IRON MAN Is The Super Bowl MVP - Page 2

Eh, yeah you're right, that's not significantly better. Point is that watching video from the internet mostly sucked in 2003.

That movement looks mo-capped as hell to me. Seeing how ILM beat my company out for the bid to do the FX for the film - much of that included CG suit design - I'm calling dirty dirty mo cap.

McNooj - Ive never seen The Mummy movies, I've heard that one instance was particularly awful. For the record, VFX companies share certain numbers of shots between themselves - so that could have been someone besides ILM? I'm not sure though. However, making manufactured CG elements look real is much easier than organic elements - which is why Transformers looked damn near seamless.

I was actually wondering if that portion was outsourced to a smaller FX house. But it seems like such a tentpole that I feel like ILM would've handled it themselves. It looks like there's a good chance that it wasn't though. IMDB lists several different companies for the movie's special effects AND look at all the movies on ILM's plate that year!

# The Majestic (2001)
# Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
# Planet of the Apes (2001)
# Jurassic Park III (2001)
# Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001)
# Pearl Harbor (2001)
# The Mummy Returns

In the case of organic vs. inorganic elements... Scorpion King was just plain baaaad. Transformers could've been bad too, but they brought their A-game to that one.

I couldn't give a rat's fat ass about that one scene. I'm just glad that RDJr. is in the suit. And the Giants won. And I had half a bottle of scotch and enjoyed myself. Booyah.

I liked it. Even the last shot.
I just don't get the attitude that everything in a fictional movie about a man wearing a supersonic flying robot suit he invented, fighting evil tanks has to look realistic.

Wrong thread.

The movement looks funky, and kind've stiff. But it's also a guy in a really heavy robotic armor suit.

I dunno, you could be right. I've looked this thing enough to be sick of looking at it though.

I would normally agree, but with everything we've seen before that shot has looking very good, and probably practical, it's easy to be concerned.

Oddly enough, that one shot looked like it didn't have to be very CG. It's just Tony in the suit turning and firing at a tank that blows up. Other than the weapon firing, where's the need for computer generated imagery?

We already know that there's a physical suit. There are pictures of it, including the spy footage. It seems like an odd place to need to not use it since he ain't doing much.

I'll throw my two Susan B. Anthonys into the game footage camp.

Not that it matters, but Sony Imageworks handled the majority of Sorcerer's Stone's FX.

And, no offense to anyone here, Sorcerer's Stone had terrible FX.

Personally, I thought Sorcerer's Stone had terrible Movie.

Usually I ignore discussions about bad cgi in trailers and every time someone says a special effect looks like it's from a video game they're exaggerating.

But then I watched the Iron Man spot. I'm sure that last bit is from the Iron Man video game.

It's always possible he flies off or something immediately following that snippet, all in the same shot. That could be an excuse for making Iron Man himself CGI, and possibly all the background elements as well.

Just speculatin'.

Here's the clip in HD

To me, is seems like more often than not FX seen in a trailer (or commercial) is usually what's in the final version of the film. Matrix, Star Wars, LOTR all had stuff that people thought would be fixed by release, and then it looked just like it did before. While the bit at the end didn't look 'real', I will say I liked the way he walked. It gave a good amount of weight to the suit.

I don't think it's a case of 'bringing their A game' as much as taking the budget into consideration. While ILM might have done both of those films, I'd be willing the guess that the budget difference had a good influence on the quality of effects seen on screen. Also, Scorpion King was 5 years ago - I think ILM has proven (with Pirates) that if they need to do photoreal organic characters nowadays, they can. But organic FX doesn't really apply to Iron Man.

As far as robotic characters (Iron Man is close enough to a Transformer in terms of effects), I'm guessing IM doesn't have quite the budget that TF did. I think TF was 150mil, and I'd guess that IM is probably around 100mil, maybe less? I don't know...

Has there ever been a case where a videogame cutscene went into a commercial for the film? If not, why are you guys so sure that it is from the game?

The part that bothers me is the fact that the iron suit looks like it's made of plastic. Check out that photo a few posts above, there is nothing metallic in that shine.

It's actually made of rock candy. And old J & B bottles.

Watching that motherfucker in HD - I really don't see the big contention. I suppose the disconnect with the rest of the material could be an issue, but it really looks excellent to my eyes.

Watching it a bunch of times, I think it's the environment that's a real problem not Iron Man himself.

Now that I've seen it in HD I know exactly what's "wrong" with the tank shot:
There is too much depth of field for a real lense. The matte painting ruins in the background are a little too blurry for such a shot. Then there is some lighting inconsistency with Ironman and the rooftops and add to that the keyframed animation of Ironman and u might get the impression that something is off.
But it's a cool shot nonetheless.

Well, he's not actually made of iron, silly. He just carries an "iron" with him. The tiny one from Monopoly... on a charm bracelet.

Christ, is there anything the internet can't ruin?

The spot looks fine. Great, even. But keep nitpicking, at least it keeps you off the streets.

Not surprsingly (or maybe= actually surprisingly), I think the HD version actually looks much better than the tiny Spike TV one.

Same here. I thought it was terrific. I don't nitpick about CGI anyway since I've never seen a guy in a robot suit blow up a tank in real life.

According to a USA Today poll, Iron Man's TV spot rated lowest amongst film spots (it's in the five least liked commercials of the night). Hopefully Paramount didn't just Hulk themselves.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/advert...terstitialskip

I think that's a really great point. The thing that bugs me about the shot isn't that it's bad. It looks really cool. But everything about it feels off from the other shots we've seen from the film.

In the case of depth of field, it's like whoever rendered out the shot pushed it way too far to make it look cool without even considering the limitations of real cameras. This is something that the visual effects of Zodiac did amazingly. Everything about it was right to the point that you didn't question its reality.

Everything in those last two shots is pushed too far. Like all they were concerned with was making it look cool. This is the case with most pre-rendered videogame cut scenes, only videogames don't have to worry about their work not looking 'real'. That's why I say that the shot is pretty cool. It just doesn't feel like it's from the same project.

On the same note has there ever been a case when a video game cutscene that looked that good and expensive? Nope. Besides, most games don't use pre-rendered cut scenes anymore.

It did worse than the Sales Genie spot? I mean...does that mean Iron Man should have had more racism in the trailer? Who would have thought fabfunk had his finger on the pulse of America? Who would have figured fabfunk actually touched something with a pulse?

I wouldn't trust any list that placed that "Planters" ad or the "Bud Firebreathing" ads as high as they were, that shit sucked.

Some of the Metal Gear Solid IV cut scenes look better than that last shot.

I have a bad feeling this won't really do big numbers. Whatever it means for sequels or more Downey badassery... with each new snippet this one single Iron Man movie looks more and more awesome.

Now where's the Hulk trailer?

Chris Myers, Maybe the trailer to The Incredible Hulk is being delayed til it is...Smashing.

I feel like that list is not very representative of real people.

I know that among the demographic that could give a fuck, I've heard nothing but good. I'm no random sampling, but I heard the words "Iron Man" more times to today (without me having to mention it first) than I have in the last six months. I have no illusions that Iron Man won't be making Spidey 3 bank, but I have a great deal of confidence that it will do more than well enough.

(It did incidentally make Spike's editors pick, soooo.... I guess that's cool?)

I think it'll do alot better than break even, but I don't think it ever had a chance of doing really great business on count of it being Iron Man. He's not that popular of a character.

I think that had alot to do with The Hulk's box office take as well more than the bad reviews or what was perceived early on as poor special effects, the vast majority of people in reality didn't notice or care. Same here.

I find it rather ridicoulus to make polls about fucking advertisments. Though it says alot about the society we live in.
Anyway I liked the trailer alot and the final shot doesn´t look half as bad in HD as in shitty stream. So i am not scared that this one won´t meet your expectations.
Regarding boxoffice numbers though I have a hard time believing that this will make huge money in Europe. Iron Man is simply a non-entity around here. Unless you can get the marketing angle right you are in for a problem.

I'm not really that surprised that the Iron Man ad didn't rate that well. Robert Downey Jr. is a better actor than he is a star draw and one line of dialogue from him just doesn't get across the idea that he's having a lot of fun with the part. You don't even hear his name in the trailer. The rest of the trailer is just quick flashes of special effects and in 2008 a flying superhero just isn't a big deal.

Add blink and you'll miss it shots of the villain and the love interest and you basically have a lot of sound and fury that signifies nothing to people that haven't already seen the original trailer. As part 2 of an advertising campaign, it explands what we saw in the earlier teaser. It's a lousy introduction for people that haven't been following the production though.

I wonder if the buzz would have been higher if they had made it with Tom Cruise like was rumored several years back.

Gotta agree with this. Even though it was nice to see new images, it was much less than what came before. Guess that Super Bowl ad time is too expensive for more than 30 seconds.

The one thing that I think separates the Wall-E commercial from all the other film commercials is that they didn't take it for granted that the audience was familiar with the movie already. It wasn't the most exciting, but it communicated what the movie was about clearly. Concentrating on the story first has been one of Pixar's trademarks and I think that helped them stand out in the crowd that was just interested in showing money shots and catch phrases.

Bingo! Was thinking exactly the same thing but couldn't find the right words at the time to articulate it.

If Tom Cruise played Tony Stark...the film would have to be set in the 1970's so platform shoes could be built into Iron Man's armored feet to make Tom appear taller.

I agree that the new trailer is more for fans of Iron Man than trying to attract new ones. I thought that the first trailer showed more of Tony Stark out of his Iron suit in order to introduce non fans to the character. Aside from the greatness that is Super Bowl XLII...I thought the only good ads were the Iron Man trailer, as well as Victoria Secrets, Fed Ex's giant pigeon, and the Macy's Parade with Charlie Brown finally winning at something.

I'd still have sex with that trailer.

Based on his performance in Last Samurai, I think Cruise would have made a great drunk and depressive Tony Stark. And it would easily be successful enough to stand up against Norton's Hulk. People didn't lose interest when he jumped on Oprah's couch (Lions would have failed at any time) and they won't when he tries to kill Hitler later this year.

Until I see a trailer that convinces me otherwise, I'm still sure that the new Hulk will easily beat Iron Man at the BO. Not in fun, or quality, but in numbers.

There are a new bunch of high resolution pictures online, and they are terrific.
We get to see all the cast members and lot's of Stark

What makes you think that exactly? I hadn't really thought to compare the two (though the comparison should be obvious) but I don't agree.

From my little perspective in the world (which would be surrounded by college kids) I hear a lot of interest in Iron Man wherever it's mentioned. The Dark Knight is kind of ruling all of course - but people like the idea of Iron Man. He's just not a huge character like Spidey. The Hulk though... I don't feel like people in general have much interest in him as a character, without even considering the Hulk movie. If you do consider the Hulk movie - which most people seem to unfailingly hate - I think the new one has a pretty big hurdle to jump. Even if it is fantastic, I think it will be dragged down by the bad taste of it's predecessor.

Batman had this problem. Begins did well, very well, but it's numbers are not as huge as current goodwill reflects. Batman grew a great deal on DVD (hence why I think DK will be fucking massive) and it took a while for everyone and their cat to get on the train. A large part of that was the shitty movies that came before it. That's just my little perspective.

Speaking as someone who is mostly ignorant of comic books in general and Iron Man specifically, I really have enjoyed the trailers I've seen so far. I think if the Super Bowl trailer had been the first one I had seen, though, I'd be less excited about the movie. It wasn't a bad trailer, it just didn't feel like the best way to market the film to a wider audience.

I think the best endorsement I can give to the film so far is that it makes me want to go out and pick up a few Iron Man comic books. Considering that comic book purchases for me are pretty damn rare, I think that's an impressive achievement.

People were certainly disappointed by the Hulk character (looks, behaviour etc), but still it's a huge household name. Everyone knows Hulk, just like everyone knowing Batman and Superman. But around here, no one has ever heard of Iron Man. I was asked twice already, why this new Robocop movie isn't named Robocop.

The trailer certainly works on every level. The action looks good, Downey is charismatic and the little fun parts create grins. But it's still nothing people go crazy about. It gets even less reaction than GHOST RIDER, which really would have fared similar if the appearance of Cage hadn't turn this into a hit.

I just don't think that Joe Somebody is all that interested in two non-popcorn actors duking it out in metal suits. Hulk may not have a better cast, but I assume a really well-made Hulk action montage drags in more than a well-made one for Stark, just because it's Hulk. As far as I know, they'll heavily rely on Hulk looking badass and destroying everything in sight.

And fighting Abomination who looks more bad ass and destroys even more than the Hulk.