Saw it last night, got me all excited to see it.
That usually means that I'll see a particular movie sometime in the next 10 years.
I had the same reaction about the movie Dunkirk, still haven't seen it.
Here's the imbed.
absolutely love the trailer. looking forward to it. don't think it will be as good as rush. but I expect to be entertained.
The thing at the end where Shelby gives a ride to Henry the deuce was pretty funny.
Yeah, looks cool. I wonder who wins in the end?
Definitely looking forward to this one. I'll probably even accept whatever sprinklings of half-truths and made-up drama they'll deem necessary to tell the story.
Also, did anyone else notice the Ferrari just constantly flipping in the trailer? I think the ratio of shiny side up to upside down was 1/10.
stuart in mn said:The thing at the end where Shelby gives a ride to Henry the deuce was pretty funny.
Yeah, it pissed off Edsel:
https://www.foxnews.com/auto/ford-wont-see-ford-v-ferrari
Trailer looks good.
So...
Where's Bruce McLaren, Roy Lunn and the people from Lola?
Oh... Right....
I'm very skeptical. I've never seen Rush, and the few racing movies I have seen are always, objectively terrible to race fans.
I'm a huge Christian Bale fan boy, but I'll wait.
z31maniac said:I'm very skeptical. I've never seen Rush, and the few racing movies I have seen are always, objectively terrible to race fans.
I'm a huge Christian Bale fan boy, but I'll wait.
Rush is one of the few exceptions, it's actually pretty good.
This trailer was very good, but I do have my doubts that Shelby took The Deuce for a ride and made him cry. 
Looks promising. Being released in November, making it much more promising. Most importantly:
It looks like it uses a LOTS OF PRACTICAL EFFECTS! (e.g. not special effects, actual cars, actual tracks etc)
I cannot express how tired I have become of over "effected" movies, which just come off bad in most cases. Dunkirk is an excellent movie for that fact alone. You may not like the movie, but you have to admit the visuals in the movie are far better then any effects movie, especially any car / plane effects movie (Red Tails was absolute crap because of that), even with some of it's minor flaws (model use was a bit apparent in some scenes).
I do accept special effects of course, but they should support the action, not BE the action (e.g. fill in backgrounds, minor details etc)
I'll watch it, but probably not in the theater since I typically only go to the movies once a year or so (at the most). Somehow, Matt Damon looks like he is playing Matt Damon with a cowboy hat, so I wish they would've casted his part differently. Christian Bale is anonymous looking enough for me (I guess because I don't watch Batman movies or something) that I have no problem buying him as a driver.
Oh, and I can't resist a get off my lawn moment. Please excuse me, but when I hear that a trailer just dropped, I think a jack is the correct tool for the job to get it back up off the ground. Movie trailers get released. There is no gravity in play with running a commercial on TV and posting it on YouTubes. Looking forward to the day when someone comes up with a newer slang word to replace dropped as a synonym for released.
In reply to T.J. :
yep, Matt Damon appearance-wise is really miscast. Makes me wonder if he's a racing fan and really lobbied for the part.
1960s Shelby is tall with dark curly hair.
aircooled said:I cannot express how tired I have become of over "effected" movies, which just come off bad in most cases.
Same here. The GT40 is one of my favorite cars ever, and I love the story of Ford beating Ferrari. I just hope they make it a movie for racing fans and don't instead turn it to another Fast and Furious-style movie, with loads of drama and people drifting and wildly overdone effects and people throwing around massively incorrect terminology constantly.
infinitenexus said:aircooled said:I cannot express how tired I have become of over "effected" movies, which just come off bad in most cases.
Same here. The GT40 is one of my favorite cars ever, and I love the story of Ford beating Ferrari. I just hope they make it a movie for racing fans and don't instead turn it to another Fast and Furious-style movie, with loads of drama and people drifting and wildly overdone effects and people throwing around massively incorrect terminology constantly.
Precisely why I'm skeptical. I hope they don't, because it's a really cool story.
Matt B said:I'll probably even accept whatever sprinklings of half-truths and made-up drama they'll deem necessary to tell the story.
But really, if Carroll Shelby was involved, wasn't it always going to be that way?
Between this and "The Art of Racing in the Rain" this should be a good car movie year.
ultraclyde said:Matt B said:I'll probably even accept whatever sprinklings of half-truths and made-up drama they'll deem necessary to tell the story.
But really, if Carroll Shelby was involved, wasn't it always going to be that way?
And by doing that, it shortens and simplifies the story a lot. All the while being historically pretty correct- given that it was Shelby's team's efforts that took the program to the promise land. Not to marginalize the other work at all- but the historical timing works out really well that just highlighting Shelby's work would be a good enough story. Especially since it includes some other iconic cars- the Cobra and the Cobra Daytona.
I love the line of "We're faster and lighter. If that don't work, we're nastier."
I wonder if the movie will include much about Shelby's employees - Phil Remington and the other guys who actually did the development work - or if they'll remain anonymous with the Shelby character getting all the credit.
aircooled said:Looks promising. Being released in November, making it much more promising. Most importantly:
It looks like it uses a LOTS OF PRACTICAL EFFECTS! (e.g. not special effects, actual cars, actual tracks etc)
I cannot express how tired I have become of over "effected" movies, which just come off bad in most cases. Dunkirk is an excellent movie for that fact alone. You may not like the movie, but you have to admit the visuals in the movie are far better then any effects movie, especially any car / plane effects movie (Red Tails was absolute crap because of that), even with some of it's minor flaws (model use was a bit apparent in some scenes).
I do accept special effects of course, but they should support the action, not BE the action (e.g. fill in backgrounds, minor details etc)
In this trailer, there are two over-the-top CGI crashes.
racerfink said:aircooled said:Looks promising. Being released in November, making it much more promising. Most importantly:
It looks like it uses a LOTS OF PRACTICAL EFFECTS! (e.g. not special effects, actual cars, actual tracks etc)
I cannot express how tired I have become of over "effected" movies, which just come off bad in most cases. Dunkirk is an excellent movie for that fact alone. You may not like the movie, but you have to admit the visuals in the movie are far better then any effects movie, especially any car / plane effects movie (Red Tails was absolute crap because of that), even with some of it's minor flaws (model use was a bit apparent in some scenes).
I do accept special effects of course, but they should support the action, not BE the action (e.g. fill in backgrounds, minor details etc)
In this trailer, there are two over-the-top CGI crashes.
I'm pretty certain that they did have issues with GT40s taking flight at speed, so I'm not sure I'd call it over-the-top.
racerfink said:aircooled said:....I do accept special effects of course, but they should support the action, not BE the action (e.g. fill in backgrounds, minor details etc)
In this trailer, there are two over-the-top CGI crashes.
I am not sure I would call them over the top. We are talking about very light cars with marginal aero at very high speeds. As far as using CGI for that, that is exactly what I am talking about. You COULD do those as practical effects, but it would be super difficult to make it look decent (getting an undriven car up to that speed would be super dangerous/difficult, using a driver would be insane), and you would likely end up with much lower speeds (or over cranking the camera) or a bunch of strange editing to make it look like more than it was.
In this case, you are portraying crashes as realistically as possible (I am assuming). It is supporting practical effects (I am assuming the other cars are real) and adds to the portrayal. Many of the CGI shots you see just make you say "yeah right" (hint: Vin did not jump between the buildings in the super car). CGI in movies is a bit of a "you don't know what you don't know" kind of thing. You THINK it should look one way, but if you shot it for real, there is just more there.
That said, could probably make driving sequences with CGI that would be very difficult to decern from real (heck, you could do a very good job with many of the driving game / simulators out now). The real issue is HOW they do them when they have CGI, they just can't resist cranking everything to 10! As noted, a prime example of this is Red Noses. Creating CGI plane sequences are also not that hard to make them look good (the Dogfights series on History did a pretty decent job), but man did they go wildly overboard in that movie. They made the planes to ridiculous things that even someone without strong knowledge of flying will look at and say "yeah, right". I won't mention the guy taking a 30mm shell to the chest and talking about it for a while, but that wasn't CGI, that was just stupid.
Here is a pic I took in PC2. You get some better tree and grass effects, it would be pretty damn convincing:
ShawnG said:So...
Where's Bruce McLaren, Roy Lunn and the people from Lola?
Oh... Right....
The book this is based on is a little, umm, popularized. I'm assuming this is the "Go Like Hell" movie, right?
To me, the biggest GT40 accomplishment was not the 1966 win, when Ford brought all the money and tried to enter so many cars the ACO said "okay, stop, that's enough". Three GT-40s finished, eleven did not. It was 1969 when the car was out of date, overweight and running the five liter engines that had finally been sorted out well enough to finish the race. JWR only had three cars in the team - not the race, they only had three cars! - and they managed to eke out a highly outmatched win with the same car that had won in 1968. That's the legendary win.
You'll need to log in to post.
