|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 4, 2005 11:40:18 GMT
Has anyone noticed that in the superbowl trailer the white van driving away from the bridge isnt the truck Tom Cruise and co were in, also theres only one guy in it and its not Tom.
It looks to me like Dekota sees somthing and makes that comedy noise (fighting machine/cylinder?) then theres a leap to the point where the 'somthing' attacks/hits the bridge, at this point Ray and family have gotten to safety (or at least got away from the bridge) and all we are seeing is the aftermath.
In conclusion we may be seeing this from a few perspectives including the detached third person view to show us the action away from the family.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flynn77 on Feb 4, 2005 12:40:28 GMT
I'm not sure, I think the car is the same (it has the same windows as the inside shot, but I'm thinking that the crusiser prob tells his kids to get there heads down in true action movie fashion!! But I agree it's definately different shots cut together. So is anyone willing to comment on the big white flashes coming from the top of the bridge? I mean, I'm willing to accept this could be the second cylinder but if it is, what the hells going on? Why is the top of the bridge collapsing when the supports aren't? And why is the steel bridge melting at the same time as some big white flash happens further down? Any takers, lovers and haters?? ;D
|
|
TOMMY
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by TOMMY on Feb 4, 2005 13:03:05 GMT
 Yeah, that was just great !!!!!!! No need to fret guys this movie is going to be great (at least the effects are) , and as far as nitpicking trailers to death you know how far that gets ya.
|
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 4, 2005 13:05:28 GMT
Thanks, Spilberg, for removing all links to the trailer before I got to see it!  Based on the discussions so far, I have a query on this destructed bridge malarky. Some people are convinced it is a cylinder/spaceship landing on the bridge...but no cyclinder is seen in the trailer. Is Spielly pulling a Hines and releasing incomplete trailers but (unlike hines) forgetting to put the CGI spaceship in? For those who are convinced it is the cylinder, and it's submerged, what happens when it opens? Surely it'd instantly flood and drown the martians. Even if the top is 15ft above the waterline, they'd still flop over the top, plunge into the water, and drown. If by coincidence, the top overhangs the bank, they'd just topple onto the concrete and SPLAT, or writhe about in mud. Hmmm... martian mud wrestling - wonder if they brought their own bikinis... |
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Feb 4, 2005 13:21:55 GMT
 Can people see this? |
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 4, 2005 13:30:33 GMT
Thats mint dude ;D
There aint no kids in that van.
|
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 4, 2005 13:34:53 GMT
Thanks, Spilberg, for removing all links to the trailer before I got to see it! Based on the discussions so far, I have a query on this destructed bridge malarky. Some people are convinced it is a cylinder/spaceship landing on the bridge...but no cyclinder is seen in the trailer. Is Spielly pulling a Hines and releasing incomplete trailers but (unlike hines) forgetting to put the CGI spaceship in? For those who are convinced it is the cylinder, and it's submerged, what happens when it opens? Surely it'd instantly flood and drown the martians. Even if the top is 15ft above the waterline, they'd still flop over the top, plunge into the water, and drown. If by coincidence, the top overhangs the bank, they'd just topple onto the concrete and SPLAT, or writhe about in mud. Hmmm... martian mud wrestling - wonder if they brought their own bikinis... No no not submerged just half sunk in mud and earth from the impact, remember its only 30 yards accross and a hundred feet long so if half is exposed its only 15 yards, a row of houses could conceal that easy enough. there is a missing chunk of time between Dakotas reaction and the bridge exploding so we could have seen a cylinder hit, and they may have edited out the view from the oposite side showing the cylinder to fir it into a 30 second slot. |
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Feb 4, 2005 13:47:59 GMT
Because what is happening to the bridge is more consistent with being struck by a heatray than a cylinder landing.
|
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 4, 2005 14:00:40 GMT
As we havent seen either the heatray in action or a cylinder landing we cant draw our conclusions by whats consistent with what because we dont know.
Yes it does look like the heatray blowing the crap out of the bridge but then there is the paramount press release in regards to the 30 second superbowl trailer saying it was going to include a "spaceship landing on the bridge" the extras were also told to imagine this when reacting and running away.
The trailer is open to interpretation at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flynn77 on Feb 4, 2005 14:04:02 GMT
Hey whatever it is, we'll prob get a high res version after the weekend!!  |
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 4, 2005 14:05:34 GMT
5 months is just too long..........  |
|
|
|
Post by Flynn77 on Feb 4, 2005 14:07:49 GMT
The good thing about this teaser is that; you don't get the feeling of, 'oh thats a really cool exciting explosion ala' ID4. But a 'MY CHRIST! THAT LOOKS HORRIFIC!'. The tone is on the nose, no question!
|
|
|
|
Post by shakma on Feb 4, 2005 14:20:28 GMT
Nah it's definitely the same van.
Check out the shot from inside the van at 00:08 when Dakota watches Cruise go around the van. The window on the left is open.
Exactly like the window we see on the van at 00:23.
|
|
|
|
Post by HTT on Feb 4, 2005 14:22:54 GMT
Thanks Anthony for that mini-clip! I can see now exactly where everyone is coming from, and how it can be interpreted in different ways.
Now that I can see the setting, I am torn between two equally possibly possibilities! You can't say either way if cyclinder or heat ray - a good example of how to grab peoples attention and get 'em talking!
At first I thought I saw a tripod in the distance in the first few frames of the clip - excitement obviously got the better of me there!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 4, 2005 14:34:43 GMT
Nah it's definitely the same van. Check out the shot from inside the van at 00:08 when Dakota watches Cruise go around the van. The window on the left is open. Exactly like the window we see on the van at 00:23. if it is indeed the same van where did the kids go? Justin in the passenger seat had a box on his lap so how low could he have gone to hide? |
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Feb 4, 2005 14:37:46 GMT
To me it looks like several missiles or somthing are being fired at it, because they are several flashes or explosions on the bridge. Maybe Spielberg has something up his sleeve we dont know about.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Feb 4, 2005 14:39:52 GMT
It would appear to be the same peolpe carrier. Look when the door is opened by the guy who ask's them to 'get under the truck' - the door frame is silver metalic. The scenes showing the truck escaping the fire is silver metalic. . . But only watching the full section of the film will give away where Fanning & Chatwin are.
H_C
|
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Feb 4, 2005 14:39:55 GMT
The bridge is hit it the upper iron works then the object/bean moves diagonally into the ground before moving along the struts/supports.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Feb 4, 2005 14:43:52 GMT
Here's a theory
Is this Spielbergs take on the books chapter 'The Heat Ray In The Chobham Road'.
I have a feeling it could be
H_C
|
|
|
|
Post by Green Mist on Feb 4, 2005 14:54:41 GMT
In the second half of the clip, just after the van swerves, look under the bridge. There's a tower-like structure visible for a split second... could it be... you know... one of 'them'  |
|
Yeah, that was just great !!!!!!!
