Comments on: Stardust Movie Trailer Revealed

By: some guy

some guy — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:26:42 +0000

ripped of a japanese anime movie

By: JK

JK — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:13:41 +0000

jesse, they changed the name to Tristan for the movie. they also changed the ending and alot of other stuff as well.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:49:55 +0000

I don’t care about the budget, or the score. I’m a Gaiman fan. HE’S a higher power than Whedon - one of the Endless - so Whedon can stay in “God’s” position. What I’m concerned about is what Hollywood will do to the story - where they’ll omit and what they’ll glitz and “polish.” The trailer DOES look good, though … it’s enough to make me hope that all is not lost, though I can see that some is.
I like Walter Ponce’s comparison to the Princess Bride, though, even if it’s not really accurate. The story is set mostly in Faerie, though it touches early England as well.
Oh, and it’s not Tristan, it’s Tristran.

By: Fyodor_Fish

Fyodor_Fish — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:24:02 +0000

Well, if it’s leaked footage, someone cut it into a faux trailer then. And yep, the music is from PotC, but Pete Sciretta mentioned that up top when he initially posted this article.

By: Ex

Ex — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:44:27 +0000

THIS IS NOT THE TRAILER FOR STARDUST PEOPLE.

it’s leaked footage with unfinished CGI. the official, real trailer should be out in a couple of weeks. and yes, that is the score from Pirates of the Carribean, because Stardust has not been scored yet.

By: Walter Ponce

Walter Ponce — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 07:12:59 +0000

I couldn’t get over the music…vaguely familiar, yes? That kinda ruined the trailer for me.

But, without that, I would have to say that I WILL be seeing this movie. It has, in the trailer, a Princess Bride feel. And how could you possibly go wrong with the Princess Bride?

By: Fyodor_Fish

Fyodor_Fish — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:53:06 +0000

I’d have to go with the lower number, otherwise someone, somewhere is lining their pockets, because those effects didn’t look like they cost anywhere near that much. And for $100 million, shouldn’t we be seeing CGI armies clashing on battlefields while the obligatory (simulated) helicopter shot zooms over them? Seems like it, but Stardust looks a smaller film (I was thinking Princess Bride-sized in scope).

But hey, Claire Danes is in it and that’s a damn good sign, as I hope you’d agree. If you don’t, I don’t think we can be online pals anymore. Seriously.

By: Peter Sciretta

Peter Sciretta — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:15:41 +0000

Follow-up: Wikipedia says $100 million, imdb says estimated $65 million

By: Peter Sciretta

Peter Sciretta — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:09:02 +0000

I read somewhere the budget was near $100 million. If so…

By: Fyodor_Fish

Fyodor_Fish — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 05:47:49 +0000

Just checked this out. Thanks for passing it along.

While you’re right about the effects, there’s still time to fix them. Remember when the Hulk trailer premiered during the ‘04 SuperBowl? The Hulk looked awful, but by the time summer rolled around, he was much improved (inconsistently rendered at times, but better than when we first saw him).

Question: what’s the budget on Stardust? Are we expecting too much these days from epic fantasy films not made or financed by Hollywood? Not every director has $100 million dollars to play with, so maybe we should cut Stardust some slack.

As for Gaiman being Jesus, sorry, no. Whedon’s the whole trinity by himself (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Nope, Gaiman can be Peter or Paul (or, if you’re in a gnostic mood, Thomas; or, if you’re in a proto-feminist mood, Mary Magdalene), but definitely not Jesus.