The dude has got the muscles but I just don't see Superman in his face. I find it a bit distracting. It's just me, but i don't know what it is. Something is awry. Anyway, It's small potatoes. Hope it's a great flick I wish him and it well.
I haven't had issues but Cavill as Superman. We haven't seen any images of him as Kent yet. THATS the look I'm not sure he can pull off. Cavill does seem ackward enough to be Kent...so far.
The dude has got the muscles but I just don't see Superman in his face. I find it a bit distracting. It's just me, but i don't know what it is. Something is awry. Anyway, It's small potatoes. Hope it's a great flick I wish him and it well.
I was used to seeing him on The Tudors. Had a hard time imagining him as Superman.
The dude has got the muscles but I just don't see Superman in his face. I find it a bit distracting. It's just me, but i don't know what it is. Something is awry. Anyway, It's small potatoes. Hope it's a great flick I wish him and it well.
I haven't had issues but Cavill as Superman. We haven't seen any images of him as Kent yet. THATS the look I'm not sure he can pull off. Cavill does seem ackward enough to be Kent...so far.
M
I was just thinking that we hadn't seen him as adult Clark yet this morning. Additionally I wondered how much, if any, adult Clark will be in the film?
The dude has got the muscles but I just don't see Superman in his face. I find it a bit distracting. It's just me, but i don't know what it is. Something is awry. Anyway, It's small potatoes. Hope it's a great flick I wish him and it well.
I haven't had issues but Cavill as Superman. We haven't seen any images of him as Kent yet. THATS the look I'm not sure he can pull off. Cavill does seem ackward enough to be Kent...so far.
M
I was just thinking that we hadn't seen him as adult Clark yet this morning. Additionally I wondered how much, if any, adult Clark will be in the film?
My guess is he doesn't don the mild mannered reporter guise until the very end of the film, so he can be closer to Lois.
Music from the first trailer. Very long song. Pretty sure its not actually from the movie, just the a temp track for the trailer. Still. good stuff if you're interested.
Has anyone seen a movie promoting the military like this before. Obviously, the military has been involved with Hollywood for a long time. they want to look good, the movies want to look good, and the military wants people to watch them and go "wow... maybe I should do that."
But I've never seen a movie tie in with the National Guard before. At the bottom of Solider of Steel.com there is a "Learn More" button and a "Join now" button. Never seen anything like that before. Not sure I like it. I'm not anti-military or anything, its just a little too much.
@Planeis it may be that MofS is being more obvious about it, but there have been a number of films doing integrated marketing with branches of the military in the past. The Transformers franchise, Battleship, and many more. As I understand it, the military pays for this by providing locations, equipment, and even personnel. And in return they get approval over how the military is portrayed in the film, as well as marketing/recruiting opportunities tied to the film.
@Planeis it may be that MofS is being more obvious about it, but there have been a number of films doing integrated marketing with branches of the military in the past. The Transformers franchise, Battleship, and many more. As I understand it, the military pays for this by providing locations, equipment, and even personnel. And in return they get approval over how the military is portrayed in the film, as well as marketing/recruiting opportunities tied to the film.
I aint never seen anything like this before. I've read about military use in movies before and read what directors have said, specifically regarding movies Top Gun, Transformers and others. Its my understanding that the military, if they choose to participate, make people and or equipment available. But the production pays for it whenever possible. So if Top Gun uses Navy jets, the movie production pays for the fuel and the personnel. Movies are perfectly willing to do this because the production value of having real jets in the movie or real tanks and real military people (in certain situations).
In fact, I don't think the military's use has to even be "positive" for them to participate. There have been movies they haven't exactly been portrayed positively, but they've allowed use of the equipment because the movie was being accurate. In other cases they have declined to participate because they didn't understand their "role", like in the Avengers.
Just never seen "National Guard" or military tie ins directly into posters, t shirts, and websites.
Walked into one today and it should be called crapmart. Junk every where. Most walmarts around here are getting facelifts but still have junk merchandise and the staff/customers are scare-reee! What do you see when you walk into Walmarts, crap food, chips soda, etc. it's a bad scene man. Will only go there now in emergency. They could use Superman's help.
@Planeis it may be that MofS is being more obvious about it, but there have been a number of films doing integrated marketing with branches of the military in the past. The Transformers franchise, Battleship, and many more. As I understand it, the military pays for this by providing locations, equipment, and even personnel. And in return they get approval over how the military is portrayed in the film, as well as marketing/recruiting opportunities tied to the film.
I aint never seen anything like this before. I've read about military use in movies before and read what directors have said, specifically regarding movies Top Gun, Transformers and others. Its my understanding that the military, if they choose to participate, make people and or equipment available. But the production pays for it whenever possible. So if Top Gun uses Navy jets, the movie production pays for the fuel and the personnel. Movies are perfectly willing to do this because the production value of having real jets in the movie or real tanks and real military people (in certain situations).
In fact, I don't think the military's use has to even be "positive" for them to participate. There have been movies they haven't exactly been portrayed positively, but they've allowed use of the equipment because the movie was being accurate. In other cases they have declined to participate because they didn't understand their "role", like in the Avengers.
Just never seen "National Guard" or military tie ins directly into posters, t shirts, and websites.
You are right that the access is still paid for, so it is not necessarily a trade for free use-- but certainly from some of the reporting I have seen, the, let's call it the "rental" cost, on real military equipment, locations, and personnel end up being far cheaper than what filmmakers could likely get their hands on in the private sector or fake themselves. That is, if they are willing to play ball.
I think the arrangement varies by project, but there has been reporting on the US Military taking an active role in the approval/rewriting of the Transformers scripts. I am sure there are better or longer articles to be found, but on a quick Google, here is the lead from a Wired article about Transformers 2:
Hollywood action director Michael Bay enlisted the U.S. military to provide realistic props for his 2007 giant-robot epic Transformers. After the Pentagon helped rewrite the script, Bay got access to helicopters, warships and — for just $25,000 an hour — F-22 stealth fighters.
As we speak, Bay is shooting a sequel that has even more U.S. military hardware on display, according to USA Today. The director set up shop at White Sands, a test range in New Mexico, standing in for Egypt, where the new movie’s climactic battle takes place. "As far as I know, this is the biggest joint military operation movie ever made," said Bay’s liaison officer from the Army.
The list of military assets for the White Sands shoot included:
two A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" tank-killing jets; six F-16 Fighting Falcons; 10 armored Humvees; the Army’s Golden Knights parachute team; two Abrams tanks; two Bradley tanks; two missile-launcher vehicles; two armored personnel carriers; and a quarter-mile of the missile testing range, cleared of unexploded ordnance …
Plus, an F-22, apparently from the new Raptor base at nearby Holloman, buzzed overhead, playing the role of Transformers bad guy Starscream.
And if you Google around, there is probably a lot more reporting on the relationship (and past deals) between film productions and the military.
Including how the Navy used Battleship in its advertising:
"So happy is the Navy with its starring role in one of the summer's biggest action films that it has been touting "Battleship" in recruitment ads it runs in cinemas and featuring promotional content from the film on its YouTube channel and Facebook pages."
@Planeis it may be that MofS is being more obvious about it, but there have been a number of films doing integrated marketing with branches of the military in the past. The Transformers franchise, Battleship, and many more. As I understand it, the military pays for this by providing locations, equipment, and even personnel. And in return they get approval over how the military is portrayed in the film, as well as marketing/recruiting opportunities tied to the film.
I aint never seen anything like this before. I've read about military use in movies before and read what directors have said, specifically regarding movies Top Gun, Transformers and others. Its my understanding that the military, if they choose to participate, make people and or equipment available. But the production pays for it whenever possible. So if Top Gun uses Navy jets, the movie production pays for the fuel and the personnel. Movies are perfectly willing to do this because the production value of having real jets in the movie or real tanks and real military people (in certain situations).
In fact, I don't think the military's use has to even be "positive" for them to participate. There have been movies they haven't exactly been portrayed positively, but they've allowed use of the equipment because the movie was being accurate. In other cases they have declined to participate because they didn't understand their "role", like in the Avengers.
Just never seen "National Guard" or military tie ins directly into posters, t shirts, and websites.
You are right that the access is still paid for, so it is not necessarily a trade for free use-- but certainly from some of the reporting I have seen, the, let's call it the "rental" cost, on real military equipment, locations, and personnel end up being far cheaper than what filmmakers could likely get their hands on in the private sector or fake themselves. That is, if they are willing to play ball.
I think the arrangement varies by project, but there has been reporting on the US Military taking an active role in the approval/rewriting of the Transformers scripts. I am sure there are better or longer articles to be found, but on a quick Google, here is the lead from a Wired article about Transformers 2:
Hollywood action director Michael Bay enlisted the U.S. military to provide realistic props for his 2007 giant-robot epic Transformers. After the Pentagon helped rewrite the script, Bay got access to helicopters, warships and — for just $25,000 an hour — F-22 stealth fighters.
As we speak, Bay is shooting a sequel that has even more U.S. military hardware on display, according to USA Today. The director set up shop at White Sands, a test range in New Mexico, standing in for Egypt, where the new movie’s climactic battle takes place. "As far as I know, this is the biggest joint military operation movie ever made," said Bay’s liaison officer from the Army.
The list of military assets for the White Sands shoot included:
two A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" tank-killing jets; six F-16 Fighting Falcons; 10 armored Humvees; the Army’s Golden Knights parachute team; two Abrams tanks; two Bradley tanks; two missile-launcher vehicles; two armored personnel carriers; and a quarter-mile of the missile testing range, cleared of unexploded ordnance …
Plus, an F-22, apparently from the new Raptor base at nearby Holloman, buzzed overhead, playing the role of Transformers bad guy Starscream.
And if you Google around, there is probably a lot more reporting on the relationship (and past deals) between film productions and the military.
Including how the Navy used Battleship in its advertising:
"So happy is the Navy with its starring role in one of the summer's biggest action films that it has been touting "Battleship" in recruitment ads it runs in cinemas and featuring promotional content from the film on its YouTube channel and Facebook pages."
You might be right about Battleship. I vaguely recall some weird recruitment stuff going on with them. I've read about the Transformers things and heard Bay talk about it. My understanding was the edits they made were to make their portrayal more realistic. For instance, on the commentary track of the first movie Bay is talking about a scene where some jets are being called in on an airstrike and the guys were like, "so.... what do you want us to say?" and he basically said (or claims to have said) "hey, you guys do this for real, so... just say what you would say if a REAL strike was being called in."
Anyway, you might be right about that Battleship thing. Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall it and I remember being mildly annoyed about it at the time. But I essentially ignored it because my interest in that movie was close to 0%.
Has anyone seen a movie promoting the military like this before. Obviously, the military has been involved with Hollywood for a long time. they want to look good, the movies want to look good, and the military wants people to watch them and go "wow... maybe I should do that."
But I've never seen a movie tie in with the National Guard before. At the bottom of Solider of Steel.com there is a "Learn More" button and a "Join now" button. Never seen anything like that before. Not sure I like it. I'm not anti-military or anything, its just a little too much.
I don't have a problem with this at all.
However... I do have a problem with the TWIZZLERS tie-in.
@Planeis it may be that MofS is being more obvious about it, but there have been a number of films doing integrated marketing with branches of the military in the past. The Transformers franchise, Battleship, and many more. As I understand it, the military pays for this by providing locations, equipment, and even personnel. And in return they get approval over how the military is portrayed in the film, as well as marketing/recruiting opportunities tied to the film.
I aint never seen anything like this before. I've read about military use in movies before and read what directors have said, specifically regarding movies Top Gun, Transformers and others. Its my understanding that the military, if they choose to participate, make people and or equipment available. But the production pays for it whenever possible. So if Top Gun uses Navy jets, the movie production pays for the fuel and the personnel. Movies are perfectly willing to do this because the production value of having real jets in the movie or real tanks and real military people (in certain situations).
In fact, I don't think the military's use has to even be "positive" for them to participate. There have been movies they haven't exactly been portrayed positively, but they've allowed use of the equipment because the movie was being accurate. In other cases they have declined to participate because they didn't understand their "role", like in the Avengers.
Just never seen "National Guard" or military tie ins directly into posters, t shirts, and websites.
You are right that the access is still paid for, so it is not necessarily a trade for free use-- but certainly from some of the reporting I have seen, the, let's call it the "rental" cost, on real military equipment, locations, and personnel end up being far cheaper than what filmmakers could likely get their hands on in the private sector or fake themselves. That is, if they are willing to play ball.
I think the arrangement varies by project, but there has been reporting on the US Military taking an active role in the approval/rewriting of the Transformers scripts. I am sure there are better or longer articles to be found, but on a quick Google, here is the lead from a Wired article about Transformers 2:
Hollywood action director Michael Bay enlisted the U.S. military to provide realistic props for his 2007 giant-robot epic Transformers. After the Pentagon helped rewrite the script, Bay got access to helicopters, warships and — for just $25,000 an hour — F-22 stealth fighters.
As we speak, Bay is shooting a sequel that has even more U.S. military hardware on display, according to USA Today. The director set up shop at White Sands, a test range in New Mexico, standing in for Egypt, where the new movie’s climactic battle takes place. "As far as I know, this is the biggest joint military operation movie ever made," said Bay’s liaison officer from the Army.
The list of military assets for the White Sands shoot included:
two A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" tank-killing jets; six F-16 Fighting Falcons; 10 armored Humvees; the Army’s Golden Knights parachute team; two Abrams tanks; two Bradley tanks; two missile-launcher vehicles; two armored personnel carriers; and a quarter-mile of the missile testing range, cleared of unexploded ordnance …
Plus, an F-22, apparently from the new Raptor base at nearby Holloman, buzzed overhead, playing the role of Transformers bad guy Starscream.
And if you Google around, there is probably a lot more reporting on the relationship (and past deals) between film productions and the military.
Including how the Navy used Battleship in its advertising:
"So happy is the Navy with its starring role in one of the summer's biggest action films that it has been touting "Battleship" in recruitment ads it runs in cinemas and featuring promotional content from the film on its YouTube channel and Facebook pages."
You might be right about Battleship. I vaguely recall some weird recruitment stuff going on with them. I've read about the Transformers things and heard Bay talk about it. My understanding was the edits they made were to make their portrayal more realistic. For instance, on the commentary track of the first movie Bay is talking about a scene where some jets are being called in on an airstrike and the guys were like, "so.... what do you want us to say?" and he basically said (or claims to have said) "hey, you guys do this for real, so... just say what you would say if a REAL strike was being called in."
Anyway, you might be right about that Battleship thing. Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall it and I remember being mildly annoyed about it at the time. But I essentially ignored it because my interest in that movie was close to 0%.
You might be interested to know that Peter Jackson used the New Zealand army corps as extras in the Lord Of The Rings movies, for battle scenes. The army also allowed Jackson to shoot battle sequences in Rangipo Desert, which also happened to be a former mine field. Apparently there were still unexploded mines. Must have been a nervous shoot.
Has anyone seen a movie promoting the military like this before. Obviously, the military has been involved with Hollywood for a long time. they want to look good, the movies want to look good, and the military wants people to watch them and go "wow... maybe I should do that."
But I've never seen a movie tie in with the National Guard before. At the bottom of Solider of Steel.com there is a "Learn More" button and a "Join now" button. Never seen anything like that before. Not sure I like it. I'm not anti-military or anything, its just a little too much.
I don't have a problem with this at all.
However... I do have a problem with the TWIZZLERS tie-in.
Worst. Candy. Ever.
Blech!
I'm not sure if it's worse than Circus Peanuts, but... yeah.
They're peanuts, but they're big, orange, and spongy, and they taste like bananas. They are clearly the product of someone with insight into realms beyond our own, because they make no logical sense.
Comments
M
THIS.
WB are swinging for the fences. Some of the images make this movie look Avengers level epic. Maybe bigger.
Pretty epic. I don't Miss the John Williams theme at all...
Music from the first trailer. Very long song. Pretty sure its not actually from the movie, just the a temp track for the trailer. Still. good stuff if you're interested.
Has anyone seen a movie promoting the military like this before. Obviously, the military has been involved with Hollywood for a long time. they want to look good, the movies want to look good, and the military wants people to watch them and go "wow... maybe I should do that."
But I've never seen a movie tie in with the National Guard before. At the bottom of Solider of Steel.com there is a "Learn More" button and a "Join now" button. Never seen anything like that before. Not sure I like it. I'm not anti-military or anything, its just a little too much.
In fact, I don't think the military's use has to even be "positive" for them to participate. There have been movies they haven't exactly been portrayed positively, but they've allowed use of the equipment because the movie was being accurate. In other cases they have declined to participate because they didn't understand their "role", like in the Avengers.
Just never seen "National Guard" or military tie ins directly into posters, t shirts, and websites.
I think the arrangement varies by project, but there has been reporting on the US Military taking an active role in the approval/rewriting of the Transformers scripts. I am sure there are better or longer articles to be found, but on a quick Google, here is the lead from a Wired article about Transformers 2: And if you Google around, there is probably a lot more reporting on the relationship (and past deals) between film productions and the military.
EDIT- And for those interested in the subject, here is a good article at The Wrap about the US Navy's participation in Battleship. http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/how-battleship-enlisted-navy-40496
Including how the Navy used Battleship in its advertising:
"So happy is the Navy with its starring role in one of the summer's biggest action films that it has been touting "Battleship" in recruitment ads it runs in cinemas and featuring promotional content from the film on its YouTube channel and Facebook pages."
EDIT- And for those interested in the subject, here is a good article at The Wrap about the US Navy's participation in Battleship. http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/how-battleship-enlisted-navy-40496
Including how the Navy used Battleship in its advertising:
"So happy is the Navy with its starring role in one of the summer's biggest action films that it has been touting "Battleship" in recruitment ads it runs in cinemas and featuring promotional content from the film on its YouTube channel and Facebook pages."
You might be right about Battleship. I vaguely recall some weird recruitment stuff going on with them. I've read about the Transformers things and heard Bay talk about it. My understanding was the edits they made were to make their portrayal more realistic. For instance, on the commentary track of the first movie Bay is talking about a scene where some jets are being called in on an airstrike and the guys were like, "so.... what do you want us to say?" and he basically said (or claims to have said) "hey, you guys do this for real, so... just say what you would say if a REAL strike was being called in."
Anyway, you might be right about that Battleship thing. Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall it and I remember being mildly annoyed about it at the time. But I essentially ignored it because my interest in that movie was close to 0%.
However... I do have a problem with the TWIZZLERS tie-in.
Worst. Candy. Ever.
Blech!
Anyway, you might be right about that Battleship thing. Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall it and I remember being mildly annoyed about it at the time. But I essentially ignored it because my interest in that movie was close to 0%.
You might be interested to know that Peter Jackson used the New Zealand army corps as extras in the Lord Of The Rings movies, for battle scenes. The army also allowed Jackson to shoot battle sequences in Rangipo Desert, which also happened to be a former mine field. Apparently there were still unexploded mines. Must have been a nervous shoot.
They're peanuts, but they're big, orange, and spongy, and they taste like bananas. They are clearly the product of someone with insight into realms beyond our own, because they make no logical sense.