The Slippery Soapbox

[alienmem]

This one's called Biopunk. I don't think it's out yet but the trailer is AMAZING

[VincentLupo]

I don't think this trailer is that good.  It really doesn't provide enough plot information.  I have no idea what it is about and because of that it leaves me with little interest.

[alienmem]

I don't think this trailer is that good.  It really doesn't provide enough plot information.  I have no idea what it is about and because of that it leaves me with little interest.

That's the reason precisely why I don't see trailers that are made today. They tell the whole story in the trailer. It's ridiculous.


I want a trailer to be enticing so I can see the movie but that doesn't give away the jokes, the plot, spoilers.
I think most trailers today are rubbish.

[VincentLupo]

Those are all valid points end to agree with you.  This one just holds too much back for me.  It has to provide something so you know what your watching.  I'm not even sure what kind of film this is.  Probably sci-fi but   Romance, action, suspense, horror. etc.  There's nothing that defines what I'm seeing and what I'm seeing doesn't even seem very interesting.  It certainly doesn't leave me wanting to find out more.  For me a fail.  For you not a fail.  Good thing too or we would never have any diversity.

[alienmem]

Those are all valid points end to agree with you.  This one just holds too much back for me.  It has to provide something so you know what your watching.  I'm not even sure what kind of film this is.  Probably sci-fi but   Romance, action, suspense, horror. etc.  There's nothing that defines what I'm seeing and what I'm seeing doesn't even seem very interesting.  It certainly doesn't leave me wanting to find out more.  For me a fail.  For you not a fail.  Good thing too or we would never have any diversity.

True. From what i get it's a district 9 type of film. Dystopian apocalyptic future.
But the thread isn't just for this trailer. Please I invite you all to post trailers you find that are great.

[VincentLupo]

I'll do that just as soon as I see one.

[chouette]

I'll do that just as soon as I see one.

FYI - I don't think I've ever seen Vince post a trailer, lol

[alienmem]

I'll do that just as soon as I see one.

FYI - I don't think I've ever seen Vince post a trailer, lol

Will Vince prove you wrong?

[VincentLupo]

I sure will just as soon as I find a great trailer.

[alienmem]

What do you guys think of this one? It alo is vague Vince.

[alienmem]

This one is so awesome

[alienmem]

[ctaulbee]

[alienmem]

Can't go wrong with Charlize theron wearing almsot nothing.

[ctaulbee]

Can't go wrong with Charlize Theron wearing almost nothing.

Could not have said it better  

[VincentLupo]

I really enjoyed Requiem for a Dream but would have never watched it if I had seen that trailer.

[Fogdude]

I really enjoyed Requiem for a Dream but would have never watched it if I had seen that trailer.

[ctaulbee]

I really enjoyed Requiem for a Dream but would have never watched it if I had seen that trailer.

I just watched it and you are dead on Vince that sure would have been a poor way to sell that film.

[alienmem]

I really enjoyed Requiem for a Dream but would have never watched it if I had seen that trailer.

I just watched it and you are dead on Vince that sure would have been a poor way to sell that film.

That's what's great about art. It's not a science. there is no wrogn or right.
I for one think it's an amazing trailer.

With science you can surely say 2+2=5 is wrong. here with cover art, with art in general none of that can be said because it's not a science, it's not an exact science.

[alienmem]

here's another one I find absolutely amazing( I'm stil to see one of your posts..Come one guys)

[alienmem]

Well to me this is the greatest film of all time so the trailer would have to be here and i really think the trailer is awesome


here it is guys:

[alienmem]

Another one. Vinc won't be sold on this one but for me this is gold. Put Stanley Kubrick and Stepehn King in the credits...and just those last 30 seconds and it's pure gold. You don't need to know about the story. It's Kubrick and there's blood. that's it.

[ctaulbee]

That's what's great about art. It's not a science. there is no wrogn or right.
I for one think it's an amazing trailer.

With science you can surely say 2+2=5 is wrong. here with cover art, with art in general none of that can be said because it's not a science, it's not an exact science.

We will have to disagree on that summary, first off a trailer is a Ad for a movie with one purpose that is to get people into a theater to watch the film and sell tickets, as such the "art" defense does not apply or work for a "trailer".

I'm not saying a trailer can't be artsy but is should only be artsy if that helps to sell the viewer on watching the movie else it fails to do what it is intended to do.

Art is in the eye of the beholder and a trailer does not have the luxury of getting to be just a art expression alone, it has a much different reason to exist and because of that reason there is a right and wrong when it comes to measuring the success of trailers.

For example you would not make a TV Ad for coffee by having a hot woman sensually eat a orange while a cup of nearly unidentifiable coffee is just sitting there, nearly off screen and never touched.

Even if you did I think one should reasonably expect their coffee sales to be unaffected by the ad no matter how well it was done or how cool it might look as it would have failed in it's purpose, same thing.

[Fogdude]

Some of the best TV commercials I've ever seen, universally acclaimed as totally entertaining, failed every time, precisely because they are so entertaining. They distract the viewer from the product & while the viewer is entertained & even remembers the ad for years, they are hard pressed to tell you what product it was supposed to be selling. This is what happens when the art supercedes the ad & it fails to do the intended job.

[alienmem]

That's what's great about art. It's not a science. there is no wrogn or right.
I for one think it's an amazing trailer.

With science you can surely say 2+2=5 is wrong. here with cover art, with art in general none of that can be said because it's not a science, it's not an exact science.

We will have to disagree on that summary, first off a trailer is a Ad for a movie with one purpose that is to get people into a theater to watch the film and sell tickets, as such the "art" defense does not apply or work for a "trailer".

I'm not saying a trailer can't be artsy but is should only be artsy if that helps to sell the viewer on watching the movie else it fails to do what it is intended to do.

Art is in the eye of the beholder and a trailer does not have the luxury of getting to be just a art expression alone, it has a much different reason to exist and because of that reason there is a right and wrong when it comes to measuring the success of trailers.

For example you would not make a TV Ad for coffee by having a hot woman sensually eat a orange while a cup of nearly unidentifiable coffee is just sitting there, nearly off screen and never touched.

Even if you did I think one should reasonably expect their coffee sales to be unaffected by the ad no matter how well it was done or how cool it might look as it would have failed in it's purpose, same thing.

To me a trailer is nothing more than a little movie on it's own. Of course it has to be appealing but I do consider it an art. All art has to be appealing or it's considered bad art.


But i know what you man. A trailer has an agenda. But that can be said of a movie, a painting. It does have a purpose.

It can be bad art or good art though( as the case with you add. if you wanna sell bananas you're not gonna whow a monkey eating pineapples! lol)


But I know what you mean. They are in service of a "higher" thing.