OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL TRAILER

I cannot express how much I love that they're doing the color-switching here. Also they look to be taking some inspiration from the books as well, which is neat.

Also, that last shot of the hand? Total vintage Raimi.

I actually went"

"WHOA COLOR!!!" when the teaser went to color.

I'm in.  Franco looks very suited to the role of the Wizard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

 

Also, that last shot of the hand? Total vintage Raimi.

That last shot of the hand actually got a giddy giggle out of me. My girlfriend was completely lost as to why what seemed like a throwaway shot of a hand would get that kind of reaction. To be fair, she only know Raimi from the Spider-Man films.

Some of the CGI-heavy fantasyscapes remind me of Burton's Alice, but it looks promising.

Ticket sold.

It wasn't the look of Alice I had a problem with, it was the godawful script and the general soullessness of the thing.  None of that looks to be on display here.

Looks like Raimi being Raimi, but within the confines (which are vast) of a colorful, magical, wacky world. I'm in.

Also loving the way the trailer swaps from B&W to color.

The CGI is certainly heavy and the visual comparison to ALICE IN WONDERLAND is certainly valid, but it's Raimi and Franco and flying monkeys and I'm toally sold.

The CGI backlash has always seemed utterly bizarre to me. Criticize CGI if it's bad or poorly used, not just if it's there. This isn't aimed specifically at you, Sebastian, but it's something I've seen too much both here and elsewhere.

Hell, even doofy-looking CGI has its charms. Look at Blade II, where it's not remotely "realistic" but (with the exception of the ninja fight, which even del Toro groans about in the commentary) nevertheless captures a lot of the fluidity and dynamic imagery of comics and anime.

Also, who wants to bet they're gonna take some inspiration from Wicked? They'd be foolish not to take at least a little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Also, who wants to bet they're gonna take some inspiration from Wicked?

I really hope not.

Less the musical than the book is what I meant. And anyway, I've never really had the hate-on for Wicked some Broadway or Oz snobs have, even the musical (which is at least sung powerfully on the original cast album).

Y'know, I liked Wicked-- the play and the book-- but I really can't see Raimi taking on much from either for inspiration. It's tonge-in-cheek enough that it could actually be right up his alley, but I don't get the sense that he's telling a story that's all that similar to the narrative of the novel/musical.

As for the CGI backlash comment-- I think it's a matter of preference. I absolutely agree that you should criticize CGI if it's bad, not just if it's present, but some people feel a greater pull toward practical effects and favor minimal use of CGI. I can understand that. Not that there's no such thing as bad practical effects work, but I can get why someone might prefer practical stuff over computer-generated stuff.

I'd be lying if I said the Burton-y / Alice in Wonderland aesthetic didn't bother me slightly, but its going to take a lot more than that to make me un-excited for new Raimi.  I'm really curious to see what he does with all those lush colorful CG environments.  Definitely feels like uncharted territory for him.

Oh, absolutely, I just hate the automatic kneejerk response. Especially the "Nothing's been equaled since Jurassic Park/Starship Troopers!" reaction. Newsflash: yes, the CGI in those hold up astonishingly well. But they managed to accomplish that by both mixing it with practical, and working their asses off on the actual CGI.

Honestly, my general preference for current movies is a mix of whatever you can feasibly do practically/motion capture and pure CGI. It's why the effects work in the Avengers seems nearly seamless to me. There's a ton of practical stunts, explosions and motion capture, mixed with straight-up CGI for stuff like the Chitauri ships and Iron Man flying around blowing crap up. Raimi loves that mixture as well, and that looks to be the case here too.

Incidentally, I also disagree that this looks particularly "Burton-y". It looks like a general update of what the 1939 film would look like 'twere it made today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Honestly, my general preference for current movies is a mix of whatever you can feasibly do practically/motion capture and pure CGI. It's why the effects work in the Avengers seems nearly seamless to me. There's a ton of practical stunts, explosions and motion capture, mixed with straight-up CGI for stuff like the Chitauri ships and Iron Man flying around blowing crap up. Raimi loves that mixture as well, and that looks to be the case here too.

If every FX-centric film ever could be executed well with practical effects, that would be my preference. But that's not (sorry in advance) practical (sorry again); for one, not every director knows how to work well with practical effects, and might have a better hand for CGI. And not every movie needs to be told using the same approaches. So realistically, I'm with you, but I LOVE well-done practical effects versus well-done CGI effects (if I have to choose between the two).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Incidentally, I also disagree that this looks particularly "Burton-y". It looks like a general update of what the 1939 film would look like 'twere it made today.

It looks slightly Alice in Wonderland-ish. But Raimi looks like he's playing with a vaster sense of imagination and a far more complete color palette. The biggest problems with Alice, in the end, weren't really aesthetic, though, so I think early comparisons between the two are just premature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Incidentally, I also disagree that this looks particularly "Burton-y". It looks like a general update of what the 1939 film would look like 'twere it made today.

Maybe.  I never actually saw Burton's Alice in Wonderland, so essentially I am just comparing trailers, but there were more than a couple shots that seemed interchangeable, at least as far as the visual effects go.

But regardless, the CG in general doesn't bother me.  Raimi knows what hes doing.  Drag Me To Hell leaned heavily on CG in places where the Evil Dead movies would have gone practical, but in the end it didn't matter because it still falls right in line with the overall tone.  Granted, a lot of that CG work was extremely goofy and unconvincing, but its not like Ted Raimi bumbling around in the giant Henrietta suit was the apex of realistic FX work either.  

agracru: For me, it's like the debate of hand-drawn versus CGI or stop-motion. Each offers their own distinct pleasures and possibilities for film-making, even if you mix the two.

My point about the CGI, and I know you weren't calling me out Chris, was simply that there's a lot of it. And since the reference point for this film is a film from 1939 when computers basically did not exist, it's something you immediately register. That is all.

Ah, gotcha. Although apparently at the Comic-Con panel, Mila Kunis said there were actually plenty of built sets.

I actually did rewatch the original Wizard of Oz recently, and it's amazing how... unreal it looks. Not "fake", but there's an appropriately dreamy and artificial look to the sets and matte paintings. In a way, it reminds me of the original Star Wars, where stuff didn't necessarily look "real", but it convinced you of its reality.

I actually really appreciate CGI and the worlds it can create. The downside is that it is so often used as a crutch. My feelings about it can be summed up this way: I love it as a tool for the imagination but hate it when it promotes laziness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

I actually really appreciate CGI and the worlds it can create. The downside is that it is so often used as a crutch. My feelings about it can be summed up this way: I love it as a tool for the imagination but hate it when it promotes laziness.

Precisely.