I'm all for staying positive, I'm all for a wait-and see attitude. It worked for Momoa who looks much better as Conan than I expected when I first saw pics of him.
But we are still going to comment on what information is available, and so far most of it's pretty bad. Sure, the official pics will likely be a lot better (at least I hope so). But until we see them are we supposed to ignore the leaked ones and not pass comment?
I don't think there's anything wrong with commenting, but most people are making these absolutely conclusive, unreserved remarks that seem to ignore the fact that we've only seen the very tip of the iceberg, and that these are not pictures that were chosen by the filmmakers to represent the look of their film.
For the most part, these comments are not speculative or tentative in any way. People are commenting on the finished product in no uncertain terms after having seen -- what? -- not even a moving image yet.
It's all very knee-jerk and kind of unreasonable, I think. I get that a lot of people want to be able to say "I told you so" if and when this movie turns out to be shit, but that seems to be the only thing some people want out of the experience.
These kind of movies are full of fiberglass, plastic and vinyl props and costume pieces (and that includes LOTR, which had several degrees of quality to their props and weapons, depending on how close they would be to the camera). Also, LOTR had an unprecedented amount of pre-production time -- going on two years, I believe -- to flesh out the details of their representation of Middle Earth, since it's being called up as a point of comparison.
And LOTR's budget was for a single movie, even though they were released as three separate films. The whole series was filmed continuously, without breaks between. And that's how the movie was budgeted. So in effect, each individual movie was able to achieve things that a movie with a third of the overall LOTR budget wouldn't normally be able to do, simply because they were making one big movie without all of the extra logistical costs that would come with starting, ending, and restarting a film production three times over.
No one really knows what we are looking at here, and yet so many are acting like they've already seen the movie. Who knows if a forest is going to look the same in a movie as it looks in a snapshot photo? Who knows how they are even going to frame the shots they are shooting that day? Will we even get a clear look at that forest, or will it just be a blur of green leaves in the background? Maybe Nispel only chose it because he like the quality of the light, or wanted a shot of the sun coming through the leaves, or the shadows that would produce on someone's face.
Depending on the angles you choose, you could shoot that forest to appear as sparse or as dense as you wish it to look. And get your crew and equipment in there comfortably without having to damage the vegetation in any way, as you would in some old-growth forest.
A film company might spend the entire day in one location to get some close-ups that never reveal the background setting. This forest might be just for close-ups of the actors, while some other forest stands in for the wider shots. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Comment away, but allow for the fact that life is full of surprises, and many things turn out to be not what we thought they were. That's how life works, and people who act like they know the outcome of everything and speak in such absolute terms about things that are still not fully revealed to them seem to be ignoring that fact.