Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Avengers (2012) *spoilers from post 1181*

1484951535464

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    One of the film's highlights, if not the greatest scene, recreated in Lego:

    http://ka-go.net/blog/seen/puny-god/
    20120507_puny-god.gif


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Only got around to seeing this today and loved it.Plenty of great moments and the Hulk was very good, wasnt expecting that. Him flinging Loki around was brilliant.

    Reading through a bit of the early opinions in this thread and as I expected . plenty of anti 3d opinions. I dont know what ****holes people are going to see films in but I saw it in Dundrum. No issues with not being able to read the subtitles and I saw everything clear as day. I personnally like having depth in movies, even when it's just 2 people at different distances. It doesnt take away from the films at all imo.

    Like a lot of things a certain amount of people seem to take a dislike to it and go out of thier way to want it to fail. Having watched football, Rugby and movies in 3d, I firmly in the pro 3d camp.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Like a lot of things a certain amount of people seem to take a dislike to it and go out of thier way to want it to fail.

    I dislike it because it's a pointless gimmick and a way to jack up prices, but I know people who get eyestrain, headaches and feel ill if they watch a whole movie in 3D.

    So I'm firmly in the "make it fail" camp, even though none of those things happen to me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    I dislike it because it's a pointless gimmick and a way to jack up prices, but I know people who get eyestrain, headaches and feel ill if they watch a whole movie in 3D.

    So I'm firmly in the "make it fail" camp, even though none of those things happen to me.

    So dont watch it in 3d. I dont like horror films. I dont go on about how **** they are and that they should be gotten rid of.

    I know one or two peopel that give out about 3d and went in to a film with an opinion of it being crap and hating it, trying their best not to like it. IMO it was that that ruined it for them rather than actually givign it a proper chance.

    Taking it on its own I really cant see how having depth can ruin a film. Instead of it looking like a drawing on a flat page you have depth, whats the issue?

    TBH, and I dont even know which particular users im referring too as I dont tend to take note of the individual posters in the forums I only viist occasionally but I find a lot of the posts in the film forum , as a casual poster and a film goer that just goes to enjoy films rather than pick at everything, quite elitist. The anti 3d thing seems to be part of that. Other things I've noticed are things like sbeering at certain types of films or an attitude that if you dont go to the ifi or dont have an interest in the old crappy little cinemas staying open , your not a REAL cinema fan.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,136 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    So dont watch it in 3d. I dont like horror films. I dont go on about how **** they are and that they should be gotten rid of.

    I know one or two peopel that give out about 3d and went in to a film with an opinion of it being crap and hating it, trying their best not to like it. IMO it was that that ruined it for them rather than actually givign it a proper chance.

    Taking it on its own I really cant see how having depth can ruin a film. Instead of it looking like a drawing on a flat page you have depth, whats the issue?

    The issue isn't depth. Firstly, glasses mean that everything you see is darker. Secondly, post-production 3D can be very hit and miss. Thirdly, many of the things which are very close to the screen end up becoming more blurred. I saw this three times in 3D in the cinema (different cinemas) and each time, when one of the large flying serpents went by the screen or suddenly came into view, it was very blurred in the middle.

    The problem isn't depth, it's post-production because you're not getting true depth, you're getting an attempt at depth by people at a computer trying to judge what distance things are at.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭tony1kenobi


    jaykhunter wrote: »
    out of interest, what was the most unrealistic part that put it over the edge into too far fetched?


    Black Widow could have at least offered to make tay.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    Only got around to seeing this today and loved it.Plenty of great moments and the Hulk was very good, wasnt expecting that. Him flinging Loki around was brilliant.

    Reading through a bit of the early opinions in this thread and as I expected . plenty of anti 3d opinions. I dont know what ****holes people are going to see films in but I saw it in Dundrum. No issues with not being able to read the subtitles and I saw everything clear as day. I personnally like having depth in movies, even when it's just 2 people at different distances. It doesnt take away from the films at all imo.

    Like a lot of things a certain amount of people seem to take a dislike to it and go out of thier way to want it to fail. Having watched football, Rugby and movies in 3d, I firmly in the pro 3d camp.
    Ive seen 3D work and Ive seen it fail, when it worked it did look good, my eyes on the other hand didn't look good after viewing it, plus its all about angles aswell you practically have to sit dead center of the cinema to get the best effects,

    i dont currently see any advantages to justify 3D, any film ive seen in 3D was just as good in 2D, i would hope there are further advances ahead that the film industry has in mind, but what is the question, will we be watching holograms in 20-30 years time, cause if that is some kind of end game ill put up with this nuisance for now,


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,029 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    TBH, and I dont even know which particular users im referring too as I dont tend to take note of the individual posters in the forums I only viist occasionally but I find a lot of the posts in the film forum , as a casual poster and a film goer that just goes to enjoy films rather than pick at everything, quite elitist. The anti 3d thing seems to be part of that. Other things I've noticed are things like sbeering at certain types of films or an attitude that if you dont go to the ifi or dont have an interest in the old crappy little cinemas staying open , your not a REAL cinema fan.

    Oi with the accusations of elitism again!

    Look: if you don't want to see people discussing, debating and disagreeing about film, than a dedicated film forum is likely not the place for you. There are regulars here of all ages and taste in films, and that potent mix of opinion helps make threads interesting and engaging. I know I sure as heck wouldn't want to read a thread where every single post is the most minor variation on 'This film is awesome!'. People have very different opinions: it's why film is so much fun to discuss.

    As for 3D, again it's not down to elitism. It's the damaging darkening of an image (I saw a film the other day where I genuinely couldn't make out what was going on in some shots due to the glasses). It's the motion blur and the inability to accurately capture movement. It's the unconvincing post-production 3D that is everywhere these days. For every moment of depth there's an immersion breaking distraction. I love cinema of all genres, languages and styles, but 3D for me has negatively affected many films I've otherwise loved. So therefore I choose to reject it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    As for 3D, again it's not down to elitism. It's the damaging darkening of an image (I saw a film the other day where I genuinely couldn't make out what was going on in some shots due to the glasses). It's the motion blur and the inability to accurately capture movement. It's the unconvincing post-production 3D that is everywhere these days. For every moment of depth there's an immersion breaking distraction. I love cinema of all genres, languages and styles, but 3D for me has negatively affected many films I've otherwise loved. So therefore I choose to reject it.

    As well as this, the growing frequency with which 3D versions of 2D movies are thrust upon us is annoying. In a few years, we could be looking at 3D being the mainstream and 2D being the rarity. Fuck that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,439 ✭✭✭Skinfull


    ...Reading through a bit of the early opinions in this thread and as I expected . plenty of anti 3d opinions. I dont know what ****holes people are going to see films in but I saw it in Dundrum. No issues with not being able to read the subtitles and I saw everything clear as day. I personnally like having depth in movies, even when it's just 2 people at different distances. It doesnt take away from the films at all imo.

    Like a lot of things a certain amount of people seem to take a dislike to it and go out of thier way to want it to fail. Having watched football, Rugby and movies in 3d, I firmly in the pro 3d camp.

    When people said they couldnt read the subs it was because they were in the Odean in Point Village, and the angle of the seats and the closeness of the screen to the first row, mean that people heads cover the bottom of the screen.

    If you are gonna bitch about peoples posting the least you could do is read them properly. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 346 ✭✭redt0m


    So dont watch it in 3d

    Yeah, well, we would, if they actually, like, had it available in 2D. Which a lot of cinemas aren't doing now, forcing us to pay elevated prices for something that feels like watching a pop up book through the wrong end of binocular sunglasses...


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,073 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Just back from my second viewing. My opinion hasn't changed on its awesomeness :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,390 ✭✭✭✭Turtyturd


    As well as this, the growing frequency with which 3D versions of 2D movies are thrust upon us is annoying. In a few years, we could be looking at 3D being the mainstream and 2D being the rarity. Fuck that.

    It is starting to go that way already, UCI in coolock had four showings in 2D and probably double that in 3D yesterday.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,224 ✭✭✭✭Marty McFly


    Im in the non 3D camp as would the majority of people I know be, Ive seen two films in 3D both of which it didnt blow my mind and left me walking out of the cinema with a headache.

    I dont see the point I think its just a fad or least I hope that all it is, the cool thing for now that will just slowly fade away.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    Turtyturd wrote: »
    It is starting to go that way already, UCI in coolock had four showings in 2D and probably double that in 3D yesterday.

    Some cinemas weren't showing in 2D at all. Others had 2 showings, both before 6pm. I went to cineworld to see it again t'other day. 2D was sold out but there's was a 3D in ten mins. Drove to Liffey Valley rather than put myself through the 3D.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Voting with the feet is the only way to tackle it. I completely missed out on Wrath of the Titans because I couldn't find a 2D screening. I also managed to see John Carter, Immortals, Captain America, Avengers and a few others sans 3D and am glad for it.
    I just can't bring myself to paying extra for something I don't want and usually takes more away from the film (re: darkening the picture, Thor is a good example. Having seen that in 2D and 3D the 2D was more enjoyable as the darker scenes were much easier to follow in 2D, while the 3D effects were erratic at best).
    If it stops being profitable the studios will stop pumping it out en-mass.
    I do think there is a place for 3D in cinema, but I think it should be on 3D screens (ie: no glasses) and filmed (almost) exclusively on 3D cameras.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    was just over on IMDB and Avengers is at 8.8 with 123,000+ votes, but in the break down it say 20,000 US user and 64,000 non US users, are the other 40,000 user from asguard or something:D

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848228/ratings


  • Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Voting with the feet is the only way to tackle it. I completely missed out on Wrath of the Titans because I couldn't find a 3D screening. I also managed to see John Carter, Immortals, Captain America, Avengers and a few others sans 3D and am glad for it.
    I just can't bring myself to paying extra for something I don't want and usually takes more away from the film (re: darkening the picture, Thor is a good example. Having seen that in 2D and 3D the 2D was more enjoyable as the darker scenes were much easier to follow in 2D, while the 3D effects were erratic at best).
    If it stops being profitable the studios will stop pumping it out en-mass.
    I do think there is a place for 3D in cinema, but I think it should be on 3D screens (ie: no glasses) and filmed (almost) exclusively on 3D cameras.

    I saw Thor in 3D first then 2D when I took my nephew to it as he doesnt like 3D (good my young padawan, good!) and it was way better in 2D, likewise I'm taking him to the Avengers at the weekend as its the last week they're showing 2D screenings its 3D only from now on, asked the cinema and they confirmed it, balls!


  • Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ Freya Salty Pilgrim


    krudler wrote: »
    I saw Thor in 3D first then 2D when I took my nephew to it as he doesnt like 3D (good my young padawan, good!) and it was way better in 2D, likewise I'm taking him to the Avengers at the weekend as its the last week they're showing 2D screenings its 3D only from now on, asked the cinema and they confirmed it, balls!

    Film shot in 3D can look fantastic, as can films shot traditionally but with 3D conversion in mind. Unfortunately a lot of films shot in 2D have been converted simply to cash in on the fad, the Marvel 3D films being one of the biggest offenders. Thor in 3D was terrible, there was so little 3D that I imagine the conversion took all of 10 minutes. In fact the only truly noticeable 3D parts were the end credits. Everything else looked lifeless and dull. Awhile back my house-mate was watching a really poor cam rip of Thor on a shitty old 32" TV and the image reminded me a lot of the 3D cinema experience.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,390 ✭✭✭✭Turtyturd


    krudler wrote: »
    I'm taking him to the Avengers at the weekend as its the last week they're showing 2D screenings its 3D only from now on, asked the cinema and they confirmed it, balls!

    That's a joke, I now people going to see it in 2D might be in the minority but to exclude them like that is ridiculous.

    I brought my son on Tuesday and had to bring him to a 2D showing because I knew there was no way he would keep the glasses on for the duration of the film, and between the four of us that went we easily spent 50-60 euro, not a lot in the grand scheme of things but when your cinema is almost empty on a Tuesday afternoon it's a lot better than nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ Freya Salty Pilgrim


    Turtyturd wrote: »
    That's a joke, I now people going to see it in 2D might be in the minority but to exclude them like that is ridiculous.

    You have to remember that screens are limited. If cinemas were to continue to show both the 2D and 3D versions then they would have one less screen to spare and as such one of this weeks 4 new releases would not be shown.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Film shot in 3D can look fantastic, as can films shot traditionally but with 3D conversion in mind. Unfortunately a lot of films shot in 2D have been converted simply to cash in on the fad, the Marvel 3D films being one of the biggest offenders. Thor in 3D was terrible, there was so little 3D that I imagine the conversion took all of 10 minutes. In fact the only truly noticeable 3D parts were the end credits. Everything else looked lifeless and dull. Awhile back my house-mate was watching a really poor cam rip of Thor on a shitty old 32" TV and the image reminded me a lot of the 3D cinema experience.


    oh yeah Avatar looked stunning, as did, of all things, Jackass 3, the opening credits were brilliant, and parts of Dark Of The Moon. I will see Prometheus in 3D alright but I'm avoiding post production stuff from now on, saw Wrath Of The Titans and it was sh1te


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭don ramo


    krudler wrote: »
    I saw Thor in 3D first then 2D when I took my nephew to it as he doesnt like 3D (good my young padawan, good!) and it was way better in 2D, likewise I'm taking him to the Avengers at the weekend as its the last week they're showing 2D screenings its 3D only from now on, asked the cinema and they confirmed it, balls!

    that's rather odd, normally the 3D screenings are faded out after 2 or 3 weeks to free up the better screens for the newer films, then the films are moved to smaller screens that are normally not equipped for 3D


  • Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ Freya Salty Pilgrim


    don ramo wrote: »
    that's rather odd, normally the 3D screenings are faded out after 2 or 3 weeks to free up the better screens for the newer films, then the films are moved to smaller screens that are normally not equipped for 3D

    Avengers is still doing big numbers and with the theaters percentage of tickets sales increasing each week I imagine that most places are going to continue screening The Avengers for a few more weeks. At least it's not like last year where on multiple occasions the same film was showing in 4 screens at one time in my local. I know at one stage the Guard and Harry Potter was one more screens then all the other films combined and when Twilight came out it was the same story. Really not an ideal situation for film fans looking for some variety.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Avengers is still doing big numbers and with the theaters percentage of tickets sales increasing each week I imagine that most places are going to continue screening The Avengers for a few more weeks. At least it's not like last year where on multiple occasions the same film was showing in 4 screens at one time in my local. I know at one stage the Guard and Harry Potter was one more screens then all the other films combined and when Twilight came out it was the same story. Really not an ideal situation for film fans looking for some variety.

    I counted the showings of Twilight the weekend it came out, 21 showings across two cinemas in one day, thats just bananas, it was basically on every hour for the time the cinemas were open, was around the same with Harry Potter,wonder what the next big "event" movie is going to be, TDKR will definitely be one, and The Hobbit.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,029 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    That is the unfortunate side effect of event movies: more screens occupied by one popular film means fewer screens for smaller films. Be curious to see how much space films like Jeff, Who Lives at Home, Charlie Casanova or The Raid will get in the coming weeks outside of the Dublin cinemas. Not very much, I'd imagine :(

    (although The Avengers is better than Charlie Casanova at least :P)


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,073 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    That is the unfortunate side effect of event movies: more screens occupied by one popular film means fewer screens for smaller films. Be curious to see how much space films like Jeff, Who Lives at Home, Charlie Casanova or The Raid will get in the coming weeks outside of the Dublin cinemas. Not very much, I'd imagine :(

    (although The Avengers is better than Charlie Casanova at least :P)

    Seriously doubt the Raid will get shown outside of the cities anyway. castlebar didn't even screen Drive ffs.

    Funnily enough the in the cinema in Castlebar the 3D screens are two relatively small ones, the two biggest screens are only equiped for 2D, yet they've been showing The Avengers pretty much only in 3D apart from 1 matinee screening during the week and a couple at the weekend. I went to westport both times to see it since it was the only place close by showing 2D at an evening showing. its a shame because I would have liked to see it on the bigger screen in castlebar.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,135 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    The only thing that really bothered me was how once Banner *really*, *really* needed to be able to control the Hulk, he was. Or did I blink and miss the explanation between where he goes smashy smashy on the Helicarrier and the "I'm always angry" line?


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,073 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Sleepy wrote: »
    The only thing that really bothered me was how once Banner *really*, *really* needed to be able to control the Hulk, he was. Or did I blink and miss the explanation between where he goes smashy smashy on the Helicarrier and the "I'm always angry" line?

    Yea it's never really explained. I guess its because it was a controlled transformation and the other transformation came about due to the trauma of the explosion, its also never explained how Banner knows to go to Manhatten in the first place, considering he fell from the sky when the carrier was out of control he could have been a couple of hundred miles away.

    It's also never explained how they get the other three engines in the carrier back online either. Iron man and Cap fixed the damaged one but Hawkeye sabotages the other three with that virus or whatever. Once BW knocks Hawkeye out and IM gets the other engine going everything is magically ok again.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,136 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Yea it's never really explained. I guess its because it was a controlled transformation and the other transformation came about due to the trauma of the explosion, its also never explained how Banner knows to go to Manhatten in the first place, considering he fell from the sky when the carrier was out of control he could have been a couple of hundred miles away.

    Before the explosion in the Helicarrier, Banner and Stark's program found where the Tesseract was. Banner walked over to it, said "Oh my God" (presumably was about to say "It's at Stark Tower in Manhattan") but didn't get a chance to say where it was as the explosion happened.
    Mickeroo wrote: »
    It's also never explained how they get the other three engines in the carrier back online either. Iron man and Cap fixed the damaged one but Hawkeye sabotages the other three with that virus or whatever. Once BW knocks Hawkeye out and IM gets the other engine going everything is magically ok again.

    Hawkeye's virus only shut off another one of the engines. First one that blew was the No.3 engine. Hill or Fury then said if they lost another one they'd start to go down. Then Hawkeye's arrow took out the No.1 engine and they started to go down. It was only when Stark got the No.3 working again that they were okay. Presumably the Helicarrier needs at least one engine on each side to maintain balance, and three engines to stay in the air.


Advertisement