Have ruined YouTube movies?

It is an increasingly familiar phenomenon. From clips online to "red band" trailers, it is possible for movie fans to see large chunks of their favorite film prior to its official release. If they make pilgrimage to the influential San Diego Comic-Con, they can see so many 10 or 20 minute show reels of upcoming deals from studio slate that they could probably stitch together a Frankenstein Monster of a movie, a harlequin bits and pieces.

All part of the marketing strategy of modern film, but perhaps process begins to belittle experiences sit in darkness and expect to be surprised by the latest blockbuster. Have we been so devastated by YouTube, we believe that nothing of viewing ' edited highlights ' out of context or dramatic heft?

PR folk music is, of course, in shops that make even the most mediocre product look enticing, so these previews cover all the coolest explosions in a blockbuster (or the best jokes in a comedy)-the so-called ' money shot '? The very existence of the ' red band ' trailers are designed to ensure that horror films (usually censored by their Runaway set-pieces) do not get left. Trouble is, when you get to see the actual film, you realize that there isn't an awful amount back in the spaces in between!

The second problem is overkill. Exclusivity is fine, except for the PRS is not everything, the accounting regulations on exclusivity. The same clip is fired across the Internet, and it is rare to find a film blog which are not automatically republished it. Fanboys-in constant fear of being left out of the pack-propagating the meme to the point where it becomes meaningless, just a different toxin polluting our capacity to enjoy the movie, when it comes to the last out.

There are a couple of directors who have learned to catering to Comic-Con crowd. Christopher Nolans use of enigmatic Easter egg hunts generate enormous buzz without actually giving something important away. Even when he finally gets to release enhanced recordings-mainly, the opening sequence from The Dark Knight-not the film's overall dilute the narrative effect. Not coincidentally, Nolans last film has been among the largest cinema visits hits in the recent past.

But marketing departments less adept at supplying information to the hungry blogosphere, back-handed attempt to hype is increasingly counter-productive. Maybe before too long, the answer might be to take the radical step of releasing nothing until the movie is released. For the modern audience, the thrill of seeing something genuinely new might be more valuable than even a sneak peek.

View the original article here

I am thinking: is comic book movies ruined by actor face-time?

It seems a general trend in comic book movies, regardless of who the character is, the actor portraying he or she needs for a consistent amount of face-time. I began to dwell on this issue recently after watching Spider-Man trilogy. It seemed Tobey Maguire would lose/remove his mask in almost every fight scene? Maguire was constant face time worth ruining your secret identity aspect to Spider-Man characters altogether? Someone would probably recognise Peter Parker in one of these moments from the movies. I hope Sony has learned of this, and we can't see Andrew Garfield loose his mask in each action scene. However, based on his growing fame from his work on social networks, we are likely.

It is not only of Spider-Man franchise, which has been plagued by actor face-time harmful aspect of the character. In 2003, target audiences, which then would have seen Daredevil, what has become a classic comic book movie cliché where superhero removes or input text his mask in the final battle. In Daredevil case, Ben Affleck, the need for face-time, however, was just one of the many questions that are wrong with the film.

X-men franchise had one of the most popular cartoon characters of all time stripped from his mask completely. Yes, I talk about Wolverine. Sure it would have looked a bit daft to have Hugh Jackman is running in a mask, but on the other hand, was the decision for him not to wear a really based on this? Or was it based on the studios don't want to cover one of their high profile actor face? If done right, (Batman Begins style), would have functioned Wolverine wearing a mask on the screen. Especially since mutants would certainly want to keep their identities secret. Wearing masks would have portrayed as beautiful.

It does not seem like the persistent face-time in comic book movies will slow down anytime soon. Anyone who has seen the iron man movie would know the Ol Shell head stops rarely his mask in the films, despite the use of clever camera shot of RDJ inside the helmet. As soon as you look for me to remove his mask or helmet hero, fights over. And in the Iron Man film, the fighting was never long.

There have been a little fan-boy concern over how Chris Attic worth rarely is seen wearing his helmet in the Thor film. For a Nordic God\warrior, wearing a helmet would act as a daily essential. Especially since the minor characters (Heimdall, Royal guards) etc in the film seem to manage it. While I have not seen enough of Captain America: the first Avenger judging, one can only hope Chris Evans loses his helmet, since it is a World War 2 film, Captain America could easily be shot in the head.

This is not a huge problem right now, but with the comic book movie industry thrives, it soon would be.

And don't even get me started on the Ryan Reynolds and his mask in Green Lantern.

View the original article here