Cosmic Smash
Member
Last edited:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Disclosure Day | Official Teaser | A film by Steven Spielberg
- Thread starter Cosmic Smash
- Start date
DirtInUrEye
Banned
I love Spielberg, but I was really hoping to not see CG wildlife.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Sad part is, AI now makes more convincing animals than CGI.
ForAcademicPurposes
Gold Member
I know absolutely fuck all about this and I'm going to see it in theaters anyway because aliens apparently. I even squinted my eyes upon opening this thread.
DirtInUrEye
Banned
I really miss Douglas Slocombe.
Still, this movie means we get one final John Williams score in the science fiction thriller mode, so I'm there for it.
Still, this movie means we get one final John Williams score in the science fiction thriller mode, so I'm there for it.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Herself.
They see countless examples of these butt chunk faces, and they're like, "I want that !!"
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
Hard pass. They could have tried to make the film a little bit more realistic. Also the red cardinal landing on the table looked really fake. They could have used a real bird
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
I noticed this too. How hard would it have been to use a real bird. I'm trying to place what decade this is supposedly set in. The flip phone is out of the mid 90's the house decor is early 80's but then you have super futuristic iron man dentists office. I hate this so much.
Also red cardinals symbolize spiritual connection. How trite. This film is making me retroactively hate E.T.
Last edited:
Superposition
Member
Looks interesting except that CGI Narnia animals.
Last edited:
DirtInUrEye
Banned
Let's not get silly now.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
I hope the flip side of Spielberg's pillow is always hot. Only people I hate more are Cameron and Nolan. I think I'm swearing off films. I'm done.
DirtInUrEye
Banned
Nolan and JJ for me. Well, I only hate the latter, but I'm yet to see Nolan's Jaws, or Raiders. And yet people still speak about him in the same breath as Spielberg, which is offensive. Jim Cameron on the other hand just went really boring after he became obsessed with those blue man group movies.
Audiophile
Member
It's getting increasingly difficult to watch movies with Emily Blunt in, the fillers/procedures she's had done have not only begun to ruin her natural beauty (she had it in the bag, the feck was she thinking?), but more importantly with her as an actress I'm finding myself distracted and having my immersion broken. Her cheeks have widened to a comical level, her lips are all puffed up and the bottom half of her face just doesn't move much, she pretty much has one expression in this entire trailer. Kind of like an aloof mouth breather who's perpetually in shock. Maybe she's the alien?
Our brains are wired just so to read the human faces and we know when we're seeing something which deviates in an unnatural way; and it genuinely pulls my attention, almost constantly. It's not a man-woman thing, a misogyny thing or a beauty standards thing (although I'd argue "you look beautiful without plastic surgery and were already aging wonderfully" is coming out on the right side of that one), it's primal alarm bells going off...that "this person doesn't look natural" and I can't concentrate on anything else. It's probably some innate response we have to not let diseased, inflamed people into the tribe.
Even in Oppenheimer, every time I saw her on screen I was distracted. Frankly I think directors should blacklist people who do this, it's an affront to the art and again, a distraction for the audience. Heck, I've just watched a trailer for a new Spielberg sci-fi movie and I spent most of it thinking "Emily Blunt's face looks ridiculous".
If you elect to mess up your beautiful face over insecurity, you shouldn't get jobs where you have to use it to convey emotion and assimilate into a character; as I can't suspend disbelief and view you as anyone but the person with the intentionally messed up face. It's an imposition on any sort of cohesion in the art. You shouldn't get work after that unless character is "person who ruins face with plastic surgery".
Also, you can't act as well when your face is getting stiffer and small facial cues are effectively papered over.
The CGI animals are a distraction too. That shot of the girl and the animals walking up to the house at the end looks comical.
Overall this actually looks quite bland as well.
With exception to West Side Story which I have zero interest in as a concept, this might be the first Spielberg I can think of that I'm probably gonna skip based on the fact that it looks kinda naff and indistinct. And is then made worse by an actress who takes me out of the movie on account of her facial procedures, and uncanny CGI. Expected better from Spielberg, The Fabelmans which I watched recently was wonderful.
After hearing the bubbly-clicky alien sounds in this, I think I'll just go watch Signs again instead...
Finally, while I'm on a negativity bender here, Universal really should be able to do better than a hyper-compressed, blocky trailer deliverable that's been poorly created then uploaded in 1080p. They're a multibillion dollar studio, I'm pretty sure they should be able to properly handle and upload trailers for maximum quality. Looks terrible on my TV.
Our brains are wired just so to read the human faces and we know when we're seeing something which deviates in an unnatural way; and it genuinely pulls my attention, almost constantly. It's not a man-woman thing, a misogyny thing or a beauty standards thing (although I'd argue "you look beautiful without plastic surgery and were already aging wonderfully" is coming out on the right side of that one), it's primal alarm bells going off...that "this person doesn't look natural" and I can't concentrate on anything else. It's probably some innate response we have to not let diseased, inflamed people into the tribe.
Even in Oppenheimer, every time I saw her on screen I was distracted. Frankly I think directors should blacklist people who do this, it's an affront to the art and again, a distraction for the audience. Heck, I've just watched a trailer for a new Spielberg sci-fi movie and I spent most of it thinking "Emily Blunt's face looks ridiculous".
If you elect to mess up your beautiful face over insecurity, you shouldn't get jobs where you have to use it to convey emotion and assimilate into a character; as I can't suspend disbelief and view you as anyone but the person with the intentionally messed up face. It's an imposition on any sort of cohesion in the art. You shouldn't get work after that unless character is "person who ruins face with plastic surgery".
Also, you can't act as well when your face is getting stiffer and small facial cues are effectively papered over.
The CGI animals are a distraction too. That shot of the girl and the animals walking up to the house at the end looks comical.
Overall this actually looks quite bland as well.
With exception to West Side Story which I have zero interest in as a concept, this might be the first Spielberg I can think of that I'm probably gonna skip based on the fact that it looks kinda naff and indistinct. And is then made worse by an actress who takes me out of the movie on account of her facial procedures, and uncanny CGI. Expected better from Spielberg, The Fabelmans which I watched recently was wonderful.
After hearing the bubbly-clicky alien sounds in this, I think I'll just go watch Signs again instead...
Finally, while I'm on a negativity bender here, Universal really should be able to do better than a hyper-compressed, blocky trailer deliverable that's been poorly created then uploaded in 1080p. They're a multibillion dollar studio, I'm pretty sure they should be able to properly handle and upload trailers for maximum quality. Looks terrible on my TV.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Poppinfresh
Banned
The first part of the trailer was great, but when they cut to the brightly lit (presumably) underground bunker with all of the TV screens, I lost interest, then there was the scene with the agents bursting through the door and I lost what little interest I had left.
It just seems so derivative of a bunch of other alien movies.
Was hoping for another masterpiece like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but this probably ain't it.
It just seems so derivative of a bunch of other alien movies.
Was hoping for another masterpiece like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but this probably ain't it.
Audiophile
Member
In good news, Minority Report just came out on 4K UHD if anyone wants some Spielberg Sci-Fi fix.
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt
Biggest Trails Stan
John Bilbo
Gold Member
The CGI was made by aliens.
Windle Poons
Made a crappy phPBB forum once ... once.
They Live - Part II
The Cockatrice
I'm retarded?
U aint missing much buddy.
falconhoof
Member
I'm so glad they used the trailer drum sound in it or else I would have had no idea I was watching a 2025 trailer.
Giallo Corsa
Member
She did it to herself, no one forced her.
I can't watch her plastic, almost smug, fake face anymore, she looks like she's in a constant duck face pose
Fucking Holyweird man...
PS : she's the new Pedro Pascal, I'm having Blunt fatigue
Last edited:
It could be that the CGI is not final... hopefully. Maybe they rushed it to the trailer.
It seems like there are several periods here, I think the child is Emili's older character maybe?
And Spielberg is still using too clean shots here, I dunno who the cinematographer is but it's prob the same as West Side Story which I couldn't watch because it looked so fake.
It seems like there are several periods here, I think the child is Emili's older character maybe?
And Spielberg is still using too clean shots here, I dunno who the cinematographer is but it's prob the same as West Side Story which I couldn't watch because it looked so fake.
Sticks
Al Pachinko, Konami President
falconhoof
Member
Word has it that Emily Blunt's face isn't final either and was rushed for the trailer.
Audiophile
Member
Spielberg has worked exclusively with Janusz Kaminski since '93 (on live action feature films) and is using him here too. The shots here don't look as universally strong as in other films or trailers of his, though again, same DP and shot on 35mm with Panavision cameras and lenses. Might not help though that the terrible encode is erasing the texture.
Last edited:
Trogdor1123
Member
I was thinking the same. I was expecting it too be less overt.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Thank you. That is where it kind of lost me.
Arrival had a much better teaser, trailer and build up in the film.
falconhoof
Member
Arrival came to mind as I watched this, and by the end of the trailer I was left feeling like I'd just seen a lesser Arrival.
Spielberg knows how to nail the balance of holding back for effect. This trailer felt like it wasn't holding back, maybe that's the fault of the trailer cut, though I would have thought that Spielberg would have had final say on it.
SirKicksalot
Member
The evil humans are remotely controlling people, the good aliens are remotely controlling animals (and people a little bit).
Blunt and the guy with big ears escape a car while it's being mangled by a train, but they're teasing CGI animals instead...
Blunt and the guy with big ears escape a car while it's being mangled by a train, but they're teasing CGI animals instead...
Aesius
Member
So many actors and actresses are actually aging worse than they would naturally because they're having terrible work done. I think part of the problem is that most of them absurdly thin/low body fat, which hollows out their faces, causes sunken cheeks, and makes even basic stuff like Botox and minor fillers look even more prominent and unnatural.
Trilobit
Absolutely Cozy
It's a bit shocking that CG animals haven't been perfected since I Am Legend. That movie's deer looked basically as good as that reindeer.
Come on, sure Emily Blunt has a weird botox face these days, but it isn't that bad.
Last edited: