The Avengers

24567

Comments

  • DanielGWood
    DanielGWood Posts: 1,016 Just Starting Out

    No, this is exactly, exactly my point. Though the Potter films could've been terrible and still made money- or rushed out in 6 years- Warner Bros. choose to do it right, to put the right money and time into them, and we're rewarded with the quality and critical consensus the film's received. Does this directly translate to dollars and cents? Not necessarily. But that's exactly my point. For all the hooplah about the big bad evil Hollywood studio, the biggest of all still spends the money they didn't have to in order to make something good.
    No, that's exactly my point. There was no risk to it. You say earlier that WB were taking a chance on Harry Potter 7. Rubbish :)
  • Pooky
    Pooky Posts: 46

    Harry Potter is sort of a special case, though. If they had rushed and made a crap version of Harry Potter, the legion of fans would have been upset.
    Even with this version I'm upset at how inferior the movies were to the books 8-|
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 378 Enthusiast
    edited October 2011

    No, that's exactly my point. There was no risk to it. You say earlier that WB were taking a chance on Harry Potter 7. Rubbish :)
    Not taking a chance at all. Just willing to spend more time and money knowing they didn't have to. Purely for the sake of quality entertainment. That's what I mean.
    And, I mean, even look at the massive missteps of stuff like Green Lantern. Warner Bros. in many people's eyes took a chance on all accounts. Ryan Reynolds as the lead. Basing the bulk of the film in space. Delving heavily into the mythos on an origin film. Being mostly CG. Using CG suits. Trusting the ambitions of the (admittedly confused and uneven) director Martin Campbell. I'm not saying they take uncalculated risks, but they don't play it safe and cheap to a generic point the way The Avengers and Marvel Studios apparently have.
    There's confidence in putting up necessary resources based on talent. I bet you, dollars to donuts, we'd have seen Ed Norton in this had that been the case with Marvel as well. But it isn't, and it shows. No Ed Norton, no Jon Favreau, no forethought or masterful cinematography, and just plain no style.
    Harry Potter may be an exception to the rule, but it also- and it pains me to say it, but Avatar did as well- created the new rule.
    [quote]They produce great films because great films make money; not the other way around[/quote]
    This is exactly my point. Which is to say- the biggest returns come from the biggest confidence (both financially, time, and talent-wise) in translating material to the scene. No artistic industry is purely driven by the almighty dollar- it just can't be. And whether it's out of compulsion, passion, or monetary logic- we get quality movies because someone says they 'have to be good' in order to be released. And then the audience agrees.
    I just wish Avengers was held to that.
  • According to the cinematographer, Seamus McGarvey, some shots in the trailer were actually shot with an Iphone.
    [quote]On The Avengers, I did a couple of shots on the iPhone and they are in the movie. In fact, they are in the trailer![/quote]
  • 3dmus
    3dmus Posts: 116 Just Starting Out*
    I'm assuming it would be an IPhone + adapter using some nice (expensive) lenses.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    edited October 2011
    Thing is, you don't hire Joss Whedon unless story is a major priority. There are many other working directors who are much more experienced at this kind of production, if overall quality genuinely isn't something you care about (the kind of people that make Underworlds and Equilibriums and GI Joes). Aculag's cynical analysis of the industry is pretty much spot on, but I don't think it applies to The Avengers - regardless of the results, Whedon's hiring IS a big risk, and isn't a sign of a cheap-ass move. It's continuing Marvel's tradition of hiring interesting directors.
    Whether this results in a good film or not is another matter, but you can't accuse studios of NOT taking risks in some cases but not others. Whedon is a huge risk. It might not work, but that's how risks go. Personally I think it's wonderful that Marvel picked a writer-director known for his storytelling abilities (and writing in this genre, too).
    I'll take good storytelling over cinematic bombast any time. As Harry Potter has been brought into the discussion - that's a good example of the opposite: fantastically cinematic most of the time, but often rather inept from a storytelling POV.
    EDIT: OK, so I just watched the trailer (it came out while I was out of the country). Looks great to me. Can't wait! ProTip: Just because something isn't dark and moody and shadowy doesn't mean it can't look good.
  • McGarvey says he was misquoted. Apparently, we should replace "I did some shots on the Iphone"... with "I did some shots on the Canon 5D". Which makes a lot more sense.
    http://www.slashfilm.com/the-avengers-cinematographer-misquoted-shooting-iphone/
    My best guesses at picking out any of the 5D shots in the trailer? The low angle of Thor... and maybe the opening shot of the cityscape. What do you guys think?
  • DX6channel
    DX6channel Posts: 72
    edited February 2012
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    edited February 2012
    Oh hell yes. (will edit in additional thoughts once I've finished foaming at the mouth)
    EDIT: Yeah, looks great. I'm sure Andrew won't like the opening few shots with the explosion, which do look a bit mundane, but the rest of the trailer is fantastic. Particular highlight for me is the rotating shot with the whole team on the street in battle posture - simply seeing all of them on screen is hugely exciting for a Marvel geek like me. :)
  • MatthiasClaflin
    MatthiasClaflin Posts: 674 Just Starting Out
    I watched the new trailer. The whole style still reminds me of G.I. Joe.
  • I always read Marvel comics, along with 2000 A.D, as a kid so I think I will be paying for a Cinema trip to go and see this film. I think the trailer looks great and dosnt really give away too much.
  • DanielGWood
    DanielGWood Posts: 1,016 Just Starting Out
    *emits fizzing noise*
    This looks awesome. So much superhero comicy goodness!
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    I'm not really familiar with the comics, so forgive my ignorance, but is Scarlett Johansson's character meant to be a mute or something? I don't remember if she had any lines in Iron Man 2, but the trailers for this make it seem like all she does is stand around blank-faced in tight outfits while things explode.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    the trailers for this make it seem like all she does is stand around blank-faced in tight outfits while things explode.
    *stares blankly*
    Yeah, and?
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    Hehe... Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that, in a film that's purely about eye candy, the only woman in the cast would purely serve as eye candy. ;)
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,031 Enthusiast
    With a movie that has soo many stars... lines had to get cut. How about they make the avengers like the artist. No dialogue, but include fx sounds.
  • NullUnit
    NullUnit Posts: 779 Just Starting Out
    edited February 2012
    I think this movie will be amazing. Whedon will do a great job since he's best at writing ensemble casts like Firefly and Astonishing X-Men. And I don't mind that this movie is not dark and gritty like Batman. I don't think it should be. Avengers are a bright colorful team who work "above ground", I don't mind if the look of the film reflects that.
    I also don't mind re-casts. I think it's a necessity when dealing with a movie like this. A Justice League movie will never happen if there aren't allowed to be re-casts.
    My two cents.
  • RodyPolis
    RodyPolis Posts: 610 Just Starting Out*
    Lol Andrew was right about a lot of the shots in this; they're very TV show-ish (aka cheap looking). Looks great though! Looking forward to it. My biggest problem is that Captain America looks so silly Lol! His WW2 costume worked a lot better.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    I definitely agree about Cap's uniform. But it fits the kinda cartoony style much better than his WW2 one would.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    TBH, I hadn't noticed anything silly about the Cap's uniform in this - though I do recall seeing it in stills aaaaaages ago and thinking how much I preferred the WW2 version. But in context of this film's world I think it works fine - though, again, that could be because I'm a fan of the comic, so am used to the costume in general.
    Something I really like about the recent Marvel films (and even X-Men First Class) is that they've had the balls to stay closer to the comic costumes.
    I'd be curious to know what looks 'TV', Rody, in your opinion. The opening few shots of the street I'm not keen on - though in context of the film their mundanity could be precisely the point (ie, just before all hell breaks loose) - but the rest of the trailer seems perfectly cinematic to me.
  • RodyPolis
    RodyPolis Posts: 610 Just Starting Out*
    For me it's most of the shots from the scenes at the base (SHIELD HQ I'm guessing), especially the ones of Nick Fury, that just looks meh. The whole look of these shots feel uninspired to me.
  • KahvehRobinett
    KahvehRobinett Posts: 442 Just Starting Out*
    Looks epic. But one thing that is driving me nuts about the original trailer is on that big wide shot of the street when all the cars blow up I've watched it frame by frame and none of the wind shields break in any of the cars and it looks very fake. Something they'll have to work on I guess but other than that this looks EPIC. And just because it inset dark and gritty and really intense does mean its not going to be a blast to watch.
    Kahveh
  • TheRealJayWalker
    TheRealJayWalker Posts: 223 Enthusiast
    edited February 2012
    I'll reserve judgement until I see the film. The trailer for Thor didn't really grab me but when seeing the film in full I really enjoyed it. Same as Iron Man, was never a fan of the comics but really enjoyed the film (although I thought the second one was not that great).
    Personally I'm looking forward more to Batman but that's just me
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 378 Enthusiast
    edited February 2012

    I think this movie will be amazing. Whedon will do a great job since he's best at writing ensemble casts like Firefly and Astonishing X-Men.
    Yeah, that's probably true. He'll do a great job directing since he's best at writing. Honestly, does anyone really still stand by this? This movie could've been sooooo good- and it just looks completely and utterly fumbled. Terrible.
    Misguided production design, poor use of budget/cutting-costs in stupid places/holding back on expenses compared to the previous films that built up to this, random and under-utilizing use of good actors, lack of any sort of visual style of cinematic approach, and just overall a cheap, bad-looking TV-movie.
    Nothing is captivating to me, nothing feels cinematic or special. It all just looks.....plain. Plain and made on a budget. Uninspired. At least give me more contrast. It sounds silly, but give it. The washy, low-contrast video-y look is just so opposite of 'big blockbuster action movie'. But not in an 'artsy' sort of way. When this was announced, I pictured something so grand and fun and interesting- given the characters and actors and setup involved. I thought I'd see something similar to this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETDE0VGJY4
    Instead, I got a very expensive NBC TV-movie done by a director I don't like that I think lacks vision, and I am just thoroughly, thoroughly disappointed by that. I'm less and less excited by this every single day something new for it comes out.
    But hey, don't let my grump attitude weigh you guys down- I do hope, for the sake of good blockbusters- the movie is good. I just don't see it happening, and nothing points to it getting any better.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    I totally agree, Andrew. It just doesn't look interesting at all, and I think I may have pointed out much earlier, that it doesn't NEED to. They've built this up with what, four or five other successful films. They know they're going to make money on this regardless of how good it is, so it never needed to be artful or inspired, it just needed to be.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    edited February 2012
    Man, I wish we'd implemented a 'thumbs down' button on our forums. ;)
    I've not been following the production closely, so you may well know a lot more about it than me, but it seems like you're drawing an awful lot of conclusions from not very much evidence.
    Now, you may well turn out to be right. Everything I've seen from Whedon (with the notable exception of Dollhouse) has been fantastic (yes, from a directing POV too), so I have high hopes for this. But it could go either way. Thing is, I don't know, because I've not seen it yet.
    I'm surprised by your continued comments on the visual style, which seems based on the trailers to be pretty much in line with all of the Marvel movies to date. And also, yes, reducing your criticism down to wanting more contrast is indeed very silly. :)
    I suppose what I'm most perplexed about is the level of bile and dislike emanating from you, Andrew. Sure, maybe you're not looking forward to the film, that's entirely fair enough. But why are you so enthusiastically not looking forward to it? Did Whedon run over your dog or something when you were younger?
  • StaffOnly
    StaffOnly Posts: 76 Just Starting Out
    edited February 2012
    To add to what Simon Jones said the budget for this film is extremely high as reported. Higher than Iron Man, Iron Man 2 and Thor (not put together of course! :P). Which does not surprise me at all because they have to pay all the a-listers, then complete work on some very diverse VFX (explosions, vehicles, creatures, "magic" etc.) on a lot of shots and make it all fit into the films aesthetic (HULK and Thor next to Iron Man for instance).
    We've seen big directors who know big movies juggle big overblown scripts with too many characters like Pirates 3, Spider-man 3 and Transformers 3 (though TF3 doesn't have too many characters, only to many action scenes). Those films didn't work at all. Even with the best and most cinematic epicness money can buy in TF3 was still boring.
    In Serenity Whedon masterfully (re-)introduced 10 characters (including the ship) in one continuous shot, then made us feel like one of them and care about them before the third act. (In the directors commentary he talks about what a nightmare it is to introduce 9 characters who already know each other on a very limited amount of screen-time.) I sought out Firefly after seeing Serenity because I loved the characters so much. And Serenity isn't even 2 hours long. That is exactly the man we need for The Avengers. I'd trade in the awesome cinematography and VFX (that still fascinate me to this day) in Pirates 3 for what Serenity has any day when it comes to Avengers because the most important part of any film is that it works overall. And that comes down to getting the audience invested and having a good pay-off.
    Also from the short clips we have seen the action set-pieces look amazing. For Whedon's credentials look no further than to Serenity again. The space battle is more exiting than all the pod-races, Courscant speeder-chases and space battles in all The Prequels put together. And Serenity was made on roughly the same amount of money they spent on hair and make-up for Natalie Portman in The Prequels. ;)
  • NullUnit
    NullUnit Posts: 779 Just Starting Out
    Yeah, I have to reiterate that the Avengers are not Batman. The Avengers are not dark and gritty. I'm all for diversity in super hero movies and bright and colorful works well too. Plus, the secrecy around this movie is pretty tight, so it really can't be judged on more than the trailer. I think this movie will sit along side X-Men: First Class and Ironman 1 in terms of style.
  • RodyPolis
    RodyPolis Posts: 610 Just Starting Out*

    though TF3 doesn't have too many characters, only too many action scenes
    There's no such thing.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    Early word seems to be confirming both me AND Andrew, in that the movie is a little uncinematic visually but it doesn't matter because overall it's very, very good. Intriguing!