Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Leaked Wolverine Origin Trailer Makes the Rounds 238

Uriah noted that the Comic Con wolverine origins trailer has been circulating in high quality camcorder form, very conveniently broken into a first and second part. Despite the terrible camera angle, the movie looks pretty good ... at least, while we wait for the Avengers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leaked Wolverine Origin Trailer Makes the Rounds

Comments Filter:
  • Leaked trailers (Score:5, Interesting)

    Gee, I wonder how all these trailers are being "leaked" all of a sudden... are management types finally clued into the power of internet buzz?

    • I remember in the web's infancy that if you had a fan page, you got a cease and desist, even though you clearly weren't breaking any laws. Companies attacked their fans, rather than rewarding them for adding to the hype machine and giving them free PR.

      Oh, and the trailer (what I could make out of it) looks pretty damned good.

      • I remember in the web's infancy that if you had a fan page, you got a cease and desist, even though you clearly weren't breaking any laws. Companies attacked their fans, rather than rewarding them for adding to the hype machine and giving them free PR.

        Oh, and the trailer (what I could make out of it) looks pretty damned good.

        Not all companies did that. In fact, several years ago, Marvel had a program designed to support fanfiction. There were certain qualifications regarding story content, but they decided to embrace it. (Not sure if they still do.)

      • Oh, and the trailer (what I could make out of it) looks pretty damned good.

        From what I could see, it looks decent. There are a lot of characters from the comics making an appearance, including gambit and what looks like juggernaut. Wolverine's origin is one of the better comics that I've read, and they got Hugh Jackman back.

        The things that worry me are Gavin Hood directing and how badly they messed up the last movie. From his imdb page [imdb.com], it looks like he's extremely inexperienced.

        • Tsotsi is a very good film, and that is why he got this job.

          And I believe that is The Blob, not Juggernaut. I could be wrong.

        • I really doubt that they would have gotten someone else being that the movie is produced by Hugh Jackman's two person production company.
          • Precedent proves that just because his production company is involved, it does not automatically follow that he would be onscreen. I present you with Richard Dean Anderson, Executive producer of Stargate SG1... noticeably absent but was still producing the show.

    • Re:Leaked trailers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Exanon ( 1277926 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:05AM (#24369215)
      It would be great if it was an intentional leak and the press found out about it. When an indie artist does it I don't mind, but when a big movie studio and supporter of MPAA does it... well. You see the juicy scoop right there.
      • Re:Leaked trailers (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gnick ( 1211984 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:56AM (#24370161) Homepage

        Actually, I recall watching a "leaked" copy of The Devil's Rejects [imdb.com] (it may have been House of 1000 Corpses [imdb.com], but I'm 75% sure it was Rejects). It was obviously a well-placed tripod at a private screening (nice theater, small screen relative to multiplexes) - Crystal clear audio. The interesting thing was that, at the very start, there was some ass-hole with a cowboy hat blocking part of the screen. He stood up during the opening credits and walked out of the theater. I don't know for certain that it was Rob Zombie, but it sure as hell looked like him when you caught his profile.

    • by moz25 ( 262020 )

      Doubtful, or the camera angle would have been better.

      • You have fallen right into their trap!

        I know that they know that they will make you think you know that they didn't know about this. But you should know that they could have known and were double bluffing for know-it-alls just like you. Know what I mean? No? Meh.

    • H: If the buzz is any indicator, that movie's gonna make some huge bank.
      J: What buzz?
      H: The Internet buzz.
      J: What the fuck is the internet?

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by geogob ( 569250 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:03AM (#24369169)
    I guess they didn't manage to delay the cam release 38 hours. Expect box office failure... unless the movie is any good (but that doesn't count).
  • I wonder.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    Does anyone else wonder why they chose Hugh Jackman again? Personally, I thought he was good, but not phenomenal.
    Can /. think of anyone who would be better suited to the role?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Does anyone else wonder why they chose Hugh Jackman again? Personally, I thought he was good, but not phenomenal.

      Can /. think of anyone who would be better suited to the role?

      Well the fact that he is producing it, kind makes it a shoe in.

    • You know, I've been meaning to try out the superhero thing for a while. I have these things growing out of my hands, and it makes my current job as a programmer exceedingly difficult...

      I nominate myself!
      • I have these things growing out of my hands, and it makes my current job as a programmer exceedingly difficult...

        Those are called "fingers." Can you wiggle them? Yes? Good. Keep practicing and they will help you enter your code via the "keyboard." Then you won't have to tap that foot pedal in Morse code to type anymore.

    • If they had been working on this movie say around 15-20 years ago, I think Clint Eastwood would have been perfect.

      On the other hand, the odds of a comic adaptation not sucking at that time was around 1%. Now it's up at a lofty 10-20%. So it's a trade-off. :)

      Oh and they're picking Hugh for the tie-in to the X-Men trilogy. That's a no-brainer.

    • Does anyone else wonder why they chose Hugh Jackman again?

      because he is a producer [imdb.com] of the film?
    • by ShieldW0lf ( 601553 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @12:56PM (#24371187) Journal
      Can /. think of anyone who would be better suited to the role?

      Me. My sideburns are at least 4 inches longer than Hugh Jackmans.

      Funny, found out recently, when I interviewed for this position, my manager emailed the whole office to tell them that Wolverine was in the office applying for a job. I remember wondering at the time why everyone was looking my way...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Not really, I thought he did extremely well in the role, and the fact it took him from relative obscurity to star overnight around the world suggests a lot of others thought so too.

      Why wonder? Does it have to be any more complicated than you have a different opinion?

  • Camcorder jammer? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tjstork ( 137384 ) <todd...bandrowsky@@@gmail...com> on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:03AM (#24369181) Homepage Journal

    I know it may not sound all that "nice", but, if you could make some kind of a gismo that could detect camcorders and then jam them, and have it in a movie theater, I bet you could get stinking rich.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I know it may not sound all that "nice", but, if you could make some kind of a gismo that could detect camcorders and then jam them, and have it in a movie theater, I bet you could get stinking rich.

      The way the entertainment world works at the moment, the way to do that would be to lobby for a law that forces manufacturers to put a proprietary protection chip in every camcorder, and pass the cost onto the consumers.

      It sounds like a stupid idea, because it is. But that's basically how all DRM works: force something costly and inconvenient into an otherwise working product, in a way that makes little to no sense from any practical standpoint.

      • Re:Camcorder jammer? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by alta ( 1263 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:21AM (#24369509) Homepage Journal

        I don't think the chip would be necessary. I'd bet you could really distort the quality of what it records by putting some light that blasts out a wavelength just outside of what's visible to us, but the camcorder is flooded by it.

        This seems too easy, probably would have been done already.

        • It's been done, or at least proposed in several places. The CCDs in video cameras pick up IR light and display it. [engadget.com] (That's a security camera, but video cameras work on the same principle; imagine a ring of those surrounding the screen.)

          Of course, a simple filter over the lens would fix that problem instantly, which is probably why no one has bothered with IR lights in theaters as far as I know.
        • This seems too easy, probably would have been done already.

          Not necessarially. You know all of those "Why didn't I think of that?" moments? You just may be ahead of the curve on this one.
          Infrared light should work pretty well. Point an IR remote at a camcorder sometime and press a button. I wouldn't be surprised if you could make the entire movie screen appear as a bright light to the camcorder, just by shining a nice, bright IR light at it during the movie.

          Unfortunately, this "copyright protection" scheme

        • My brother was in the military and was on some post (forget which) a few years ago. On their way out for field exercises they would drive by a heavily secure compound (multiple runs of fencing with concertina wire, a solid wall further in, guard dogs, the whole bit) and they were told it was some sort of special forces facility.
          My brother took two pictures of the compound with a disposable camera. He saved the camera and got the pictures developed when he was back home on leave. Those two pictures were c

      • I agree it sounds like a good idea on the tech. side, but I *really* don't like the idea of staring into that much IR light for 2 hours at a time. Can you imagine if that caused damage?

        • IR is between heat and red light. You're not going to physically toast your eyes looking at few dozen IR LEDs, unless you've got them stuck up under your eyelids..

    • Re:Camcorder jammer? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:36AM (#24369781)
      You could, and the military has a large body of research on this (related to jamming security cameras). Part of the problem is that you need to use a laser, and people might get upset when (not if) your laser hits their eyes. An IR laser might do it, but that will still be detrimental to a person's movie viewing experience (and I don't know what a class IIIa IR laser would do to a retina anyway).
    • by Tweenk ( 1274968 )

      For a more MAFIAA-compliant solution, legislate that every camcorder sold in the US must have a remote kill switch that is triggered in the cinema. The problem is that this system can either be hard to circumvent or hard to abuse, but not both.

      If the CamKiller® system works one-way, then anyone can capture the kill signal and broadcast it elsewhere.

      If it works both ways, i.e. the camera has a transmitter and requests a digitally signed confirmation after the first kill signal, and turns off only when a

  • Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gazbo ( 517111 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:05AM (#24369211)
    A story about a leaked fucking trailer?
  • by InvisblePinkUnicorn ( 1126837 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:12AM (#24369357)
    This should not be confused with the Origin [wikipedia.org] mini-series that explores Wolverine's childhood and reveals his real name.
  • "leaked" tailers? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by neokushan ( 932374 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:13AM (#24369377)

    I really don't understand the purpose of holding back a trailer and only showing it to a select few people. If it was unfinished or something, It'd be understandable, but these are finished already.
    It's for promotional use, it's to promote the film, SURELY you want as many people as possible to see it?
    Or maybe I missed something?

  • Redo the do (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gx5000 ( 863863 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:14AM (#24369385)
    I'm confused..... What happened to Alpha Flight ? Are they rewiring the storyline again ?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by oahazmatt ( 868057 )

      I'm confused..... What happened to Alpha Flight ? Are they rewiring the storyline again ?

      Preliminary surveys indicate that Puck != Revenue.

  • by Daswolfen ( 1277224 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @11:45AM (#24369939)

    This is what I hate generally hate about comic book movies (and this applies to all movies made from print media sources). I understand that you have to make some changes because you are dealing with years of back story and have squeeze it into 2 hours.

    But that said, would it kill them to at least keep the story straight rather than add characters who had nothing to do with the Weapon X program? Blob and Gambit had NOTHING to do with the weapon x program (not even in any sort of retcon'ed timeline). Where is Maverick, Mastadon and Kestrel? They are not listed on IMDB on the cast list (but Blob, Gambit, Deadpool and gent Zero (the latter two were involved in later incarnations of the Weapon X program, not Wolverine's origin).

    So maybe I am being a picky fan boy, and the movie does look awesome, but would it kill them to get it right for once?

    • but would it kill them to get it right for once?

      That depends on your definition of "get it right". Does that mean adhere strictly to the established origin in the comic book universe (and if so are we dealing with the 616 or Ultimate origin, here?) or creating a story that will translate to film well and appeal to a large audience who may only know of Wolverine from the preceding X-Men movies?

    • by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @01:20PM (#24371515) Journal

      Comics can't keep their stories straight... so why bother doing so for TV/Film/cartoon*/etc. adaptations - especially given the constraints of the movie format, etc.?

      * though the X-Men cartoon was quite nice, I don't think one could actually call it 'canon'.

      From alternative universes to timetravel to cross-overs** to introducing new characters that are -exactly- like a previously existing (and sometimes not even dead-yet) character for the sake of furthering along a particular plot.

      ** I'm sorry, but why would spiderman be fighting superman, exactly - and just how would superman not actually be winning this? Please. Leave each superhero in its own little 'universe' already. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Stark.)

      If you want at least a reasonably solid storyline with a beginning and an end, then comic books are one of the last places you should be looking. With Heroes being popular as it is and having a high 'X-Men'-appeal itself, I can't help but fear that it, too, will end up being dragged on and on and on.

      Back on-topic.. Gambit is a hugely popular character from the comics as well as the cartoons... fans have wanted to see Gambit in the first three X-Men movies and were denied it; I'm not saying the movie studios are bending to the will of the fans, but you can't exactly blame them if they did - even if it's just because of dollarsigns in their eyes :)

    • Some stories are GREAT in comics, but would suck horribly if faithfully adapted as movies. Some characters are fantastic in comics, but likewise would suck horribly if faithfully adapted to film.

      Comics are not movies; movies are not comics. "Getting it right" when adapting a comic to a film doesn't mean following the comic as gospel; it means making a film that will appeal to a very broad audience in the hopes of making big bucks while hopefully keeping true to the spirit of the books (See: Batman, Spider-M

  • by phorm ( 591458 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @12:27PM (#24370687) Journal

    I've been hearing a fair bit about leaked trailers, etc. I wonder if these are really "leaked" or if they're intentionally let out as a form of viral marketing...

  • by sxmjmae ( 809464 ) on Monday July 28, 2008 @01:12PM (#24371415)
    Could be good. They have always tending to 'soften' wolverine down with each new incarnation of his character. At the starting comics he was a whirl wind of claws that would literally spew blood and guts of 50 ninjas all over the pages. Everything a young impressionable adolescent was eager to treat his eyes to. Imagine wolverine power of regeneration what a real person would do... wolverine did it... smoked, fought, got shot, had a good time with out a concern for his personnel safety, and to top it off he killed nasty ninjas and bad guys (all things any kid would imagine doing if he had his power). Then they 'soften' him and started to add dialogue, taking valuable blood soaked page space for a text bubble. As long the movie does not have him picking daisies with Sabretooth and calming talking things out it might actually be OK.

Two percent of zero is almost nothing.

Working...