Age of Ultron The Avengers 2! The Official News and Speculation Thread - - - - - - - - Part 43

[jaqua99]

Agreed. The one they used sounded like RDJ had already recited it about 20 times. Oh well.
I can't find the interview, but I remember RDJ saying something about how weird it was reading the script for AoU, and realizing he wasn't in the final scene. That's why I'm not so sure those set pics are from the end of the film. Who knows? In about 6 weeks we all will. t:

I think you are referring to the first Avengers film, and he thought he should have been the first Avenger introduced

 

[TheVision]

Something about the way Ultron and his drones move, they almost look like animals not robots. I love that

 

[doglee80]

Is anyone else having trouble loading the site that shall not be named today?

Yeah, dude, it's only worked once for me all day.

 

[Vartha]

Ultron's hit!!!!

 

[Vartha]

WHY isn't marvel putting a Vision poster out? I mean it's not like we haven't seen him at all!

 

[Naite22]

Subject change.
I was wondering. Since AoU is not shot with IMAX-cameras for even one scene during the entire of this film, how important is it really then to actually see this film in "IMAX"? We'll no matter what just get the normal cinemascope picture anyways.

The reason I'm asking is because Denmark will open its first IMAX theater just in time for this new film (and it's a big one), but those who'll be seeing it in this IMAX theater still won't get to actually SEE that literally high IMAX resolution picture, since those cameras aren't even used at all for the film :-( I've read that the films not filmed with actual IMAX cameras still undergo a picture-rendering (along with better sound). But come_on, seriously! Is the rendered IMAX picture really that much better than your standard theater-going experience ones? In the end it really is the PICTURE we wanna see here. Will it be worth it for my friends and I to shell out that extra bucks to see a film in IMAX that aren't even gonna show us that full IMAX image to begin with?

 

[Drizzle]

WHY isn't marvel putting a Vision poster out? I mean it's not like we haven't seen him at all!

We've only seen concept art, promotional artwork and toys. The only glimpse of Vision as he is in the film were his eyes in the trailer. I think they're trying to keep his actual film appearance a surprise until closer to release.

 

[MahvelBaby!]

Subject change.
I was wondering. Since AoU is not shot with IMAX-cameras for even one scene during the entire of this film, how important is it really then to actually see this film in "IMAX"? We'll no matter what just get the normal cinemascope picture anyways.

The reason I'm asking is because Denmark will open its first IMAX theater just in time for this new film (and it's a big one), but those who'll be seeing it in this IMAX theater still won't get to actually SEE that literally high IMAX resolution picture, since those cameras aren't even used at all for the film :-( I've read that the films not filmed with actual IMAX cameras still undergo a picture-rendering (along with better sound). But come_on, seriously! Is the rendered IMAX picture really that much better than your standard theater-going experience ones? In the end it really is the PICTURE we wanna see here. Will it be worth it for my friends and I to shell out that extra bucks to see a film in IMAX that aren't even gonna show us that full IMAX image to begin with?

Imo its worth it for the sound alone

 

[Vartha]

I agree, the movies I HAVE seen in Imax were awesome with the sound.

Subject change.
I was wondering. Since AoU is not shot with IMAX-cameras for even one scene during the entire of this film, how important is it really then to actually see this film in "IMAX"? We'll no matter what just get the normal cinemascope picture anyways.

The reason I'm asking is because Denmark will open its first IMAX theater just in time for this new film (and it's a big one), but those who'll be seeing it in this IMAX theater still won't get to actually SEE that literally high IMAX resolution picture, since those cameras aren't even used at all for the film :-( I've read that the films not filmed with actual IMAX cameras still undergo a picture-rendering (along with better sound). But come_on, seriously! Is the rendered IMAX picture really that much better than your standard theater-going experience ones? In the end it really is the PICTURE we wanna see here. Will it be worth it for my friends and I to shell out that extra bucks to see a film in IMAX that aren't even gonna show us that full IMAX image to begin with?

Imo its worth it for the sound alone

 

[InCali]

Subject change.
I was wondering. Since AoU is not shot with IMAX-cameras for even one scene during the entire of this film, how important is it really then to actually see this film in "IMAX"? We'll no matter what just get the normal cinemascope picture anyways.

The reason I'm asking is because Denmark will open its first IMAX theater just in time for this new film (and it's a big one), but those who'll be seeing it in this IMAX theater still won't get to actually SEE that literally high IMAX resolution picture, since those cameras aren't even used at all for the film :-( I've read that the films not filmed with actual IMAX cameras still undergo a picture-rendering (along with better sound). But come_on, seriously! Is the rendered IMAX picture really that much better than your standard theater-going experience ones? In the end it really is the PICTURE we wanna see here. Will it be worth it for my friends and I to shell out that extra bucks to see a film in IMAX that aren't even gonna show us that full IMAX image to begin with?

That's a good question and not one I can answer. I "think" it depends on how it was originally shot and the processing of the source material. One thing is for sure; you can't get IMAX quality projection using a lesser recording. I "think" that the difference between a converted IMAX (film) print and something shown by the Cinemark XD theaters isn't going to be dramatic. The TCL Chinese theater "IMAX" in Hollywood uses the Barco projection system (not IMAX film projector) and, therefore, can't be better (from a resolution perspective) than the Cinemark XD theaters because the Cinemark I frequent uses Barco also (though I can't say for sure that the models are the same). The IMAX theater in Irvine, on the other hand, uses an IMAX film projection system and "might" be a little bit better. This is for the video part only.

As far as audio goes, it'll depend on what kind of sound system is utilized by the theater and how they recorded and process the audio.

Bottom line is that I'm going to check it out at the IMAX in Irvine (true IMAX) and then go to the XD theater for a second viewing......all in the name of science you understand.....t:

DJ posted some "really" cool new IMAX technology using projection on a "Technology" thread he started which looks like it could be awesome. That is a very cool thread if you're an engineering type. To put it in very simple terms, I look at film being "analog" and projection being "digital". Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but as digital get higher and higher with regard to resolution, those strengths start to favor the digital side.

 

[Darkraids]

Bought a promo art A2 poster from my Uni poster sale today and also booked the Sydney IMAX ticket for the 23rd! There was a 9pm showing on the 22nd, but I wouldn't be able to make it since it is so late in the evening. SO EXCITED!!!

 

[Vartha]

Bought a promo art A2 poster from my Uni poster sale today and also booked the Sydney IMAX ticket for the 23rd! There was a 9pm showing on the 22nd, but I wouldn't be able to make it since it is so late in the evening. SO EXCITED!!!

NICE!!! Man, I wish I still guarded the prescreenings. lol

 

[InCali]

Imo its worth it for the sound alone

That's a good point. The XD theaters use the Auro system which isn't an object based sound system. The Dolby Atmos system, on the other hand, is. There "is" a difference. If anyone is as much of a dweeb as I am and really cares, here's one of the many links describing the Atmos system. I just skimmed it, but it seemed adequate and there are, for sure, other, similar articles.

http://blog.dolby.com/2014/09/dolby-atmos-object-based-audio-matters/

Generally speaking, I don't think most people will know the difference because you have to be looking (ie listening) for it. It's sort of like 3D ghosting. There are some scenes where ghosting is really a problem, but, by and large, if you aren't looking for it, you generally don't see it. I'm sort of sensitive to ghosting because I have a DLP 3D projector at home and there is virtually no ghosting. In that way, my home 3D is superior to those in movie theaters......but, man, what I wouldn't do to have a home IMAX theater.......

 

[flickchick85]

The sound is easily my favorite thing about IMAX.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Subject change.
I was wondering. Since AoU is not shot with IMAX-cameras for even one scene during the entire of this film, how important is it really then to actually see this film in "IMAX"? We'll no matter what just get the normal cinemascope picture anyways.

The reason I'm asking is because Denmark will open its first IMAX theater just in time for this new film (and it's a big one), but those who'll be seeing it in this IMAX theater still won't get to actually SEE that literally high IMAX resolution picture, since those cameras aren't even used at all for the film :-( I've read that the films not filmed with actual IMAX cameras still undergo a picture-rendering (along with better sound). But come_on, seriously! Is the rendered IMAX picture really that much better than your standard theater-going experience ones? In the end it really is the PICTURE we wanna see here. Will it be worth it for my friends and I to shell out that extra bucks to see a film in IMAX that aren't even gonna show us that full IMAX image to begin with?

If it's a brand new IMAX the answer is a resounding HELL YES! Check out this post in the tech thread that will explain why:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=30824769&postcount=792

 

[TheVision]

Whats IMAX sound like vs the Dolby Atmos in regular theaters?

 

[Darkraid]

The sound is easily my favorite thing about IMAX.

I have to agree with that. IMAX's audio systems are mindblowing.

 

[Naked Shia]

Im actually happy that SHIELD isnt in charge anymore. I prefer The Avengers working as a private group.

I agree and as much as I love SLJ I wasn't crazy about him giving a rah rah speech in the trailer. That shouldn't be his role any more.

Agreed, with SHIELD gone, it really lets the Avengers be THE AVENGERS this time around because in the first one, SHIELD done most of the work for them: they recruited them, they supplied them with their costumes, sleeping/headquarters (Helicarrier) and they had to report back to SHIELD before making final decision. But in this one they have to make all the decisions themselves with no 3rd party help, supply their own costumes and have their OWN headquarters (Avengers Tower).

I agree with you. I like the shield, but I don't think it should be that important. There were too much of them until then.

 

[InCali]

If it's a brand new IMAX the answer is a resounding HELL YES! Check out this post in the tech thread that will explain why:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=30824769&postcount=792

For the video portion, it really depends on the source material. If you have a 4K copy, it's not going to get any better than that unless some upscaling is done. A 4K projector will be as good as it gets. IMAX theaters have bigger screens, but it doesn't help the resolution.

Parts of TDK and TDKR were filmed by Christopher Nolan in IMAX and the results were "stunning". I saw it at the old Bridge Theater in (true) IMAX. It has gone from the Bridge to the Rave to the Cinemark (who removed the IMAX and installed XD). Cinemark did this because there weren't that many film makers who were making film prints they could show. Some of the early Marvel films included (The first Thor film was, I believe one of them).

 

[InCali]

The sound is easily my favorite thing about IMAX.

I can see why. A well mixed IMAX presentation is awesome.

That being said, I don't think most of the people frequenting this thread are the typical movie consumers and most people probably couldn't necessarily put their fingers on why the movie was better in IMAX other than to say "Hey, that was a giant screen. Very cool." Maybe I'm wrong about that and most movie goers leave the theater and say "Really nice work on the audio.", but I suspect that's not the case.

 

[InCali]

I agree with you. I like the shield, but I don't think it should be that important. There were too much of them until then.

I'll take as much Maria Hill as they want to fork over.....Coulson too for that matter. I love his character (his first name is agent) and hope he ends up making a reappearance in future films. Now that I brought it up, is there any word on that?

 

[Naked Shia]

I don't care for Cobbie Hill, and I really dislike Coulson, so I can't say I agree with you about that ^^

 

[Ghostcrow13]

They should have kept the Hill being against Furys Avengers idea in the first film had it play out through TWS, Fury actually die in TWS. Then after Shield falls and Coulson starts rebuilding after he is left whatever that cube is by Fury who despite having Hill as number 2, knew Hill was against him.

Then in AoS now we've found out there are two Shields, Hill could have been leading the 'real' Shield, and the one that would enforce the registration act.

 

[Naite22]

That's a good question and not one I can answer. I "think" it depends on how it was originally shot and the processing of the source material. One thing is for sure; you can't get IMAX quality projection using a lesser recording. I "think" that the difference between a converted IMAX (film) print and something shown by the Cinemark XD theaters isn't going to be dramatic. The TCL Chinese theater "IMAX" in Hollywood uses the Barco projection system (not IMAX film projector) and, therefore, can't be better (from a resolution perspective) than the Cinemark XD theaters because the Cinemark I frequent uses Barco also (though I can't say for sure that the models are the same). The IMAX theater in Irvine, on the other hand, uses an IMAX film projection system and "might" be a little bit better. This is for the video part only.

As far as audio goes, it'll depend on what kind of sound system is utilized by the theater and how they recorded and process the audio.

Bottom line is that I'm going to check it out at the IMAX in Irvine (true IMAX) and then go to the XD theater for a second viewing......all in the name of science you understand.....t:

DJ posted some "really" cool new IMAX technology using projection on a "Technology" thread he started which looks like it could be awesome. That is a very cool thread if you're an engineering type. To put it in very simple terms, I look at film being "analog" and projection being "digital". Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but as digital get higher and higher with regard to resolution, those strengths start to favor the digital side.

If it's a brand new IMAX the answer is a resounding HELL YES! Check out this post in the tech thread that will explain why:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=30824769&postcount=792

Thanks for the answers fellas. The info and link helped a lot I'm gonna have to ask my friends about this, and I guess it'll end up being a democracy about what to choose.

 

[JOE]

Is there anyone on these boards seeing Age of Ultron before the premiere?