|
computer parts posted:Are Wednesday releases just going to be a thing now? Hm? What do you mean? They were a thing a few years ago and then I haven't noticed it lately and some still release on Wednesday.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Didn't that start in the '90s?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
I love how everyone is acting like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D is gonna be amazing right from the get-go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:I love how everyone is acting like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D is gonna be amazing right from the get-go. Not just optimistic for a superhero show but optimistic for TV in general. When I think of my all-time favourite shows and I think of some of their first seasons... yeesh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:I love how everyone is acting like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D is gonna be amazing right from the get-go. Who exactly do you mean by "everyone?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty sure everyone in CineD was somewhat-to-very negative about the show like two days ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:I love how everyone is acting like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D is gonna be amazing right from the get-go. Not on this forum. Most discussion about the show has been pretty much neutral in a "wait and see" sorta way. Outside of that I've seen more "it looks like poo poo" comments based on the previews than I've seen people thinking it's going to be great. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Sep 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
This thread is the only place in CineD that it's been talked about optimistically (at least from what I've seen).
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:I love how everyone is acting like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D is gonna be amazing right from the get-go. People complained that The Avengers looked like a TV show, ergo an actual Avengers TV show by the same guy must look amazing!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:People complained that The Avengers looked like a TV show, ergo an actual Avengers TV show by the same guy must look amazing! The sad thing is when it came to Angel, as an example, the better episodes were by guys like Tim Minear and other directors I believe. Whedon's fine and does some alright work, he's just not exceptional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:People complained that The Avengers looked like a TV show I still have no idea what people who believe that are thinking. It definitely wasn't shot in the same, obviously budget restricted fashion as his TV shows. I get not liking his style, though. Everyone has their own tastes. DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Sep 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I still have no idea what people who believe that are thinking. It definitely wasn't shot in the same, obviously budget restricted fashion as his TV shows. I thought it looked like a TV show because all of the scenes that didn't take place on obvious and cramped sets took place on sequestered city blocks, exactly like a TV show. It also had flat lighting and perfect white balance, which lead to a really boring color palette, like most TV shows. The only thing that wasn't super TV about it was the CGI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I still have no idea what people who believe that are thinking. It definitely wasn't shot in the same, obviously budget restricted fashion as his TV shows. Mostly the really flat, bright lighting, and staid blocking during dialogue scenes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:I thought it looked like a TV show because all of the scenes that didn't take place on obvious and cramped sets took place on sequestered city blocks, exactly like a TV show. It also had flat lighting and perfect white balance, which lead to a really boring color palette, like most TV shows. Obvious and cramped sets? First...the 'obvious' point of your argument is ridiculous, since half of the sets are for places that simply don't exist in reality. The SHIELD command center/meeting area was a huge set. The shuttlecraft was a cramped set, but it made sense to be cramped since it was a relatively small vehicle. The Helicarrier lab was not actually that small, it just featured in a scene with a lot of people in it and they seemingly only used half of it for shooting. The hangar looked like a hangar. The gym at the beginning was large and decent looking. The sets looked like they belonged in the superhero movie that was being made. This movie wasn't trying to be There Will Be Blood. As far as the sequestered city blocks thing goes, I don't even know how to address that since the story itself kind of dictates that the fight is locked down to a small portion of the city (which was still not a small scale shooting location by any metric). There were still numerous separate locations used in that sequence. As far as the white balance thing goes, I'm not going to fault a director for choosing to go that direction. There are enough movies with goofy color timing that would have looked better if they had just left things more natural looking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
The exact same directorial choices, blocking, background extra directing, were used in Avengers as was used in a Lifetime movie I was in. It was purely functional and not creative at all. Thus, "television," as that is the approach that shows that aren't Breaking Bad typically have to take due to time and budget constraints. He also got a mediocre DP that worked on stuff like High Fidelity, Atonement, and Charlotte's Web that didn't use lighting and spacing to enhance emotions in screens, making everything come off more "empty" and "flat" than it should have. This is also television-like. In one of the relatively few times we both agreed on something, SMG and I gave long, detailed shot examples of why certain aspects were far more pedestrian than comparable level films. I used the helicarrier crash/danger as my example, and I believe he used the blocking in the battle sequence at the end. I even compared the framing in the film to framing in the comics for the exact same thing happening, and compared the scale in the two separate frames.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
I love the movie, but there are tons of "TV-y" things about it. The entire opening sequence where the SHIELD base is destroyed should be a massive, epic opener, but it all plays flat because none of the framing is at all dramatic. Samuel L. Jackson jumps out of a shot-down helicopter and the whole thing is played close to the vest like if you see too much of what's happening, it would cost more money to actually put something up to show. These are money-saving, required techniques in TV, but make no sense in a film context when you shouldn't have anything to hide. There's nothing cinematic about most of the non-computer-generated action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Tripwyre posted:I love the movie, but there are tons of "TV-y" things about it. The entire opening sequence where the SHIELD base is destroyed should be a massive, epic opener, but it all plays flat because none of the framing is at all dramatic. Samuel L. Jackson jumps out of a shot-down helicopter and the whole thing is played close to the vest like if you see too much of what's happening, it would cost more money to actually put something up to show. These are money-saving, required techniques in TV, but make no sense in a film context when you shouldn't have anything to hide. There's nothing cinematic about most of the non-computer-generated action. Added some emphasis there Just because you're on the big screen and have a bigger budget that TV shows doesn't mean that films have an unlimited budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Most of the Marvel movies have pretty poor cinematography, I'm not sure why the Avengers gets singled out
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:Most of the Marvel movies have pretty poor cinematography, I'm not sure why the Avengers gets singled out Most of them suffer from Brown Everywhere-itis. I can't think of too many sets or shots that were really memorable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:Most of the Marvel movies have pretty poor cinematography, I'm not sure why the Avengers gets singled out Most of the people that complain about Avengers' cinematography don't give many Marvel movies high marks because they follow the same basic philosophy. Present what a big chunk of people will want on screen pretty much as is and for moderate costs, profit. Iron Man 3 looked pretty good, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Here's a great hour+ Q&A with Shane Black and Drew Pearce that delves pretty deep into Iron Man III on a thematic and storytelling level, and they also walk through the various drafts . Incredibly refreshing and full of information compared to the usual fluff. Shane Black also says he'd love to do a Dr. Strange movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Added some emphasis there But the things that are being shot close-crop like that helicopter sequence are still real things that are being filmed! That's just one example, there are plenty of them in the film. It's a framing choice, not a budget one. I'm not a expecting the movie to have an unlimited budget, I'm saying the way certain sequences were shot didn't do justice to the money that was being spent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Obvious and cramped sets? First...the 'obvious' point of your argument is ridiculous, since half of the sets are for places that simply don't exist in reality. The SHIELD command center/meeting area was a huge set. The shuttlecraft was a cramped set, but it made sense to be cramped since it was a relatively small vehicle. The Helicarrier lab was not actually that small, it just featured in a scene with a lot of people in it and they seemingly only used half of it for shooting. The hangar looked like a hangar. The gym at the beginning was large and decent looking. The sets looked like they belonged in the superhero movie that was being made. This movie wasn't trying to be There Will Be Blood. Here's my problem with this defense. Why does The Avengers look like this:        And not like this:        It's because they did not bother making it look like that. They never did anything interesting with color, with depth of field, with framing, with blocking. They never did any cool or abstract set design. Everything is solid and utilitarian, distilled essence of plain. They settled with sterile and generic, which is criminal when this is your source material: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
Those shots look like a city ravaged by an alien attack so I dunno, it looks pretty good to me. loving with the lighting and camera work just for the sake of doing so wouldn't have served a purpose for the story they were telling, and would have been a point against the movie if they had done it because it would have been pretentious and taken you out of the film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
I think a lot of people are just mad that they can be so invested in and knowledgeable of cinematography, only for a movie to dare to be mediocre and prove immensely popular anyway. It's similar but slightly different to the Michael Bay "ugh I can't believe those dumb movies about explosions are making so much money" principle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Those shots look like a city ravaged by an alien attack so I dunno, it looks pretty good to me. loving with the lighting and camera work just for the sake of doing so wouldn't have served a purpose for the story they were telling, and would have been a point against the movie if they had done it because it would have been pretentious and taken you out of the film. I have to disagree. I loved the spectacle of The Avengers, but I do think it's presented rather plainly. They could have added a much greater sense of awe instead of just relying on the satisfaction of finally seeing all the characters together on the screen. It wouldn't have been pretentious and it would have only drawn you further into the film. The film said, "here are your Avengers," and it was awesome. But it could have said, "here are THE AVENGERS!" And it would have been more awesome. mind the walrus posted:I think a lot of people are just mad that they can be so invested in and knowledgeable of cinematography, only for a movie to dare to be mediocre and prove immensely popular anyway. It's similar but slightly different to the Michael Bay "ugh I can't believe those dumb movies about explosions are making so much money" principle. I'm not mad about anything Avengers related. I am in fact ecstatic over everything Avengers related. But it could have been even better and got me more invested. Let me put it this way: I like the Avengers way more than Batman, but I like DKR way more than The Avengers because DKR sucks me into the story much better, mainly through its more vivd visuals. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I think a lot of people are just mad that they can be so invested in and knowledgeable of cinematography, only for a movie to dare to be mediocre and prove immensely popular anyway. It's similar but slightly different to the Michael Bay "ugh I can't believe those dumb movies about explosions are making so much money" principle. Number 2: Michael Bay may not be the smartest filmmaker around but he is a billion times better at making movies than Joss Whedon.     Michael Bay is pretty fuckin good at utilizing the camera and color. Joss Whedon is pretty good at utilizing actors and dialogue. Here's my proposal: Joss Whedon writes Avengers 2, Michael Bay directs. scary ghost dog fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Michael Bay movies kind of look like Zack Snyder movies, and vice versa, in the visual sense. I wonder if that's the result of them possibly being friends back in college since they were classmates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
Not every movie needs to be a visual feast of colors and camera work to be good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
teagone posted:Michael Bay movies kind of look like Zack Snyder movies, and vice versa, in the visual sense. I wonder if that's the result of them possibly being friends back in college since they were classmates. I love Zack Snyder. Now there's a dude who knows how to make a comic book movie. I don't care what critics say or what popular opinion is, Watchmen is still the best comic book movie every made. Too bad David Goyer ended up being his writer on Man of Steel, that could have been amazing. WickedHate posted:Not every movie needs to be a visual feast of colors and camera work to be good. You're right about the color, but do you really think the best color palette for The Avengers was grey and brown with everything else muted? Also, good camerawork is absolutely among the most important things in making a movie and The Avengers don't got it. There are zero (ZERO) great movies with terrible camerawork. scary ghost dog fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
teagone posted:Michael Bay movies kind of look like Zack Snyder movies, and vice versa, in the visual sense. I wonder if that's the result of them possibly being friends back in college since they were classmates. They also both got their start doing commercials and music videos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Michael Bay is pretty fuckin good at utilizing the camera and color. Joss Whedon is pretty good at utilizing actors and dialogue. Here's my proposal: Joss Whedon writes Avengers 2, Michael Bay directs. I'd love to see that. For as much as Bay gets poo poo on, I've always thought his films are consistently phenomenal looking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Not every movie needs to be a visual feast of colors and camera work to be good. loving action movies do. This isn't a character drama, no matter how much Joss tries to make it one, it's a movie about super heroes punching aliens to save Manhattan. It should blow my loving mind. Lucky for Marvel, just putting the Avengers on the screen was enough. But it could have been so much better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Those shots look like a city ravaged by an alien attack so I dunno, it looks pretty good to me. loving with the lighting and camera work just for the sake of doing so wouldn't have served a purpose for the story they were telling, and would have been a point against the movie if they had done it because it would have been pretentious and taken you out of the film. You are right of course, in that the drab, pedantic aesthetic follows the overall message of the film(s). The Red Skull's color carries no ideological message, it's just what happens when you touch space magic of course. It says so right there on the marvelpedia page, so of course it's red. Of course, we know that the medium is in fact the message the film's disavowal of language is rife with ideology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
When confronted with criticisms of The Avengers' subtext, its proponents argue that it's supposed to be pure spectacle. When confronted with criticisms of The Avengers' spectacle, its proponents argue that this isn't relevant either. There really is very little to be said in favour of the film aside from an automatic visceral pleasure in seeing certain men wearing certain costumes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:They also both got their start doing commercials and music videos. Whereas Joss Whedon got started as a writer. He could definitely be compared to Kevin Smith to some extent (except Joss Whedon is at worst competent, whereas Kevin Smith is often not even that), a lot of his direction suits the writing instead of the writing suiting the movie. WickedHate posted:Not every movie needs to be a visual feast of colors and camera work to be good. You are absolutely correct. There are plenty of movies that aren't terribly interesting visually, and yet are still absolutely marvelous. That said, you're crazy if you think that a movie about a bunch of superhumans/extra-talented human beings fighting both a bunch of aliens and each other is the sort of movie that can get away with being one of those. There's certainly a space for a superhero movie that isn't action-based, but clearly that's not the movie Avengers wanted to be. The movie is done a disservice by having Joss Whedon as a director because Joss Whedon isn't an action director. People rarely praise the direction in a Joss Whedon movie/show. In fact, a bunch of Marvel's movies have had directors that haven't really suited what they want to be. Branaugh is great at bringing a Shakespearean weight to things, and he does just that in the Asgardian scenes, but the action is lacking. Favreau is kinda the same way. The only Marvel movie that had a director that suited the movie was Captain America, and I'm still trying to figure out exactly where that one went wrong (shoehorning the cosmic cube in is probably it, because the best parts were the ones where it was trying to be a WWII war movie). I haven't seen Iron Man 3, but Shane Black is most definitely a lot closer to the way they want to go, and James Gunn might actually be the most fitting director attached to any of the movies in the Second Wave or whatever it's called. Aside from him and Black you have a pair of sitcom directors attempting a hybrid superhero/70's political thriller, and a TV director (who admittedly has cut his teeth on Game of Thrones for a few years now) to make a sequel to Thor, which didn't know what it wanted to be either. All of Marvel's movies have a sort of identity crisis (I know, ironic). Captain America wanted to be a WWII war movie in the vein of 1942, but also had to be a Marvel Superhero Movie. Thor wanted to be a Shakespearean Drama of the Gods, but also had to be a Marvel Superhero Movie. Iron Man largely succeeded because it didn't aspire to be a genre piece beyond Marvel Superhero Movie, and had a crackling script led by Robert Downey Jr. in one of the best casting decisions in a long time. Avengers didn't succeed because it had the weight of Iron Man, Cap, Thor and Hulk on it, but still never felt like more than another Iron Man movie. The entire Marvel Canon is just one disappointment after another, because you have either directors who want to make interesting movies being hampered by being forced to make a Marvel Superhero Movie, or directors who don't want to make anything other than what they're told. I mean, there are quite a few criticisms you can level at The Dark Knight, and my opinion on the movie has cooled a bit since it came out, but one of the reasons it was so successful is because it looked and felt like it actually was. It was a crime drama with costumed figures, and it looked like a drat crime drama, even when a semi was being flipped on top of itself. The Avengers looks like... I dunno, the world's most expensive TV pilot (which I guess it kind of ended up being). tl;dr: Movies are an art with an inherent visual aspect to them, and if you're not going to make your movie shine visually, don't put in scenes that require it. Yoshifan823 fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Sep 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:When confronted with criticisms of The Avengers' subtext, its proponents argue that it's supposed to be pure spectacle. When confronted with criticisms of The Avengers' spectacle, its proponents argue that this isn't relevant either. There really is very little to be said in favour of the film aside from an automatic visceral pleasure in seeing certain men wearing certain costumes. I'd say the movie doesn't just put certain men wearing certain costumes on the screen. The screenplay does a pretty solid (and in my opinion underated) job of actually giving them character, point of views and having all those personalities collide into each other at first but eventually working together.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Most of the characters actually have very little to say to or about each other. The only major exception is that Tony Stark has some insult comic quips to toss at everyone in turn. Most of the characters are chiefly defined in terms of how they relate to him, and the relationship is generally snarky as gently caress. We see a few specific pairs of characters butting heads and menacing each other, and then later they have stopped butting heads and menacing each other, but the journey from A to B isn't shown. Example: -Captain America shrugs off Thor's status as a god -?????? -Captain America directs Thor to do god stuff like it ain't no thing Where is that moment in the middle, where Steve's worldview is disrupted and forced to realign to account for Norse deities? That kind of thing is where the meat of a character's development is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
The scene with Loki in Germany had a lot of potential for color and light, but then he enters the chateau and everything is flat white and perfectly illuminated. I'm not saying it should have been like James Bond in Macau but it was something I noticed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Most of the characters actually have very little to say to or about each other. The only major exception is that Tony Stark has some insult comic quips to toss at everyone in turn. I disagree. Tony Stark and Captain America have a whole thing about heroism; they both think each other is bullshit. Tony proves himself by doing the sacrifice Cap never thought he'd do (and by doing so, echoes Steve Rogers's sacrifice from his own movie). They all have exchanges and arcs going on. It gets complicated because of all the moving parts of a team movie, but they're in there. (I'd say Thor is the one who has the least going on, I'm struggling to remember most of his stuff). Supercar Gautier posted:Where is that moment in the middle, where Steve's worldview is disrupted and forced to realign to account for Norse deities? That kind of thing is where the meat of a character's development is. But Steve Rogers doesnt even think Thor is a god, he just thinks he's another strong superhero guy. Realigning his worldview to account for Norse deities is a solo-movie character thing or a buddy Thor/Cap movie, not a group movie arc. Anyways, just arguing that the movie has more going on for it than "oh The Avengers are onscreen!", I certainly get more out of it than that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 05:23
|
|