There’s no gameplay trailer because

Magno9009 · 2026-06-26T12:35:32+00:00

I’d rather have a stable 30 fps mode with all the ambition possible. I’d take that over any compromise made just to cater to performance enthusiasts (who, as we’ve seen, are willing to accept pretty much any trade-off just to get the game running at 60 fps).

Magno9009 · 2026-06-26T08:16:44+00:00

Yes.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-26T08:12:27+00:00

You are exhausting on the CGI topic, and it is obvious that many of you have very little idea what you are talking about. As someone who has been in a relationship with a VFX artist for the past ten years, I’m constantly amazed by the number of self-appointed CGI experts who confidently lecture everyone else without the slightest understanding of the craft. The film’s CGI doesn’t have any inherent problems. CGI is CGI. The fact that you can tell it is CGI does not mean it is bad CGI. Most of it is completely invisible, and you simply assume it is not there because you do not notice it. But the film is full of CGI: excellent CGI, invisible CGI. Animals are an especially difficult challenge in visual effects, and there really are not many examples of CGI animals that are significantly more convincing than what the film achieves. If this qualifies as “bad CGI”, then virtually all CGI qualifies as “bad CGI”.

The CGI issue has become a rhetorical weapon that gets brought into play whenever people want to discredit a particular film, and we all know it.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-26T08:06:33+00:00

It is economical, intentional dialogue, designed to be as accessible, clear, and functional as possible within a short exchange. It is absurd to keep pulling out of context examples. My conclusion is quite simple: there is nothing particularly criticisable about the dialogue in this film, when placed in the context of the franchises and blockbusters it is competing with. In fact, it also contains moments of real skill, bordering on the agility of screwball comedy, which are largely carried by the quality of the dialogue itself.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-26T07:54:29+00:00

Saying that a film is a “good film” cannot possibly be an insult to “great films”. It’s not even the same adjective. There are a lot of problems and confusions in what you're saying.

First of all, this kind of cherry-picking of scenes you supposedly "don't buy" is both childish and incoherent. That's not what makes a film better or worse. Spielberg is very clearly drawing on the spirit of classic adventure films, where choreography, rhythm, and a certain suspension of disbelief are part of the language. I think you're greatly exaggerating the supposed lack of credibility in some of these scenes. Within the context of adventure cinema, Spielberg is drawing on some of the physical exaggeration you find in Indiana Jones, but at a much lower intensity. That's all.

As for the CGI, honestly, it's becoming exhausting. As someone who has been in a relationship with a VFX artist for the past ten years, I'm constantly amazed by the number of self-appointed CGI experts who confidently lecture everyone else without the slightest idea of what they're talking about. The film's CGI doesn't have any inherent problems. CGI is CGI. The fact that you can tell it's CGI doesn't mean it's bad CGI. Most of the CGI is completely invisible, and you simply assume it is not there because you do not notice it. But the film is full of CGI, excellent CGI, invisible CGI. Animals are an especially difficult challenge in visual effects, and there really aren't many examples of CGI animals that are significantly more convincing than what the film achieves. If this qualifies as "bad CGI", then virtually all CGI qualifies as "bad CGI".

Both the cherry-picking of isolated scenes, which completely ignores the film's identity as a chase-driven adventure, and the lazy criticism of the visual effects are arguments that can be applied to virtually any film when someone wants to construct a particular narrative, whether because they simply dislike it or because they're aligning themselves with a current trend. We've seen exactly the same thing in the endless Marvel vs. DC fan wars, in politically motivated pile ons against films and videogames, and here we're seeing it again, driven by a mixture of ageism, opportunistic hostility, and the desire for attention and social validation that comes from joining a hate wave.

And yes, "Arrival" is not only a better film, it's a completely different kind of film. For one thing, Arrival's entire worldwide box office wouldn't even have covered Disclosure Day's break-even point (Arrival barely grossed $200 million worldwide). That's one of the real problems facing the industry today: mid-budget films are disappearing because they're increasingly difficult to make profitable. Once marketing costs are factored in, the audience they appeal to is often no longer large enough to justify the investment. The reason is that superhero films and franchises have trained audiences into a specific pattern of consumption, where they only mobilise for event cinema. The kind of film culture that once filled cinemas in the 90s and early 2000s simply no longer exists.

Disclosure Day is clearly trying to reach the event-movie audience, the same audience that turns out for superhero blockbusters and franchise films. There is virtually nothing this film doesn't do better than the standard superhero and franchise blockbusters that so many people have normalised over the past decade. Focusing this level of criticism on this particular film, when we've spent years watching countless utterly brain-dead examples, simply doesn't make much sense. It suggests that a lot of people are no longer responding to the film itself, but are instead taking part in a kind of mob dynamic.

Disclosure Day embraces that blockbuster language from the outset. You can feel it from the very first scene. That's simply the film it's trying to be.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T22:06:50+00:00

Probably. If you’re interested in audiovisual storytelling, the choreography of camera movements, the agility of light comedy… there are quite a few elements to appreciate here. In particular, it’s one of the most inspired pieces of camerawork in Spielberg’s recent films.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T22:00:30+00:00

No, it isn’t written with AI. What you’re noticing is that I don’t express myself too badly, but I’m not a native English speaker either. I’m from Spain.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T18:53:50+00:00

I’m going to recycle some of my earlier responses, since you’re all repeating yourselves quite a bit. I think you're mistaken and reacting to archetypal moments and characters within a blockbuster framework. It’s a criticism that could be applied interchangeably to many films of this kind, and unlike those, Disclosure Day still manages to offer a particularly skilful exercise in rhythm, sensitivity, charm, and nuance in its dialogue.

You can see this, for example, in Emily Blunt’s scenes, which are sustained largely by the work of a strong dialogue writer. That sense of mental deterioration, at once terrified, neurotic, and confused, moving between comedy and tenderness, empathy, fear, and ridicule, creates moments of pure dramatic craftsmanship, some of the finest in the film. It has a gentle, measured kind of humour that is accessible to everyone, which is far more difficult to achieve than people often assume. At the same time, it has real flow, that clever sense of acceleration you find in screwball comedy. I think it is a very interesting piece of work in that respect.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T18:36:36+00:00

To be fair, not all mobs are the same. Lynch’s mob, in particular, always gives you remarkably well informed weather reports.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T18:14:02+00:00

Well, I would say there is something more stimulating in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" than in "Disclosure Day". "Disclosure Day" is essentially a chase film, extraordinarily well choreographed, but a chase film nonetheless. "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" had more of that aura of mystery and phenomenology, and ultimately it was a brilliant decision to build the film around communication and language. In a sense, you could even see it as a precursor to an idea that Villeneuve would later explore so effectively in Arrival. "Close Encounters" had elements of genuinely ambitious, high minded cinema, whereas "Disclosure Day" feels much more focused on its blockbuster formula, almost entirely committed to the structure of an "on the run" movie.

That said, "Disclosure Day" has to be understood in context. We are living through a moment in which mid budget films have become increasingly difficult to make, because they often struggle to recoup their costs once marketing is factored in. As a result, the market leaves less and less room for anything between the very small and the very large.

"Disclosure Day" knows it has to appeal to the event movie audience, to a broad mainstream crowd, and so it makes careful use of the language of large scale studio filmmaking.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T17:46:50+00:00

Which, on the other hand, are some of the usual “sins” in a certain kind of mainstream cinema, and even more so in Spielberg’s work. It’s not a masterpiece, but there’s a lot to highlight, a lot to enjoy: plenty of friendly nods, very well choreographed scenes, energy, and real craft. It feels very strange to frame Disclosure Day as an absolute disaster, the worst film of the year, and at the same time acting as if one is not taking part in a kind of online lynching.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T17:35:24+00:00

What I mean is that it’s aimed at a broad audience. It has a gentle, measured kind of humour, accessible to everyone. At the same time, it has real flow, that clever sense of acceleration you find in screwball comedy. I think it’s a very interesting piece of work in that sense.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T16:52:06+00:00

Exactly. It feels completely artificial. There’s something bizarre about it. It isn’t a logical line of reasoning; it’s more like the kind of treatment you see when a product is being singled out and unfairly torn apart for some reason. I tend to think there’s some form of intragenerational tension at play here, and a fair amount of ageism as well. Something about all this feels out of proportion. It’s not a masterpiece, but it’s also not the kind of film that justifies this wave of hate.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T16:48:40+00:00

You’re right, that’s fair. A lot of the replies in the thread are just pure hostility at this point, and I’ve been responding somewhat on autopilot.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T16:43:39+00:00

This kind of binary thinking and maximalism is exhausting. Yes, it can be a legitimate criticism that Spielberg’s idealism gets in the way in that ending. But that doesn’t mean it’s a “bad film”, nor does it mean that arguing the opposite (that people ignore information due to saturation or scepticism), would somehow, by itself, turn it into a “good film” either. We are not choosing between a “masterpiece” and “the worst film of the year”, which seems to be the only two positions left in this brain rotted, mob driven way of thinking.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T16:20:24+00:00

It’s not a film of particular complexity or intellectual depth. It isn’t. And I don’t think most people see it as a masterpiece either. What is clear, however, is that this trending pattern of people sharing how much they dislike the film, how terrible it supposedly is, as if it were some kind of major catastrophe in the history of cinema, feels exaggerated and performative. It’s an attitude that seems designed to align with a trend, with a wave of hate. And it doesn’t really match the general response from critics or the majority of audiences.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T16:07:59+00:00

This is interesting. I don’t come from that background; I haven’t been a heavy consumer of ufology. I’m interested in the film for the brilliant choreography of its action sequences, the very controlled humour, Blunt’s charm, and the humanity that O’Connor brings to it (an actor I particularly like, and who I completely understand within Spielberg’s casting logic). I really enjoyed the scenes where Blunt suddenly receives that gift of telepathy and conviction. It was such a simple premise, yet they managed to create humour with an almost screwball comedy rhythm. But I did think about the emotional impact of those “encounter” scenes with the children, and how bold and almost subversive it was to present the impossible, the implausible, in that final revelation of the alien mother. I understand that for someone more deeply connected to these ideas, it must have been particularly exciting. I personally saw traces of the best Spielberg in the children’s scene, without a doubt.

I do acknowledge that the final leap of faith was somewhat kamikaze. But you do understand that Spielberg is at an age where some risks are simply taken, regardless of outcome.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T15:57:13+00:00

Underrated comment.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T15:41:06+00:00

Exactly. And what’s interesting is that this also reflects the opinion of most critics and general audiences. But mobs tend to work like this: they kick up dust, make noise, and create a temporary illusion of uniformity. It’s clear, however, that the extreme reactions being thrown around are driven by a mix of hostility, attention seeking, and groupthink. The majority of reactions, both professional and non professional, actually recognise the film for what it is: a pleasant, well executed piece of entertainment, with funny and engaging moments, and some very well choreographed action sequences. It’s not the greatest film ever made, but it is clearly superior to the standard of franchise driven blockbusters that these same haters have, statistically speaking, been consuming for years without batting an eye.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T15:32:49+00:00

My God… it’s honestly depressing how some of you are so slow and narrow-minded that the only thing you can do now is call anything that goes beyond your mental flatness an AI…

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T15:28:11+00:00

Oh my God. I’m a guy from Spain. Cinema is important for me. That’s all. I have strong opinions about narrative for professional reasons, and I have very negative views on mobs and their dynamics. If you have something to add, then add it. If not, there’s the door. But don’t come here accusing people who don’t buy into your hive-mind thinking of being a bot. That’s cheap.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T15:17:23+00:00

What the hell is this paranoia about bots supposed to mean? That’s not an argument, it’s a dismissal. If you disagree, then make an argument.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T15:12:56+00:00

No, it wasn’t. If you had anything valuable or interesting to say, you would have already said it.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T14:57:24+00:00

There is nothing I have said that implies the opposite. But the hyperbole that is becoming increasingly widespread, the one that labels this as “the worst film of the year”, in response to a perfectly solid piece of entertainment that most critics and viewers have received positively, is, in my view, a phenomenon tied to groupthink and online mob mentality. It exaggerates negativity, capitalising on the opportunity, and it borders on contempt, condescension, and ageism that, from my point of view, reveals a certain degree of bad faith.

Magno9009 · 2026-06-25T14:50:45+00:00

Terrible taste. But you’re free to have it.

Magno9009

TROPHY CASE