The Avengers: The Motion Picture Discussion Thread- Open SPOILERS -enter at own risk!

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yeah but some of those angles had a purpose for the 3D shots I believe. They weren't completely throwaway, unnecessary, or without reason.

The one that comes to mind is in the beginning of the film. There's that angled shot that shows the Tesseract powering up. It was one of the shots that really stood out in 3D. Yeah they're were some weird ones (Thor had a bunch too) but nothing "appalling" or trashy like that interview makes it out to be.

I thought the cinematography was pretty gorgeous in Avengers myself (TDKR's was great too). :huh There are some beautiful shots and that iconic pan around the heroes was/is brilliant.
 
Yeah, good points on the 3D, more than likely Pfister doesn't believe in 3D (Like Nolan). That could be a good reason to dislike the cinematography in the film.

For me however, Nobat's trilogy had much better cinematography than the entire Pre Avengers movies. That's not just because I'm a Nolancompoop either, it was just a lot more stunning to me honestly.
 
Nolan's style is pretty much medium shot, focused on the actor leaving the background out of focus.

There's more too it. I know. But I think that dude needs to stop being so pretentious.
 
I liked the part where the plane was flying up in the air and Loki said, "for yew" before Black Widow came in and gave the team an old fashioned.

This was in 3D IMAX.
 
Nolan's style is pretty much medium shot, focused on the actor leaving the background out of focus.

There's more too it. I know. But I think that dude needs to stop being so pretentious.

Exactly, but you can always tell that Pfister has a say in it. The Long shots used for exposition etc. Look at Inception for example, he went against the regular order, expostion, medium, close etc. In many scenes, cutting sometimes from a close shot to a long shot back to a close shot without switching the flow of the scene.
 

I like Whedon's professional response. And I see Godzilla is mentioned too! :yess:

Artsy-fartsy pissy that his film got STEAMROLLED at the box office.:nana:

This Marvel vs DC thing is funny and is bound to get even better next year when Marvel keeps on steamrolling everyone at the box office.

Right or wrong it's very unprofessional in any industry.

Anyone who hates The Avengers is an *****.

And The Avengers looked better then TDKR anyway.

:exactly::goodpost:
 
hulk-gif-loki-avengers-202476.gif
 
I liked the cinematography, with the exception of one part - when it showed various shots of the Chitauri destroying and blowing up parts of the city, I felt a few of the shots were too quick. For instance, there was a brief shot of Loki in one of the chariots, right before a longer shot of the same chariot flying from the background into the foreground. It seemed a bit jarring.
 
The shot that always takes me out of the film is the taxi cab window flip shot. There's no reason it shouldn't have been cut IMO.
 
The shot that always takes me out of the film is the taxi cab window flip shot. There's no reason it shouldn't have been cut IMO.

It's just there to establish reality since we all can associate with car accidents, Nolan did the same with exploding cars flipping over in TDKR.

Hell, now that I think about it the aliens exploding the cars down the NYC ave reminded me of the batpod taking out all those cars in TDK (with the kids shooting their finger guns).
 
Last edited:
Not what I'm talking about. It completely deters away from the flow of the scene. They had other shots of cars flipping that all worked. But the POV of that shot is just bad, and it comes out of nowhere.
 
Back
Top