(no subject)
Oct. 6th, 2006 11:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenNo news, really, except that I am still drooling over the trailer for 300. It's one of those horribly testosterone-laced epics, I know, I know, but still. Any movie that can make men wearing leather underwear and a cape seem dead manly does all right by me (if you're shaking your head at me as you read this, go see the trailer and tell me you disagree, and I will call you a liar, sirs).
It made a guy last seen romancing the fugliest, lazy-eyed Christine Daae ever look manly. It made THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA manly. That's what it did. Yes, I am a tad insane. But the visuals on this. I haven't drooled so much over a trailer since the one for Sin City--yes, despite my rabid excitement for the teaser for Spider-Man 3, that one didn't stick with me the way this one has.
And I think I know why, too. I think it's the musical que, as I posted about last night. Sin City did as well, with The Servant song "The Cells" (lamentably, not in the film itself, with the pivotal scenes from the trailer set instead to the laughably overused "Absurd" by Fluke--I like the song, but sheeesh). Proof positive that just the right music with just the right amount of previous exposure can make something that is visually stimulating all that much more attractive. That I happen to know the song used for 300 creates a slightly different effect, whereby the trailer, already well-timed to a thematically appropriate song (it has bombast and quiet to showcase both aspects of the film), also provokes a trip down my fannish side. Ahhh, meeeeeemmmmoooorriiiieeeeessssss...
I don't know if 300 will be good, but I can be damned sure it'll be pretty enough for me not to care (Sin City, which I liked but didn't lovelovelove, was pretty enough for me not to care). Like Sin City, the 300 is so stylistic that the strange images (like the other-worldy creatures) don't seem out of place. Because the live actors almost seem animated, which is part of the reason I actually like the all-digital set movie idea. Because it finally closes the rift between actors reacting to CGI by bringing both parties to a halfway point. You buy that they belong in the same world because they look the same. Same sheen, same lighting, same depth of space (since it's digital, there is no background, and therefore, they are all the same thickness, really: flat).
In other words: Is it March yet?
It made a guy last seen romancing the fugliest, lazy-eyed Christine Daae ever look manly. It made THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA manly. That's what it did. Yes, I am a tad insane. But the visuals on this. I haven't drooled so much over a trailer since the one for Sin City--yes, despite my rabid excitement for the teaser for Spider-Man 3, that one didn't stick with me the way this one has.
And I think I know why, too. I think it's the musical que, as I posted about last night. Sin City did as well, with The Servant song "The Cells" (lamentably, not in the film itself, with the pivotal scenes from the trailer set instead to the laughably overused "Absurd" by Fluke--I like the song, but sheeesh). Proof positive that just the right music with just the right amount of previous exposure can make something that is visually stimulating all that much more attractive. That I happen to know the song used for 300 creates a slightly different effect, whereby the trailer, already well-timed to a thematically appropriate song (it has bombast and quiet to showcase both aspects of the film), also provokes a trip down my fannish side. Ahhh, meeeeeemmmmoooorriiiieeeeessssss...
I don't know if 300 will be good, but I can be damned sure it'll be pretty enough for me not to care (Sin City, which I liked but didn't lovelovelove, was pretty enough for me not to care). Like Sin City, the 300 is so stylistic that the strange images (like the other-worldy creatures) don't seem out of place. Because the live actors almost seem animated, which is part of the reason I actually like the all-digital set movie idea. Because it finally closes the rift between actors reacting to CGI by bringing both parties to a halfway point. You buy that they belong in the same world because they look the same. Same sheen, same lighting, same depth of space (since it's digital, there is no background, and therefore, they are all the same thickness, really: flat).
In other words: Is it March yet?
