criterionforum.org

I wonder if Malick himself edited that? I imagine he approved it...

Good God, the bit of stern dialogue from Pitt, followed by the insert of the blazing sun, then the boy's face, whew...

Even in crap quality, it's apparent that this could really, really be something great.

It looks like The Fountain.

Fabulous trailer - what makes the waiting even harder is seeing that there is no UK release date for the film yet (imdb revised their page).

Caved in and watched. There's so much energy in the camerawork for the period sequences, so much inventiveness, to say nothing of the jaw-dropping SFX work.

Also, is this 1.85? The opening frame of the video seems to indicate that it is.

Looks truly beautiful. And absolutely nothing like The Fountain.

Exactly. Glorious and captivating. After seven months Nothing re-emerges just in order to talk smack. Unless, of course, he meant his comment favorably. In which case...well, I've got nothin'.

Guido wrote:Also, is this 1.85? The opening frame of the video seems to indicate that it is.

The first picture that came out was framed in 2.35

The first picture that came out was framed in 2.35

Thanks for the clarification. 1.85 did seem like an odd departure for Malick.

The trailer is 1.85:1. Searchlight's stills were in that ratio, and the earlier image was a crop and wasn't flat or scope.
1.85:1 makes sense, since the film should incorporate a bit of 1.44:1 IMAX footage shot for The Voyage of Time, but I also suspect it will be a better fit for capturing the vertical scale of trees, planets, etc, and for giving a sense of "the greater above".

This is a movie that should've been shot in Super Panavision 70. God, I do miss that format.

Actually, in line with that, it would be a great pleasure to finally get both this and Ron Fricke's Samsara in the same year. They might make for a great IMAX double feature.

I think that the bulk of the film was shot in Super 35, with 45 minutes or so in 65mm and select scenes shot on a RED. None of that clears up the aspect ratio question, since all of those can manipulated for different ratios. I think the plan was to transfer the five perf 65mm stuff to 15 perf IMAX for the Voyage of Time film. We haven't heard anything about that project in a while. I wonder if they decided to drop that idea.

I believe it was shot on full 15 perf IMAX film. Back when shooting was going on I saw reference to heavy 'IMAX cameras' being made, and people who've worked on post of this film have referred to 'IMAX footage'.
Reports are that earlier in the year a 160ish minute (excluding credits) version was shown containing 40ish minutes of 'creation' footage, but the final version removes much of that footage and runs about 142 minutes (again, excluding credits). If there are no plans to release that full sequence separately as The Voyage of Time, and Malick doesn't wish to release the extended cut on video, then we'll never see most of the 65/70mm footage and CGI created for Tree. Which seems like a colossal waste of money for the producers, and a colossal tragedy for everyone else.
So I'm praying that the idea hasn't been dropped.

Ah jeez, even John didn't get the joke... :-k

I was going to reinvent myself in the mold of domino, but...

And is Tree of Life even getting an Imax release? That'd be the only way we could fully appreciate the large format scenes. The double whammy of 35mm reduction and DI really kills the impact of the large format. I saw Inception this way, and the 65mm scenes were virtually indistinguishable to me. And Imax would be the only way for this film, since 5/70 cinemas are practically non-existent.

Brianruns10 wrote:And is Tree of Life even getting an Imax release? That'd be the only way we could fully appreciate the large format scenes.

No, but The Voyage of Time - a short which expands upon the large format scenes - probably will be.

Much as I relish Malik's gifts to us mere mortals I will don my Captain poo-poo hat and say that it looks and feels like a life insurance ad. There I've said it... it's off my chest. Someone has to be the voice of dissent. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.
I KNOW it's only a trailer.

Zazou dans le Metro wrote:Much as I relish Malik's gifts to us mere mortals I will don my Captain poo-poo hat and say that it looks and feels like a life insurance ad. There I've said it... it's off my chest. Someone has to be the voice of dissent. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.
I KNOW it's only a trailer.

I am with you, especially that awful sentimental and self-pitying voice-over (hopefully only belonging to the trailer) as coming from the graveyard - indeed closely resembling a "life insurance ad".
I have to confess that I find that almost all his films are visually and aurally bordering on the kitsch, but now he has surpassed himself.
My only hope is that the trailer doesn't reflect the film in any way and eventually will be judged as a unrecognizable derivative or at least very faint simulacrum of the movie.

If life-insurance ads look like that for you, I want your television.

Cde. wrote:If life-insurance ads look like that for you, I want your television.

If you think that's something, you oughta check out the pants commercials.

A great susprise to hear Moldau by Bedrich Smetana in the trailer. Beautiful music. And the movie itself looks amazing.

I caved and watched the trailer. Looks amazing, I can't wait to watch it.

I did too. "The Moldau" is hands-down my favorite classical piece, and I really loved it's use in the trailer and hope to see it in the film. Considering Malick's record with using other music in his films than from his chosen composer, this should hopefully be no exception.

Regarding the "insurance advertisement" quality of the Tree of Life trailer:

1. Word from a poster on IMDB who claims to have worked on the film is that Malick approved - but did not himself cut - the trailer.

2. How many trailers accurately convey the tone and form of the final film, especially the editing structure? Almost none. Malick's not necessarily known for long cuts, but rather for inventive, non-linear, almost intuitive cutting -- which the trailer very facilely apes. But I think it's safe to say the concise nature of the trailer will be replaced with a fairly expansive, "meditative" (there's the dreaded word!) structure in the full feature.

3. His work is, I agree, especially with The New World, walking on a maddeningly thin line between art/kitsch, but I think part of that has to do with - no insult intended - how out-of-step he is with the world. By all accounts he really is a genius, and a genius of the "old school" (books, higher education) and so of course his classical approach to themes in his art will seem more and more anachronistic as we all get dumber and dumber (yet, for those very reasons, it will last longer than most other filmmakers' work). (Wong Kar Wai is another great director also currently walking that line -- much less successfully, in my opinion).

4. The trailer is selling something, of course, but the "product" here is not an opportunistic scam perpetrated by leeches, nor is it a pair of Levi's.