The Avengers

12346

Comments

  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,031 Enthusiast
    The visuals for each movie were more unique and so careful time had to be spent to highlight the main set pieces and visuals in those movies.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    I agree some of the Iron Man stuff was noticeably more CG than in the Iron Man movies, but I didn't think it detracted from the film. The scale of VFX in The Avengers is vastly huger than in any of the other Marvel movies, so I was actually quite surprised that the effects were as good as they were - particularly the Hulk, which is the first time I've seen that character work from a visual perspective.
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506

    So I'm not the only one who thought the CGI was just average?
    The CGI aliens looked liked it was done 4 to 6 years ago. I did not see a problem with Iron Mans suit. The aircraft carrier was great and done well! The hulk looked better than other films. Some of the cgi was not to good for a movie like that!
  • NuttyBanana
    NuttyBanana Posts: 151

    The CGI aliens looked liked it was done 4 to 6 years ago.
    I can never agree with these kinds of comments simply because Jurassic Park's T-Rex still looks more realistic than most cgi done today, and that film will be 20 years old next year.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast

    The CGI aliens looked liked it was done 4 to 6 years ago. I did not see a problem with Iron Mans suit. The aircraft carrier was great and done well! The hulk looked better than other films. Some of the cgi was not to good for a movie like that!
    I still don't recall noticing any effects that actively weren't good, let alone were bad. Perhaps not as top quality as Transformers, but then that is the absolute pinnacle of VFX work at the moment, from a director who is an expert at shooting for VFX (although little else).
    I'm kinda curious about people's standards these days, I guess. When something like The Avengers is said to have 'not too good' effects, we really are being spoilt. :)

    I can never agree with these kinds of comments simply because Jurassic Park's T-Rex still looks more realistic than most cgi done today, and that film will be 20 years old next year.
    Absolutely. I'm still confused as to how JP's T-Rex attack is so well done. I genuinely have no comprehension of how ILM managed it back in the day. I guess it's a good example of how a visual effect's realism is directly related to the way the live action stuff is shot, as well. The restrained style of the first film really helps to sell the dinosaurs - whereas the more elaborate and ambitious sequel ends up looking slightly less realistic in places.
  • MatthiasClaflin
    MatthiasClaflin Posts: 674 Just Starting Out
    Simon, I'm not saying that I necessarily think that these effects were "not too good" but rather just not anything special. They were standard. Transformers were better, and I think Avatar was as well, which was done nearly 3 years ago now.
  • NuttyBanana
    NuttyBanana Posts: 151
    Transformers is all based around metallic design which is far easier to pull off than organic cgi, from my point of view. Iron man kind of shows this, even regardless of some suggesting it's the worse of his 3 movie showings. Go and watch Transformers:DotM again and look at Shia LaBeouf when if gets latched onto and thrown around by Starscream in the final act, he is clearly cgi and not fantastic either.
    With everything going on in a lot of these scenes in Avengers, I thought they were pretty great. I agree with Simon though that we're pretty spoilt these days, that's for sure!
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    edited May 2012
    Yeah I really don't understand the complaints about the VFX. They're top notch... nothing short of what I expected from the most important Marvel film to date. I actually thought the Iron Man suit looked better than it ever has. Same goes for Hulk. And the Chitauri didn't have the most inspired design... but they looked plenty realistic enough to me. I wonder if part of the problem with them was that we just didn't get to see enough of them to even judge? They were barely shown in the film at all.
    So yeah... while they certainly weren't the best effects of all-time... they were completely in line with the high-quality standard the previous films have set.
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 378 Enthusiast
    edited May 2012
    Sorry, I just can't stay out of this:
    They aren't top notch. They just aren't, that's a skewed adjective to use. They were dated in terms and complexities of VFX of the past 3-5 years, and 'decent' at best.
    Are they what I would expect of a middle-of-the-road minor-ish blockbuster from a studio? Certainly, sure. And that'd probably be fine. Are they terrible? No, not at all. But just because the effects are aplenty doesn't make them impressive or well-done. And certainly not top notch. There are moments, sure, that work with organic believability. But there are also large, gaping, cringe-worthy holes in the VFX; like all of the alien invaders, or any shot of Scarlett Johansson riding the flying alien craft, or the opening underwater shot of Iron Man, or any of Thor flying/summoning lightning. There are glaring issues that make the film overall feel 'cheap'. And that's certainly not a marker of being 'top' quality.
    They're plain and not in any way unique or striking- and standing against other large-scale CGI blockbusters of the past few years- they bleed in mediocrity.
    This would be fine, acceptable even, if this weren't supposed to be the tentpole film to end all tentpole films. But....it is. And the effects weren't/aren't on the same scale. At all.
    And on another note- why shouldn't The Avengers have the best effects of all-time? It's a franchise blockbuster that's had 4 years and 5 huge comic-book movies leading up to it- there's not much of an excuse for not having some really, really great effects. If Transformers 3 can swing it a whole year before Avengers, on pretty much the same scope and landscape- why can't a much-more-anticipated movie do the same (if not better)? Movies like 2009's Star Trek or District 9 swing for the fences, but this film can't be bothered to do better than the worst effects in the lesser-budgeted and far less-anticipated X-Men: First Class? The fact of the matter is this movie, because of its content, doesn't have to try on this front, and that's the reason it didn't. The reason it gets a 'pass' on it all.
    Which I suppose is fine. But that doesn't make it something its not- which is a rather shoddy and scattershot display of modern VFX. Are we spoiled with good CGI and VFX? Absolutely. But if that expectation isn't going to be met in quality or consistency, it should at least be met in creativity or artistry. And, obviously, it isn't here.
  • MatthiasClaflin
    MatthiasClaflin Posts: 674 Just Starting Out
    edited May 2012

    Are we spoiled with good CGI and VFX? Absolutely. But if that expectation isn't going to be met in quality or consistency, it should at least be met in creativity or artistry. And, obviously, it isn't here.
    Spoiled? I guess, but think about who spoiled us, the film industry. They set a new standard, one I don't think this movie met, and if it did, it barely did. I am not saying this is a necessarily bad movie, but the effects are no where near what I've come to expect out of a hollywood blockbuster.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    Heh, hang on a sec. Are you seriously suggesting that the best effects in The Avengers were worse than the worst effects in First Class? So Avengers had worse effects than the comedy running-around-the-mansion shot with Xavier and Beast? Please. :)
    There are numerous sequences in Avengers that are some of the best I've ever seen: the first un-suiting on the rooftop of Stark's building. Hulk chasing Scarlett through the helicarrier. Most other bits with Hulk.
    The problem is that the effects in The Avengers are inconsistent. It's a good example of a film over-reaching and not quite being able to maintain consistency throughout.
    While I think Whedon is the main reason the film succeeds for me, I would also concede that the inconsistency in the VFX is possibly down to his relative inexperience at working at this level.
    There are certain directors - Bay, Cameron, Scott - who always bring out the best in their VFX teams. They're consummate experts are creating astonishing, realistic VFX. Whedon's not yet on that level.
    But given the story and character successes in the Avengers compared to the likes of Transformers and Avatar, overall I'm more than happy with the final balance of the film.
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 378 Enthusiast
    Yes, the comedy shot of Beast racing Xavier is exactly what I thought of while writing that, actually. :)
    And while I don't disagree overall- I have to say that the shot of The Hulk chasing Scarlett: EEESH. One of the most cringe-worthy, laughable moments in a movie I've seen in a while. I don't even remember the effects sequence, because the crescendo of music and the pushy thematic posturing to make you feel an 'impending doom' for Black Widow felt so contrived and silly to me- to the point that when you get to her running in slow-motion with The Hulk behind her, I had to squint (both times I saw the movie) and wince in my seat at how cheesy and overdone it was.
    Scarlett's a good actress- but something about that moment and shot specifically- just really really hard to stomach. Soooooo silly and melodramatic-looking.
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 378 Enthusiast
    Hey!
    I wanted to share with you guys the latest from the YouTube comedy guys 'How It Should Have Ended'. My closest cousin, who's appeared in a few of our projects over the years, recently started working there- and did the voicework/acting for Black Widow in their 'Avengers' parody. Check it out!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZkqC4Lz8dU
  • KahvehRobinett
    KahvehRobinett Posts: 442 Just Starting Out*
    Nice, that was really funny. I like how they get covered in Box-office money in the end. Some good looking animation and having Superman and Batman in the same room with the Avengers was amazing.
  • DanielGWood
    DanielGWood Posts: 1,016 Just Starting Out
    I do love HISHE.
    Hulk got the best line in that too.
  • DanielGWood
    DanielGWood Posts: 1,016 Just Starting Out
    Just a rumour so far, but who would pay to watch another 35 mins of Avengers in the cinema?
    I would.. it's a good enough movie to watch twice, and an extra 35 minutes is well worth it.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    I've been meaning to watch the film a second time (as you know, Dan...) so I'd definitely give this a go, though I do wish they'd include a bladder break in really long screenings. :P
    More time for character stuff and to let the story breathe a bit would be cool - I'm assuming that's what the deleted scenes are, rather than more action.
  • TheRealJayWalker
    TheRealJayWalker Posts: 223 Enthusiast
    I'd definitely want to see a Director's Cut and that may explain why my local multiplex has already stopped showing the 2D version. I was dying for a slash though at the end of the first showing so I agree a break in the middle would really help.
    Interesting points though Simon how Cameron and Scott bring out more in their VFX teams. I think in Scott's case having an art school background helps with the overal visualisation.
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 378 Enthusiast
    edited June 2012
    It's not surprising that the 2D version is out of theaters. It's a crowded summer season, the movie's been out a lengthy 6 weeks, and there are tentpole blockbusters as big as it (at least in the scope of a studio promoting them, such as Men in Black 3 with Sony, Snow White with Universal, and Prometheus with Fox) that need room and time in theaters to release in both 2D and 3D formats. It's less to do with prepping a new copy and I'd say more to do with treading water in larger, powerful releases when you've been out for a month and a half. This isn't The Dark Knight, where it can wade around from late July into September because nothing really substantial comes out. By releasing end of April, The Avengers pretty much cemented that it couldn't stay open through July. Which is funny, because The Hunger Games, from early March, is still open in lots of theaters near me.
    But hey, this is the danger to releasing in all these different gimmicks. My largest theater here is playing only 4-5 movies, which I scoffed at, because their lineup looks like this:
    -Prometheus
    -Prometheus 3D
    -Prometheus 3D: The IMAX Experience
    -Men in Black 3
    -Men in Black 3D
    -Madagascar 3
    -Madagascar 3D
    -The Avengers
    -The Avengers 3D
    -The Avengers 3D: ETX
    -Snow White & The Huntsmen
    It's ridiculous, really. Especially when considering that 'IMAX' and 'ETX' aren't actually what they're called- but are just what used to be the nicer, larger screen retrofitted with digital projectors and labels slapped on.
    I wish real IMAX still existed with standards and consistency. There's a spherical dome screen in Dallas, and a full-frame vertical rectangular one in Austin- both the traditional, 'larger-than-life' formats for IMAX- but other than that, none of them are 'real' here in Texas. Which is a shame.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    Agreed, Andrew. There's an IMAX screen here in Norwich at the main multiplex, which really confused me when it opened as I always thought that the definition of IMAX was that it had to be a humungous screen - not just a high quality screen. Seems like ever since Dark Knight IMAX has been on a major image shift.
    What is ETX? Not heard of that one.
    It's particularly irritating as I usually only want to see the standard 2D screenings of films, so having cinemas full up of all the other random formats feels like such a waste of projection time.
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 378 Enthusiast
    ETX is AMC Theater's term for 'enhanced audio and video'. It's called 'XC' or some other 'X' moniker at other major theater chains in America (Cinemark, Regal, Tinseltown, Century).
    I saw M:I4 in 'ETX', because I refused to pay extra for fake IMAX, and I must say while the picture was the same as what was just considered a regular image in my local theater a few years ago- the sound system was massively louder and roaring with great quality. But then again, why shouldn't that be expected of all screens?
  • TheRealJayWalker
    TheRealJayWalker Posts: 223 Enthusiast
    As you've touched on Andrew it makes for a very limited display of movies. My biggest gripe that I have is that in my case the nearest best multiplex is in Portsmouth (UK) where the biggest and best screens are reserved for 3D and even on opening night the 2D version is relegated to an inferior smaller screen.
    I can see that commercially it makes sense as it means more money but I feel that for those who are not fans of 3D are overlooked.
    Hopefully the fad will die out in the next couple of years (unlikely I guess ;) )
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    I finally saw this tonight, and thought it was about as good as any other Marvel movie. Some funny bits, and the Hulk was awesome, but overall it was far too melodramatic, and the action was predictable and nothing we haven't seen before a dozen times in other films. It's a fun bit of mindless nonsense, but I think I'm just over the superhero thing.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    Aculag - have you seen Super? Best superhero movie by a long way, and probably much more your sort of thing.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    I have seen Super, and I loved it.
    I've been hearing nothing but praise for this movie from everyone else I talk to about it, so I'm going to give it another chance. Maybe I wasn't in the right mood?
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    I really like the generally unpretentious style Marvel have taken with their movies. They're exciting adventures in the style of the original Indiana Jones and Back to the Future movies. Fun and silly, but not brainless.
    No idea how they're going to pull off Rocket Raccoon (so to speak), though. But, then, they managed to make Thor seem logical...
  • ESPictures
    ESPictures Posts: 521 Just Starting Out
    Avengers is back in some theaters over labor day weekend and ILM tweeted that anyone going should stick around for the credits. That suggests to me there may be a look at the next Marvel movie. My guess is the next Iron Man.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    I hope it's Ant Man.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,370 Enthusiast
    I imagine that was Aculag wit, but I genuinely do hope it is. Edgar Wright directing a Marvel film? Yes please!
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    I'm sure that's not what it actually will be, but I do really hope it is. It's the only Marvel movie I'm looking forward to.