State your unpopular film related opinion - - - - - - - - - - Part 19

[DA_Champion]

PTA shot Magnolia in 60ish days. That's not even close to a year Hahaha. He started production on Inherent Vice at the end of last May and the film was locked(for those who don't know what that means it means the film is 100% finished and approved by the studio) a few weeks ago, so he finished his last film in about 14 months. So that point is ridiculous and uninformed. The auteurs don't typically work way longer than anyone else except Kubrick.

And I'm sorry, but shot composition, lighting, and use of music is a huge part of directing. Someone so bland with those like Whedon can't be considered a great director by anyone who actually studies film and/or is in the business. Camera, lighting, and use of music is the most cinematic way to tell stories. Whedon has to rely on his writing and his work with actors alone to tell his story. He's a great writer, which helps his actors, but he can't tell a story with a camera move or an edit or a choice of music like Scorsese or PTA can. Not mention his writing is very narrow. It's all very similar where as someone like PTA can write Boogie Nights and something as different as There Will Be Blood and still be great at both( both screenplays were up for Oscars for best screenplay).

Look at Spielberg. He's a better comparison because he makes more 'fun films' like Whedon. He's made tons of blockbusters, yet he's great with all aspects of directing, not just reaching the audience with funny, quirky characters like Joss Whedon. Think of the music in Jaws, or the fantastic vertigo move when Brody first sees the Shark. Then there's the wonderful editing between each person walking by Brody in the same scene, cuting back and forth from the ocean to Brody every time a person crosses the screen, making it seamless like one shot. Or the long take on the ferry when Brody is warned not to close down the beach...Speilberg uses it all in blockbusters, "fun movies".

Whedon's directing arsnel is small. He's a good director, but miles away from being great.

Also enough of the experience talk. If you're a great director, you are a great director. Godard's first film was Breathless. Spielberg directed Jaws before he was 30. PTA wrote and directed Boogie Nights at the ripe age of 26. If Whedon was going to be great with cinematography and use of music ect., he would have shown it by now.

You have clearly not watched the bulk of Whedon's work. I would discern that from your post even if you had not mentioned it to me previously.

For example, you critique Whedon for his use of music, which is actually something he gets praise for. He's made a couple beloved musicals, Angel and Firefly had great scores, and he's been known to use 4:33 when necessary, in contrast to a lot of current directors for whom music is playing the entire movie.

Honestly, your interest in tearing down a writer-director you're unfamiliar with is bizarre. Just watch his works, or, let it go.

 

[weezerspider]

You have clearly not watched the bulk of Whedon's work. I would discern that from your post even if you had not mentioned it to me previously.

For example, you critique Whedon for his use of music, which is actually something he gets praise for. He's made a couple beloved musicals, Angel and Firefly had great scores, and he's been known to use 4:33 when necessary, in contrast to a lot of current directors for whom music is playing the entire movie.

Honestly, your interest in tearing down a writer-director you're unfamiliar with is bizarre. Just watch his works, or, let it go.

I've seen every film he's directed. That's all I need to see. If anything, you need to broaden your film viewings to realize how basic Whedon's work is. Besides, if he's that great, you should be able to tell based on any number of works you picked from his filmography. The only feature film he's made that's very good is The Avengers. Plain and simple. He's not a great director. Also, I wouldn't qualify musicals as 'great use of music'. You have to use music in musicals. Great use of music would be Scorsese using Layla in the Goodfellas montge with the shots designed around the bars of the song.

 

[DA_Champion]

I've seen every film he's directed. That's all I need to see. If anything, you need to broaden your film viewings to realize how basic Whedon's work is. Besides, if he's that great, you should be able to tell based on any number of works you picked from his filmography. The only feature film he's made that's very good is The Avengers. Plain and simple. He's not a great director. Also, I wouldn't qualify musicals as 'great use of music'. You have to use music in musicals. Great use of music would be Scorsese using Layla in the Goodfellas montge with the shots designed around the bars of the song.

Ok, so you have not seen his best works. I've said this to you before but it's not registering, so I'm going to assume that you don't believe that his TV work is better than Avengers on most dramatic levels. Heck, even the monster designs look better.

If you limit his filmography to his middling works, then he isn't exceptional, one doesn't need to do a Scorcese marathon to recognise that.

Prediction: Over time as he makes more films you'll appreciate him more, not because he'll be getting more experience, but because you'll see a greater span of the skills he already has.

 

[weezerspider]

Ok, so you have not seen his best works. I've said this to you before but it's not registering, so I'm going to assume that you don't believe that his TV work is better than Avengers on most dramatic levels. Heck, even the monster designs look better.

If you limit his filmography to his middling works, then he isn't exceptional, one doesn't need to do a Scorcese marathon to recognise that.

Prediction: Over time as he makes more films you'll appreciate him more, not because he'll be getting more experience, but because you'll see a greater span of the skills he already has.

If his best work is on TV, then he's not a great film director. And I watched the first season of Buffy and quit because it sucked and watched the season of Firefly with my girlfriend at the time and it was pretty average at best. So I've certainly seen plenty of his work. But really, who's gonna spend their time watching Buffy when something like The 400 Blows exist? Broaden your horizons, bro. If anyone needs to do some viewings before they have a validated opinion in this conversation, it's you. Sure, Jeff Teague looks like a great basketball player if you've never seen someone like LeBron or Michael play. It's the same thing.

 

[DA_Champion]

If his best work is on TV, then he's not a great film director. And I watched the first season of Buffy and quit because it sucked and watched the season of Firefly with my girlfriend at the time and it was pretty average at best. So I've certainly seen plenty of his work. But really, who's gonna spend their time watching Buffy when something like The 400 Blows exist? Broaden your horizons, bro. If anyone needs to do some viewings before they have a validated opinion in this conversation, it's you. Sure, Jeff Teague looks like a great basketball player if you've never seen someone like LeBron or Michael play. It's the same thing.

The screenwriters guild rates Buffy as the 22nd greatest show ever made. Have those people heard of Francois Truffault? I hope so

It's also one of the most studied pieces of literature of the past few decades. If it's not for you then it's not for you, but it doesn't suck. It is amazing, A-grade work, a masterpiece and an original one at that.

Thank you for the film recommendation.

Eta: whedon's a great director but not yet a great film director. He might become one if he makes another few movies.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

To be fair, the first season of Buffy isn't the best example. I remember the first season of Buffy being kinda weak.

 

[weezerspider]

The screenwriters guild rates Buffy as the 22nd greatest show ever made. Have those people heard of Francois Truffault? I hope so

It's also one of the most studied pieces of literature of the past few decades. If it's not for you then it's not for you, but it doesn't suck. It is amazing, A-grade work, a masterpiece and an original one at that.

Thank you for the film recommendation.

Eta: whedon's a great director but not yet a great film director. He might become one if he makes another few movies.

Aside from a few HBO shows, Breaking Bad, Mad Men and Seinfeld, what's it's real competition? TV has been an inferior art form until about half a decade ago.

And most studied? OK, college kids like it so they write papers on it. That doesn't mean much. The Dark Knight was the most studied film in 2008, but film professors weren't throwing out Welles to talk about Nolan. Kids were writing about Nolan when they had the chance. It's the same thing. Film classes are mostly always designed to where the student writes about what they want to. It's no secret youngsters like Whedon's stuff, especially the first year or two when many students are just getting into the art of film.

Again though, I've given credit to Whedon's writing ability and the writers are the ones with the most power in TV, not the director. So really that doesn't even matter. TV is the writer's medium and film is the director's medium so you are really just making my point for me by saying his best work is in TV because, as I said earlier, he's a great writer, but only a good director. A great writer with good directing skills will be a god in TV.

He's not a great director by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[DA_Champion]

To be fair, the first season of Buffy isn't the best example. I remember the first season of Buffy being kinda weak.

I'd say his best works are Buffy seasons 2, 4, 5; Angel seasons 2, 3, 5; Dollhouse season 2.

Have not watched: Dr. Horrible, Much Ado about Nothing.

A lot of fans would include Buffy seasons 3, 6; would neglect Buffy season 4 and Dollhouse season 2, and would include Firefly and Avengers.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Aside from a few HBO shows, Breaking Bad, Mad Men and Seinfeld, what's it's real competition? TV has been an inferior art form until about half a decade ago.

And most studied? OK, college kids like it so they write papers on it. That doesn't mean much. The Dark Knight was the most studied film in 2008, but film professors weren't throwing out Welles to talk about Nolan. Kids were writing about Nolan when they had the chance. It's the same thing. Film classes are mostly always designed to where the student writes about what they want to. It's no secret youngsters like Whedon's stuff, especially the first year or two when many students are just getting into the art of film.

Again though, I've given credit to Whedon's writing ability and the writers are the ones with the most power in TV, not the director. So really that doesn't even matter. TV is the writer's medium and film is the director's medium so you are really just making my point for me by saying his best work is in TV because, as I said earlier, he's a great writer, but only a good director. A great writer with good directing skills will be a god in TV.

He's not a great director by any stretch of the imagination.

I definitely agree. I believe that Whedon is a great writer, but you can't just bring up his TV work as a reason for why he's a great film director. It's apple's and oranges. That's like saying F. Scott Fitzgerald was a great screenwriter because was a great author. A great film director should only be judged by the strength of their films. This is not a disservice for Whedon, because he has shown that he is a strong writer, but he's not as talented a film director as he is a writer. I like Whedon, and I do believe he's going to improve as a film director.

I'd say his best works are Buffy seasons 2, 4, 5; Angel seasons 2, 3, 5; Dollhouse season 2.

Have not watched: Dr. Horrible, Much Ado about Nothing.

A lot of fans would include Buffy seasons 3, 6; would neglect Buffy season 4 and Dollhouse season 2, and would include Firefly and Avengers.

Agreed with Buffy. Haven't watched too much Angel or Dollhouse, though.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Also enough of the experience talk. If you're a great director, you are a great director. Godard's first film was Breathless. Spielberg directed Jaws before he was 30. PTA wrote and directed Boogie Nights at the ripe age of 26. If Whedon was going to be great with cinematography and use of music ect., he would have shown it by now.

I wanted to go back and discuss this too. Godard was a film critic, Spielberg was an aspiring film student who was rejected from USC, and PTA dreamed of making film since he was a kid and studied the hell out of it.

Whedon was never an aspiring film director when he was younger. He was always a writer and was from a family of writers. His father was a TV writer and his grandfather was also a TV writer. Whedon never really had aspirations of being a film director over a writer, so I do believe experience plays into it as he learns from his mistakes and makes his strengths even better.

 

[DA_Champion]

Aside from a few HBO shows, Breaking Bad, Mad Men and Seinfeld, what's it's real competition? TV has been an inferior art form until about half a decade ago.

And most studied? OK, college kids like it so they write papers on it. That doesn't mean much. The Dark Knight was the most studied film in 2008, but film professors weren't throwing out Welles to talk about Nolan. Kids were writing about Nolan when they had the chance. It's the same thing. Film classes are mostly always designed to where the student writes about what they want to. It's no secret youngsters like Whedon's stuff, especially the first year or two when many students are just getting into the art of film.

Again though, I've given credit to Whedon's writing ability and the writers are the ones with the most power in TV, not the director. So really that doesn't even matter. TV is the writer's medium and film is the director's medium so you are really just making my point for me by saying his best work is in TV because, as I said earlier, he's a great writer, but only a good director. A great writer with good directing skills will be a god in TV.

He's not a great director by any stretch of the imagination.

There is a lot of great TV but I won't be getting into that.

BTW I was not referring to the essays of college kids. I don't know if that's even tracked? I meant studied by actual academics.

 

[DA_Champion]

I wanted to go back and discuss this too. Godard was a film critic, Spielberg was an aspiring film student who was rejected from USC, and PTA dreamed of making film since he was a kid and studied the hell out of it.

Whedon was never an aspiring film director when he was younger. He was always a writer and was from a family of writers. His father was a TV writer and his grandfather was also a TV writer. Whedon never really had aspirations of being a film director over a writer, so I do believe experience plays into it as he learns from his mistakes and makes his strengths even better.

Spielberg was rejected from UCSC?

Damn.

That's as bad as Richard Feynmann getting rejected from Columbia.

*************

Though your point about him being a late bloomer is good, given that Whedon is 50 his best days may be behind him as creativity declines with age.

 

[Tron Bonne]

If his best work is on TV, then he's not a great film director. And I watched the first season of Buffy and quit because it sucked and watched the season of Firefly with my girlfriend at the time and it was pretty average at best. So I've certainly seen plenty of his work. But really, who's gonna spend their time watching Buffy when something like The 400 Blows exist? Broaden your horizons, bro. If anyone needs to do some viewings before they have a validated opinion in this conversation, it's you. Sure, Jeff Teague looks like a great basketball player if you've never seen someone like LeBron or Michael play. It's the same thing.

Oh dear.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Oh dear.

That's what I said.

 

[Majik1387]

What the hell is The 400 Blows?

 

[Tron Bonne]

It's a french film from 1959. Very famous one, actually, at least amongst film aficionados. I think it's considered something along the start of the "French New Wave" films in the '60s and '70s.

 

[Majik1387]

Ah ok, thanks.

 

[The Endless]

PTA shot Magnolia in 60ish days. That's not even close to a year Hahaha. He started production on Inherent Vice at the end of last May and the film was locked(for those who don't know what that means it means the film is 100% finished and approved by the studio) a few weeks ago, so he finished his last film in about 14 months. So that point is ridiculous and uninformed. The auteurs don't typically work way longer than anyone else except Kubrick.

And I'm sorry, but shot composition, lighting, and use of music is a huge part of directing. Someone so bland with those like Whedon can't be considered a great director by anyone who actually studies film and/or is in the business. Camera, lighting, and use of music is the most cinematic way to tell stories. Whedon has to rely on his writing and his work with actors alone to tell his story. He's a great writer, which helps his actors, but he can't tell a story with a camera move or an edit or a choice of music like Scorsese or PTA can. Not mention his writing is very narrow. It's all very similar where as someone like PTA can write Boogie Nights and something as different as There Will Be Blood and still be great at both( both screenplays were up for Oscars for best screenplay).

Look at Spielberg. He's a better comparison because he makes more 'fun films' like Whedon. He's made tons of blockbusters, yet he's great with all aspects of directing, not just reaching the audience with funny, quirky characters like Joss Whedon. Think of the music in Jaws, or the fantastic vertigo move when Brody first sees the Shark. Then there's the wonderful editing between each person walking by Brody in the same scene, cuting back and forth from the ocean to Brody every time a person crosses the screen, making it seamless like one shot. Or the long take on the ferry when Brody is warned not to close down the beach...Speilberg uses it all in blockbusters, "fun movies".

Whedon's directing arsnel is small. He's a good director, but miles away from being great.

Also enough of the experience talk. If you're a great director, you are a great director. Godard's first film was Breathless. Spielberg directed Jaws before he was 30. PTA wrote and directed Boogie Nights at the ripe age of 26. If Whedon was going to be great with cinematography and use of music ect., he would have shown it by now.

Whedon did some interesting camera moves in Avengers. The scene where they are all arguing is one long take that moves around the characters then focuses on the scepter thing. He does something similar at the start of Serenity, the tracking shot lasts about 4 minutes actually.

And of course the minute long tracking shot in the battle at the end that swoops from Avenger to Avenger. It was done digitally, but director still had to envision it and compose it.

The cinematography in Avengers wasn't that great. In terms of lighting etc. But the camera techniques and movements themselves were pretty cinematic.

I mean, you don't even see people like Nolan doing tracking shots or even simply camera movements. His cameras are 99% of the time in a static fixed position. I guess that's because they have to lug them heavy IMAX cameras around.

 

[DA_Champion]

His cameras are 99% of the time in a static fixed position. I guess that's because they have to lug them heavy IMAX cameras around.

Is that actually a thing?

 

[Ipodman]

Yeah the IMAX cameras are huge

 

[The Endless]

Yea in the TDK special features there was a thing about them. They are incredibly big and bulky and quite loud too.

One day i'm sure the tech will advance to where the IMAX cameras are no bigger than a normal one and we can get epic swooping tracking shots in IMAX

 

[Figs]

It's so funny, because I keep hearing people say Whedon isn't cinematic enough, but if one looks at his television shows where he directs certain episodes (in which I doubt his critics have even seen), he actually directs in a very cinematic fashion. It's noticeably more cinematic than any other directed episode in that season. And not just technically, just pure moments of character and storytelling. I get just as much out of a superb Whedon directed episode of Buffy or Angel than any film.

From what I've read online, a number of people who were at SDCC and were able to watch the Age of Ultron footage, they said this film will shut up the people who complain that his films still look like TV shows. Sounds like it's going to look really good. One thing that helps is he got Ben Davis to do the cinematography. Davis is the one who did the cinematography for Guardians of the Galaxy and the visuals in that movie look damn good.

 

[JAK®]

Isn't most of the criticisms of Avengers' cinematography derived from the aspect ratio which was explained as being chosen due to the number of characters of varying heights in a single shot?

 

[DA_Champion]

Isn't most of the criticisms of Avengers' cinematography derived from the aspect ratio which was explained as being chosen due to the number of characters of varying heights in a single shot?

Avengers is simply not beautiful to look at. It's not downright ugly like Green Lantern or Thor 2, but it doesn't have beautiful shots like Oblivion, Gravity, Prometheus, Man of Steel, Star Trek, Catching Fire, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, et cetera.

The Marvel tv show Agents of Shield has some of the worst cinematography I have ever seen. It's flat out hard to see what's going on. The sets are ugly too.

 

[weezerspider]

Whedon did some interesting camera moves in Avengers. The scene where they are all arguing is one long take that moves around the characters then focuses on the scepter thing. He does something similar at the start of Serenity, the tracking shot lasts about 4 minutes actually.

And of course the minute long tracking shot in the battle at the end that swoops from Avenger to Avenger. It was done digitally, but director still had to envision it and compose it.

The cinematography in Avengers wasn't that great. In terms of lighting etc. But the camera techniques and movements themselves were pretty cinematic.

I mean, you don't even see people like Nolan doing tracking shots or even simply camera movements. His cameras are 99% of the time in a static fixed position. I guess that's because they have to lug them heavy IMAX cameras around.

The shot you are referring to in The Avengers is 30 seconds. Not a bad shot, but not mindblowing either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj6yMYaQPrw

And digital long takes aren't nearly as impressive, but yes that shot isn't awful or anything, but not particularly impressive like say this which 100% real:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiXtFyZqvQQ

As far as Nolan goes, Pfister is fantastic with lighting, and Nolan has a strong instinct for visually pleasing blocking, both of these highly utilized in this shot.

That said, I do happen to think Nolan cuts way too much and it does hold back his visuals from being truly breathtaking. He cuts at about the same rate as Michael Bay, which is visually meh. The cut is the most powerful tool in and editor's arsenal and over-using it really dampens the craft and the impact of it.