Chronicle

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Yes... welcome to [today's] reality.

The clear and present advantage of a low-budget feature including Visual Effects or utilizing them to an extreme in interest of recouping income and/or creating net profits in cinema is just part of the evolving business.

If someone wants to make something without VFX, nothing's stopping them from doing that.

I completely agree with this. They may not get as much immediate attention but that's kind of my point about the VFX route.
Doesn't mean it's any good though. MONSTERS got a lot of initial press. Cool trailer. The actual movie, not so great.

This trailer seems geared for one thing. A lot of VFX shots.

Yes, there could be more to this movie, but is there? I guess we're supposed to take the fact that when one of them hurts somebody that this will be the crux of the film.
A turning point, sure. But I saw very LITTLE acting or emotion from anyone in this trailer.

A lot of people keep talking about this great script or how much more there is to this movie. I'll ask again, has anyone read it?
Looks cool though, but that's it for me. So far...

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Trailer breakdown as I see it.

<25 seconds in. Already one easy VFX shot, 3 kids, laughing, singing, goofing off.

By 30 odd seconds, more goofing off and 2 more VFX shots. More laughing, more filming of their antics.

Wait! By 40 seconds or so we get another VFX sot. This time involving a girl and a teddy bear. Followed by more laughs and giggles.

By 50 odd seconds there's an actual line of dialog that means something. A theory about it being like a muscle. Cool.
Followed by another bigger VFX shot. More laughing and giggling at the woman who can't find her car. Really?

More than a minute in. Lots of goofing and laughing. Oooh! T&A! Just what they need to push this over the edge for the teen crowd.

1:20. Finally. Something that means something. Are they still filming this themselves? Sometimes it looks that way.

"Was it an accident, Andrew?" He stares off with an evil look in his eyes. We see Andrew pushing his powers while looking creepy.
Followed by lots of screaming and people yelling at Andrew. Lots of destruction.

Then we back up to how they got the powers. I hope someone covered up that hole.

Seriously? I don't see anything that says deep, compelling or well written/acted movie here.

Just a bunch of stuff that makes teenagers go WOW!

If this was a Michael Bay film everyone would be pissing on it.

I'll bow out now as I don't want to piss on anyone's parade here. I just really don't see what the fuss is about.
Cool VFX though. Done on the cheap for sure but well done overall.

My Nephew's will eat this film up.

 

[Kholi]

I completely agree with this. They may not get as much immediate attention but that's kind of my point about the VFX route.
Doesn't mean it's any good though. MONSTERS got a lot of initial press. Cool trailer. The actual movie, not so great.

This trailer seems geared for one thing. A lot of VFX shots.

Translates to a pretty solid return on investment, to me...

I'll ask again, has anyone read it?
Looks cool though, but that's it for me. So far...

Okay...cool

Seriously? I don't see anything that says deep, compelling or well written/acted movie here.

Just a bunch of stuff that makes teenagers go WOW!

So? It's a movie.

If this was a Michael Bay film everyone would be pissing on it.

This sounds like a more personal assumption, opinion... which makes me think you're judging the filmmakers, and not the actual film.

I'll bow out now as I don't want to piss on anyone's parade here. I just really don't see what the fuss is about.

Someone made a cool lookin' movie and other people really like the trailer. It's getting a lot of attention... that happens when people like things.

Cool VFX though. Done on the cheap for sure but well done overall.

Cheap = 1-3 Million

My Nephew's will eat this film up.

Yes, they probably will.

I'm not sure why it's a bad thing for someone to want to make money and sustain in this industry. Furthermore, it also seems like the filmmakers like this kind of material, so they're doing what they love.

The same as someone who just wants to make low-key dramas or comedies or mumblecore material may be doing what they love.

 

[Brian_Rice]

I think it's so odd how indie films are somehow held to a different measure than are studio films. I mean, for all intents and purposes Hancock was just terrible. Hancock was a much more terrible film than was Monsters, but for some reason Monsters is held to a higher standard. Monsters had to work so much harder than did Hancock to make a profit and yet while no one is picking apart Hancock, Monsters, which was done by a guy with an EX camera is picked apart.

I don't always understand this in the indie community. Shouldn't we be *more* supportive of indie films overall?

 

[Kholi]

I think it's so odd how indie films are somehow held to a different measure than are studio films. I mean, for all intents and purposes Hancock was just terrible. Hancock was a much more terrible film than was Monsters, but for some reason Monsters is held to a higher standard. Monsters had to work so much harder than did Hancock to make a profit and yet while no one is picking apart Hancock, Monsters, which was done by a guy with an EX camera is picked apart.

I don't always understand this in the indie community. Shouldn't we be *more* supportive of indie films overall?

This isn't an indie film, either. It's a 20th Century Fox feature and in that light, it looks like a good 2Mil~3Mil production at least. Might be more.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

I took this to be a bigger budget, not an indie production. Maybe I expect too much.
It's not indie though, right? Just a low budget Paranormal Activity done with a small studio backing. No?

For what it's worth, I hope they rake in the bucks, it looks like a fun rental for me personally.

I just wish people would stop going ga-ga over SFX driven movies. How many times do we have to see shitty (low or big budget) SFX movies with no substance.

Maybe this one will surprise me. Hope so.

 

[Kholi]

I took this to be a bigger budget, not an indie production. Maybe I expect too much.
It's not indie though, right? Just a low budget Paranormal Activity done with a small studio backing. No?

Is it kind of superficial to call it "Paranormal Activity"? The quality and narrative are completely different. Although, that's my gripe with CHRONICLE in the first place and you made a good point in your earlier post:

Are they even recording themselves at this point?

Looks like to me they're using the convention as a crutch and not as part of the story. Like the shot where they're floating through the clouds or something. It just doesn't make sense, and it took someone else to explain it to me before I sawr it too. It looks like it's going to be pretty sloppy for a studio picture.

I just wish people would stop going ga-ga over SFX driven movies. How many times do we have to see s**tty (low or big budget) SFX movies with no substance.

Maybe this one will surprise me. Hope so.

Make something awesome then, so we can go ga-ga over non-VFX driven movies. =D

 

[refocusedmedia]

Mr. Horrigan, with all due respect, it seems to me like you are being overly cynical.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Is it kind of superficial to call it "Paranormal Activity"? The quality and narrative are completely different. Although, that's my gripe with CHRONICLE in the first place and you made a good point in your earlier post:

Are they even recording themselves at this point?

Looks like to me they're using the convention as a crutch and not as part of the story. Like the shot where they're floating through the clouds or something. It just doesn't make sense, and it took someone else to explain it to me before I sawr it too. It looks like it's going to be pretty sloppy for a studio picture.

Exactly. It's seems like a gimmick. One that's turned off and on when needed.

Make something awesome then, so we can go ga-ga over non-VFX driven movies. =D

That's the problem. This type of thing gets immediate results. It's only afterwards that we find out that there's nothing to them.

This isn't about you or me though. There are plenty of good films with great acting and well written stories that never see half the $$ that these films do.
It's the way of the beast.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Mr. Horrigan, with all due respect, it seems to me like you are being overly cynical.

Nah, I just call it like I see it. For example, I liked Kick-Ass. For me, it was more than just a bunch of kids goofing off.

 

[Kholi]

Exactly. It's seems like a gimmick.

I can agree with that. Although the gimmick isn't really a gimmick anymore. WIth the YouTube generation here to stay, it's just going to be a way that cinema is explored from here on out, and another way to tell stories. It's not going anywhere as long as social media continues to evolve.

I'm fine with that, and am already going forward to embrace it.

However, I would prefer (and will) follow very specific rules for the convention. Movies like THE LAST EXORCISM blatantly break the rules. Chronicle looks like it will, as well.

That's the problem. This type of thing gets immediate results. It's only afterwards that we find out that there's nothing to them.

Who's problem is it? It's not a problem for people selling, it's not a problem for most people watching. If it were, these movies wouldn't get distributed or make money

Paranormal Activity 3 is up 54M... the reviews say it's all scares and less substance than the second one...

Hm.

This isn't about you or me though. There are plenty of good films with great acting and well written stories that never see half the $$ that these films do.
It's the way of the beast.

It is about you and me. Especially if you are a filmmaker and you're lambasting other filmmakers or the concept of VFX driven pictures because "you don't like it". That's the same as a chef saying he's tired of people flocking to Chipotle or Aioli flavors, and people should stop eating that.

Okay, then make something just as good with the ingredients you like and the spices you want people to flock too...

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

So... I can't say I don't like this highly SFX driven trailer with little to no substance?
But it's cool if I say... this looks awesome!

Come on...

 

[Kholi]

So... I can't say I don't like this highly SFX driven trailer with little to no substance?
But it's cool if I say... this looks awesome!

Come on...

This doesn't sound anything like this...

I just wish people would stop going ga-ga over SFX driven movies. How many times do we have to see s**tty (low or big budget) SFX movies with no substance.

It's one thing to say "It isn't my kind of content..."

it's another thing to basically say "People should stop doing this or stop liking this"

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

it's another thing to basically say "People should stop doing this or stop liking this"

I think if they saw it and thought that it ended up being a "s**tty SFX movie with no substance", they would agree with that statement.
I'm talking about movies like MONSTERS, not ALIEN or JC's THE THING.

My opinion is that this movie, judging by this trailer, looks like nothing more than a SFX driven flick. Not my cup of tea.

I'm not against people who like them, sorry if that's the way it came out. But I should certainly be allowed to dislike them.

We can take this to PM if you wish as I would rather not derail this thread any further.

Cheers, guys. Sorry to rain on anyone's parade.

 

[Kholi]

I guess I'm the only one that thinks this looks stupid. Take away the SFX (some of them not so great) and this movie has nothing that interests me.
That and I believe the trailer showed me just about everything I need to know.

It seems to me that SFX is the way to get low budget films instant attention these days. I'm betting the story takes a backseat in this one.

You jumped into the thread looking for a response, obviously. So, a few of us responded.

I just wish people would stop going ga-ga over SFX driven movies. How many times do we have to see s**tty (low or big budget) SFX movies with no substance.

I'm not against people who like them, sorry if that's the way it came out. But I should certainly be allowed to dislike them.

Sounds like, to me, you're rallying for people to stop paying attention it... not just stating that you dislike it.

By all means, dislike it. You've got the freedom to do that. But, if you plan on debating or calling to arms a movement against something, expect someone to be there to debate with you. I wouldn't have said anything if it was just "Hey I don't like the way this looks."

Again, opinion is one thing, speaking out against and taking jabs at something, out of personal dis-interest or dislike, is another. Indeed, though, if you really want to converse about it starting an entirely new thread is justifiable.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

"Calling arms to a movement"

I think my internet rant was taken far too seriously.

I'll wait until it comes out to see if my impression of the trailer is spot on before starting any rallies.

 

[Isaac_Brody]

Interesting, never heard about this project. It does look low budget but it has some distinctly clear elements working in its favor. Yes, it has SFX, and they are well done for what it is, but what I like about this trailer is that it's not just about the effects.

This story is about three friends who run into conflict when the super powers they are bestowed with create moral and physical conflicts for each other. That is pretty clear in that short trailer. They get these powers, it gives them abilities to do whatever they want, to be mischievous and god-like and irresponsible, and conflicts arise when one guy crosses the line and kills someone. Pretty clear narrative right there, even with SFX. And much more engaging than a lot of indies without SFX or a clear narrative.

I'd take this film over the countless indies that follow an aimless protagonist unsure of what they're doing with their life. Ok, that's overstating and stereotyping quite a bit, but if this film were on Netflix WIN I would check it out.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

This story is about three friends who run into conflict when the super powers they are bestowed with create moral and physical conflicts for each other.

If this movie delves deeper into this and doesn't just use it as an excuse to blow stuff up, I'll be pleasantly surprised. Let's hope so. :thumbup:

Honestly, I really hope they do. We'll see soon enough.

 

[WildTrackDave]

To be fair, if you were to watch a teaser trailer for say, The Matrix, you could probably say it's a completely SFX driven movie with no substance. And it turned out to be one of the best sci fi films of the decade (all time?). Not to compare this to, or say that this will be the next, The Matrix.

I'd agree that this trailer seems to hint at a lot that's below the surface, like their powers being like a muscle that they can make stronger. Obviously, Andrew is going to be the strongest of the three, so when he crosses the line from stabbing each other with forks, spooking kids, and playing pranks to killing somebody and goes rogue, the others won't be able to stop him. I could see this movie going either way, really great or terrible, but I'll have to wait and see more about it as it gets released.

FWIW, I'm one of the people that watched the trailer and thought it looks awesome.

 

[ManofWords]

Have to be honest, the trailer didn't really do much for me. I think it's a pretty cool concept but the characters just feel far too cardboard.