The Inhumans Marvel/IMAX

[Alidar Jarok]

OK, that was kind of the impression I was starting to get. Where would the Sin City stuff fall on his crazyness scale? I really enjoyed the first movie and I've been curious to check out the actual comics.

Sin City is where the stereotype of Frank Miller lies and why I'm not entirely willing to blame 9/11. It's very much focusing on sexual violence in a very unironic way that lacks subtlety but has a ton of style and can still be a very good comic.

How much has Miller been involved with DKIII? I know it's got his name on it, but I believe it's actually written by Brian Arzarello.

I couldn't actually say. They've talked about DC bringing in a co-writer to keep him on a leash, but I don't know how much involvement each has. Certainly, I doubt he's a writer in name only and he is credited as a writer.

 

[JD]

IGN's Joshua Yehl has given it a 4/10. This bit of the review covers his problems with the show.

This might sound like the MCU’s version of Game of Thrones, and it certainly had the potential to be with its superhero monarchy and plays for power, but the show is a disappointment on every level. The costumes and makeup look like a group of friends decided to do Inhumans cosplay the day before Comic-Con. The royal palace, a main setting, looks like a warehouse on the outside and is full of bland, forgettable spaces on the inside. The clunky dialogue sounds like a first draft, not the sharp material you’d expect from the MCU. Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., the show that first introduced the idea of an Inhuman and which this new show has the thinnest of connections, earned its fans with a quick wit and some slick spy high jinks, whereas Inhumans has no firm tone or personality, it just globs along from one scene to the next.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Reviews are certainly mixed. Io9 has been merciless up till now, but their review, while not spectacular, is far from the hate-fest that they have previously displayed toward this project. Most of their complaints focus on the budgetary issues that a feature would not have had. In the end, they do recommend waiting for TV...

The Inhuman royal family aren’t just a bunch of superheroes and villains, they’re literal kings and queens and usurpers battling for the control of the throne and the fate of their people. In space (sometimes). Theirs is the sort of story that would be difficult to bring to a movie or TV screen, even in the best of circumstances, but in a truly surprising way, Marvel and ABC’s Inhumans television show actually manages to do something... interesting.
****
To be clear, if you go to see Inhumans in this weekend, it will dawn on you at some point that you are in a movie theater watching a television show that was supposed to be a movie and will also be airing on television in a couple of weeks. That realization will confuse you, perhaps make you chuckle to yourself, and probably make you wonder whether your money would have been better spent elsewhere.

I'll be waiting for TV, and I'm possibly the biggest MCU fan on these boards.

 

[JD]

That really surprises me, they've been pretty critical of the show up to this point, so I was expecting them to totally trash it.
Does anybody know how the budget for this would compare to things like The Expanse or Once Upon a Time?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

^ I don't think anyone knows what the budget is.

Well, these initial reactions are a good sign.
I was surprised to see Medusa with the shaved head in the new trailer, but it is a good way to get around having to constantly animate her hair. It could also make from a story perspective if it's punishment for not cooperating with Maximus.

I want to give my full thoughts a little later (short version, though, it's fine. I actually found it a solid two hour television premiere that will be judged harshly by the standards of movies), but I thought I'd comment a little more on Medusa's hair.

Spoiler: Medusa's Hair

You're absolutely right in both regards. It's clearly a budget thing. I was actually shocked that they essentially tabled the three most expensive parts of the show - Medusa's hair, Triton, and Lockjaw - before the first forty minute episode was over. But it also fits narratively perfectly. They're showing how each of the strengths of the royal family have been sidelined. Even non-budget aspects were crippled after Maximus's coup as Karnak seems to have lost his real ability to sense flaws after a hard fall and concussion.

That being said, it didn't really feel narratively earned yet. I think Medusa's hair was used about three times before it was cut. While I thought the effect was good (the wig is bad, but I don't get the criticism of the CGI), if that's all they were able to do in all the time they spent on it, it's got to be the most expensive effect they have. Given that, I think they almost had to take this action early.

Here's the thing about the budget, though. It is looking doubtful that IMAX will make its money back. Given that, it obviously couldn't have supported a higher budget. If by some miracle it got a second season, I don't see what they would have done unless they went back to the same trick a second time.

 

[Reverend]

It's a shame, but I don't think anyone paying attention to the material released thus far should be surprised by the negative reviews. So far everything I've read is pretty much what I expected just going by the stills and the trailers: Stilted, cheep and mediocre.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

It isn't anywhere near as bad as the weight of the reviews would suggest. I'd definitely suggest checking it out when it airs on ABC (admittedly, I can't recommend seeing it in IMAX, but I'd also say that I've spent $20 in worse ways).

 

[Mr. Adventure]

It isn't anywhere near as bad as the weight of the reviews would suggest. I'd definitely suggest checking it out when it airs on ABC (admittedly, I can't recommend seeing it in IMAX, but I'd also say that I've spent $20 in worse ways).

Wait, you actually saw it before passing judgment on it? That's just wrong, man.

I was thinking about it the other day, I wonder how Star Trek: Discovery would've fared with an early theatrical release. It seems like a better fit to garner an audience for such a venue. I considered seeing Inhumans yesterday and the reserve seating showed literally two people having bought tickets for each showtime though to be fair it was a few hours early. I wonder how that works with movie rights, like would CBS be able to show Discovery in the theater or would that be considered crossing the line?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

It would depend on the specific contract. Discovery would probably have been a better choice because at least Star Trek fans are a built in audience. I don't think CBS wants to do that because they need a wider audience on CBS so those people can eventually pay for their app. IMAX isn't likely to get a huge audience.

When I bought my ticket, I think there were three or four people who bought one before me (about two hours before it aired). The actual showing had maybe 15-20, which was much better than I was expecting. Granted, Friday at 7pm feels like the high water mark (the only hesitation is it was raining pretty badly, which could have kept people away).

 

[Christopher]

It would depend on the specific contract.

That's the point, I think. When CBS and Paramount Pictures were split into different companies some years ago, CBS kept ownership of Star Trek, but Paramount got the movie license to it. So CBS probably couldn't unilaterally release one of their TV shows in theaters, because then they'd be infringing on Paramount's license. Most likely, they'd need to go through Paramount as the distributor in order to make that happen.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I went to see one of the Doctor Who events at the same theater and it was packed and they showed it on TV the same week. Maybe a limited non-IMAX event would have worked even better. Or maybe it's just the interest level in the material.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Doctor Who has had years to build up a fan base. I think something with better trailers would have worked better, but it's never going to compare to Doctor Who or Game of Thrones.

 

[JD]

That's the point, I think. When CBS and Paramount Pictures were split into different companies some years ago, CBS kept ownership of Star Trek, but Paramount got the movie license to it. So CBS probably couldn't unilaterally release one of their TV shows in theaters, because then they'd be infringing on Paramount's license. Most likely, they'd need to go through Paramount as the distributor in order to make that happen.

How would the Fandom Events theatrical showings of the TNG two parters have worked in regards to all of this?
I'm a bit surprised that the budget was such an issue with this, there are tons of shows on the air now who seem to able to do almost movie level effects on a regular basis. AoS, The Flash and especially Legends of Tomorrow do some pretty impressive stuff in practically every episode. Would Medusa's hair or Lockjaw be that much harder to do than Firestorm or The Atom?

 

[The Old Mixer]

Would Medusa's hair or Lockjaw be that much harder to do than Firestorm or The Atom?

Ever notice how little time those guys spend in fully costumed hero mode?

 

[David cgc]

How would the Fandom Events theatrical showings of the TNG two parters have worked in regards to all of this?

There was some sort of difficulty with rights regarding exhibition that came up after BoBW, which is why they stopped, but I think that had to do with all the original contracts being done for TV and not considering the possibility of a theatrical run for any episodes. As for why they aren't doing an event for the Discovery premiere, I figure it's the wrong end of the stick. They're trying to get people to sign up for All Access, so they're airing the opening on network TV to boost interest, so they probably don't want to mix the message by letting people pay to watch it in theaters. Plus, as said above, DSC is still an unknown quantity. Doctor Who is going strong, and it has a built in "special event" with the Christmas episode, so it's already not like any random one of the season, which could end up being a classic or a dog or just mediocre.

 

[JD]

Ah, good point.

 

[dahj]

Doctor Who has had years to build up a fan base. I think something with better trailers would have worked better, but it's never going to compare to Doctor Who or Game of Thrones.

Well MCU has built up quite a fan base, it's probably way more popular than Doctor Who these days, I don't think it's lack of fanbase that's keeping people away...

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Would Medusa's hair or Lockjaw be that much harder to do than Firestorm or The Atom?

I would think animating hair would be more difficult than some flame or particle effects.

There are specific graphic card algorithms just to deal with hair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TressFX. Turning them on can affect performance and frame rates.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

How would the Fandom Events theatrical showings of the TNG two parters have worked in regards to all of this?
I'm a bit surprised that the budget was such an issue with this, there are tons of shows on the air now who seem to able to do almost movie level effects on a regular basis. AoS, The Flash and especially Legends of Tomorrow do some pretty impressive stuff in practically every episode. Would Medusa's hair or Lockjaw be that much harder to do than Firestorm or The Atom?

There's some genuinely terrible CGI on The Flash (every time Flash is done in CGI is the perfect example). I don't get the complaints about the CG in this show. It's fine to good in this. I don't even get the complaints about Medusa's hair. For TV, I still think this is certainly comparable to Agents of SHIELD. But it's not good for movie-level CGI.

Well MCU has built up quite a fan base, it's probably way more popular than Doctor Who these days, I don't think it's lack of fanbase that's keeping people away...

And that's what IMAX was counting on, but a TV pilot is still entirely different than a movie.

 

[Christopher]

How would the Fandom Events theatrical showings of the TNG two parters have worked in regards to all of this?

Oh, I wasn't aware of those. I'm just making a best guess, so I could be wrong. But those would be re-releases of something that's already aired elsewhere. I'd imagine that might be different from a legal/contractual standpoint from debuting something theatrically.

I would think animating hair would be more difficult than some flame or particle effects.

They did a pretty good job with Julie Mao's hair in microgravity in the pilot of The Expanse, and in her final (?) episode in season 2. I could tell it was digital, but with a bit more money and a couple years' more tech development, it could surely be done more convincingly. And I still say that a lot of the simpler stuff could've been done inexpensively with physical puppeteering or other tricks, freeing up more of the CGI time and budget to be used for the more elaborate stuff.

There's also some pretty good digital hair animation in the Dreamworks Dragons: Race to the Edge series on Netflix, based on the How to Train Your Dragon franchise. It's not perfect -- sometimes they bother to animate the dragonriders' hair waving in the wind, and sometimes they don't -- but when they do go to the trouble, it looks pretty good for a TV-budget animated series.

There are specific graphic card algorithms just to deal with hair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TressFX. Turning them on can affect performance and frame rates.

I don't think that would be an issue for a TV broadcast or theatrical showing, since the processing would only be done to create the individual frames of video (or film) in the first place, not to replay them. It's different from computer games where the images are being rendered in real time.