Maybe they realized that the sound of Frank Deford's voice causes 30 percent of listeners to smash their radios?
Well... it's the photography, or as Americans call it "cinematography". All the shots are not just well lit and colored, but above all well composed as static. In fact, I'm hearing that the the movie wasn't even shot from a written screenplay, but from a series of drawings, better known as "comic book" (or "graphic novel", if you will). The action is not conveyed so much by movement, but mostly by composition. This trailer loses almost nothing when broken down into individual stills. The camera not only doesn't shake... it barely moves. Instead, it's tilted, set deep, set high, etc.
This trailer is awesome, but of course, whether the movie is good remains to be seen. It's been (well) done before, though: Dredd. The key is to do just this "comic book experience" and nothing else. I hear it has almost no dialog. Good sign.
For me, the unsettling nature of the trailer is the big-budget beauty of a mythology growing out of low-fi, punk-rock Ozsploitation sci-fi campiness. This balances beautifully with an utter dearth of Mel Gibson, creating an artistic tension that will, one hopes, allow us to forget the word "Ozsploitation."
From the website VisitGettysburg.com, devoted to facilities and attractions in the vicinity of the most notorious and bloody battle on American soil, in which nearly 8,000 were killed, and nearly 50,000 wounded:
"Lincoln's Lost Treasure- Downtown Adventure
Part Theatre, Part Adventure, Part Mystery. The streets of Gettysburg serve as a backdrop for our unique story, told with elements of improv theatre and scavenger hunt. Put on your sleuthing gear, as Gettysburg becomes a road-map to fun, laughter and suspense. Hired by a wealthy eccentric entrepreneur, you are thrust into a mission that puts you in the center of a quest to uncover the secret treasure Lincoln left behind.
"Lincoln’s Lost Treasure is a LIVE two and a half hour adventure through the streets of historic Downtown Gettysburg. Almost like stepping into your own action movie, individuals or groups of up to 6 or 8 people are sent on a thrilling and entertaining quest to uncover a lost secret sparked by President Lincoln’s final breath."
By KarenUhOh on The Airbnb Hole
And here I'd been thinking my last year was important.
By Smitros on Put Your Phone Down
People taking phone pictures now clog up aquariums. It's not enough to find Nemo, people also have to get a closeup.
By freetzy on Put Your Phone Down
@And then Katie said Because your arms are in the way, asshole.
I heard a rumor that one of these authors may be a torrid hoyden hopped up on spite. Should I be worried about this? If I read her book, will I possibly succumb to the addictive powers of spite and become hopped up on it myself? And should I be wary of the corruptive influence of hoydens and their hoydenish ways?
And they're all hiring lawyers to sue you when you put on "their" color of T-shirt.
By Ralph Haygood on That Big Study About How the Student Debt Nightmare Is in Your Head? It's Garbage
I can argue statistics with erudite refinement (Google-Scholar me if you care), but I refuse to argue the statistical niceties or un-niceties of this or any similar study, because...
...to a good first approximation, student debt shouldn't exist. Until around 30 years ago, it barely did exist in the USA. And for many years prior, American universities generally worked remarkably well in most ways. They educated an unprecedented proportion of the population, whose participation in the workforce contributed much to the broad prosperity of the country. They fostered research that made the USA a leader in nearly every kind of science and engineering and much else besides. They did all this with taxpayer support that enabled most of them to charge students very modest fees. Some of the best, such as the University of California, were practically free. None of this needed to change. There's no intrinsic reason why it couldn't have continued to this day. Instead, under the "leadership" of malicious Republicans and "pragmatic" Democrats, the public has disinvested in higher education, and universities have been given over to greedy fools who prattle about "running the university like a business". Even supposed liberals like Barack Obama routinely speak of higher education as primarily a private good, "the single best investment that you can make in yourselves and your future", rather than a public good, an investment we the citizens should make for our collective benefit, such that anyone who demonstrates ability and commitment can get a university education without borrowing money.
Obviously, these trends are unlikely to be reversed. After all, this is the USA in 2014. Only rich people's "problems" matter, and rich people don't take out student loans. However, arguing over whether student debt is crushing or merely burdensome strikes me as a form of fighting over the crumbs that fall from our masters' tables.