The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 53

[BobbyCorwin88]

^it wasn't shot in IMAX nor in 3D. Whedon shot it in 1:85 & post-converted it to 3D. I dislike both cinematic choices.

Oh but how very cost efficient! Or maybe not. I guess it saved time if anything. Marvel still makes their extra bucks off it. Oh well.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Bobby, why on Earth did McGarvey & Whedon shoot this thing in 1:85? Its as if TDKR is doing everything right visually with 2/3 of the film being IMAX & Nolan refusing to go the 3D route yet Whedon's film is a 1:85 post-converted 3D picture. WTF?

 

[Quasimod0]

He didnt like filming with 3D cameras

 

[TheVileOne]

Because a guy like Nolan can leverage those decisions. Whedon can't. That's why Nolan gets like $80 million for Dark Knight Rises.

 

[Gunga Diner]

I'm proud my midnight tickets are for a 35 mm showing, dammit.

The way it was filmed and meant to be seen. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Suzanne78]

Bobby, why on Earth did McGarvey & Whedon shoot this thing in 1:85? Its as if TDKR is doing everything right visually with 2/3 of the film being IMAX & Nolan refusing to go the 3D route yet Whedon's film is a 1:85 post-converted 3D picture. WTF?

There was a post a waaaaaays back in one of the other news and spec threads that was written by someone whose family member did cinematography. He (or she) suggested that the 1:85 aspect ratio may actually produce a better post-converted 3D picture. Whedon shot the post credits scene in Thor with 3D cameras and apparently disliked using them, so hence the decision to shoot in this particular aspect ratio.

If anyone else wants to correct me, jump right in.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

I'm proud my midnight tickets are for a 35 mm showing, dammit.

The way it was filmed and meant to be seen. Nothing wrong with that.

Kudos, my man. Kudos. Glad to hear we still have people left who aren't willing to blow $18 on a pointless post-converted 3D IMAX screening.

 

[TheVileOne]

Instead of complaining about it you could just not see it that way and see it regular instead. That's what I did for Captain America and Thor when I saw them a second time for pay after I saw the media screenings at Paramount.

Sort of like how studios always do what Nicholas Refn wants. Oh wait . . . the biggest budget he's ever worked with is $15 million for an indy flick . . . all he's done are indy flicks.

 

[Xeno]

There was a post a waaaaaays back in one of the other news and spec threads that was written by someone whose family member did cinematography. He (or she) suggested that the 1:85 aspect ratio may actually produce a better post-converted 3D picture. Whedon shot the post credits scene in Thor with 3D cameras and apparently disliked using them, so hence the decision to shoot in this particular aspect ratio.

If anyone else wants to correct me, jump right in.

Exactly right, Suzanne. The poster's name is bonzob2000. His first post here gave a lot of information about cinematography and camera choices. He gave tutorial for those fretting about Whedon's decision to shoot the film in 1.85:1 as opposed to 2.35:1, as well as the reasoning behind using the former when it comes to 3D conversions.

Long time lurker who felt compelled to jump in for the cinematography debate, as the son of a cinematographer...

"Scope" in this context isn't referring to the scale of the film, it's referring to the 2.35:1 aspect ratio (it's short for CinemaScope, a format that used that ratio).

I am excited for the film and a huge Whedon fan -- however, I do think there are some poor visual choices in what we've seen so far. That being said, I don't think they have anything to do with aspect ratio, and as many on here have seemed perplexed by the decision to shoot in 1.85:1 versus 2.35:1, I wanted to offer my two cents.

1) The 3-D factor. The post-conversion leads people to think 3-D is somewhat of an afterthought, but I don't think it is. Whedon directed Thor's post-credits sequence, which he shot on 3-D cameras, and reportedly didn't like the experience. Someone also mentioned early on when they were in pre-production that they were running tests on 3-D cameras. They clearly thought about shooting in 3-D, and when Whedon didn't like it, decided to shoot it in 2-D with plans for a post conversion.

I think filmmakers these days are aware that bad 3-D hurts more than it helps, and are gradually learning the methods of shooting that make a 3-D film more successful. Some factors for shooting for 3-D include:

-- Longer takes, as the eye has a harder time adjusting between cuts when it's seeing in three dimensions. Bay talked about learning to do this for TF3. Fright Night and Hugo are full of very long shots instead of fast sequences with lots of quick cuts. So far we haven't seen enough footage to know if they did this in Avengers, but Whedon is a fan of long tracking shots, so I'm betting it's at least partially the case.

-- Brightness -- 3-D has a dimming effect, so dark scenes don't look as good. Witness the awful post-conversions of the very dark Last Airbender and Harry Potter. I think this is why Avengers looks so bright and why so much is set in daylight. TF3 was the same way, as was Hugo, which takes place almost entirely in a brightly lit train station, and I think contains maybe one night exterior in the whole film.

-- And another factor, and yes, I'm getting to my point, is aspect ratio. 3-D looks better in "flat" than "scope," perhaps because the emphasis on height over width creates a more immersive experience than the widescreen look. Cameron talks about it a little in this article: http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/cam...ze-everywhere/

2) Secondly, scope ratio was traditionally thought of as the ideal ratio for movies with a lot of horizontal action, as the screen is extra wide. It was perfect for big battle scenes, be it Lawrence of Arabia or Lord of the Rings. However, it's less useful for movies more concerned with height that with width. If there is a lot of action that moves top to bottom as opposed to left to right and right to left, the wide frame is somewhat useless, with a lot of extra space to frame out that isn't being taken up. This is why many of the biggest films not shot in scope focus more on vertical action than horizontal: Spider-Man, War of the Worlds, Jurassic Park, etc. As Avengers focuses on an alien invasion, the ratio makes sense for that reason too.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=22560147&highlight=#post22560147

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Suzanne, I'm glad Whedon did it out of concern regarding the post-converted 3D rather than as an artistic choice. I'm really diggin' McGarvey's cinematography on this film, just don't like 1:85 & 3D. I'll be watching this 2D & hopefully I can track down a non-3D IMAX screening. IM2 may have been a bad film in my eyes but it looked amazing in IMAX 2D.

 

[Suzanne78]

Thanks for backing me up on it, Xeno. I was worried I had my information wrong or was hallucinating or something....

I'll be watching this in 2D opening weekend, unless I hear good things about the conversion. 3D gives me a headache after an hour.

 

[Gunga Diner]

Kudos, my man. Kudos. Glad to hear we still have people left who aren't willing to blow $18 on a pointless post-converted 3D IMAX screening.

Brofist.

Obviously, I'll try to see Dark Knight Rises in IMAX as soon as I can, midnight show or not (and a real, full size IMAX screen, for crying out loud, in a freezing cold museum where it should be) and Amazing Spider-Man in 3D.

But that's because they were shot that way.

But unlike The Amazing Spider-Man, which was shot on digital, The Avengers will look like an actual movie, and the digital projection of the 35 mm print should get that across just fine.

 

[sabetoonth]

I think Im gonna stick to 2d on this, just never been a fan of 3d, only one Ive ever seen in 3d was Spykids 3D when I was a kid, terrible movie, but Id say good experience overall

 

[Smashlilman]

Nerd and Geeks talking about Avengers
[YT]tkyqTWsH7fg[/YT]

Suzanne, I'm glad Whedon did it out of concern regarding the post-converted 3D rather than as an artistic choice. I'm really diggin' McGarvey's cinematography on this film, just don't like 1:85 & 3D. I'll be watching this 2D & hopefully I can track down a non-3D IMAX screening. IM2 may have been a bad film in my eyes but it looked amazing in IMAX 2D.

Same here. I'm hoping for none 3D IMAX showing for the Avengers. I went to see IM2 in 3D IMAX and i left the theather going why the **** did i waste $15.

Brofist.

Obviously, I'll try to see Dark Knight Rises in IMAX as soon as I can, midnight show or not (and a real, full size IMAX screen, for crying out loud, in a freezing cold museum where it should be) and Amazing Spider-Man in 3D.

But that's because they were shot that way.

But unlike The Amazing Spider-Man, which was shot on digital, The Avengers will look like an actual movie, and the digital projection of the 35 mm print should get that across just fine.

Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises will be the only movies that i will pay to see in an IMAX theater.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Suzanne, stick to 2D. The less people continue to indulge 3D, the faster it will go away.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

Bobby, why on Earth did McGarvey & Whedon shoot this thing in 1:85? Its as if TDKR is doing everything right visually with 2/3 of the film being IMAX & Nolan refusing to go the 3D route yet Whedon's film is a 1:85 post-converted 3D picture. WTF?

I honestly think it all came down to deadline. Shooting IMAX takes a bit more planning and demands more time on set. I don't think Marvel was cool with that. I mean, I have no doubt it will look great in 1:85, not like that hasn't worked for years, but I will admit to being in love with true IMAX. Can't wait to see what Nolan has done with TDKR.

Brofist.

Obviously, I'll try to see Dark Knight Rises in IMAX as soon as I can, midnight show or not (and a real, full size IMAX screen, for crying out loud, in a freezing cold museum where it should be) and Amazing Spider-Man in 3D.

But that's because they were shot that way.

But unlike The Amazing Spider-Man, which was shot on digital, The Avengers will look like an actual movie, and the digital projection of the 35 mm print should get that across just fine.

Avengers was shot digital actually. RED camera if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Bobby, is your local IMAX a 70mm?

 

[Smashlilman]

Suzanne, stick to 2D. The less people continue to indulge 3D, the faster it will go away.

I don't have a problem with 3D. Its just when people make movies using 3D they either don't take advantage of the 3D (normal 2D moves converted to 3D aftewards) or They create gimmicky movie where they just throw crap at the screen for no reason.

The only movie that actually did a good job of using 3D was that Disney movie about the chimps/apes or what ever. I remember seeing the trailer for it and it felt like we were actually in the Jungle waste deep in water.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

^post-converted 3D is the problem & as long as the 3D format remains viable, in an effort to save money, the studio's will keep useless post-converted 3D alive.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

Bobby, is your local IMAX a 70mm?

I'm pretty sure it's all digital actually. I think the last time I even visited there was for Tron, which incidentally was my first 3D experience. Wasn't pleased. Haven't been since.

 

[Iceman]

Avengers would look great in 3D...if the 3D was top tier. It has more to gain from it than something like Batman for example. I'll also wait for reviews of the 3D though before I see it in 3D. Aside from Avatar it has not only been a complete waste of money for me.. it's given me headaches, made the picture look blurry & also somehow taken away from the impact of seeing something on a huge IMAX screen.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

One of my bigger gripes from 3D lately is that it seriously dumbs down color. I went to see TinTin at my brothers theater and the only showing they had was in 3D. Those glasses naturally dim the light and when you take them off the screen is much brighter and the colors more vibrant. It really is annoying since color is a pretty big part of making an image come together, especially in a film like TinTin and certainly in one like Avengers. No 3D for me please.

 

[BigThor]

So while we're on the subject of post-Avengers solo films, anyone else feel the studio made a big (HUGE) mistake giving Thor II a release date just a week shy of the second Hunger Games film? In just one week, The Hunger Games made what Thor made in its entire domestic run. I think Marvel/Disney need to move that film asap.

November 2013 was far to big of a wait for me anyways, if it were up to me I'd move Thor II back to it's original July 26, 2013 release date.

 

[canuckerfan]

^it wasn't shot in IMAX nor in 3D. Whedon shot it in 1:85 & post-converted it to 3D. I dislike both cinematic choices.

I agree. post-converting looks terrible and darkens the image. shooting with IMAX cameras would have been EPIC, especially given some of the scenes we are going to see. IMAX should be the future. However I have a bad feeling that we'll get 3D shoved down our throats for years to come. Oh well, I'm just glad I have a 2D option

 

[Hawkingbird]

Is there any midnight viewings in the UK. Mahahahahahhaha, I shall keep my mouth shut when I see it before yoooouuuu....