The best trailer I have ever seen

Post by **npcoombs** » Sat May 13, 2006 8:37 pm

Nuri Bilge Ceylan's new film 'Climates': in competition in Cannes has a trailer up on the website

http://www.nbcfilm.com/iklimler/trailer.php?mid=8

a perfect trailer, beautifully done

Post by **sooper8fan** » Tue May 16, 2006 1:10 am

npcoombs wrote:

a perfect trailer, beautifully done

it's just a bunch of people looking like they're in deep thought, with one little booby shot. boring if you ask me. the trailer doesn't make me want to see the movie. that's what a trailer is supposed to do, isn't it? Earlier today I saw this one: http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searc ... large.html
and after the first few seconds I actually jumped out of my seat. I don't care for thrillers at all, but I thought this looked pretty cool. A lof CG, no doubt, which I don't really care for, but who cares in this case.
The Climates trailer does look like it was shot well though, but I wouldn't call it a perfect trailer by any means.

Post by **freddiesykes** » Tue May 16, 2006 5:55 am

sooper8fan wrote:it's just a bunch of people looking like they're in deep thought, with one little booby shot. boring if you ask me. the trailer doesn't make me want to see the movie. that's what a trailer is supposed to do, isn't it?

I couldn't disagree more. It seems like you missed the point of it, sooper8. It showed everything necessary- a small introduction to the chars, plot points, and overall look and feel of the complete film. I definitely want to see it.

The trailer for Night Watch makes it look like some of the more recent Hollywood sci-fi/horror flicks a la Resident Evil or Underworld- two rather boring and poorly written films.

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Tue May 16, 2006 6:49 am

A trailer should give you a taste of the film, not simply hype it as much as possible. I prefer trailers that are only lightly edited, basically a short vignette from the movie.

Post by **npcoombs** » Tue May 16, 2006 1:39 pm

sooper8fan wrote:npcoombs wrote:
a perfect trailer, beautifully done
it's just a bunch of people looking like they're in deep thought, with one little booby shot. boring if you ask me. the trailer doesn't make me want to see the movie.

Then the trailer has probably done its job well.

This certainly is a film you are unlilkely to want to see and probably would not enjoy at all from the sound of it.

Post by **steve hyde** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:10 pm

...It is a nice looking, moody trailer, but it certainly needs more "boobys" to survive a theatrical run in the United States..

Steve

Post by **mattias** » Wed May 17, 2006 10:36 am

i don't think the trailer is that good in itself but if it didn't work for some people i agree it's probably not a film for them. i immediately wanted to see it.

/matt

Post by **npcoombs** » Wed May 17, 2006 5:43 pm

steve hyde wrote:...It is a nice looking, moody trailer, but it certainly needs more "boobys" to survive a theatrical run in the United States..

Steve

Do arty European films even run in the States any more?

Post by **steve hyde** » Wed May 17, 2006 7:36 pm

npcoombs wrote:
steve hyde wrote:...It is a nice looking, moody trailer, but it certainly needs more "boobys" to survive a theatrical run in the United States..

Steve
Do arty European films even run in the States any more?

The pretentious ones don't stand a chance and let's face it, there are a lot of pretentious art-house films coming out of Europe. The Spaniards are holding our interest though. Films like "The Sea Inside" are well received here. The art-house crowed in the States is looking to Asian filmmakers these days. They are the ones showing new imagery. Europeans and Americans seem to be caught in a vortex of re-heating left overs and the taste has become stale.

How should a European filmmaker find entry into the US art-house market? Invent a new form....maybe the art-house documentary.

Steve

Post by **npcoombs** » Wed May 17, 2006 7:40 pm

steve hyde wrote:
The pretentious ones don't stand a chance and let's face it, there are a lot of pretentious art-house films coming out of Europe. The Spaniards are holding our interest though. Films like "The Sea Inside" are well received here. T

A lot of pretentious films? How would you know if they never make it over?! Can you name exactly the directors and films you are referring to?

Basically you seem to saying that the films like 'The Sea Inside' and 'Goodbye Lenin!' (another pile of shit) that conform to the Hollywood forms are the only films that the American audience will receive.

There is a fundamental asymmetry here. We receive all the American indies and Americans receive none of the European cinema. Having worked at one point in a cinema for 3 years and seen almost everything I can state that the European films we showed (versus the American indies) were usually light years ahead in subject matter, cinematography and overall maturity.

Post by **steve hyde** » Wed May 17, 2006 7:54 pm

npcoombs wrote:
steve hyde wrote:
The pretentious ones don't stand a chance and let's face it, there are a lot of pretentious art-house films coming out of Europe. The Spaniards are holding our interest though. Films like "The Sea Inside" are well received here. T
A lot of pretentious films? How would you know if they never make it over?!

Basically you are saying that the films like 'The Sea Inside' and 'Goodbye Lenin!' (another pile of shit) that conform to the Hollywood forms are the only films that the American audience will receive. Pathetic.

I know - because I watch them even though they don't get theatrical runs.
American audiences like what they like. We tend to like engaging stories that are well-structured, yet open-ended. We also tend to think that films that fetishize aesthetics and overlook story and structure are pretentious.
I'm certainly not trying to speak for the American art-house crowd universally here, but this is how I see people react to films..

Steve

Post by **npcoombs** » Wed May 17, 2006 7:57 pm

I should add that this is not and us vs them argument. British cinema is very isolated from anything you could call 'European cinema'.

British cinema is the worst of all lacking both European quality or US structure.

Post by **npcoombs** » Wed May 17, 2006 8:01 pm

steve hyde wrote:We tend to like engaging stories that are well-structured, yet open-ended. We also tend to think that films that fetishize aesthetics and overlook story and structure are pretentious.
I'm certainly not trying to speak for the American art-house crowd universally here, but this is how I see people react to films..

I think it is rather more insidious. I think the values in European films, looking at dark sexual issues, the plight of the poor, race etc. are all things the American audience would rather not think about.

I think Americans like films that emphasize the 'heroic individual' who conquers adversity because it affirms their belief in the 'American dream' as fake and superficial as that is. British audiences are exactly the same. Conservative countries with conservative people that have internalized the system's opposition to critical thought.

Post by **steve hyde** » Wed May 17, 2006 8:02 pm

npcoombs wrote:I should add that this is not and us vs them argument. British cinema is very isolated from anything you could call 'European cinema'.

British cinema is the worst of all lacking both European quality or US structure.

....Have you seen Wong Kar-Wei's "In the Mood for Love"?

It is a great scriptless Asian art film...

Steve

Post by **npcoombs** » Wed May 17, 2006 8:03 pm

steve hyde wrote:
npcoombs wrote:I should add that this is not and us vs them argument. British cinema is very isolated from anything you could call 'European cinema'.

British cinema is the worst of all lacking both European quality or US structure.
....Have you seen Wong Kar-Wei's "In the Mood for Love"?

It is a great scriptless Asian art film...

Steve

Cretainly. A great director chairing Cannes this year - I have high hopes.