|
Baron Bifford posted:The Transformers movies all provided great spectacle, but everyone agrees that Avengers was far superior to any of them. No.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
All the Transformer movies suck. Whether satire or straight action movies they are not fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:All the Transformer movies suck. Whether satire or straight action movies they are not fun to watch. Counterpoint: Transformers 3 is the best blockbuster of the past 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:All the Transformer movies suck. Whether satire or straight action movies they are not fun to watch. I beg to differ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:All the Transformer movies suck. Whether satire or straight action movies they are not fun to watch. But VISUAL LANGUAGE 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:But VISUAL LANGUAGE I don't know why you're crying...but I hope you cheer up
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Unlike Whedon, Michael Bay knows how to frame a shot properly, and skillfully edit 2 shots together. Unfortunately, he's utterly incapable of maintaining continuity past 2-3 shots in a row, so on a macro-level his action scenes are a giant mess, he has no concept of story structure, and has awful taste in comedy. That being said, if you're going to spend 200 million dollars on a movie, at least Bay's stuff doesn't look like garbage visually. I'm frankly disgusted by the cinematography of most Marvel movies, and I'm glad it's (rightfully) getting called out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:I don't know why you're crying...but I hope you cheer up You're a good man with lots of good qualities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q Michael Bay's movies suck but this is a good video at analysing his typical shots. It's very easy to take the most successful blockbuster movies and either take them completely straight or as satires (or, to say that the fact that they'e being played completely straight is a satire). The issue though is that I just don't care about those readings of his films. They're tiring and ugly to watch, and I don't want to spend time in his world. edit: that said I would still rather watch any Bay movie again than The Avengers. Whedon's direction is actually a more extreme example of the typical criticism's of Bay BOAT SHOWBOAT fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Oct 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:
I sort of agree. I like Whedon more as a writer than a director. I'd be interested to read more of what you have to say on this matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
The trick with getting Whedon to direct well is taking away his budget. Like in Dr. Horrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:The trick with getting Whedon to direct well is taking away his budget. Like in Dr. Horrible. And yet Much Ado About Nothing exists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKh53xzFTjI I might just prefer this copy of The Avengers trailer
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
second-hand smegma posted:I sort of agree. I like Whedon more as a writer than a director. I'd be interested to read more of what you have to say on this matter. I mean, he's a non-director. He is a writer. He'd only directed one film before The Avengers and it was a spin-off of his TV show. Whedon's role on that film was to secure the nerd (and Tumblr fangirl) seal of approval, not because he can make an exciting or good film. It was also an acknowledgment on the part of Marvel Studios that they didn't want an "auteur" - as we've seen, they've hired even more TV directors for the later films - and they wanted someone who would fit more neatly into the paratext model that the films present. As for what I meant specifically, I just find that yeah, all of the most common criticisms of Bay fit Whedon better; I just mean, people call his films big, dumb, loud, messy, visually incomprehensible, ineptly paced, immature, aimed at 13-year old boys... The Avengers is all of this, but Bay just has a basic understanding of visual literacy that Whedon doesn't. Is he a good writer? Eh. I liked Buffy when I was younger. Dr. Horrible's is fun, and so is Cabin in the Woods (though that really is Drew Goddard's baby). But something like Alien Resurrection is a TERRIBLY scripted film, but worth watching (in my opinion) thanks that great Jeunet production design and visual style. It's a movie that's watchable in spite of Whedon, not because of him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
I'm enjoying reading how someone who's worked in the industry for two decades and has a billion dollar movie they've been at the helm of doesn't have a basic understanding of visual literacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Bolek posted:I'm enjoying reading how someone who's worked in the industry for two decades and has a billion dollar movie they've been at the helm of doesn't have a basic understanding of visual literacy. We weren't talking about Tim Burton though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Bolek posted:I'm enjoying reading how someone who's worked in the industry for two decades and has a billion dollar movie they've been at the helm of doesn't have a basic understanding of visual literacy. Where are my eyes meant to look in The Avengers? What does the film do to make me feel tension or excitement? It does nothing. In a Pavlovian response, and thanks to knowing of the characters, we can look at the New York action scene, and go "yes, this scene is meant to be exciting - the heroes are saving the day" but it's just so messily shot and boring, without any sense of flow. There isn't a single moment in that sequence that understands the sense of spectacle and scale (I mean, literally, the scale of objects seems to change between and within shots). Bay just isn't inept in that way even though I don't like him. The first action seen between Sam Witwicky and Bumblebee is good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:The first action seen between Sam Witwicky and Bumblebee is good. This thread has gone to shittttt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
I'm not a Whedon fan at all, but I kind of see him as a George Lucas: a good idea guy whose premises should be written and directed by someone else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:Where are my eyes meant to look in The Avengers? at the screen
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:at the screen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5EEbX7ph_A
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Ror posted:I think they were all in the comic movie thread here, he talks about shots from other MCU movies first and then starts the bad shots of the day. That was fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:There isn't a single moment in that sequence that understands the sense of spectacle and scale Not even Thor turning the Chrysler Building into a gigantic Tesla Coil?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
TryAgainBragg posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKh53xzFTjI Has anyone fessed up yet about cutting the trailer like this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Bolek posted:I'm enjoying reading how someone who's worked in the industry for two decades and has a billion dollar movie they've been at the helm of doesn't have a basic understanding of visual literacy. Plenty of other people fail upwards, why not wheden?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
effectual posted:Plenty of other people fail upwards, why not wheden?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Tom Hooper is another successful director criticised for not being very good, so it's not just Whedon. Anyway, warm up your engines with a teaser for a trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvkuqHOpor4
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Bolek posted:How did he fail? Because his movie didn't look like No Country For Old Men? You called it, friend-o.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Bolek posted:How did he fail? Because his movie didn't look like No Country For Old Men? Failing upwards is perhaps a reductive phrasing, but it's okay to admit that Whedon is poo poo at visual composition. It hurts nobody to admit this! You can even say, in the same breath, that an understanding of visual language isn't your top priority in a film, and that you're not bothered by it enough for it to outweigh what you like about his films (which would probably be centered around dialogue and character interaction I guess?) Similarly, it doesn't hurt me to admit that the folks who gave Avengers a record-breaking box office aren't plebeians who are doing cinema wrong. But the implicit "he experienced X major financial and popular success, so surely he can't be terrible at Y". That kind of argument always seems to apply only to art or artists that the speaker already likes. No nerdy dude is ever going to bat for Stephenie Meyer or Michael Bay this way (when goons go to bat for Michael Bay, it's with a different set of arguments". Your original point was goofy as gently caress because of course it's possible to be massively successful while loving up a large part of the artform. You yourself seem to have realize why - because the majority of the millions who watched and liked the film could not give a gently caress if it looked as good as a Roger Deakins joint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:
Again, see: Burton, Tim in Alice in Wonderland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:Failing upwards is perhaps a reductive phrasing, but it's okay to admit that Whedon is poo poo at visual composition. It hurts nobody to admit this! You can even say, in the same breath, that an understanding of visual language isn't your top priority in a film, and that you're not bothered by it enough for it to outweigh what you like about his films (which would probably be centered around dialogue and character interaction I guess?) Similarly, it doesn't hurt me to admit that the folks who gave Avengers a record-breaking box office aren't plebeians who are doing cinema wrong. My problem with this argument is that when I think "poo poo at visual composition," I think of my lovely student film that had only two straight ahead shots of talking heads. One shot had WAY too much headspace above one actor's head, the other had the top of the other actor's head cut off. When I think of poor composition, I think of that, as well movies like Manos or Birdemic or The Room or Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny. Yes, there's something to be said about the fact that I listed a bunch of no-budget horror movies and a student film from a B-tier school. You can argue that something's wrong when Whedon can't do that much better with an infinitely bigger budget than all those movies put together. Personally, I don't see the difference: framing the shot is the cheapest part of getting a good looking picture. My film and those other films fail on this basic level. The worst I can say about Whedon is that his framing is unremarkable, thus invisible, allowing the other elements of the movie to carry that weight. It doesn't enhance anything, and that's a shame, but it doesn't get in their way either. Look, I don't want to pick a fight here. I have my own biases (NOT Whedonite biases, I'm long over Firefly and I do not keep up with Agents of SHIELD), and on whatever level I understand almost every grievance people have with The Avengers and would rather just live and let live. The one complaint that has always irrationally annoyed me, however, is the idea that the movie looks ugly. I don't care how many screenshots you throw at me; that's my line and I'm holding it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:
How does your dumb argument work if I don't have any strong feelings about Whedon one way or the other and hated Avengers? Also does his DP who's also an industry vet not know anything about shot composition? How does that work? Someone should really call up the producers of these movies, they're getting swindled!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
It works fine - even better in fact, because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were having a very understandable knee-jerk reaction to people making GBS threads on something you really enjoyed. My mistake! You're right to point out that McGarvey owns - he was also cinematographer on Godzilla, which was gorgeous. There are likely a number of factors contributing to why it looks so much better than Avengers, but I feel like it's fair to speculate that a sharp difference on directorial vision was one of them. By the way: you're welcome to actually present arguments for why the hate around Avengers' aesthetic is overblown, if you're into that kind of thing. SMG's Bad Avengers Shot of the Day series got linked in this thread recently, so if you look at those and say, "Oh come on, there's plenty of visual literacy going on in there", you can hop into the comic book movie thread and argue just that. Or you could call out your favorite shots in the Age of Ultron trailer! Either of those options are still open, and way more interesting than just bringing up industry bonafides and stopping there. Fake Edit: My new benefit-of-the-doubt theory is that you're specifically taking issue with the hyperbolic phrase "basic understanding of visual literacy", as opposed to the broader claim that he is not a visually-focused or visually-skilled director and people who like his movies tend to do so in spite of visuals rather than because of them
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
I think the very unremarkable direction in "Avengers" has more to do with Whedon suddenly taking a leap from mid-budget television to $300 million visual effects extravaganza. Its the same thing you saw with the "Harry Potter" movies Chris Columbus did. Just so this isn't a completely useless post though, have some cool old teasers for what John Carpenter was up to in 1982. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQgi6xs68Rs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnGBL-qrmvE
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Robert Denby posted:I think the very unremarkable direction in "Avengers" has more to do with Whedon suddenly taking a leap from mid-budget television to $300 million visual effects extravaganza. Its the same thing you saw with the "Harry Potter" movies Chris Columbus did. The Columbus movies actually look fine though and while he only did the first two movies, in setting up the franchise he definitely had a role in shaping the entire look of the franchise. It's like how the Marvel aesthetic has gotten lazier over time, but what is recurring still bears influence to having a great cinematographer (Matthew Libatique, who did all of Aronofsky's films except The Wrestler) on Iron Man. It's actually the Yates movies that look terrible (particularly the sixth film - its downright garish), but, as expected, Cuaron does the best work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Extended Age of Ultron trailer with the Mjolnir scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGwuoYKhqx8
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
That's definitely an altered version of the Mjolnir scene. I remember in the Comic-Con audio that leaked you could clearly hear Banner give it a try and fail, and the Captain America attempt lasted longer and clearly gave more of a glimpse of him actually moving it. Not that I'm complaining, that scene looks fun as hell even as is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:The Columbus movies actually look fine though and while he only did the first two movies, in setting up the franchise he definitely had a role in shaping the entire look of the franchise. It's like how the Marvel aesthetic has gotten lazier over time, but what is recurring still bears influence to having a great cinematographer (Matthew Libatique, who did all of Aronofsky's films except The Wrestler) on Iron Man. It's actually the Yates movies that look terrible (particularly the sixth film - its downright garish), but, as expected, Cuaron does the best work. Except that once Prisoner came out the entire look of the films changed. The Columbus films look loving awful to this day and pale in comparison to anything after Aronofsky took the reigns. Also, the Marvel aesthetic has actually got a bit more interesting with Phase 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
The Chris Columbus Harry Potter movies look ridiculously awful. The best comparison I can think of is Sam Raimi Spiderman 1 but without any of his energy or imagination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
yeah The Avengers is by no means a great looking movie but the first Harry Potter has gotta be one of the fugliest blockbusters of all time
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:25
|
|