Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Adam Lenhardt, Jul 9, 2018.
I don’t know.
I think the use of the spoiler tags were originally because the appearance of the hammer could help prove a theory that some people might consider a spoiler.
I've always believed if I don't want something spoiled, then it's my responsibility to stay off the Internet. But that's just me.
Or if you are so concerned about being spoiled from a trailer avoid any thread about that movie.
I have been here for a while now, and I still don't know what the general rule is. The thread title warns of spoilers for infinity war but not Endgame. The open discussion of the trailer is going to give rise to speculation. Some of that speculation might be correct, and therefore a spoiler.
But I do agree - if one doesn't want to be spoiled about points in an upcoming movie it would probably be best to avoid that thread.
I still don't know the actual rule.
Spoilers are the new black Johnny.
I really enjoyed all of the callbacks to the Phase 1 movies. It's a nice reminder that this is the end of a 22-movie journey.
There's a quite a bit to unpack with this trailer:
There's a shot of Hawkeye teaching a girl archery in a field, with a woman preparing a picnic in the background and two boys lingering nearby. Is this set before Thanos kills half of all life in the universe? If so, who is the girl? Kate Bishop?
If it's set after Thanos kills half of all life, could it perhaps be Hawkeye's daughter Lila? She was about 6 in Age of Ultron, which was set in 2015. Thanos's decimation occurred sometime in 2018, when she would have been around 9 years old. It's hard to say from the trailer, but I'm thinking the girl is Ava Russo, Joe Russo's daughter. At the Captain Marvel premiere, he stated that she has a top-secret role in the movie. And it would make sense, since Lila was the middle child between two boys, who could be the boys in the background. The girl in the trailer is probably 12-14 years old, which would place that scene between three and five years after the decimation.
That opens up other questions: Did all of Hawkeye's family survive the decimation? If so, why does he look so brooding in other shots in the trailer? Why is his haircut different here? I'm wondering if this is actually a shot from near the end of the movie, from the new timeline created when the Avengers went back in time and stopped Thanos.
There's a shot of Scott wandering a neighborhood. Most of the houses look abandoned and overgrown, and the telephone pole is plastered with Missing posters. This suggests to me that quite a bit of time has passed since decimation when Ant-Man makes it out of the quantum realm.
I'm not sure that that's what it shows:
We see them all together in their matching team uniforms on Earth before going to battle Thanos, but we don't know how Tony & Nebula actually meet up with the remaining Avengers on Earth. There might have already been an adventure in space before we get to that moment.
They actually screwed up and left Danai Gurira's name off of that one. Here's the revised version released by Marvel later in the day:
Interesting that Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Holland, Chadwick Boseman, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Anthony Mackie, Sebastian Stan, Pom Klementieff, Dave Batista, Zoe Saldana, Vin Diesel, and Chris Pratt are not credited on the poster since they're all supposed to appear. I guess Marvel's trying to preserve some surprises with the marketing.
All of the behind-the-scenes credits are the same as Infinity War, including a very prominent Executive Producer credit for James Gunn.
As Jimmy O mentioned:
There are three hair styles for Black Widow, probably indicative of three different time periods in the movie: Blonde, red with a couple inches of blonde at the bottom, and red all the way through.
Very interesting, for what it suggests about the movie.
To my mind, discussing a movie that has already come out, after a couple days grace period, is fair game. Discussing a movie that has yet to come out, it seems like common courtesy to use spoilers. Not everybody watches trailers.
I’d go at least 10 days maybe more.
Not everyone in here are able to see a movie on opening week.
I wouldn’t mind two topics.
One with spoilers and one without.
I think that speculation based on what was in previous movies and in publicly released trailers should be fair game. But I wouldn’t argure too hard against being cautious about discussing thing from trailers for the reason Adam mentioned above.
However, speculation based on a knowledge of a comic storyline that the movie may be adapting or set photos that many/most movie fans would not have seen should be spolierized.
Notiice that given Thor's strength, it would be a life-ending event to be hit by either end of the weapon.
Some interesting quotes from the Russos:
“We talked about all scales of marketing,” said Joe Russo. “The thing that’s most important to us is that we preserve the surprise of the narrative. When I was a kid and saw The Empire Strikes Back at 11am on the day it opened…It so profoundly moved me because I didn’t know a damn thing about the story I was going to watch. We’re trying to replicate that experience.”
“We use all the material that we have at our disposal to create a trailer. We look at the trailer as a very different experience than the movie, and I think audiences are so predictive now that you have to be very smart about how you craft a trailer because an audience can watch a trailer and basically tell you what’s gonna happen in the film.”
“We consume too much content,” added Russo. “So at our disposal are lots of different shots that aren’t in the movie that we can manipulate through CG to tell a story that we want to tell specifically for the purpose of the trailer and not for the film.”
It’s anazing to me that here we are, in the year 2019, where it’s never been easier to alert a large audience to a product or service at low costs. And yet, despite that, Disney will spend anywhere from $100 million to half a billion dollars prompting this film. To an audience that already knows it’s coming and is already eager to see it.
What a collosal waste of money.
I wonder if things will ever get to a point where spending that kind of money on advertising what’s essentially a luxury product with a two or three week shelf life (luxury because no one “needs” to see a movie, two or three week shelf life because that’s where the bulk of the money is made) will be considered economically and ethically indefensible.
To be clear, I can’t wait to see Endgame. I’m just not sure that Disney spending up to $500 million to remind me about something I’m already going to do makes a lot of sense.
Totally agree. It seems crazy unnecessary. Carpet bombing. I wonder how much they are oversaturating the target market. At what point is the money a waste? I suppose maybe they sort of know, but it does seem like a huge amount of money.
That’s exactly what I was trying to say in far less words - I wish I had that skill
Some promotion is of course necessary. But it seems like they’re routinely spending as much or more of a movie’s production budget on promotion, and that seems nonsensical.
I agree, it's completely crazy, especially for THIS film.
It's bizarre to me that the marketing of movies these days often costs more than the movies themselves.
All this talk of marketing costs reminds me of an interview George Lucas did for one of the Star Wars prequels. He was asked about the marketing budget for those films and how it had gotten exorbitantly expensive. Lucas said no, that Lucasfilm had actually done minimal marketing and the media did the rest, asking for interviews, magazine covers, TV spots and so forth. He said the intense interest in those movies made it easier on the marketing costs, since the media was going to cover them no matter what.
I doubt Disney would take that sort of risk, but if they were ever going to, Endgame is as sure a thing as they will ever have. I was describing to my son the intense anticipation for this film, which I have only seen two or three times before in my life: The Empire Strikes Back (1980), The Phantom Menace (1999) and The Fellowship of the Ring (2001).
When George owned it, Lucasfilm ran a tight ship, and it makes sense - he owned the whole thing and financed everything, so a giant ad buy would be coming out of his pocket. Ultimately, that kind of expense would be recouped from the film's profits, but I think Lucas' ability to get the most out of his technicians, craftsmen and publicity people without breaking the bank is a lesson that everyone could learn from today.
I think the prequels were in the neighborhood of $115 million. Even adjusting for inflation, that's a helluva lot cheaper than what Disney is spending on their tent pole pictures today.