Van Helsing Trailer

[Psychotic Dreamer]

I think it looks pretty nifty. I'm definetly looking forward to seeing it.

 

[myrdden]

Not too shabby looking. Definitely a popcorn flick. And the wife will surely want to see it since Hugh Jackman is in it (and she can't resist him - my X-Men DVDs are almost worn out).

It's a win-win situation, I'd say.



Myrdden

 

[Atridis]

Yeah, Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale should give everyone something to watch, even if the movie itself is terrible...

I saw the trailer on tv last night, and I'm a little concerned about the trend of using CGI for humanoid characters (a la Mr Hyde in LXG and The Hulk). Am I the only one who thought the "Empire Strikes Back" version of Yoda kicked the crap out of the "Attack of the Clones" version of Yoda? Visually, I mean. CGI-Yoda did the whole lightsabre-whirling-dervish thing, which was cool, I guess (mitigated by the fact that the movie was such a disaster in most other respects, but that's another topic...).

Gollum far exceeded my expectations for CGI, and came extremely close to complete suspension of disbelief more than once. But that seems to have been the exception, so far, not the rule.

Anyway, the CGI in Van Helsing didn't look quite right to me. More like LXG, less like LOTR. Maybe this is the "cartoony"-ness that other people mentioned.

Underworld and LXG both suffered, it seems to me, from trying too hard to make a "cool" movie and not a "good" movie, if you follow me. I agree that Sommers is a good sign, and I'm looking forward to this one (among upcoming genre movies, however, Hellboy is what has my attention).

 

[Chain Lightning]

Oh, by no means did I think 'cartoony' is bad. I was just kinda getting this impression that the werewolf stood out in comparison to the other monsters because of its more exaggerated features. Now....this is watching really quick cuts from a trailer. May make more sense in the context of the actual whole movie. It just looked like the design features of the other monsters looked more realisic. And again, I could be wrong with that too. It all went by so fast. It could be that they are ALL a bit cartoony.

I actually thought the CGI Yoda in "Attack of the Clones" looked great. However, that's not what's wrong with that movie. Heh heh.

I'm of the mindset that ....if it's close enough, its good enough for me. I know a lot of people don't like the CGI if they can spot the fact that it is CGI. To me, knowing and seeing that it is done CGI doesn't ruin it for me. It just has to be close enough. I know there's no way to get a real life size dinosaur, or a to get Orlando Bloom to climb up a 1/1 scale Mumakil, etc, etc......

I'm more interested in good directing, acting, and story. As long as the CGI isn't so jarringly bad, I'm okay with it. It doesnt' have to be flawless. And I think its unfair to those that work on that film to expect flawlessness everytime. But that's my opinion.

 

[Atridis]

Now....this is watching really quick cuts from a trailer. May make more sense in the context of the actual whole movie.

Yes, that's true.

It just looked like the design features of the other monsters looked more realisic. And again, I could be wrong with that too. It all went by so fast. It could be that they are ALL a bit cartoony..

The clip that I saw included some vampire babes and somebody who looked an awful lot like Hyde from LXG.

I know there's no way to get a real life size dinosaur, or a to get Orlando Bloom to climb up a 1/1 scale Mumakil, etc, etc......

Yes, yes, absolutely. I'm concerned about the use of CGI for things that can be done better using other methods. I applauded Farscape's use of animatronics and quality actors, for instance.

I'm more interested in good directing, acting, and story. As long as the CGI isn't so jarringly bad, I'm okay with it. It doesnt' have to be flawless. And I think its unfair to those that work on that film to expect flawlessness everytime. But that's my opinion.

I agree that the CGI in "Attack of the Clones" was well done. Like you, though, characters, acting, plot development, etc are what matter to me. The CGI in the Star Wars movies did nothing to rescue them, and the CGI in LOTR wasn't the reason that I enjoyed those movies. On the other hand, the CGI Hulk kind of bugged me - although, as you say, it wasn't jarringly bad - and I didn't demand flawlessness. I enjoyed the movie, on the whole. (Well, maybe the seven-foot demon poodle was jarringly bad, but I got past it.)

 

[barsoomcore]

One of the things I like about this trailer: you get the impression that we haven't nearly seen the GOOD stuff.

Hee.

 

[Hypersmurf]

One of the things I like about this trailer: you get the impression that we haven't nearly seen the GOOD stuff.

Okay, I haven't watched the trailer... but that's of concern.

If you go into a movie hoping for some stuff that's cooler than the stuff in the trailer, then...

... wait, has that ever happened?

-Hyp.

 

[s/LaSH]

It doesn't look too bad, for a movie about monsters and stuff.

And I agree, it's just possible that we haven't seen the good stuff. There are few 'look at me, I'm awe-inspiring' shots of monsters in the trailer, mostly 'look at me I'm doing something' shots. I suppose we'll see, though.

 

[stevelabny]

i believe the reason why the big cg-dude looks like Hyde is because it IS Hyde.
i read somewhere that dracula, frankenstein and wolfman arent the only famous monsters in the movie.

 

[Kai Lord]

I saw the trailer on tv last night, and I'm a little concerned about the trend of using CGI for humanoid characters (a la Mr Hyde in LXG and The Hulk).

Mr. Hyde was a guy in a latex suit.