The Avengers

[Cop No. 633]

Originally Posted by Bourne101

Leaving out counterarguments I could make about some of his work on the Batman films, I agree with him. There is an abundance of terrible shot selections in The Avengers. I just watched it again recently and some of the selections make absolutely no sense. There are a ton of really random angles as well as some poorly shot action that is so terribly edited, it seemed like there was footage missing. Maybe it's because McGarvey has only done smaller-budget movies in the past, but I think a lot of it has to do with Whedon. I've heard rumblings that he had an extremely difficult time shooting this movie due to his inexperience on a project of this size. He even kind of implies in the commentary that a lot of strings had to be pulled in order to save his ass. He may have written a decent screenplay, but I'm not so confident in his directing abilities. There's a reason that he's claiming the next Avengers will be a "smaller" movie.

They're called Dutch angles, and they're actually used a lot in comics. Since Whedon was trying his hardest to emulate that style, it made sense as to why he chose those kind of angles. Are you sure you didn't read Wally Pfister's recent interview and put his words into your post? It seems rather odd you're going on about the exact same thing Pfister complained about earlier today.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Dark-...ing-33613.html

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by Cop No. 633

They're called Dutch angles, and they're actually used a lot in comics. Since Whedon was trying his hardest to emulate that style, it made sense as to why he chose those kind of angles. Are you sure you didn't read Wally Pfister's recent interview and put his words into your post? It seems rather odd you're going on about the exact same thing Pfister complained about earlier today.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Dark-...ing-33613.html

That's the article I was responding to/agreeing with, hence why I said:

Leaving out counterarguments I could make about some of his work on the Batman films, I agree with him.

after P1NSTR1PEZ posted the article.

And it doesn't really matter what he's trying to emulate if it doesn't work on a cinematic level.

[DaveyJoeG]

Incidentally the dutch angle technique can be seen most prominently in the Adam West Batman tv series.



It's very cartoonish.

[Cop No. 633]

Originally Posted by Bourne101

That's the article I was responding to/agreeing with, hence why I said:



after P1NSTR1PEZ posted the article.

And it doesn't really matter what he's trying to emulate if it doesn't work on a cinematic level.

Sorry, I didn't see the link. I just saw what you wrote which was exactly what I read earlier today in the Pfister article. It felt a little weird. I apologize.

Overall, I think it's a silly jab at a film that you could easily criticize, much like the Dark Knight Rises. They're both riddled with problems. It's no secret and anybody denying that is blinded by their enormous film boner. There's plenty of reasonable arguments to be made, but complaining about Dutch angles in the Avengers reminds me of the Emperor claiming there's too many notes in Mozart's musical.

If we go by the notion that Dutch angles don't work on a cinematic level, then we might as well conclude that Terry Gilliam is an amateur since his everyone of his films have Dutch angles. Or how about that Sam Raimi? But I suspect nobody would say that. Instead, they'd find an artistic reason for their existence in his films or some other acclaimed director's works. But when it comes to Joss Whedon, then it's different... he's just a TV guy masquerading as a director, or he's trying to show off his production values, how dare he!

If people had a problem with Dutch angles, I'm shocked nobody complained about it with Thor.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by Cop No. 633

If we go by the notion that Dutch angles don't work on a cinematic level, then we might as well conclude that Terry Gilliam is an amateur since his everyone of his films have Dutch angles. Or how about that Sam Raimi? But I suspect nobody would say that. Instead, they'd find an artistic reason for their existence in his films or some other acclaimed director's works. But when it comes to Joss Whedon, then it's different... he's just a TV guy masquerading as a director, or he's trying to show off his production values, how dare he!

I guess the question is, what is the point? Is there a reason for using them other than "that's what the comics look like"? I'm also not really a fan of Raimi or Gilliam, so I don't have a defense for them. These angles don't seem to add anything, while being quite jarring at times. I'm certainly open to hearing why it is a stylistically sound decision to include them though.

Originally Posted by Cop No. 633

If people had a problem with Dutch angles, I'm shocked nobody complained about it with Thor.

Never saw it.

I also was complaining about more than just the angles. Some of the action is quite poorly shot and edited. It reminded me a bit of the issues I had with some of the the action/fight scenes in Nolan's Batman movies (more specifically Batman Begins).

[DaveyJoeG]

When does Pfister bring up dutch angles? Here is what he said in the article:

“What’s really important is storytelling. None of it matters if it doesn’t support the story. I thought The Avengers was an appalling film. They’d shoot from some odd angle and I’d think, why is the camera there? Oh, I see, because they spent half a million on the set and they have to show it off. It took me completely out of the movie. I was driven bonkers by that illogical form of storytelling.”

He says he doesn't like a lot of the shots, but never specifically mentions the dutch angle shot.

[Murph]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

The Marvel franchise can be more accurately described as products than films.

The Marvel haters can be more accurately described as envious morons than film fans or credible cinematographers.

Sniveling this far after the fact is very unbecoming.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by Murph

Sniveling this far after the fact is very unbecoming.

The Blu-ray just came out (I liked the film enough to buy it). Are we no longer allowed to discuss the film because it's not in theatres anymore?

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by Murph

The Marvel haters can be more accurately described as envious morons than film fans or credible cinematographers.

It's best not to engage with someone who throws around terms like haters or fanboys because they typically have no argument aside from popular buzz phrases. Some of the Marvel films are quite entertaining, such as the first Iron Man, but they all lack a certain artistic vision. There are absolutely no creative risks in any of the films and they feel manufactured, soulless. I'm hoping that the sequels will be better, because the origin stories have become so tedious, but Iron Man 2 doesn't inspire much hope in that regard.

Anyway, while I may have mildly insulted the Marvel films, your post is a thinly-veiled insult directed towards me and other people you like to dismiss as "Marvel haters." In case you didn't know, it's against the rules to describe fellow schmoes as "envious morons" and you should learn how to have a discussion like an adult if you want to continue posting here.

[Murph]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

It's best not to engage with someone who throws around terms like haters or fanboys because they typically have no argument aside from popular buzz phrases. Some of the Marvel films are quite entertaining, such as the first Iron Man, but they all lack a certain artistic vision. There are absolutely no creative risks in any of the films and they feel manufactured, soulless. I'm hoping that the sequels will be better, because the origin stories have become so tedious, but Iron Man 2 doesn't inspire much hope in that regard.

Anyway, while I may have mildly insulted the Marvel films, your post is a thinly-veiled insult directed towards me and other people you like to dismiss as "Marvel haters." In case you didn't know, it's against the rules to describe fellow schmoes as "envious morons" and you should learn how to have a discussion like an adult if you want to continue posting here.

The envious moron I was referring to was Pfister and his asinine comments. They clearly stem from a place of jealousy because Avengers received higher critical, general and fan praise and it certainly grabbed a higher box office. Nitpicking camera angles is laughable at this point no matter who does it.

Anyone that states that Marvel has delivered no artistic vision dismisses themselves. That's not an insult, that's a fact. A fledgling movie studio that introduces and then links characters with the depth and pizzazz that Marvel has achieved and then brings them together in one grand master plan has displayed maybe the grandest vision of all-time. That last thing any of their films could be called is soulless. For adventure based films, they pack genuine emotion and heart. Soulless films die a slow death at the box office and Marvel films draw praise and great reaction simply because they are soulful as well as fun.

I expect their "phase two" efforts to continue to build upon that and deliver even more depth with their humor and fun. I feel sorry for people that look to nitpick rather than enjoy a thrilling yet intelligent ride.

[poopontheshoes7]

Originally Posted by Murph

The envious moron I was referring to was Pfister and his asinine comments. They clearly stem from a place of jealousy because Avengers received higher critical, general and fan praise and it certainly grabbed a higher box office. Nitpicking camera angles is laughable at this point no matter who does it.

Anyone that states that Marvel has delivered no artistic vision dismisses themselves. That's not an insult, that's a fact. A fledgling movie studio that introduces and then links characters with the depth and pizzazz that Marvel has achieved and then brings them together in one grand master plan has displayed maybe the grandest vision of all-time. That last thing any of their films could be called is soulless. For adventure based films, they pack genuine emotion and heart. Soulless films die a slow death at the box office and Marvel films draw praise and great reaction simply because they are soulful as well as fun.

I expect their "phase two" efforts to continue to build upon that and deliver even more depth with their humor and fun. I feel sorry for people that look to nitpick rather than enjoy a thrilling yet intelligent ride.

Agreed. I may not be as educated as some on the field of cinematography, but nothing in the Avengers stuck out as awkward or odd. In fact, it felt rather restrained. I also highly disagree that the editing and execution of the action wasn't up to snuff. The action was very well staged. I never had a problem seeing or understanding what was going on. All the action made sense in the time and space it was happening in....imo.

The Marvel film's aren't soulless at all. Artistically daring? No, I'll give you that. Are they well thought out and executed sci-fi/fantasy/action films? Hell yes they are. I think most of the phase one films have done a fantastic job of introducing these characters and this universe to film. Do they flip the genre on it's ear? No, and a good comic book film doesn't automatically need to do that to be good. A good comic book film SHOULDN'T be expected to either imo. It's kinda unfair that people automatically dismiss a superhero film as inferior if it isn't a Nolan Batman film.

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by Murph

The envious moron I was referring to was Pfister and his asinine comments. They clearly stem from a place of jealousy because Avengers received higher critical, general and fan praise and it certainly grabbed a higher box office. Nitpicking camera angles is laughable at this point no matter who does it.

I would believe that if your post wasn't an exact imitation of my post that you quoted. I don't think Wally Pfister has much to be jealous of, he's an Oscar winning cinematographer who is about to go into directing. My guess is that he's more baffled at the amount of money The Avengers made.

Originally Posted by Murph

Anyone that states that Marvel has delivered no artistic vision dismisses themselves. That's not an insult, that's a fact. A fledgling movie studio that introduces and then links characters with the depth and pizzazz that Marvel has achieved and then brings them together in one grand master plan has displayed maybe the grandest vision of all-time. That last thing any of their films could be called is soulless. For adventure based films, they pack genuine emotion and heart. Soulless films die a slow death at the box office and Marvel films draw praise and great reaction simply because they are soulful as well as fun.

A fledgling movie studio that put out two movies before having mega-studio Disney snatch them up and finance their future endeavors. They didn't introduce any characters. They're simply adapting previously existing characters and stories from decades of comic book material. The grandest vision of all time? DC and Marvel's animated studios have done the shared universe thing for years, and nobody has praised them with such hyperbole. Marvel has just taken the same concept and translated it to live-action.

I think some of them are really entertaining, particularly Iron Man and The Avengers, but they're all lacking in depth and visual ingenuity. The cinematography is often bland and there's nothing creative in the mise-en-scene. They're all very matter of fact and there's nothing going on underneath the surface of the films. I do own Iron Man 1&2, and The Avengers on Bluray and I like the films a lot more than posts like these may imply, I'm just disappointed with the issues I've listed here. Bland cinematography and lack of depth are not nitpicks.

I say soulless because none of the directors are allowed to leave a personal touch on the films. They are directors-for-hire that aren't given creative freedom to make each film stand on their own. What I think is really neat about comic books is that each artist can employ their own unique style with a character and still retain continuity. It keeps things fresh and is one of the reasons these characters have remained relevant for decades, but the Marvel films haven't taken that approach yet; everything is the same. I'm hoping we'll see more risk taking with the fringe characters like Antman and Guardians of the Galaxy.

Originally Posted by Murph

I expect their "phase two" efforts to continue to build upon that and deliver even more depth with their humor and fun. I feel sorry for people that look to nitpick rather than enjoy a thrilling yet intelligent ride.

I hope so, I think a big part of the tedium for me is the inundation of origin stories we've had to put up with. After watching Thor, I couldn't stomach Captain America because I was just so sick of all of the origin stories. So hopefully, now that the characters have been established they can go in more interesting directions. As far as Phase 1 is concerned, I think they're fun films, but far from great films, and they come across more as manufactured than visionary. I mean, even Joss Whedon admits that The Avengers is not a great film.

"I don't think it's a perfect movie. I don't even think it's a great movie. I think it's a great time, and I'm proud of it, but for me, what was exciting is that people don't go to see a movie that many times unless it's pulling on something from within, unless there's a need there. That's very gratifying."

[JoBlo]

Originally Posted by Murph

The envious moron I was referring to was Pfister and his asinine comments. They clearly stem from a place of jealousy because Avengers received higher critical, general and fan praise and it certainly grabbed a higher box office. Nitpicking camera angles is laughable at this point no matter who does it.

Anyone that states that Marvel has delivered no artistic vision dismisses themselves. That's not an insult, that's a fact.

Fact, schmact. WE DO NOT ALLOW MEMBERS TO INSULT FELLOW MEMBERS IN HERE. This is your first reminder/warning and last. You don't need to put others down to make your point. Simply debate the points, no personal shots.

[The Postmaster General]

On one of the extras from the BR, they were talking about how there were multiple sets that were actual locations and the DP was complaining because he was having a hard time with shot selection because he felt that essentially anywhere he put the camera, it looked really good. Given that the comments were recorded prior to Pfister's criticism, it seems to pretty much trump the assumption that it was all about showing off and not making selective shot choices.

While I don't think that makes criticisms about the shot selection less valid, I think theorizing as to why the shots were made, especially with something as condescending as trying to show off sets, is pretty far beyond weak. Someone who saw The Dark Knight Rises and didn't like the cinematography could essentially say the same thing, especially because it cost more to make and because most of the spectacle in Avengers was CGI (i.e., it didn't matter where the camera was because they were going to add in awe later…).

It's just seems lame to presume shots were done only for the sake of showing off the expensive sets, and I think really doesn't make any sense even if it were accurate. It's actually quite ridiculous given that film is a collaborative effort and each part is meant to accentuate the next. Wouldn't a DP who didn't show off sets be as equally cited for a foul?

It almost seems too goofy to actually be coming from someone like Pfister that you'd have to wonder what the full context of the quote was and want to hear him elaborate a bit further because it seems like that statement as face value doesn't make much sense. Based on it alone, it seems that Pfister is saying photography is more important than all the art, costume, set design, the location scout and so forth, because it's up to the cinematographer alone to decide what's going to best convey the story.

He says he doesn't get it, but sounds like he doesn't get that Nolan put a focus on cinematography and Whedon put focus elsewhere. I mean, to me it's like criticizing the casting director in DKR because having well known TV actors in bit parts didn't really help the story, it was just showing off the production team's connections. Weak.

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

It's just seems lame to presume shots were done only for the sake of showing off the expensive sets, and I think really doesn't make any sense even if it were accurate. It's actually quite ridiculous given that film is a collaborative effort and each part is meant to accentuate the next. Wouldn't a DP who didn't show off sets be as equally cited for a foul?

Not necessarily, it depends on what the cinematographer is trying to convey with each shot. The majority of shots in movies emphasize the actors over the sets. They mostly serve as background context to place the actors in whatever world they're supposed to be. Some directors like Tim Burton like to put a bit more focus on the set design, but for the most part it's not really meant to draw the attention.

I tend to prefer shallow focus shots that have a soft background so that the subject pops out more. Pfister must prefer this technique as well because a ton of shots in the Batman trilogy have a soft background that appears blurry.

Of course then you have Akira Kurosawa who preferred telephoto lenses, which allowed him to shoot from far away to enhance depth, yet keep much of the shot completely in focus. Still, the background serves as context, and is not meant to distract from the actor, which is almost always the main subject of a shot... unless you're Terrence Malick.

Lawrence of Arabia is an example of a film that is enhanced by an emphasis on the locations and environments. Some of the greatest moments in that film are shots that dwarf the actor in favor of highlighting the vastness of the desert around him. These shots are consistent with the themes of the film. I don't think the same type of thing is going on in the Avengers. There's nothing in there to match to iconic shot of Omar Sharif's character appearing out of a mirage on the horizon. Most of the Avengers comprised of New York City and generic lab environments, although I thought the aircraft carrier/hovercraft thing was pretty cool!

I think it's an issue of the cinematography serving the story. Yes film is a collaborative effort, but they are all small pieces of a puzzle that have to fit together to make something cohesive. Every element of a film has to be well done or it will pull a viewer out of the movie. The foley artist is a very important part of the crew but if sound of footsteps are completely overpowering the soundtrack, something is wrong, unless it somehow enhances the mood that the director is going for. If the main character is awaiting bad news from somebody across the hall, and all he hears are the footsteps echoing off the walls, that would be a good use of creative sound mixing; but there has to be a purpose to it. I think Wally is arguing that the shot selection in the Avengers did more to distract than enhance.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

While I don't think that makes criticisms about the shot selection less valid, I think theorizing as to why the shots were made, especially with something as condescending as trying to show off sets, is pretty far beyond weak.

I agree with this. I don't think showing off sets was necessarily my issue. It's a rather blandly shot movie with some jarring shots (which I think include more than just Dutch angles) and cuts. Not just the action either. Some of the scenes where they are just standing around sending zingers back and forth are awkwardly cut.

You also mentioned that they added the "awe" in after the fact. I know what you meant, but I personally didn't see a lot of awe. It didn't look like the $225 million movie that it was. Maybe a lot of that was just cast pay, but I honestly thought some of the pre-Avengers movies were more visually interesting.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

Not necessarily, it depends on what the cinematographer is trying to convey with each shot. The majority of shots in movies emphasize the actors over the sets. They mostly serve as background context to place the actors in whatever world they're supposed to be. Some directors like Tim Burton like to put a bit more focus on the set design, but for the most part it's not really meant to draw the attention.

I tend to prefer shallow focus shots that have a soft background so that the subject pops out more. Pfister must prefer this technique as well because a ton of shots in the Batman trilogy have a soft background that appears blurry.

Of course then you have Akira Kurosawa who preferred telephoto lenses, which allowed him to shoot from far away to enhance depth, yet keep much of the shot completely in focus. Still, the background serves as context, and is not meant to distract from the actor, which is almost always the main subject of a shot... unless you're Terrence Malick.

Lawrence of Arabia is an example of a film that is enhanced by an emphasis on the locations and environments. Some of the greatest moments in that film are shots that dwarf the actor in favor of highlighting the vastness of the desert around him. These shots are consistent with the themes of the film. I don't think the same type of thing is going on in the Avengers. There's nothing in there to match to iconic shot of Omar Sharif's character appearing out of a mirage on the horizon. Most of the Avengers comprised of New York City and generic lab environments, although I thought the aircraft carrier/hovercraft thing was pretty cool!

I think it's an issue of the cinematography serving the story. Yes film is a collaborative effort, but they are all small pieces of a puzzle that have to fit together to make something cohesive. Every element of a film has to be well done or it will pull a viewer out of the movie. The foley artist is a very important part of the crew but if sound of footsteps are completely overpowering the soundtrack, something is wrong, unless it somehow enhances the mood that the director is going for. If the main character is awaiting bad news from somebody across the hall, and all he hears are the footsteps echoing off the walls, that would be a good use of creative sound mixing; but there has to be a purpose to it. I think Wally is arguing that the shot selection in the Avengers did more to distract than enhance.

Great point and actually just last night after The Master I was praising how, during the processing scene, alternating shots of Dodd (Hoffman) were deep focus and Freddie were ridiculously shallow for reasons that are obvious to anyone who sees the movie or even just the scene as a standalone.

David Lynch once commented on saving money with sets by just not showing them, also about liking doing TV because he could cut corners in the same arena via aspect ratio.

The thing is that Pfister wasn't targeting the depth of field, he was targeting camera position. He was pointing at the angles. And the Avenger's DP did say specifically that the sets were already mostly in place and his biggest problem was that there were too many shots to choose from. To me, all of these things scream out that it wasn't just about showing off the sets. There was no reason for the Avenger's guy to choose a shot solely for the sake of showing off the background, by this account. Maybe he just isn't that good or Pfister's style, but I think it has more to do with Whedon's vision vs. Nolans (touch on that more in my response below).

As I theorized earlier, I think there's a bigger conversation Pfister wants to have about this and that the quote on it's own might not be a big enough outlet for him to give his complete critique. It seems to be mostly used as eFuel to relaunch to Dark Knight vs. Avengers tirade and I'm not sure we need to be jumping on every angle of criticism that comes out, especially in the realm of having retroactive criticisms that might not make sense in their short form context.

Originally Posted by Bourne101

I agree with this. I don't think showing off sets was necessarily my issue. It's a rather blandly shot movie with some jarring shots (which I think include more than just Dutch angles) and cuts. Not just the action either. Some of the scenes where they are just standing around sending zingers back and forth are awkwardly cut.

You also mentioned that they added the "awe" in after the fact. I know what you meant, but I personally didn't see a lot of awe. It didn't look like the $225 million movie that it was. Maybe a lot of that was just cast pay, but I honestly thought some of the pre-Avengers movies were more visually interesting.

Well, you know I mean. The movie was far more fx heavy than Dark Knight, or at least it looked that way. Aside from establishing shots, I don't know how often people paid attention to the scenery. Whether or not you felt the fx were awe inspiring or not, clearly this wasn't a Terrence Malick flick where attention is being called to the scenery. Even establishing shots were cut fairly short. I mean, about the "awe", you know… the idea that we see Banner transforming into the Hulk and are thinking, "Wow, look at all those cool pipes!" I'm not seeing any shots in the film where focus is being called to "expensive sets."

I think Avengers was shot the way it was shot because it was meant to look more cartoonish, whereas The Dark Knight was meant to look more realistic. That also goes along with the shallow/deep focus thing Davey brought up, assuming there wasn't any thought of just having Hulk in front a three-tone geometric patterned background a la 60-s era Batman or the Creepshow film.

About the cuts and editing, I agree thinking mainly of the scene in the aircraft carrier fortress thing just before Loki attacks. There also seemed to be some awkwardness in the shot compositions between cuts, the way I remember it. My thing is, that none of that had anything to do with expensive backgrounds.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

My thing is, that none of that had anything to do with expensive backgrounds.

I agree.

[The Postmaster General]

*high-five*

[Murph]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

I say soulless because none of the directors are allowed to leave a personal touch on the films. They are directors-for-hire that aren't given creative freedom to make each film stand on their own. What I think is really neat about comic books is that each artist can employ their own unique style with a character and still retain continuity. It keeps things fresh and is one of the reasons these characters have remained relevant for decades, but the Marvel films haven't taken that approach yet; everything is the same. I'm hoping we'll see more risk taking with the fringe characters like Antman and Guardians of the Galaxy.

Apparently we simply see thing differently. I think Marvel has used each director's strengths perfectly and they let them create and leave their mark on every film. If you listen to the commentaries, it's clear each director was given the freedom they needed except Favs on Iron Man 2. I think Marvel learned their lesson from that and even encouraged team play creatively after Iron Man 2. Branagh and Joe Johnston even said as much with Whedon rolling his work right off Thor and being the script doctor on First Avenger. Despite the links, I feel each film has stood well on it's own. Still, a $200 million dollar film can't be treated like a monthly comic book publication. Many chefs are needed to cook that big of a meal.

I guess it's clear I've grown to be passionate about these films. So, when someone takes what I deem as an unfair swipe at them I tend to fire hot. Think of it as if someone takes a shot at your mother, analytical responses become a bit more passionate.

Last thought about Pfister's comments, to me it's like giving press to a losing low level assistant football coach after he sees another team win the Super Bowl and whines about how they did it.

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally Posted by Murph

Last thought about Pfister's comments, to me it's like giving press to a losing low level assistant football coach after he sees another team win the Super Bowl and whines about how they did it.

Your analysis of Pfister's quote seems a bit bizarre to me because it basically suggests that there is some validity to the idea that The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers were in competition with one another, which I don't agree with. I just can't accept the idea that a DP like Pfister would act so childish, but I've been wrong before, so I guess there is a possibility. Even if he is acting like a bitch though, that's just one man whining. His comments don't lend any credibility to the idea that the main players behind the two aforementioned films were trying to out do each other. There was nothing to be won. Warner Bros and Nolan didn't have anything to prove to anyone after their success with the two previous batman films and Marvel's Avengers was about successfully melding multiple superhero mythologies into one film, not being superior to the Batman films.

We mostly have the fans to thank for these shitty arguments with zero plausibility regarding which comic book studio produces better movies. Seriously, who the fuck cares? I'm more of a Batman fan, but that doesn't mean I want to see Marvel crash and burn so I can claim that The Dark Knight Trilogy is superior to their films. I just don't care. I have my cup of tea and so doesn't everyone else. I'm not going to participate in an argument that is dumber than a high school football rivalry.

That said, maybe they were competitive on a very basic financial level with one another, which is not something that is exclusive to DC and Marvel. However, I really doubt that Nolan, Warner Bros, Marvel, and DC really cared about who produced the better film between them. I think they cared about the quality of their individual films, but I don't think they cared how their films would measure up to each other in terms of quality.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve

Your analysis of Pfister's quote seems a bit bizarre to me because it basically suggests that there is some validity to the idea that The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers were in competition with one another, which I don't agree with. I just can't accept the idea that a DP like Pfister would act so childish, but I've been wrong before, so I guess there is a possibility. Even if he is acting like a bitch though, that's just one man whining. His comments don't lend any credibility to the idea that the main players behind the two aforementioned films were trying to out do each other. There was nothing to be won. Warner Bros and Nolan didn't have anything to prove to anyone after their success with the two previous batman films and Marvel's Avengers was about successfully melding multiple superhero mythologies into one film, not being superior to the Batman films.

We mostly have the fans to thank for these shitty arguments with zero plausibility regarding which comic book studio produces better movies. Seriously, who the fuck cares? I'm more of a Batman fan, but that doesn't mean I want to see Marvel crash and burn so I can claim that The Dark Knight Trilogy is superior to their films. I just don't care. I have my cup of tea and so doesn't everyone else. I'm not going to participate in an argument that is dumber than a high school football rivalry.

That said, maybe they were competitive on a very basic financial level with one another, which is not something that is exclusive to DC and Marvel. However, I really doubt that Nolan, Warner Bros, Marvel, and DC really cared about who produced the better film between them. I think they cared about the quality of their individual films, but I don't think they cared how their films would measure up to each other in terms of quality.

If only Tyler Durden had said, "You are not the movies you watch." there might be less of what you're talking about going on.


On another note, it should be Mr. Pfister to us.

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

The thing is that Pfister wasn't targeting the depth of field, he was targeting camera position. He was pointing at the angles. And the Avenger's DP did say specifically that the sets were already mostly in place and his biggest problem was that there were too many shots to choose from. To me, all of these things scream out that it wasn't just about showing off the sets. There was no reason for the Avenger's guy to choose a shot solely for the sake of showing off the background, by this account. Maybe he just isn't that good or Pfister's style, but I think it has more to do with Whedon's vision vs. Nolans (touch on that more in my response below).

True, I think Whedon might have had an influence on the camera angles because I remember comic book fans pointing out the fact that a lot of the shots were taken directly from the comics. There's a shot early in the movie of Sam Jackson leaving a helicopter and it's an EXTREMELY low angle shot looking up at the rotor blades, I found it to be kind of awkward. I think that type of thing is what Pfister is getting at, some of the shots may be focused more on fan service than actually serving the story.

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

As I theorized earlier, I think there's a bigger conversation Pfister wants to have about this and that the quote on it's own might not be a big enough outlet for him to give his complete critique. It seems to be mostly used as eFuel to relaunch to Dark Knight vs. Avengers tirade and I'm not sure we need to be jumping on every angle of criticism that comes out, especially in the realm of having retroactive criticisms that might not make sense in their short form context.

I agree, I think he wanted to talk about it but the angle thing is just the first example that came to mind during the interview. I'm sure he had more issues with the cinematography than just bizarre angles. He saw the movie and had issues with the look of the film, but didn't prepare a prioritized list of the biggest visual flaws in the event that it came up in an interview. Perhaps we're nitpicking his choice of words as much as The Avengers and TDKR were nitpicked by naysayers this summer.

Originally Posted by Murph

Apparently we simply see thing differently. I think Marvel has used each director's strengths perfectly and they let them create and leave their mark on every film. If you listen to the commentaries, it's clear each director was given the freedom they needed except Favs on Iron Man 2. I think Marvel learned their lesson from that and even encouraged team play creatively after Iron Man 2. Branagh and Joe Johnston even said as much with Whedon rolling his work right off Thor and being the script doctor on First Avenger. Despite the links, I feel each film has stood well on it's own. Still, a $200 million dollar film can't be treated like a monthly comic book publication. Many chefs are needed to cook that big of a meal.

Yeah, Iron Man 2 was quite underwhelming due to all of the SHIELD stuff. I liked the Formula 1 scene though, I wish more of the film had that level of energy. I really don't see the directors getting that much freedom with the film though. I mean Joe Johnston is like Mr. Studio Boy who comes in because the money men know he won't be difficult.

Branagh was an inspired choice, and the stuff on Asgard was really good, but on Earth... not as interesting. I find it hard to believe that Kenneth Branagh wanted a snarky Kat Dennings making pop culture references throughout the film. The scene with Hawkeye really took me out of the film. I have never seen a more obvious reshoot in my life. They shot that entire fight scene, then brought back in Renner when he was cast as Hawkeye to force a sloppy connection to the upcoming Avengers films. The editing was simply not convincing.

It's stuff like that that annoy me, Marvel is afraid to just let these movies stand on their own, they all have to be obvious products that simply exist to get you to pay money for the next inevitable film. I'm surprised the credits don't end with something like "The Avengers will return in Octothanos!" It's a shame because a lot of the films have great moments sprinkled throughout them.

Originally Posted by Murph

I guess it's clear I've grown to be passionate about these films. So, when someone takes what I deem as an unfair swipe at them I tend to fire hot. Think of it as if someone takes a shot at your mother, analytical responses become a bit more passionate.

I understand, it's natural to get defensive when somebody disses something you like. Eventually you get over it and realize somebody else's opinion doesn't affect you. I've been posting on these boards for 10 years so I've learned how to discuss things respectfully with people I disagree with.

Like I said earlier, posts like these imply that I dislike the films more than I do, I've enjoyed each of them to an extent so far. I just think they have the potential to be even greater, I like the characters and I'm excited that they're finally getting big budget films made about them, but I think they deserve better films, and can achieve that with some more risk-taking.