• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Avengers: Age of Ultron | Production Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

anaron

Member
Thank god. I liked the first movie but it really did look like a glorified TV movie at times and the aspect ratio did certainly didn't help that situation. Firing the cinematographer and using a more appropriate aspect ratio is definitely an improvement. The only other problem I had was how hokey some of the dialog was, and I don't expect that to change, but 2 out of 3 isn't bad.

Yes, firing the dude who did We Need to Talk About Kevin, Atonement, and the upcoming Godzilla is an improvement.
 

odiin

My Apartment, or the 120 Screenings of Salo
I like 1.85:1 for 3d.

I guess an argument can be made there, but it's kind of moot when the movie isn't even filmed in 3D to begin with.

Yes, firing the dude who did We Need to Talk About Kevin, Atonement, and the upcoming Godzilla is an improvement.

Of those I've only seen Atonement, and I'll admit that that is a beautiful looking movie, but that doesn't excuse his work on Avengers. A fresh set of eyes will do AoU good.
 

Blader

Member
I'm not exactly clear on where a director's and DP's duties begin and end, but aren't DPs also usually responsible for lighting scenes?
 

inky

Member
Thank god. I liked the first movie but it really did look like a glorified TV movie at times and the aspect ratio did certainly didn't help that situation. Firing the cinematographer and using a more appropriate aspect ratio is definitely an improvement. The only other problem I had was how hokey some of the dialog was, and I don't expect that to change, but 2 out of 3 isn't bad.

TBF, Seamus McGarvey isn't a bad cinematographer. I'm not familiar with all of his work, but I wonder if he just wasn't that great of a fit for the material or what it came down to (Godzilla is looking good). I didn't think the movie looked bad, although it did have its flaws.

On the other hand, I'm guessing Whedon liked what he saw of GotG and considered Davis a better fit. I love what I've seen from the trailers, especially the lighting, so I'm all for whatever makes A2 look better. The post credits scene in TWS looked alright.

I'm not exactly clear on where a director's and DP's duties begin and end, but aren't DPs also usually responsible for lighting scenes?

Sure.
 
I guess an argument can be made there, but it's kind of moot when the movie isn't even filmed in 3D to begin with.
Conversions have gotten much better over the years, if handled right. In Age of Ultron's case they could easily handle it as a hybrid, by rendering all of the VFX in 3D and post-converting the filmed footage itself (Pacific Rim is a great example of this.)
 

richiek

steals Justin Bieber DVDs
Shooting has begun in England:

http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/avengers-stars-battle-out-hawley-6937214

JS34711983.jpg


2c6t.jpg
 
I guess an argument can be made there, but it's kind of moot when the movie isn't even filmed in 3D to begin with.



Of those I've only seen Atonement, and I'll admit that that is a beautiful looking movie, but that doesn't excuse his work on Avengers. A fresh set of eyes will do AoU good.

I've always felt that maybe Whedon felt a big responsibility to get Avengers done on time and on budget and, as such, may have intentionally gone with reasonably simplistic lighting setups just to save time. He had never handled anything with remotely that scope before.

I know he has commented on some commentaries on his TV episodes that he would have to do very simple camera setups because they didn't have the time to light something more complex.
 
I really fancy getting into some Marvel comics but I have no idea where to start. I wanna read the kinda essential Thanos and Ultron story arc comics but don't know where to start.
 
I really fancy getting into some Marvel comics but I have no idea where to start. I wanna read the kinda essential Thanos and Ultron story arc comics but don't know where to start.

Honestly, how I started was I went and read some stories about my favorite characters on Marvel Unlimited.

Haven't read any Ultron yet, but a good intro into Thanos would be Infinity Gauntlet. If you wanted to get Thanos and Guardians done in one go, I'd go Annihilation, Guardians of the Galaxy (2008 Miller), Thanos Imperative.
 
I really fancy getting into some Marvel comics but I have no idea where to start. I wanna read the kinda essential Thanos and Ultron story arc comics but don't know where to start.

The Age of Ultron movie is probably going to be heavily influenced by the Ultron Unlimited saga. I'd read that.
 

Jonogunn

Member
can someone explain to me what the problems were with the cinematography in the avengers? i never heard of this complain til now.

also the aspect ratios...why does it make a huge diff especially if it's not a HUGE change in the ratio.

Total film noob here so talk to me like a baby.
 
can someone explain to me what the problems were with the cinematography in the avengers? i never heard of this complain til now.

also the aspect ratios...why does it make a huge diff especially if it's not a HUGE change in the ratio.

Total film noob here so talk to me like a baby.

The lighting and camera work sometimes made the film look "cheap", especially the sets. Even some of my friends who aren't really into film noticed this.
 

Kieli

Member
The lighting and camera work sometimes made the film look "cheap", especially the sets. Even some of my friends who aren't really into film noticed this.

The Iron Man vs. Thor scene in the woods really jumped out to me as cheap.

Don't remember any other egregious examples, though.
 

Jonogunn

Member
Man none of this occurred to me at all.

but before i read all this i did feel like avengers had a weird look after watching it again many times. i just thought that it was cap's awful costume that made it feel cheap.
 
The Iron Man vs. Thor scene in the woods really jumped out to me as cheap.

Don't remember any other egregious examples, though.

When Loki entered the SHIELD base, the opening...mostly how the flying HQ was over lit. It made plastic props really stand out and the outfits to look worse. I can't think of any others off the top of my head.

Basically, for the budget they had, it should have been lit and framed better. Not enough wide angles, too many close-ups and medium shots which is a sign of someone who isn't used to framing films. Hopefully more effort will be put into A2.
 

anaron

Member
I've always felt that maybe Whedon felt a big responsibility to get Avengers done on time and on budget and, as such, may have intentionally gone with reasonably simplistic lighting setups just to save time. He had never handled anything with remotely that scope before.

I know he has commented on some commentaries on his TV episodes that he would have to do very simple camera setups because they didn't have the time to light something more complex.

That's what I thought too. It didn't feel like it was a film he could really experiment with visually or tighten as a priority above just making it work. The scenes that stood out as looking 'cheap' were the forest fight, the opening SHIELD destruction, Loki in space and some individual bits on the helicarrier and some parts of New York battle.
 

Slayven

Member
That lady looking like "that is the man that made the greatest comicbook movie of all time. too bad his kid is here or I would curl his toenails."
 
Flashback or time travel twist?

Oh man, I just remebered that crazy theory involving time travel with this movie and Ant-Man. Regardless, those costumes are definitely similar to what we saw from the 1st Captain America movie. Wouldn't doubt it if they showed Agent Carter doing somethign for Shield.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom