The trailer neither amazed nor shocked me.
If I can deal with monsters, aliens, zombies, strange things, orgs and what not,
I sure can handle watching some cats with famous actor faces dancing around and singing.
The movie itself might be as bad as it gets, but the reactions to this trailer are a bit snobbish...
Yeah, this was bad.
But I enjoyed it on a meta-level: A kid, who probably learned from youtube videos of other youtubers who themselves probably only had superficial knowledge of the topics they did a video about, does sub-mediocre "explainer" videos with 90s style template graphics, talking as fast as he can pretending to aim for a goal of 1 minute which clearly is just an attempt to have a clickbate-ish title.
The account also seems to have been set up with "going big" in mind, 22 videos in a month, a mixture of "1 Minute whatever explained" with "thoughts on whatever", probably hoping to attract "the indy crowd".
But nah, I'm a realist, so I guess this was created by a deep-fake bot set up by a group of scientist at MIT.
So I'm the only one here who hates big cinemas? The masses of people, the compromise in seating positions, the constant distraction from someone talking/eating/going to the toilet/sneezing/coughing/laughing in serious moments?
The money and time involved?
A home projector with surround speakers isn't the same, but the lack in quality is made up by the convenience, instantness and intimacy watching movies at home offers.
Yea, your totally right: If you can't follow someones thoughts, they must be on drugs.
Nice crips high-res pictures on your site - did you take Ritalin to get them that focused?
No one will probably read this, since it's an old "article", but: You really wonder why Peter's stuff gets shared this much? Because he is a successful youtuber. He is good at playing himself, just like Nicolas Cage or Tom Cruise. He is good at (re)packing common camera knowledge and presenting it in an entertaining way.
Let's be fair: Operating a video camera, setting up lights, recording audio or an editing program isn't that difficult. Even back in film days, it just was more tedious.
But once you go beyond filming your pretty girlfriend walking over a free-hanging bamboo bridge somewhere in Malaysia, if you go beyond that single random shot, things get difficult. It's the difference between a good looking travel video on youtube and a documentary. It's the difference between a well lit corporate video with interviews and a movie.
Peter is a great youtuber (= business person) and NFS is depending on the same audience for making revenue, so sharing what he does is a mutual interest.
I'm OK with that, as long as it helps NFS in bringing original or non clickbaity content as often as possible...
So 44.000 and something views counts as "going viral" these days? Not saying the spec isn't good, but not mentioning in any way, how that many talent, crew and locations where organised and paid for?
Maybe I'm getting to cynical with age, but this feels like some sort of guerrilla marketing. They pulled all this of and then deliberately only used one lens? And sure the story of the lo-fi BTS fits the rest, but all this effort and they couldn't find another person to shoot a little more with a t3i or an iPhone?
Again, great ad, but I wouldn't bet on the "spec" part.