State your unpopular film related opinion - - - - - - - - - - - Part 20

[SymbioticToxin]

I never thought Avatar was all too great. The effects were nice, but I never saw them as groundbreaking. (then again, I first saw the movie in 2012 )

I would say that's an unpopular opinion. Almost everyone I know says that about Avatar.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Keep telling yourself, Moose Jaws.

 

[DyeLorean]

Avatar is an interesting case. What it doesn't have in plot and/or interesting characters, it compensates with visual and technical achievements.
It's also an example of good marketing. With everything I knew from the film, I thought it was going to be a big flop. But I saw it on Imax and it really was an unique experience that I recommended. It's a movie that works better as a big spectacle in the biggest 3D screen, than in your house.
Still after all this years, I can't believe how much money that movie made. It's remarkable.

 

[DawnWarrior]

^Indeed,I worked at a theater with an IMAX screen when Avatar was playing there, and it sold out just about every showing until it was gone, not just there but in the other two screens where it was playing. I believe Avatar made as much money at the box office as any movie could possibly make today.

 

[MrMaooz]

Keep telling yourself, Moose Jaws.

I'm right.

 

[CB Fan]

Toy story 3 was predictable and didn't elicit any emotional response from me I actually thought How to train your dragon was a better film with actual surprises.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Avatar is an interesting case. What it doesn't have in plot and/or interesting characters, it compensates with visual and technical achievements.
It's also an example of good marketing. With everything I knew from the film, I thought it was going to be a big flop. But I saw it on Imax and it really was an unique experience that I recommended. It's a movie that works better as a big spectacle in the biggest 3D screen, than in your house.
Still after all this years, I can't believe how much money that movie made. It's remarkable.

Yo could change Avatar to Avengers and this post would be as equally apt

 

[NosfeRomas]

Nah, the Avengers sucked visually. The characters looked great but the cinematography was beyond bad. For a movie of such scale, the cinematography was network tv level.

 

[Majik1387]

Nah, the Avengers sucked visually. The characters looked great but the cinematography was beyond bad. For a movie of such scale, the cinematography was network tv level.

 

[Travesty]

Damn, what network TV shows are you watching? Sounds amazing!

 

[NosfeRomas]

What ? all the scenes that were not action sequences were laughable. We are talking about a 200 million movie. The shots were very awkward and not positive awkward with artistic merit but just, wrong. It had 1 great shot. The tracking shot during the battle of New York was awesome but the rest was typical. I expected a lot more than that. The props department shined, no doubt about that but the cinematographer was bad to avarege.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

The Toland-esque low angle stuff at the beginning is questionable.

 

[DyeLorean]

I can admit The Avengers wasn't particularly interesting or groundbreaking in the cinematography department, but at the same time... it didn't need it to be. That movie worked because it was something that hasn't been attempted before, playing with all this different pieces from previous films, making them work together, jamming all this personalities and powers and ideals. It's an adventure film, a superhero team up that is just perfect at what Marvel and Whedon aimed for it to be.
Now, knowing how Marvel Studios is getting not just bigger but more confident about themselves, I know they're getting more ambitious and that will surely translate in Age of Ultron. The novelty of this superheroes together isn't as fresh as the first time, so I'm sure they're going to compensate it with another tone.

 

[weezerspider]

Nah, the Avengers sucked visually. The characters looked great but the cinematography was beyond bad. For a movie of such scale, the cinematography was network tv level.

Damn, what network TV shows are you watching? Sounds amazing!

What ? all the scenes that were not action sequences were laughable. We are talking about a 200 million movie. The shots were very awkward and not positive awkward with artistic merit but just, wrong. It had 1 great shot. The tracking shot during the battle of New York was awesome but the rest was typical. I expected a lot more than that. The props department shined, no doubt about that but the cinematographer was bad to avarege.

I can admit The Avengers wasn't particularly interesting or groundbreaking in the cinematography department, but at the same time... it didn't need it to be. That movie worked because it was something that hasn't been attempted before, playing with all this different pieces from previous films, making them work together, jamming all this personalities and powers and ideals. It's an adventure film, a superhero team up that is just perfect at what Marvel and Whedon aimed for it to be.
Now, knowing how Marvel Studios is getting not just bigger but more confident about themselves, I know they're getting more ambitious and that will surely translate in Age of Ultron. The novelty of this superheroes together isn't as fresh as the first time, so I'm sure they're going to compensate it with another tone.

The Avengers had weak cinematography. I don't think that is an unpopular opinion. Maybe on this website, but not anywhere else. We've discussed this in this thread fifty times. I feel like we're going in circles.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I don't think it is an unpopular opinion. I agree with all who said the Avengers had cinematography was bland and weak. I still enjoyed the movie, but visually with it was rather average.

 

[Charlie Boy]

Well, that's probably why most people haven't watched it.

First time I've ever heard about the movie.

Do yourself a favor Trav, and check it out. The entire movie is on youtube.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I love the **** out of the Avengers, but the cinematography didn't blow me, or anyone else away. I think that's well established at this point.

Here's an unpopular opinion (I think) - I think directors, and actors, focusing on television is annoying. I feel like too many great talents are abandoning the feature film in favor of AMC, HBO, Showtime, etc. Those networks do great work, but I feel like television is taking over far too much, and movies suffer for it.

 

[Sawyer]

If movies are suffering, it's by their own hand.

 

[Matt Mortem]

If movies are suffering, it's by their own hand.

I absolutely agree, and that's the **** part about it all.

 

[Steamteck]

I'm sorry, but we must fight to the death. Choose your weapon...

Kidding. If you like MoS, that's fine. It's only a movie.

Nuclear missiles at 20 meters. Oh wait, you said you were kidding. Never mind.

 

[SuperFerret]

Cinematography's one of those things you only notice when it's really obvious (for better or worse), or you're into film. Of all the things I was paying attention to when I watched The Avengers, what the camera was doing was not one of them.

 

[Ipodman]

The Will Ferrell "twist" at the end of The Lego Movie didn't work at all. Almost destroyed the whole movie for me. I rather they just played the ending out conventionally. You can still put the message of the movie in the ending without that gimmicky stunt.

 

[Schlosser85]

Cinematography's one of those things you only notice when it's really obvious (for better or worse), or you're into film. Of all the things I was paying attention to when I watched The Avengers, what the camera was doing was not one of them.

Agreed. I really didn't take notice one way or another of the cinematography in The Avengers. I don't really pay attention to cinematography unless it's jarringly amateurish or really impressive.

The Lord of the Rings has some awesome cinematography.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

At least the cinematography wasn't bad, like I thought Public Enemies was.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I think Lincoln had some bad cinematography.