The Avengers (2012) *spoilers from post 1181*

Roar

Sad Professor wrote: »

Oh and what was with the 1.85:1 aspect ratio? It was very unusual for such a big film. Serenity was 2.35:1. Maybe for whatever reason they wanted the taller frame, but it still strikes me as very strange. With all these fake IMAX/3D cinemas all over the place, it wouldn't surprise me if there's pressure put on directors to shoot in 16:9.

Think I read somewhere it was to be able to keep all the characters in frame together...

jaykhunter

Sad Professor wrote: »

it wouldn't surprise me if there's pressure put on directors to shoot in 16:9.

I HOPE SO! I was SO HAPPY about this. I thought 16:9 was the 'compromise' between iMAX's 4:3 and standard cinema 2.35:1. When it comes out on Blu-Ray it'll look GLORIOUS not having any crappy black bars on my 50" TV.

IMO everything should be 16:9, nobody's going to mistake this for a TV show. A film lives a few months in theatres and the rest of time on our TVs.

senordingdong

I went to see it and really, really enjoyed it but I have to say that the 3d seemed utterly pointless.

What little it added to the visuals were quickly absorbed into normalcy and certainly wasn't worth the nuisance of wearing those stupid glasses on your face.

Galvasean

Galvasean

jaykhunter wrote: »

I HOPE SO! I was SO HAPPY about this. I thought 16:9 was the 'compromise' between iMAX's 4:3 and standard cinema 2.35:1. When it comes out on Blu-Ray it'll look GLORIOUS not having any crappy black bars on my 50" TV.

IMO everything should be 16:9, nobody's going to mistake this for a TV show. A film lives a few months in theatres and the rest of time on our TVs.

I look forward to that - finally getting to see hi-def movies on my 48" screen - all of it!

ch750536

ch750536 wrote: »

Fans of superheros here, my kids were hand fed from an early age. Is there any reason why I shouldn't take my 7 yr old to see this? He has seen all the Spidermen \ Hulk vs Thor \ Planet Hulk \ etc. No boobies or decapitiations?

Finally got around to taking them just now, loved it, great movie.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

Oh and what was with the 1.85:1 aspect ratio? It was very unusual for such a big film. Serenity was 2.35:1. Maybe for whatever reason they wanted the taller frame, but it still strikes me as very strange. With all these fake IMAX/3D cinemas all over the place, it wouldn't surprise me if there's pressure put on directors to shoot in 16:9.

I'd imagine its for the 3D effect as well, although Avatar was 2.35:1 wasnt it?

CL7

senordingdong wrote: »

I went to see it and really, really enjoyed it but I have to say that the 3d seemed utterly pointless.

What little it added to the visuals were quickly absorbed into normalcy and certainly wasn't worth the nuisance of wearing those stupid glasses on your face.

Balls. Going to see it tonight and 2D version isn't showing at the new cinema in Limerick.

Bullseye1

Avengers breaks the billion mark!

johnny_ultimate

jaykhunter wrote: »

IMO everything should be 16:9, nobody's going to mistake this for a TV show. A film lives a few months in theatres and the rest of time on our TVs.

While I don't mind films being shot in 16:9 for practical reasons, I think the rest of that statement is sacrilege :pac: A 2.35:1 film done right is a thing of beauty. To me a film should be made for cinemas first and foremost, so I'm always delighted when the curtains expand and gives me that glorious widescreen image. I don't care if it won't look as good on Blu-Ray (films presented in their proper aspect ratio - 4:3, 16:9, 2.35:1 - all look great on Blu-Ray anyway, bars or not), but seeing films like The Thin Red Line, Shame or 2001 in a cinema reminds you how vastly, vastly superior seeing a film in its intended form is.

For stuff like The Avengers, sure, go for 16:9. I'd prefer 2.35:1 (take something like Star Trek) but I can live with the former no bother. But a great cinematographer can work so many wonders with 2.35:1, I never ever want to see it decline in prominence.

krudler

CL7 wrote: »

Balls. Going to see it tonight and 2D version isn't showing at the new cinema in Limerick.

I was at it earlier it was on in the luxury screen in 2D, dont think its on for the later shows though

don ramo

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Avengers breaks the billion mark!

nice, hopefully itll pass out titanic,

Basq

don ramo wrote: »

nice, hopefully itll pass out titanic,

And 'Avatar' too while it's at it..

don ramo

Basq wrote: »

And 'Avatar' too while it's at it..

that would be brilliant if it could, it a far better film than avatar, but id say its asking a lot though,

pixelburp

The power of repeat viewings, clearly :eek:

johnny_ultimate

There is a slight 'Titanic for the 18-45 year old male' phenomenon going on

opti76

saw this yesterday.... i must admit .. it was awesome ... hulk was perfect .. somebody please tell me that ruffallo has signed on for a proper hulk movie.

Mickeroo

pixelburp wrote: »

The power of repeat viewings, clearly :eek:

Hopefully in the way Avatar started a craze for 3D this will start a craze for making films that are of a quality that compells people to go watch them more than once!

I can see it now, in 3 years will all be giving out about how the slew of well made pop corn films are only a gimmick :pac:

don ramo

opti76 wrote: »

saw this yesterday.... i must admit .. it was awesome ... hulk was perfect .. somebody please tell me that ruffallo has signed on for a proper hulk movie.

he signed a 6 film deal with marvel there a week or two ago, no word on another hulk film yet, but ruffalo will most likely appear in some of the other guys films, maybe iron man 3 or Captain America 2, cant really see how he could appear in Thor 2,

there is also talks of a S.H.E.I.L.D film a hawkeye/black widow film and a nick fury film so he could potentially pop up there aswell,

i would love to see him get his own film though,

Mickeroo

don ramo wrote: »

he signed a 6 film deal with marvel there a week or two ago, no word on another hulk film yet, but ruffalo will most likely appear in some of the other guys films, maybe iron man 3 or Captain America 2, cant really see how he could appear in Thor 2,

Well of course he'll be in the other guy's movies :P

don ramo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Well of course he'll be in the other guy's movies :P

would him and marky mark get along though:D

pixelburp

Mickeroo wrote: »

Hopefully in the way Avatar started a craze for 3D this will start a craze for making films that are of a quality that compells people to go watch them more than once!

I can see it now, in 3 years will all be giving out about how the slew of well made pop corn films are only a gimmick :pac:

Unfortunately I'd say it's more likely to continue the gimmick of 3D; the studios will see this as a sign the public are happy with 3D, ignoring the fact they essentially forced our hand.

Impossible to figure out of course, but I'd be curious to know what the highest grossing movie is on a single view per person.

Hashtag_HEEL

don ramo wrote: »

he signed a 6 film deal with marvel there a week or two ago, no word on another hulk film yet, but ruffalo will most likely appear in some of the other guys films, maybe iron man 3 or Captain America 2, cant really see how he could appear in Thor 2,

I'd love to see the Hulk in Iron Man 3! Two Great scientific minds! Two Funny characters! What could be better?:D

Turtyturd

Hashtag_HEEL wrote: »

I'd love to see the Hulk in Iron Man 3! Two Great scientific minds! Two Funny characters! What could be better?:D

I think given the ending of Avengers, Banner appearing in IM 3 is a certainty.

johnny_ultimate

If we were to measure a film's financial success purely on a 'warrants [X] rewatches', than Primer should have been the highest grossing film of all time!

In actuality, it's all probably down to being a very big budget film with an instantly recognisable brand (Batman, Titanic, Lord of the Rings, Avengers, Harry Potter - Avatar being the mandatory exception, and I guess 'James Cameron' is in itself a brand). Some degree of basic storytelling competency helps, and it must appeal to a very broad demographic. Preferably a demographic that has money.

It's really impossible to pin down 'why' though. To me, neither Avengers or Titanic or Avatar are films that demand multiple theatrical re-viewings, but I don't pretend to in any way understand the activities of the cinema-going public!

Bullseye1

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It's really impossible to pin down 'why' though. To me, Avengers.......that demand multiple theatrical re-viewings, but I don't pretend to in any way understand the activities of the cinema-going public!

Not sure if you read comics but if you had no way would you not see a reason for multiple viewings. 10 years ago when most of these comic movies kicked off people still would not have believed that Avengers would ever make it to the silver screen especially when Marvel had carved up their characters among the different studios.

If WB/DC ever produce a JLA it will be an even bigger surprise since they seem incapable of making a movie outside Batman and Superman and even the latter character has struggled. DC must be seriously regretting Joss not making Wonder Woman.

jaykhunter

I wish Box Office Mojo would divide the revenue a film brings in by the average ticket price that year, so we could get a more accurate representation of how popular a film actually is. I know the media doesn't want that because every time a big film comes out & does well, it'll break box office records....i.e. 'tis a lot easier to do that if your film costs double what it did a decade ago...but as an information site Box office Mojo should tabulate it.

johnny_ultimate

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Not sure if you read comics but if you had no way would you not see a reason for multiple viewings. 10 years ago when most of these comic movies kicked off people still would not have believed that Avengers would ever make it to the silver screen especially when Marvel had carved up their characters among the different studios.

To me the only way a film deserves a reviewing in the cinema is a) you want to go with other friends or b) it's a work that truly requires another look to get your teeth around (and that's very rare - only one that jumps out recently is Margaret, and I'm going to wait for DVD on that one). To me, there's not really anything in The Avengers that requires a second-look. That's not necessarily a criticism mind - I don't think the vast majority of great films require a second look in close succession to the first. I actually think it takes away from the enjoyment of the film, as I tend to find myself 'taking it apart' a bit more if the film is still fresh in my mind, and means it will be a long time before I feel comfortable rewatching it again as it'll all be too familiar.

Again, this is just me, and I'm clearly a minority on here. But I had my fun with The Avengers: done & dusted, many more films to watch (none of which I'll rewatch immediately either). Not complex enough to justify spending more time with it when there's so many others in cinemas at the moment. I don't read the comics, but I very much doubt I'd feel differently if I did.

Mickeroo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I don't read the comics, but I very much doubt I'd feel differently if I did.

I'm not disputing the rest of your post, sound reasoning all around, but if you had grown up reading the comics and watching the cartoons the way I did I seriously doubt you'd have only gone to see this once. I still can't believe it got made

Then again I'm sure you've seen film adaptations of stuff you loved just as much and only watched it once too, so its probably a case of different strokes I suppose

krudler

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Not sure if you read comics but if you had no way would you not see a reason for multiple viewings. 10 years ago when most of these comic movies kicked off people still would not have believed that Avengers would ever make it to the silver screen especially when Marvel had carved up their characters among the different studios.

If WB/DC ever produce a JLA it will be an even bigger surprise since they seem incapable of making a movie outside Batman and Superman and even the latter character has struggled. DC must be seriously regretting Joss not making Wonder Woman.

outside Batman and Superman a lot of DC characters are...kinda sh1te tbh. Its prob why so few of them make it to movies, and the ones that do arent very good, like Green Lantern. the Marvel universe tends to be more movie friendly, just imo though