's be honest, having a director with only 4 credits to her name and a total aggregate box office of $19,730,218, is a massive risk. That is not the box office of a director that has wide appeal (despite the Oscar for Nomadland which only grossed 9.2 million and was won in a Pandemic weakened field), and she seems to be lacking in experience. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of Marvel movie fans have no clue who she is, and likely do not care. I still have hope for this film, but the trailer did not drum up much excitement for me.

It's a teaser trailer. It didn't even show the Celestials yet (yes, they're in the movie). I wouldn't worry about this being a movie with no action and intrigue. It's a Marvel super-hero movie, it'll have plenty of it. You doubt Chloe Zhao's ability to be able to direct action because she's never directed a blockbuster action movie before but did anybody doubt the Russo Bros (who previously only directed TV comedy) or Christopher Nolan (who previously only directed pseudo-intellectual drama) or The Hangover director (Joker). Maybe people did, but it goes to show you that just because you've never directed a blockbuster action movie before doesn't mean you can't.

 

[@therealsilvermane]

14 minutes ago, bentbryan said:

Lol “has her own billion dollar movie”. 
 

You really cannot help yourself, can you? 

I just like stating facts.

[drotto]

Sorry this trailer has 77 million views in the first 24 hours, and if it is a teaser or a first full trailer is irrelevant (when it is 2 minutes long the difference is semantics). This is the publics first meaningful view of this movie. It is just not getting the love or buzz that Marvel typically gets. Here is the list of the top 20 trailer views on YouTube in the first 24 hours, and Eternals is a far way from being on it.

Edited May 28, 2021 by drotto

[theCapraAegagrus]

10 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Those are either dolly shots or steadicam shots you're talking about in the trailer, where the camera moves in space. With panning shots or zoom shots, the camera is in a fixed location and the lens does all the work.

In the case of the shots in the Eternals trailer, the moving camera adds energy to the scenes where the characters stand still and also explores the space around them as if we are discovering this space as said characters do. It's evident from Chloe Zhao's previous films The Rider and Nomadland that she likes space and likes to explore it with her camera. For a film about characters that are living in and discovering an entire planet and its people, Chloe Zhao, when considering her past films, seems to have been the perfect choice for the way Marvel has agreed to approach the Eternals' story.

How often do your lips get chapped...?

[Bosco685]

9 hours ago, drotto said:

Sorry this trailer has 77 million views in the first 24 hours, and if it is a teaser or a first full trailer is irrelevant (when it is 2 minutes long the difference is semantics). This is the publics first meaningful view of this movie. It is just not getting the love or buzz that Marvel typically gets. Here is the list of the top 20 trailer views on YouTube in the first 24 hours, and Eternals is a far way from being on it.

This is a metric as of the last few years that is the most troubling as it can be manipulated so easily. Especially with all the Youtube reviewers and commentators that not only push a given studio or property. but also reaction videos which lead to extra hits to every video. And not even considering purposeful manipulation by studios which then working with social media becomes a news cycle piece 'Movie X has achieved XX million views within 24 hours'.

Better to find a more trustworthy success indicator data point.

[theCapraAegagrus]

4 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

This is a metric as of the last few years that is the most troubling as it can be manipulated so easily. Especially with all the Youtube reviewers and commentators that not only push a given studio or property. but also reaction videos which lead to extra hits to every video. And not even considering purposeful manipulation by studios which then working with social media becomes a news cycle piece 'Movie X has achieved XX million views within 24 hours'.

Better to find a more trustworthy success indicator data point.

Hel, I probably watched all of the Infinity War and Endgame trailers at least 100 times.

[Bosco685]

Just now, Angel of Death said:

Hel, I probably watched all of the Infinity War and Endgame trailers at least 100 times.

Think about all the hits this little site provides to Youtube with impressions due to shared content. Then the impressions as these trailers are inserted via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and studio reporting sites that include such content in their articles. This is just another studio-utilized metric to drive consumer interest.

Kind of like manipulation of the Audience Score on critic aggregator sites to counter any negative Critic Score results that may influence consumer interest in a given production. Disney is the master and commander with marketing campaigns, and pretty much drives Fandango/Rotten Tomatoes by the nose as Fandango online ticket sales and movie theater gift cards are dependent on such purchases.

[Gatsby77]

16 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

This is a metric as of the last few years that is the most troubling as it can be manipulated so easily. Especially with all the Youtube reviewers and commentators that not only push a given studio or property. but also reaction videos which lead to extra hits to every video. And not even considering purposeful manipulation by studios which then working with social media becomes a news cycle piece 'Movie X has achieved XX million views within 24 hours'.

Better to find a more trustworthy success indicator data point.

This.

Plus - it ignores that *superb* trailers can translate into garbage movies, and/or mediocre-to-poor box officer performance.

Examples off the top of my head include:

• Suicide Squad
• Watchmen
• Matrix Reloaded
• Spider-Man 3
• Snakes on a Plane

And while I think it was a *great* film, I'm willing to bet many on this site would say the same about Iron Man 3 - that the trailer was far better than the finished product.

[Bosco685]

7 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This.

Plus - it ignores that *superb* trailers can translate into garbage movies, and/or mediocre-to-poor box officer performance.

Examples off the top of my head include:

• Suicide Squad
• Watchmen
• Matrix Reloaded
• Spider-Man 3
• Snakes on a Plane

And while I think it was a *great* film, I'm willing to bet many on this site would say the same about Iron Man 3 - that the trailer was far better than the finished product.

I disagree on Watchmen. But we are definitely aligned on the rest. But one you may have missed.

The trailer made it look like this was going to be much more of the same from the first film, on a grander scale. Once seen, it turned out to be mediocre storytelling and the primary supporting cast only briefly shown. Sif especially was shown which excited those wanting to see so much more of her partnership in supporting Thor and she ended up with 3:15 minutes of screen time.

[Gatsby77]

6 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I disagree on Watchmen. But we are definitely aligned on the rest. But one you may have missed.

The trailer made it look like this was going to be much more of the same from the first film, on a grander scale. Once seen, it turned out to be mediocre storytelling and the primary supporting cast only briefly shown. Sif especially was shown which excited those wanting to see so much more of her partnership in supporting Thor and she ended up with 3:15 minutes of screen time.

Fair. 

I consider Thor 2 to be *by far* the worst Marvel film (and that includes The Incredible Hulk).

[theCapraAegagrus]

43 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This.

Plus - it ignores that *superb* trailers can translate into garbage movies, and/or mediocre-to-poor box officer performance.

Examples off the top of my head include:

• Suicide Squad
• Watchmen
• Matrix Reloaded
• Spider-Man 3
• Snakes on a Plane

And while I think it was a *great* film, I'm willing to bet many on this site would say the same about Iron Man 3 - that the trailer was far better than the finished product.

Snakes on a Plane had a "superb" trailer?

[Gatsby77]

12 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

Snakes on a Plane had a "superb" trailer?

Umm...yes.

Do you remember the pre-release buzz once the trailer came out? It was insane.

Snakes on a Plane is one of the best case studies in internet and media virality not translating to a good (or financially successful) movie.

The trailer sold the film - to the extent that it instantly went viral, late night talk show hosts made near-nightly jokes about it, they ordered re-shoots to  better match fan expectations (i.e., changing it to Rated R & adding a few more Samuel L. Jackson "m-f-kers"), etc.

And yet, the film grossed only $15 million opening weekend.

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Do you remember the pre-release buzz once the trailer came out? It was insane.

Everyone that I know simply made fun of it. It wasn't "good"; It was just ridiculous.