Similar idea, different backstory. "Wicked" tells a prequel story from the Wicked Witch of the West's point of view. This movie tells a prequel story from the Wizard's point of view.DaveF said:Isn't that "Wicked?"
You just know they're not going to use that poster for the DVD. Look for a giant James Franco floating head cover.Edwin-S said:It does look good. At least there is some actual artistry in the image; something that is sorely lacking in modern movie posters.
What? Would you think it is a better film if they shot it using 1930's quality special effects? How would you shoot this type of film, with today's high expectations vis a vis SFX, without the use of CGI? Dressing a few guys up in flying monkey suits and hanging them from wires is not going to cut it for this type of film any more.dpippel said:Looks like another CGI crapfest to me, complete with the requisite "circling virtual camera" shots. Meh.
Outstanding criticism. At least DPippel gave some reasoning for his "Meh".Steve_Tk said:Bleh.
Yeah, I doubt the movie poster will make it onto the cover for the Blu-ray/DVD releases. The one big downfall of DVD/Blu-ray is that the size of the formats does not allow for a lot of real estate for cover artists to work with, unlike vinyl LPs and Laserdiscs. BD and DVD covers are the film equivalent of modern comic strip panels: big enough for two heads, a bit of text and not much more. Although, the cover for the Twilight Time release of "Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines" actually isn't too bad.cineMANIAC said:You just know they're not going to use that poster for the DVD. Look for a giant James Franco floating head cover.
Just saw the trailer and it looks like it might be good. Kind of like what Peter Jackson did with King Kong - take an old movie and reimagine it, but ramp up everything about the original times a thousand. Amazing visuals won't make this film good if the story stinks.
Whoa, Tex. I didn't say that CGI shouldn't be used. I said it looks like crappy CGI. Run of the mill CGI. Shots that are framed and tracked like many other CGI shots in many other CGI-laden films. The swoopy camera. The circling camera. The plunging camera. Overusing the virtual camera to do shots that are physically impossible just because they can be done digitally, and then doing them over and over again. I'm tired of seeing this kind of filmmaking. It's too clean, glossy, and technically precise, and as a result has become boring and generic IMO.Originally Posted by Edwin-S /t/322007/oz-the-great-and-powerful#post_3949227
What? Would you think it is a better film if they shot it using 1930's quality special effects? How would you shoot this type of film, with today's high expectations vis a vis SFX, without the use of CGI? Dressing a few guys up in flying monkey suits and hanging them from wires is not going to cut it for this type of film any more.
I'm with you on this one. An example of the kind of visual effect you only see nowadays (and irritates me to no end): the train sequence in CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (and last year's PRIEST). I know it would've been cost-prohibitive and time-consuming to shoot these scenes on a real train. But they look so obviously fake, almost cartoony, that it takes me out of the film. CGI is a wonderful tool if used creatively AND sparingly, only when it's needed to serve the story. That being said, I was very impressed with the visuals on view in that OZ trailer. I've always wondered what a film like THE WIZARD OF OZ would look like if made today. While the original was a product of it's time (and certainly shows it, with everything obviously shot on soundstages), there's an opportunity here to expand on that world and recreate it using today's vastly superior technology. I think Raimi will pull this off fairly well.It's too clean, glossy, and technically precise, and as a result has become boring and generic