Why? Most of these films look great.
Captain America: Civil War - Final Trailer
- Thread starter strafer
- Start date
- Status
Why? Most of these films look great.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
There are a lot of these kinda viewers who mainly go to the theaters for the big blockbuster tentpoles. Which is fine but don't then go online and complain that there are too many superhero movies lol
Very true, but that's no different to Joss Whedon directing the 'twins' scene as a post-credits scene to Thor: Dark World - that scene was never in Ultron. However, I do feel like we will see that Ant-Man post-credits CW scene in the final movie in some respect. Which is odd as it may be one of the first post-credits scenes to directly be seen in a movie it is teasing.
Yeah I imagine it'l look different or be cut different from an editing point of view, maybe even different takes/angles will be used in the final cut.
ReplacementPelican
Member
I had completely glossed over the fact that Apocalypse does this. What's interesting is that BVS didn't really encroach on Civil War's plotline as much as I expected. I thought it would be very heavy handed with 'should Superman/Batman be allowed to keep being vigilantes' but, whilst mentioned, it wasn't really explored.
Seems all three, despite thematic similarities, will all be quite different.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Yeah it's a slight difference here. The "twins" Stinger was filmed specifically for Winter Soldier, but the "I know a guy" stinger in Ant-Man was in fact filmed for Civil War. It was shot during regular dailies for that movie and they just said hey this would make a great stinger for Ant-Man, and there we go.
Yeah, they are hitting very similar notes. I could definitely see a more casual audience and reviewers rolling their eyes and being bothered by it. Makes all these arcs look even more predictable than they probably are. Most of use (core audience) are used to that shit.
The looks like a tv show complaint is old and tired and I don't even think it has much to do with the cinematography. The aspect ratio of the first Avengers was 1.85:1 while most modern films are 2.39:1. That's when I first heard that complaint and it stuck. There is certainly room for criticism of the overall cinematography but not any more so compared to your average movie.
Here's a pic comparing aspect ratios
Here's a pic comparing aspect ratios
Broken Joystick
At least you can talk. Who are you?
I totally agree with it being a great stinger too. As a television editor, I would hate to deal with the huge amount of dailies feature editors get but I'm guessing the cut of that scene was done by the Ant-Man editor (Dan Lebental edited it right?) rather than the Civil War editor (Jeffrey Ford) so even small nuances in editoral styles will make that scene come across differently, the final grade and colour will likely be different too. It'l be fun to compare the two scenes next month after the movie is out and see how much changed.
"Looks like a TV show" is the fucking laziest criticism there is. I think we are in the third round in this thread alone. Go watch some TV shows, a lot of them look fucking great and do things better than a lot of movies nowadays.
There's an argument to be made about the plain look of the Marvel films, heck I just made it myself a few pages back (I think the Fox X-Men films look just as bad if not worse, go look at First Class or the Apocalypse trailer for some truly awful green screen), but the interest is not in having the conversation, just the lazy drive by. It becomes a fucking nothing regurgitated argument at that point.
There's an argument to be made about the plain look of the Marvel films, heck I just made it myself a few pages back (I think the Fox X-Men films look just as bad if not worse, go look at First Class or the Apocalypse trailer for some truly awful green screen), but the interest is not in having the conversation, just the lazy drive by. It becomes a fucking nothing regurgitated argument at that point.
I find it to be the equivalent of the grimdark complaints lobbed at DC in that maybe there's an issue present but it's over exaggerated and misconstrued.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
Based on his work for Marvel, I'm not expecting much. Both films had quite average cinematography and I think Doctor Strange needs to have some absolutely beautiful and mental cinematography.
Inferno313
Banned
The aspect ratio is totally a component of the cinematography though. Just like the medium is totally a component of any painting. The cinematography for the first Avengers film is largely not great. There's a lot of flat lighting, odd blocking choices and shot angles, and limited depth-of-field.
This, which is a better shot by the film's standards:
Has nothing on this:
While it was a much weaker film overall, Age of Ultron at least improved things a lot on this front.
There are a lot of things that contribute. Some Marvel films don't even look like they take the proper time to do color grading, and yeah, I would believe they are shot with efficiency in mind more than with artistic purpose. I'd love to see a good analysis of them here to learn a few things. ( I know these exist about critically acclaimed movies done by professionals, I mean from GAF posters who are quick to point them out but never go in detail)
Like Zack would say, it is what it is. Sadly.
Like Zack would say, it is what it is. Sadly.
Well, BvS managed to implement it so poorly, I doubt it'll influence the perception of Civil War. Of course Civil War could screw it up too though I have a little more confidence in it. Don't really know what to think about Apocalypse yet.
More_Badass
Member
Between Hannibal, Into The Badlands, and Breaking Bad, you got better cinematography fight choreography, and storytelling than most movies
More_Badass
Member
I don't see that happening. Mainly because Civil War has had proper build-up, and while Batman vs Superman is cool in a "Whoa, comic book come to life" sense, I think seeing two characters who you've followed for years now and seen their attitudes shift and change and all that come to blows, it's much more compelling. That'll attract people.
I don't really disagree but even Avengers get unfairly shat on imo. It's not like there aren't a good amount of great shots in that movie.
Avengers has plenty of shots that aren't that great but on the whole, it's got more than enough good shots that I find the "looks like TV cinematogrpahy" complaints very off base.
Yeah, its interesting. In the first Avengers, Cap was the one playing ball with S.H.I.E.L.D. and telling Tony that "We have our orders, we should do our job" while Tony and Banner were trying to hack S.H.I.E.L.D. 's database for secrets. Cap still did play along with Banner and Tony eventually, but its a far cry for how both characters are now. Their shift also makes sense with the events that occurred in various movies that involved them, specifically Ultron, Winter Soldier, and Avengers.
As a counterpoint though, the lighting on the shots where any character is standing on Stark Tower does look like something out of Agents of SHIELD.
I don't really disagree but even Avengers get unfairly shat on imo. It's not like there aren't a good amount of great shots in that movie.
Avengers has plenty of shots that aren't that great but on the whole, it's got more than enough good shots that I find the "looks like TV cinematogrpahy" complaints very off base.
Yup. Like I've always said, "looks like TV cinematography" is just a vague criticism for detractors (right up there with Marvel formula). When you are at the top you will always have people looking for whatever they can to bring you down.
guek did say "Avengers has plenty of shots that aren't that great but on the whole,".
Which was only exacerbated by the Russo brothers having a background in television, even though The Winter Soldier's cinematography, staging, and choreography are great.
heh, its a valid complain. I don't think they are bad, I don't really watch much T.V. to compare, but compared to a lot of other films, they are lacking.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Except that those 6 movies are tent poles with way more exposure than the lionshare of those other 134 films.
ryutaro's mama
Member
It still does not validate the notion that theatres offer little other than comicbook movies. You don't have to go out your way to find a movie not comicbook related.
Don't do drugs
I'm more than happy with how these movies look, often the composition and framing is reminiscent of comic panels that I grew up loving. Sometimes it doesn't work and comes across as a cheap attempt at a unique frame but atleast they tried. I honestly can't see this 'looks like tv' argument - not to shit on the Marvel TV stuff because it is awesome. However, Jessica Jones and its lackluster super power visuals really showed that it was a tv show; I still loved JJ so it didn't matter.
I kind of see this as an argument similar to video games, in which some people are all about graphics and frames per second; while others are just in it for the story and characters and can ignore the technical shortcomings. I still play Ocarina of Time every year despite how it looks, I played Minecraft for 5 years and built crazy huge awesome looking buildings (thank god I don't do that anymore).
Sure, an amazing shot in a movie which everyone can agree on and appreciate is awesome - some from The Force Awakens come to mind. But brining it back to Marvel there's been shots since Iron Man 1 that I've loved how they looked and even recently with Winter Solider and Ultron there are shots I can think of that blew me away. I just don't see the 'looks like tv' argument when compared to other movies with similar budgets which look much much worse or fall apart because of a terrible story - which to me is the most important part of a movie, the story and how well it is told through the actors.
For me it's less about how the shots look, but how they make us feel. Cinematography can be used so subtly to make us feel for a character or make us get excited for a reunion or the first time we're seeing characters together. I feel it is rare that shows outside of Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad ever reach 'movie like' levels in terms of their shots - but hey each to their own. I understand the 'looks like tv' argument - I just don't agree with it because I like these movies for what they are and they've blown me away nearly every time I've been sat in that cinema seat watching a new Marvel film. Sure they've made some odd choices and even a bad movie or two (don't get me started on IM2) but they all helped the child in us finally get to experience these heroes and villains in a way we never could have imagined.
I kind of see this as an argument similar to video games, in which some people are all about graphics and frames per second; while others are just in it for the story and characters and can ignore the technical shortcomings. I still play Ocarina of Time every year despite how it looks, I played Minecraft for 5 years and built crazy huge awesome looking buildings (thank god I don't do that anymore).
Sure, an amazing shot in a movie which everyone can agree on and appreciate is awesome - some from The Force Awakens come to mind. But brining it back to Marvel there's been shots since Iron Man 1 that I've loved how they looked and even recently with Winter Solider and Ultron there are shots I can think of that blew me away. I just don't see the 'looks like tv' argument when compared to other movies with similar budgets which look much much worse or fall apart because of a terrible story - which to me is the most important part of a movie, the story and how well it is told through the actors.
For me it's less about how the shots look, but how they make us feel. Cinematography can be used so subtly to make us feel for a character or make us get excited for a reunion or the first time we're seeing characters together. I feel it is rare that shows outside of Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad ever reach 'movie like' levels in terms of their shots - but hey each to their own. I understand the 'looks like tv' argument - I just don't agree with it because I like these movies for what they are and they've blown me away nearly every time I've been sat in that cinema seat watching a new Marvel film. Sure they've made some odd choices and even a bad movie or two (don't get me started on IM2) but they all helped the child in us finally get to experience these heroes and villains in a way we never could have imagined.
Yup. When I hear that it's like a dog whistle-I know they usually have an axe to grind.
Sure, worldwide bombastic exposure. Popular, mass market entertainment offerings have more marketing push than the rest, that doesn't mean the rest doesn't exist, or is in fact, actually a majority of what is out there. Nor is it limited to superhero movies anyway.
If you can't find variety in your particular pick of entertainment options it has everything to do with you not expanding your horizons and looking for more, and little to do with half a dozen movies a year having more commercials than the hundreds that are actually released.
Using the royal you by the way. Don't mean you, you
Inferno313
Banned
This kind of shit is extremely annoying. Cinematography isn't purely a technical thing. It's as much an artistic component of the film as acting or writing. It's how you're conveying information visually. It's at the core of filmmaking. To suggest that people who care about how a film conveys tone and mood visually are just the filmic equivalence of "graphic whores" (which is equally annoying in the games space, but that's neither here nor there) as opposed to 'the real fans' who care about character and story is so obnoxious.
What do you expect out of children who get angry when people say negative things about stuff they like? Lol.
BrokenFiction
Member
So people go see movies that they want to see?
I get your point, however the graphical style or fidelity of a video game is often seen to a casual viewer as how a game looks, similarly how a movie looks is often either because of how it is shot or the actors who are in it. I personally would say Marvel Movies convey their tone and mood quite well while their cinematography might not be their 'highlight' they do it in other ways - which I can understand being a let down for some viewers. I'm also not saying that people who dislike how a movie looks aren't 'real fans' ofcourse they can be but just not like how the movie looks, that's fine. My post was just me, expressing in a calm and friendly manner how I see Marvel Movies, but I totally understand that others aren't so enamored by them or certain aspects.
I wouldn't say angry, if people truly get angry over this then I'm not sure I'd ever want to meet them. These are movies, fictional universes and characters, I don't care enough to get angry about something. I just like them.
Ouch. Still salty about BvS?
I don't understand?
He didn't say it was wrong to care about those things or that they don't matter, just that there are people who are more easily pleased even by pedestrian, serviceable cinematography and not everything needs to be a Terrence Malick visual orgasm for people to enjoy it. Marvel movies might not be cinematographical masterpieces, but they aren't junk that look like they are filmed by a group of 5-year-olds who just got their hands on a video camera for the first time like some elitist assholes might make you think.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
I think Ant-Man getting accused of having "TV level cinematography" is pretty hilarious. Like, show me a TV show with something on the level of the microverse/shrinking sequences or the final fight scene...
ryutaro's mama
Member
Sure, worldwide bombastic exposure. Popular, mass market entertainment offerings have more marketing push than the rest, that doesn't mean the rest doesn't exist, or is in fact, actually a majority of what is out there. Nor is it limited to superhero movies anyway.
If you can't find variety in your particular pick of entertainment options it has everything to do with you not expanding your horizons and looking for more, and little to do with half a dozen movies a year having more commercials than the hundreds that are actually released.
Using the royal you by the way. Don't mean you, you
I am not in the camp that thinks that comic movies are too many. What my response was saying is, the comic movies are now tent pole events and get heavily advertised (and there is a lot of marketing tie-ins as well) so it shapes the perception that there are too many of them. For better or worse, this is the reality we live in.
In a few years, people will likely complain there are "too many SW movies" because it is annualized, not because there are actually too many.
Make sense?
Freewheelin'
Member
A lot of that is done in CG though. Look at that one-shot of all the Avengers in the first film compared to the rest of the film.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
In any case it doesn't really matter; soothsayers and fortune-tellers who predict the doom of the superhero genre aren't the ones who will decide, it's the audiences. Maybe
But then things like Deadpool happen where it's new, R-rated etc., something a bit different, could have tanked if done incorrectly, and it does incredibly well. Then you get something like Batman vs. Superman, a sure-fire, sure-win, that seemed impossible to get wrong, and it tanks. Nothing's for certain, and as long as GOOD superhero movies come out, they won't dip in popularity.
You use the example of Star Wars, and I guess yeah people could get sick of it but people who want Star Wars feverishly kept it alive between 1980 and 1998 through consumption of whatever SW related non-movie media they could get their mitts on.
Inferno313
Banned
People who are criticizing the films' cinematography are talking about over the course of the whole film including, and especially, smaller moments like dialogue sequences. A couple key CG sequences looking great doesn't mean the entire film looks great.
But the film doesn't look bad either. Ant-Man more than most has an unfortunate over reliance on the same two-shot scenes for dialogue. It gets old and it's nothing flashy but it's also not necessarily bad, just a bit dully shot. Marvel unfortunately has never put much emphasis on their dialogue scenes.
User 479360
Banned
I'm mostly sick of the advertising.
That's not true. I rarely go and see them in theatres.
I mostly go see smart dramatic films and the odd horror movie (I'm a sucker for the genre, even if its quality is often questionable these days, but The Witch was great.)
That's not true. I rarely go and see them in theatres.
I mostly go see smart dramatic films and the odd horror movie (I'm a sucker for the genre, even if its quality is often questionable these days, but The Witch was great.)
ryutaro's mama
Member
I don't know that the fans of anything will tire of more content if it remains good. The perception of there being "too much" will come from a subset of people that just look at the frequency of the release. See: Madden & COD detractors.
Can Crusher
Banned
It's not just about tone and mood, cinematography is extremely important as it's the eyes of the audience into the world. It's language, you're using visuals to express something.
My problem is when certain movies are said to have good cinematography just because it's pretty, even though it's terrible at actually supporting whatever the scene is actually trying to convey. In that sense people who like those works just because they are visually "interesting" are in fact, a bit the equivalent of graphic whores.
Broken Joystick
At least you can talk. Who are you?
Inferno313
Banned
What would you suggest as an example of this?
- Status