TEASER TRAILER is here / Release Date is August 5

[PsyKore]

I think it's well shot but it also has a "straight to DVD" kinda look to it. Hoping for the best, however, because it's an interesting take.

[Stitch]

That now some kid is supposedly going to defeat an alien killing machine with superior technology.

The original was defeated by accidentally standing in the wrong spot.

It's almost like it's always been the point that innate human ingenuity and wit has been more valuable than our technology and strength.

Calling it now. She beats the predator with a bear/sasquatch. No logs this time, she just straight up lures the Predator into a bigger opponent's territory.

Human ingenuity and local knowledge.

[KiramidHead]

What about an arrow to the knee?

[Corporal Hicks]

He used to be a Predator until...

[Voodoo Magic]

Royce and Isabella were arguably far better opponents than Harrigan was. If anything, 'Predator 2' probably represents the lowest quality of human opponents, so far: Random, disorganised gangsters high on drugs, a guy with a sword cane and... Harrigan.

Don't you put my man Harrigan down, Eric! 








May 22, 2022, 07:20:09 AM

Do you just always have a folder of shirtless Danny Glover pics?

More a couple of hard drives worth that I take with me wherever I go.

[BlueMarsalis79]

A couple of terabytes. 

[Voodoo Magic]

A couple of terabytes. 

At least! 

[HuDaFuK]

I think it's well shot but it also has a "straight to DVD" kinda look to it.

I really don't understand how people are getting that from all of 30 seconds of footage.

[St_Eddie]

I think it's well shot but it also has a "straight to DVD" kinda look to it.

I really don't understand how people are getting that from all of 30 seconds of footage.

The shot composition and cinematography.

[RidgeTop]

I think it's well shot but it also has a "straight to DVD" kinda look to it.

I really don't understand how people are getting that from all of 30 seconds of footage.

The shot composition and cinematography.

Idk those both look good to me from what little is shown.

[St_Eddie]

Idk those both look good to me from what little is shown.

That's fair enough. I was just explaining why I and a few other people are getting a straight-to-streaming/TV movie vibe from the visuals (which obviously the film is, technically speaking but one might have hoped that it didn't nessercerily have to look that way aesthetically).  It's grand that some aren't getting that vibe at all from the brief teaser but it's certainly what it immediately looked like to me (kinda flat and distinctly uncinematic).

[HuDaFuK]

The shot composition and cinematography.

Perhaps I should've been more specific - I really don't see what about those two/three shots included in the teaser screamed budget/DTV.

Plus, you know, it's two/three brief shots totalling about 30 seconds of intentionally innocuous footage out of the entire movie. Just seems like a massive leap to me.

[St_Eddie]

Perhaps I should've been more specific - I really don't see what about those two/three shots included in the teaser screamed budget/DTV.

Again; the shot composition and cinematography.

Plus, you know, it's two/three brief shots totalling about 30 seconds of intentionally innocuous footage out of the entire movie. Just seems like a massive leap to me.

Well, naturally.  I don't think anyone is making sweeping claims about the movie as a whole, nor have they claimed to be.  Everyone here is just giving their initial thoughts in regards to some early teaser trailer footage.  I wasn't alone in having a reaction of it very much looking like a made-for-streaming film.  It's one of the first thoughts which entered my mind upon seeing the footage.  I'm pleased that you didn't share that thought but that doesn't invalidate other people's reactions, any more than their reactions invalidate yours.

[SiL]

There is nothing wrong or "direct to TV" about the shot compositions.

"The cinematography" is so uselessly vague as a reason. What about it is direct to video?

The heavy orange on the colour grade is the only thing that makes any of it look cheap to me, like they just cranked  the temperature for a golden hour glow, but I've seen worse in cinema.

[St_Eddie]

There is nothing wrong or "direct to TV" about the shot compositions.

...in your opinion.  Not in mine.  As I previously said; I felt that the footage looked very uncinematic, in my opinion.  Obviously your millage may vary.

"The cinematography" is so uselessly vague as a reason. What about it is direct to video?

The heavy orange on the colour grade is the only thing that makes any of it look cheap to me, like they just cranked  the temperature for a golden hour glow, but I've seen worse in cinema.

I can throw all the technical jargon in the world your way and it's not going to convince you of seeing something that you can't see, nor would I care to.  Equally, nothing you say is going to invalidate my own subjective response.  It's a response I had.  It happened.  It is valid, by mere virtue of the thought entering my mind.  You can't say "something in your brain made you think that the footage looked like a straight-to-streaming film. Your brain is wrong and you imagined that you thought that because it's just not possible."  Your mind is not my own.  I think what I think and my opinion is as valid as your own.  You seem to be struggling to appreciate that not everyone thinks the same way as yourself, or has the same reactions to stimuli.

It also bears repeating that this is literally a straight-to-streaming film, so it seems daft to say that there's no possible way that this literal thing looks like said literal thing.