Do you like the cinematography of The Avengers?

[Quasimod0]

Since this seems to be a favorite topic among Avengers fans, I figured I would ask the ultimate question. Do you guys like the way the Avengers looked, cinematography wise? Did you think it looked a little flat, or were you perfectly satisfied with it?

How do you think it could've been improved?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

yes and there is a The Avengers section for threads like that

 

[Quasimod0]

Maybe a mod could move it over? I was trying to move the discussion away from the Avengers thread. lol

 

[Rowsdower!]

I liked it but I don't think it was anything spectacular.

 

[Lightsplasher]

I liked it but I don't think it was anything spectacular.

I agree , I found it okay but nothing spectacular either . Though , all those colors were really awesome and even if some shots aren't quite well shot , the colors made up for it and stood out very well . AoU's cinematography looks great so far from what I've seen from the clip (except for the action scenes which looks terrible and not natural at all) , I hope it'd be the same for the final version of the movie

 

[Tony Stark]

I think people's main complaint is the aspect ratio. I get that. I have no problem with the cinematography itself. It worked for the film, and for as much stuff as Avengers had in it, it's a credit to Whedon in packing all of that into a smaller aspect ratio. The way the shots were framed was perfect.

That being said as far as cinematography my three favorites in the MCU were IM1, CA:TWS and GOTG.

 

[Lightsplasher]

I think people's main complaint is the aspect ratio. I get that. I have no problem with the cinematography itself. It worked for the film, and for as much stuff as Avengers had in it, it's a credit to Whedon in packing all of that into a smaller aspect ratio. The way the shots were framed was perfect.

That being said as far as cinematography my three favorites in the MCU were IM1, CA:TWS and GOTG.

Same for me ! Even after all these years , I really find IM1's cinematography beautiful and the way GOTG was shot , the colors , the Guardians United scene , the scenery , it was mind blowing ! After watching multiple times TWS , I think that at some moments it's really great (the action scenes , the beginning & Introduction of Sam , the Quinjet scene , the Causeway , Cap's fall in the water) but not so much in others (the mall and the shots outside the lift)

 

[flickchick85]

I liked it. I think the best cinematography in the MCU has been GotG hands down, followed by IM1, but I honestly don't get the love for TWS's cinematography. I think it was about on par with TA's, if not a little bit below. Some strong moments, some weaker moments.

 

[kedrell]

I really have no eye for cinematography nor any interest to learn how to appreciate it more and I'm the same way with editing, sound mixing, foley and a whole host of other movie disciplines that are supposed to not call attention to themselves but simply be there to serve the writing and the acting. So Avengers was completely fine by my standards. I don't think I've ever once complained about bad cinematography in a movie. I just don't care.

 

[Greens]

Not noticeably bad but not noticeably great, either.

 

[The Endless]

Average really. There was some flourishes of great camera work though. GotG is the best looking Marvel movie and the cinematographer of that is doing Age of Ultron so i'm sure it'll be much more memorable.

 

[Lord]

I disagree about GotG being the best looking, or even all that good looking, lol.

 

[kedrell]

It's the most bright and colorful, I'll give it that.

 

[Adversary]

It was pretty average. You can tell AOU will have much better cinematography based on the little footage we have so far and that's because they got the same cinematographer who did GOTG.

 

[The Endless]

I disagree about GotG being the best looking, or even all that good looking, lol.

GotG had some fantastic shots. The one with Quill and Gamora on Knowhere when she tries his Walkman out was stunning. The first time we see Quill on Morag is a great shot with the red eyes of his mask peering out of the fog. There is loads more.

 

[Human Torch]

I really have no eye for cinematography nor any interest to learn how to appreciate it more and I'm the same way with editing, sound mixing, foley and a whole host of other movie disciplines that are supposed to not call attention to themselves but simply be there to serve the writing and the acting. So Avengers was completely fine by my standards. I don't think I've ever once complained about bad cinematography in a movie. I just don't care.

Pretty much my feeling as well.

 

[DA_Champion]

I don't think we've seen good cinematography in any MCU movie.

They look and sound really bland.

IM1 had some good shots of "Afghanistan" and Winter Soldier of Washington.

 

[DA_Champion]

GotG had some fantastic shots. The one with Quill and Gamora on Knowhere when she tries his Walkman out was stunning. The first time we see Quill on Morag is a great shot with the red eyes of his mask peering out of the fog. There is loads more.

It was mostly pure CGI and green screen, a lot like the Krypton scenes in MoS but without the cool costume design.

Xandar looked like budget Coruscant.

Personally I prefer cool sets, locations, and costumes to green screen.

 

[kedrell]

As long as I can't tell the difference, that's all I care about regarding such things.

 

[Son of Coul]

Phase 2 has generally been a step up from Phase 1, TWS & GOTG in particular, but Avengers is really solid. The shot composition (for the most part) and some inspired camera moves are what elevates it. The only issue to me, moreso than the aspect ratio, is the flat lighting that particularly stands out in the opening and on the Helicarrier (which is how a Helicarrier would be lit I guess, but whatever). It doesn't really pop for whatever reason, despite some strong contrast here and there. I know Whedon wanted this to be a war movie, and hired Seamus McGarvey as DP intentionally for this reason, but I think the infusion of comic book color got cross-wired and there were muddied results. Whether this falls more on Whedon or McGarvey, both seasoned pros, we won't know. However, in the commentary Whedon says after shooting the great-looking Cap punching bag scene, he pretty much surrendered lighting duties over to McGarvey.

So it's a tad mixed for me, but I lean much more to the positive end for showing some voice & ambition in framing.

 

[Rogue Star]

The Avengers' pales in comparison to the Winter Soldier in every way accept spectacle. Once the excitement wore off, the movie nearly became unwatchable. I hope Whedon and Co have taken notes from what the Russo bros put together.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Not at all.

There are a couple great moments of camera work (Iron Man flying into the sky, barrel-rolling, and later trying to shake the Chitauri off his tail), but for the most part, the movie has some of the worst cinematography in the MCU. It often feels like TV imo. Though some of that has to do with production design, set design, dialogue, line delivery, etc.

 

[TeeKay]

Felt like TV at times but I didn't care.

 

[DA_Champion]

The TV comment is weird, because I actually liked the visuals on Buffy, Angel, and Dollhouse.

 

[Lord]

I don't think we've seen good cinematography in any MCU movie.

They look and sound really bland.

IM1 had some good shots of "Afghanistan" and Winter Soldier of Washington.

Kinda true, but i think Phase II's where the cinematography is making the films look more expensive, while they previously looked a bit cheaper than most of the other major budgeted hollywood productions around. I think Avengers suffered from having the blandest cinematography of them all, but i think that was also influenced by the production, script, etc. which made it feel more like a tv show sometimes.