criterionforum.org

Antoine Doinel wrote:HD Trailer.

I guess this is the first time that a trailer has made me cry. To say that I'm looking forward to seeing this is, of course, an understatement.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:

kaujot wrote:The wartime CGI looks fucking awful.

Reminded me a bit of The Polar Express.

The Polar Express might be what he's going for:

If we must compare, I'd say these images are more akin to Jeunet than something like The Polar Express (not sure where this comparison comes from, other than the blue color scheme in the final shot - which looks considerably more Albert Whitlock than CG anyway). The second image is sort of how I imagined how Life of Pi will look when I heard Jeunet was directing that.

I agree that this is one of the greatest trailers of recent years.

I'll start worrying about this looking like The Polar Express when stills of Brad Pitt come back looking like this:



I love that last still in particular as well. A lot of the film was shot in Old Montreal last year, and it's nice to see such a great balance between location footage and digital editing.

Yes, the last still is beautiful. Fincher worked at old ILM when he was in his early twenties, most prominently in their matte department, so it's no surprise this vicinity of visual effects is his wheelhouse these days, and that he and his team get modern matte work to look so damn good with this film and Zodiac. Aside from some of Albert Whitlock's work, the last still recalls (for me) the old London mattes in Young Sherlock Holmes, old New York in Age of Innocence and the castles and towns in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Dylan wrote:If we must compare, I'd say these images are more akin to Jeunet than something like The Polar Express...

I agree. I wasn't attempting a comparison between the two necessarily. I just think those previous posters expecting hyper-realism are asking a rooster to lay eggs based on what Fincher's shown us so far. These landscapes are beautiful and detailed, but I'm not ready to call them realistic. He isn't afraid to mute and de-naturalize these backgrounds which, you are correct, is a lot like Jeunet's romanticism.

I just skipped to this part in caps:

FORREST GUMP meets BIG FISH meets THE NOTEBOOK

I presume the guy hated it.

swo17 wrote:I just skipped to this part in caps:

FORREST GUMP meets BIG FISH meets THE NOTEBOOK

I presume the guy hated it.

It was a very positive review actually. They just capitalize film titles on that site, they weren't adding emphasis. I think the comparison to those films is intended to be thematic, not artistic.

A low quality video of a TV spot that aired during the Olympics that features some new footage.

Wow, Fincher's giving another practically-a-rookie the chance to be DP on this.

lacritfan wrote:Wow, Fincher's giving another practically-a-rookie the chance to be DP on this.

Just be glad it's not Fred Durst.

Undeterred, Durst pressed on, becoming a regular fixture on David Fincher's sets (a pal and idol) while continuing to make the studio rounds

lacritfan wrote:Wow, Fincher's giving another practically-a-rookie the chance to be DP on this.

I imagine it's a bit like Godard's method of using cinematographers, post-Coutard: every couple of movies, the main cinematographers are replaced by their assistants from the prior features, and new assistants are brought in who are themselves eventually promoted to DP. For Godard, he likes someone who is knowledgeable and has had some experience, but hasn't become too ingrained in working a certain way. As for Fincher, I'm sure he could shoot his films himself if he had to, so again working with a DP with not so many credits allows him to exercise more control over the cinematography while still having someone else there to help out with the day-to-day business.

Uh ohs. Paramount and Fincher are butting heads over the final cut. Fincher's cut currently runs at three hours.

Dear studios,

Don't take a script based on an F. Scott Fitzgerald story and expect it to be a blockbuster. Let Fincher alone you finks!

ZOMG! The film will be the screen debut of Shiloh!

Another gorgeous trailer.

Trailers are at their best when they manage things like that one does at the end, with the the girl reaching to touch Benjamin's face as a child and again much later in her life (presumably shots at the beginning and end of the film). Juxtaposing moments which don't correspond chronologically, in the film, but which have a certain impact all their own when edited together, which they can be in the trailer.

It looks promising, although the CGI has me cringing in places.

A brief history of the film's development and it's central role in Paramount's Oscar bid this year.

The new trailer looks amazing. But is it just me or is this the Days of Heaven credits sequence stretched out to feature length...?

lacritfan wrote:Wow, Fincher's giving another practically-a-rookie the chance to be DP on this.

In his defense, Miranda is not exactly a rookie. He comes from ad-world, where he is first-tier.

An excellent profile of the film in the NY Times.

Alexandre Desplat is scoring the film. =D>

We know:

(from first page)

Dylan wrote:It's hardly the "Higher and Higher" of classical pieces insofar as trailer music goes. I personally believe "Aquarium" fits the trailer like a glove. With that said, the wonderful composer Alexandre Desplat (Birth) has already written an original score and recently recorded his music in London with a big orchestra. I'll wager his music (should we expect something of a Saen-Sans influence?) will be as beautiful as the visuals.

The trailer is gorgeous and the film certainly promises a good deal. But the CGI, in sections, is quite distracting, which surprises me given Fincher's successful track record of integrating CG with live action.

That said, specifically in relation to the CG/make-up on Pitt's character, what does a 100 year old baby or a 70 year old boy look like? This of course is no excuse for some of the poor compositing of elements, particularly in the boat sequences. Then again, maybe that's the best they could do with what they had?