Jump to content

The Avengers


Recommended Posts

Has anybody else seen it?

 

I did.

 

I'm going to see this tonight in 3D.

 

I saw it in 3D and my opinion is this...if you've enjoyed the 3D experience thus far on "tentpole" big budget movies, you'll enjoy "The Avengers" in 3D. If you've yet to see a movie in 3D where you thought it was worth the extra cost, see it in 2D.

 

What did you think?

 

Good acting. Good job by the director, Joss Wheadon, to write and direct a story involving so many Alpha characters (as well as A list movie stars). It's very difficult to pull off a story with so many strong characters (true in any storytelling, novels, movies, plays etc.). The last act is too long, IMO, I believe less is more when it comes to act 3 final showdowns. See 3rd act Death Star battle in Star Wars IV for example of what I prefer. It's a well done paint-by-numbers formulaic story for its genre, so if you're into these kinds of movies it'll be an enjoyable 2 1/2 hours for you.

 

Does the Alexa cut the mustard?

 

Others here would have more insightful comments in this regard, but I thought Seamus' work looked great on the AMC (4k projection) screen. There was a noticeable difference in brightness when I took off the glasses, it's to be expected, but the presentation I attended wasn't nearly as dark as some of my previous 3D experiences. I thought the images looked great through my glasses compared to previous 3D movies in other theaters.

 

The best comment I can make about the Alexa is the thought of digital or film never crossed my mind. I was focused on the movie and not thinking of the media used to produce the images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the 2D version of the film last Friday, and I enjoyed it. The ALEXA imagery still does nothing for me. The slow motion scenes were shot on an ARRI 435, and you could tell. The one particular scene that showed it, was toward the end when Captain America and Thor are side by side fighting alens in the streets of New York. One minute the usual ALEXA imagery and then - BAM!! 35mm to save the day in Slow Mo! The image suddenly had a 'bigness'. I will say this movie had the most comic book-like camerawork of the many superhero movies made.

 

The acting was enjoyable, the LOKI beat down by the HULK was hilarious. It's easy to see why the film broke a box office record the first weekend. Good acting, good staging and a decent story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm new here so my opinion won't mean anything ;)

 

BUT, saw it last night in 2D (don't get 3D either). Overall , entertaining movie. It had moments of cheer inducing triumph as well as a ton of great humor. That being said, I had an overall feeling throughout the film that it felt lit, directed and written closer to a 90's TV show more than a modern film. The lensing seemed extremely middle-of-the-road for me. Same with the lighting. As much as I love the look of the Alexa as far as digital cameras are concerned, I have to agree that any film bits OR any all 3D scenes seemed more true to me. There were moments where there is action happening through the skies of Manhattan which is presumably all or mostly 3D and very possibly animated by ILM/Weta/whomever with guidance from the director. Those seemed very blockbuster to me, but then would cut back to a mostly directed/Alexa shot scene and it suddenly felt "TV show" again *for me*. Like the entire opening of the film seemed no different than something on sci-fi channel in terms of look and tone. Scenes where the lighting had more contrast and favored backlighting looked fantastic. Or even scenes in daylight, looked a lot more "filmy" and didn't make me think about the medium. However there were a handful of scenes , most notably when Scarlett goes to find Mark Ruffalo at night where I winced a bit from the "digitalness" of it. Maybe it could have just been DI'd a little more crunchy to help? Not sure.

 

So as much as I will admit that I still prefer film for blockbuster movies, when I felt the scenes were lit with nice contrast, Alexa did a fantastic job. But I still think that digital cameras need a little bit different approach to light than film does, and I think that could have helped the look of the film. IMO.

 

Also the entire long middle chunk of the film at the mobile base I thought was a bit pointless and long, like my post is now ;)

Edited by CSmith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Why on earth are you seeing it in 3d Keith?

Could you not find a 2d screening?

I really don't get the 3d thing.

 

 

love

 

Freya

Yes, I could have watched it in 2D in the same cinema at almost the same time.

But my brain doesn’t seem to have any trouble accepting stereoscopic images as 3D, if they’re done properly. I wanted to see how well The Avengers was done. The answer is: superbly.

There is no question in my mind now that computer-generated “live” 3D is far superior to that obtained from 2-camera rigs, at least from what I’ve seen so far.

Certainly it’s a lot easier to shoot 3D with a 2 camera rig, but if the effect doesn’t come out right, you only have limited scope for correcting it in Post. If the intention is to synthesize it from the start, you have much more scope to tweak the final render.

The post-produced 3D in Thor was eminently forgettable, Captain America was a vast improvement, hampered only by the use of the Genesis camera.

The Alexa gives considerably improved images, and much better flesh tones, very close to what you’d expect from film.

With most films, I can work out pretty much how they would have been made, but with The Avengers, I simply have no idea how most of it was done. As in, how do you compose a shooting script for scenes like that…?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I could have watched it in 2D in the same cinema at almost the same time.

But my brain doesn’t seem to have any trouble accepting stereoscopic images as 3D, if they’re done properly. I wanted to see how well The Avengers was done. The answer is: superbly.

There is no question in my mind now that computer-generated “live” 3D is far superior to that obtained from 2-camera rigs, at least from what I’ve seen so far.

Certainly it’s a lot easier to shoot 3D with a 2 camera rig, but if the effect doesn’t come out right, you only have limited scope for correcting it in Post. If the intention is to synthesize it from the start, you have much more scope to tweak the final render.

The post-produced 3D in Thor was eminently forgettable, Captain America was a vast improvement, hampered only by the use of the Genesis camera.

The Alexa gives considerably improved images, and much better flesh tones, very close to what you’d expect from film.

With most films, I can work out pretty much how they would have been made, but with The Avengers, I simply have no idea how most of it was done. As in, how do you compose a shooting script for scenes like that…?

 

 

I actually thought the IMAX 3D was pretty bad lots of crosstalk and images looked pretty fake (the helicopter scene at the beginning)

The movie was outstanding, I especially enjoyed the hulk scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

The movie was outstanding, I especially enjoyed the hulk scenes.

Yes, I think they've got the character right at last. He's not stupid, he's more Autistic.

 

The Black Widow was pretty good too. At last, we have an actress portraying a super-fit athlete, who stands with the same poise as her gymnast body double. That's always been a problem for me, super heroes on "standby" who come across like the 90 pound weaklings the actors actually are. :rolleyes:

 

I know quite a few people who've been to see this more than once, which is where the money is.

The cinema was packed with young kids when I went to see it, but I didn't hear a peep out of them for the whole 2 hours 20 minutes, and that takes some doing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The Alexa gives considerably improved images, and much better flesh tones, very close to what you’d expect from film.

 

How could you tell while wearing those glasses? In the theater I was in, it looked terrible. The requisite darkness, paired with the also requisite desaturated/green spike, made it look pretty terrible. Grey skin tones, flat lighting... If I have to see a 3D movie I take off the glasses from time to time when I know 3D isn't in play. When I did that, I did really enjoy the look. It looked a little overly sharp, but that could have been the projector.

 

I don't understand why DPs don't stick with post until they're striking DCPs or what have you for 3D exhibition. You'd think they'd mandate some kind of a difference in levels or saturation to offset the glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

How could you tell while wearing those glasses? In the theater I was in, it looked terrible. The requisite darkness, paired with the also requisite desaturated/green spike, made it look pretty terrible. Grey skin tones, flat lighting... If I have to see a 3D movie I take off the glasses from time to time when I know 3D isn't in play. When I did that, I did really enjoy the look. It looked a little overly sharp, but that could have been the projector.

 

Obviously it depends on the cinema. The one I go to has consistently high projection standards, (and it's only 10 minutes drive away :rolleyes: ). But I have seen some bloody awful 3D presentations in other cinemas, so I can understand where you're coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the Alexa cut the mustard?

 

Do not question the superiority of the Alexa Keith!! I put my money where my mouth is on this camera....it's so amazing that...wait, I'm a film guy.....never mind.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Do not question the superiority of the Alexa Keith!! I put my money where my mouth is on this camera....it's so amazing that...wait, I'm a film guy.....never mind.

 

R,

Not only will the Alexa kill film, it will post cruel taunts to its bereaved relatives on its Facebook tribute page, and dress inappropriately at its funeral!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think they've got the character right at last. He's not stupid, he's more Autistic.

 

The Black Widow was pretty good too. At last, we have an actress portraying a super-fit athlete, who stands with the same poise as her gymnast body double. That's always been a problem for me, super heroes on "standby" who come across like the 90 pound weaklings the actors actually are. :rolleyes:

 

I know quite a few people who've been to see this more than once, which is where the money is.

The cinema was packed with young kids when I went to see it, but I didn't hear a peep out of them for the whole 2 hours 20 minutes, and that takes some doing!

 

 

Totally agree with you. To me the Banner/Hulk was the main characters. The scene where he is fighting alongside Thor and then punches him was superb. Did you see the look in his face, that weren't dumb that was wise ass.

So true about the kids. It was the same at my cinema, full of teens but silence, except where there was humor then laughing before more silence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think they've got the character right at last. He's not stupid, he's more Autistic.

 

The Black Widow was pretty good too. At last, we have an actress portraying a super-fit athlete, who stands with the same poise as her gymnast body double. That's always been a problem for me, super heroes on "standby" who come across like the 90 pound weaklings the actors actually are. :rolleyes:

 

I know quite a few people who've been to see this more than once, which is where the money is.

The cinema was packed with young kids when I went to see it, but I didn't hear a peep out of them for the whole 2 hours 20 minutes, and that takes some doing!

 

Mr Wheedon is VERY good with characterization . All his work has really strong characters. He excels at it!

I think Joss is a big factor in the success of the film, both because of the above and also his large fan base who came out in droves to see it, spread the word etc.

 

I bet warner brothers are feeling preety sick at turning down his re-boot of wonder woman now!

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Mr Wheedon is VERY good with characterization . All his work has really strong characters. He excels at it!

I think Joss is a big factor in the success of the film, both because of the above and also his large fan base who came out in droves to see it, spread the word etc.

 

I bet warner brothers are feeling preety sick at turning down his re-boot of wonder woman now!

 

love

 

Freya

 

Yeah, despite the overwhelming string of Marvel successes since the original Marvel team regained control of the franchise, Warners are still turning iconic DC characters such as Green Lantern into disposable tripe. They've been selling Marvel and DC comics for over 70 years, but they still don't seem to think they can learn anything from that.

 

I hope the new Superman movie is an improvement on the last Botch up (at least, it's being shot on film!), but after Green Lantern, I don't hold out much hope :(

 

I bet the Marvel guys could tell them how Wonder Woman should be staged, but I can't help feeling it's going to be another paint-by-numbers house-of-mirrors "contemporary female" screw-up.

 

On the other hand, The Dark Knight was a better effort, but it owed little to the original Batman comics, it was more like a ripoff of the original Iron Man concept :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Wheedon is VERY good with characterization . All his work has really strong characters. He excels at it!

I think Joss is a big factor in the success of the film, both because of the above and also his large fan base who came out in droves to see it, spread the word etc.

 

I bet Warner Brothers are feeling preety sick at turning down his re-boot of wonder woman now!

 

love

 

Freya

 

Totally agree with you. I would also like to see a rebooting of Serenity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking a moment from talking about the camera work, did anyone notice that the characters where introduced in lighting designed pulled from their origional films. The lighting when you meet Hulk called on Peter Menzies work in "the Incredible Hulk", the same with Thor's intro matchiing Haris Zambarloukos BSC's work and Captain America's intro using that warm classic look Shelly Johnson ASC used. I was really impressed with how that visually "tied" the charaters from their own films into this one. It's was fantasticly respectful of the choices in the previous films' cinematographers and nodded to them before taking on it's own feel. The look for this film was also fantasticly epic and it was the best "super franchise" film I've ever seen. I'm glad Paramount and Marvel really took their time out to make this one espcially great.

This was the first film in easily a decade that I walked out of wanting to buy another ticket and go back in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people were complaining that they missed the additional scenes in the credits of the movie. Haven't they learned anything from Iron Man 1&2, The incredible Hulk, Captain America and Thor?

 

I learned that when I was a kid. Geez people.

 

Anyway, I like credits. I feel like they're part of the movie. I love a movie with a good transition into the credits.

And then when the music settles and the final frames roll out, it's a good closure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...