by VincentLupo » Jun Sat 10, 2017 10:09 pm
by alienmem » Jun Sun 11, 2017 6:26 am
VincentLupo wrote: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.
by VincentLupo » Jun Mon 12, 2017 8:57 pm
by alienmem » Jun Mon 12, 2017 10:42 pm
VincentLupo wrote: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.
by VincentLupo » Jun Mon 12, 2017 10:48 pm
by chouette » Jun Mon 12, 2017 11:14 pm
VincentLupo wrote:I'll do that just as soon as I see one.
by alienmem » Jun Tue 13, 2017 8:29 am
chouette wrote:VincentLupo wrote: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
by VincentLupo » Jun Tue 13, 2017 10:33 am
by ctaulbee » Jun Tue 13, 2017 1:06 pm
by ctaulbee » Jun Tue 13, 2017 1:19 pm
alienmem wrote:Can't go wrong with Charlize Theron wearing almost nothing.
by VincentLupo » Jun Tue 13, 2017 6:21 pm
by Fogdude » Jun Tue 13, 2017 7:27 pm
VincentLupo wrote:I really enjoyed Requiem for a Dream but would have never watched it if I had seen that trailer.
by ctaulbee » Jun Tue 13, 2017 7:43 pm
VincentLupo wrote:I really enjoyed Requiem for a Dream but would have never watched it if I had seen that trailer.
by alienmem » Jun Wed 14, 2017 8:05 am
ctaulbee wrote:VincentLupo wrote: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.
by alienmem » Jun Wed 14, 2017 8:25 am
by alienmem » Jun Wed 14, 2017 8:29 am
by ctaulbee » Jun Wed 14, 2017 9:10 am
alienmem wrote: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.
by Fogdude » Jun Wed 14, 2017 9:18 am
by alienmem » Jun Wed 14, 2017 9:47 am
ctaulbee wrote:alienmem wrote: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.
Return to The Slippery Soapbox
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests