The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - Part 140

[J.Howlett]

Pretty much. Though he seems to have a very specific idea about what a Batman movie should be like lots of fans do, so I don't hold it against him.

At least he's not as bad as Harry Knowles.

I finally, finally read his Dark Knight Rises review. That should've been the nail in the coffin when it comes to trusting as a credible critic/blogger.

That review was horrendous.

 

[The Chris]

yeah I actially stopped reading his reviews after that. I still read the other critics' reviews on aint it cool but I just said "ok youre a fool" after that one. oh and though I love avengers to death (my number 4 out of 111 movies this year), I can definitely see what wally is saying about the cinematography, though I do like how comic booky it is.

 

[J.Howlett]

yeah I actially stopped reading his reviews after that. I still read the other critics' reviews on aint it cool but I just said "ok youre a fool" after that one. oh and though I love avengers to death (my number out of 111 movies this year), I can definitely see what wally is saying about the cinematography, though I do like how comic booky it is.

You saw 111 movies this year? Damn, I need to up my game. But, children get in the way.

 

[Caped Crusader]

What I find funny is McGarvey will be working with Goyer on Godzilla

 

[Caped Crusader]

And like most I cannot wait to watch all 3 films in a row. I honestly can't just pick one as my favorite nor do I think I want to & that is what I love so much about this franchise.

 

[mclay18]

I'm with Pfister. I hated McGarvey's cinematography & the fact that they shot the film in flat (1:85).

It was Whedon's decision to shoot digitally and in the 1.85:1 ratio, not McGarvey's. Whedon pretty much abandoned film when he did Dollhouse S2 and Dr. Horrible, and McGarvey was film-only up until The Avengers. I do question them using the 1.85:1 frame since Whedon used the 2.40:1 for Serenity to great effect.

McGarvey's been doing cinematography as long as Pfister has, so don't diss his work as amateurish. TA may not have the kind of polish and veneer Nolan's Batman trilogy had with the 35mm and IMAX footage, but there are some gorgeous shots there. There's even a few that are Nolan-esque in terms of composition and lighting.

Pfister is a champion DP & he hates digital. That's why I respect the hell outta that guy.

There's a difference between airing your opinions and then being tactless. Pfister's comments come off as petty jealousy (aren't all cinematographers supposed to show off the sets as well?), and he should know better than to just shoot his mouth off like that.

Especially since he is guilty of doing similar rule-breakers -- like the TDK car chase which breaks a lot of editorial and cinematography rules. So look who's calling the kettle black, Wally.

 

[BatLobster]

At least he's not as bad as Harry Knowles.

I finally, finally read his Dark Knight Rises review. That should've been the nail in the coffin when it comes to trusting as a credible critic/blogger.

That review was horrendous.

Yeah that review is flat out embarrassing. The belligerent rantings and ravings of a ******** manchild...nay, manbaby.

And like most I cannot wait to watch all 3 films in a row. I honestly can't just pick one as my favorite nor do I think I want to & that is what I love so much about this franchise.

Likewise

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

It was Whedon's decision to shoot digitally and in the 1.85:1 ratio, not McGarvey's. Whedon pretty much abandoned film when he did Dollhouse S2 and Dr. Horrible, and McGarvey was film-only up until The Avengers. I do question them using the 1.85:1 frame since Whedon used the 2.40:1 for Serenity to great effect.

McGarvey's been doing cinematography as long as Pfister has, so don't diss his work as amateurish. TA may not have the kind of polish and veneer Nolan's Batman trilogy had with the 35mm and IMAX footage, but there are some gorgeous shots there. There's even a few that are Nolan-esque in terms of composition and lighting.



There's a difference between airing your opinions and then being tactless. Pfister's comments come off as petty jealousy (aren't all cinematographers supposed to show off the sets as well?), and he should know better than to just shoot his mouth off like that.

Especially since he is guilty of doing similar rule-breakers -- like the TDK car chase which breaks a lot of editorial and cinematography rules. So look who's calling the kettle black, Wally.

Pfister's ten times the DP McGarvey is.

I just don't like his eye. There are shots in Avengers that are simply awful.

I agree though that not all the blame should go to McGarvey but also to Whedon - but frankly, who cares? Whedon's poorly-shot/well-written popcorn movie made $624 Million Domestic.

Its fun to hear Pfister give it to these guys for poor cinematography though. Won't matter in the end but its still fun to read.

 

[antovolk]

Already posted this in the Fan Videos thread, so hope this is ok, but here is my new Trilogy trailer...let me know what you think!

 

[Tequilla]

Especially since he is guilty of doing similar rule-breakers -- like the TDK car chase which breaks a lot of editorial and cinematography rules. So look who's calling the kettle black, Wally.

There's nothing wrong with breaking rules (i recommend some 50-70's japanese cinema , they were mavericks in distorting some filmm-grammar established 30 years ago.) and that is not the question here (much less Wally's involvement in editing). He stated his opinion about how that movie looks visually. Its abysmal. To me it's unacceptable a 250 million dollar movie looks that bad. And to me that is a big surprise , especially because seamus mcgarvey is a competent dp. But we never know what happens on a movie set (and Whedon's work usually look kinda bad visually).

As for the 1:85:1 choice ...maybe they were thinking about the 3d conversion. If it wasnt because of that , i think its a bizarre choice to abandon scope.

Film vs digital...there's more than enough room for everybody

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Its abysmal. To me it's unacceptable a 250 million dollar movie looks that bad.

Agreed.

Amateur hour, Mr. McGarvey.

 

[CConn]

Yeah, McGarvey isn't good at all.

It was the one definite aspect of the film I immediately noticed as subpar upon first viewing.

 

[mclay18]

I just don't like his eye. There are shots in Avengers that are simply awful.

I disagree. A bit amateurish in places, but I just re-watched the battle royale of The Avengers right now and none of the camerawork there was off-putting or weird. I don't think Whedon was looking to ape the smooth, glossy look of the Nolan Batman films or even the first three X-Men films.

I will admit Pfister's work on BB and TDKR, looks-wise, beat McGarvey's Avengers by a country mile. But the filmmakers weren't aiming for a slick style anyway, and it worked for TA.

But it would've been interesting to see how Jack N. Green or Pfister (both film proponents) would've lit and shot The Avengers. But Pfister could've been more tactful about criticizing the camerawork, since the way he said it makes him seem jealous.

 

[BatLobster]

I think Pfister honestly just doesn't go for those types of action movies, they're not his sensibility. He also said he hates Michael Bay and gets into arguments with Nolan over that because Nolan likes him. It's nothing any Avengers fan should take personally.

 

[solidsnake86]

Especially since he is guilty of doing similar rule-breakers -- like the TDK car chase which breaks a lot of editorial and cinematography rules. So look who's calling the kettle black, Wally.

Are you referring to that video that breaks down the chase scene in TDK? because a film maker wrote a rebuttal to it which I found an interesting read. Here is the link http://josephkahn.blogspot.com/2011/09/analyzing-action.html

Some shots in the avengers looked really good, others looked very poor. It's not like Wally is saying anything shocking considering this has been a common complaint since the first trailers were released.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I agree with everyone here. Cinematography is the one thing TDKR destroys Avengers at, which looked rather uninspired sometimes.

 

[Alex Logan]

My opinion is better than yours.

Seriously? You must be joking.

Isn't it funny how most people on internet forums know how to make a better movie than most film makers?

It's very funny.

 

[Alex Logan]

I liked Avengers, it was a good entertaining movie and I don't agree with Wally Pfister's comments, but I feel that Critics were rather generous to Avengers, they gave it a higher rating than it deserved.

I mean it has got a top critic rating of 84 % and overall rating of 92 %, which is needlessly very high.

They were overly generous. Best superhero movie ever? Come on... There are ten films that are better "superhero" movies than Avengers.

I dont understand why people defend Avengers like it's the greatest thing on earth. It's a goofy action movie that was created so people can have fun with some laughs and popcorn. It just is what it is. It's basically Transformers for superheroes.

Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. But getting all offended (im seeing it on other sites now lol) cuz Wally Pfister puts down their use of the camera? Grow up.

One shot that always annoys me to no end is when they all have their backs to one another and the camera just rotates around them. "Let's get every character in one frame, one by one, it'll be perfect for the trailer!"......that's the whole vibe i got.

But it is what it is.

They defend it because the ultimate "geek out" movie. Avengers has more flaws than ANY superhero film I've seen... ever. I bought it on bluray and was bored halfway in.

I walked out of Rises thinking it was my favorite out of the 3. But that's cuz i was on that natural high. Now i just consider all 3 to be on the same level (for me personally). I just can't choose one over the other. I tried and it's impossible lol.

So i now look at it like it's one huge story that's seperated into 3 big chapters. Which is what it is anyhow. A real trilogy, not just 1 movie and two sequels and then the fans call it a trilogy cuz they simply stopped making more films. It really is like one huge story for Bruce Wayne so i can't name a single favorite.

What a great way to look at it.

 

[Alex Logan]

Are you referring to that video that breaks down the chase scene in TDK?

The guy making that video coudn't even figure out which side of the truck Harvey was sitting on. They show you which side he's sitting on when he climbs into the truck.

 

[CConn]

I feel like this is a bigger argument than it should be.

1. Pfister's feelings on The Avengers aren't really condemnation of the entire movie. Rather, he's merely commenting on the cinematography. Now, I'm sure it does negatively affect his enjoyment of the film, but it's not like he said the entire movie is awful or Joss Whedon sucks, or DC pwns Marvel or anything.

2. Pfister is a professional - and accomplished - cinematographer. So yes, that does mean he knows more than any of us. I don't care if you've watched a million movies (lord knows, I have), I don't care if you graduated from The Royal Academy of Film Production in London, Ontario, you haven't been nominated for Oscars, you're not as good as Wally Pfister.

3. Film is always - of course - an artistic and intereptative medium. Just because an expert doesn't like it, doesn't mean you have to dislike it too. If you liked the wonky camera angels and über-lit set pieces of Avengers, good for you. Pfister's comments should have no bearing on that one way or another.

4. Cinematography is just one aspect of many in a film - and to mirror what I said in my first point - just because you love Captain America, or Chris Hemsworth's muscly chest or the Avengger's thrilling story, doesn't mean you have to love absolutely everything about it. It's okay to say - yeah, I enjoyed the hell out of Avengers, but the cinematography could be better. It's not a war, it's not an all or nothing thing. And that type of thinking belongs in kindergartens, not in a mature and intelligent society.

 

[Alex Logan]

I feel like this is a bigger argument than it should be.

1. Pfister's feelings on The Avengers aren't really condemnation of the entire movie. Rather, he's merely commenting on the cinematography. Now, I'm sure it does negatively affect his enjoyment of the film, but it's not like he said the entire movie is awful or Joss Whedon sucks, or DC pwns Marvel or anything.

2. Pfister is a professional - and accomplished - cinematographer. So yes, that does mean he knows more than any of us. I don't care if you've watched a million movies (lord knows, I have), I don't care if you graduated from The Royal Academy of Film Production in London, Ontario, you haven't been nominated for Oscars, you're not as good as Wally Pfister.

3. Film is always - of course - an artistic and intereptative medium. Just because an expert doesn't like it, doesn't mean you have to dislike it too. If you liked the wonky camera angels and über-lit set pieces of Avengers, good for you. Pfister's comments should have no bearing on that one way or another.

4. Cinematography is just one aspect of many in a film - and to mirror what I said in my first point - just because you love Captain America, or Chris Hemsworth's muscly chest or the Avengger's thrilling story, doesn't mean you have to love absolutely everything about it. It's okay to say - yeah, I enjoyed the hell out of Avengers, but the cinematography could be better. It's not a war, it's not an all or nothing thing. And that type of thinking belongs in kindergartens, not in a mature and intelligent society.

Very well said.

 

[BH/HHH]

Am I the only one who thought Matthew Modine was awful in this film? I really think they could've just cut his character out.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

Am I the only one who thought Matthew Modine was awful in this film? I really think they could've just cut his character out.

I was more annoyed with his writing than his performance. I didn't care for how he took seemingly every opportunity to throw the insult "hothead" at John Blake.

Or that Joker didn't return to paint the smile on his face, just for fans of Full Metal Jacket.

 

[Travesty]

Am I the only one who thought Matthew Modine was awful in this film? I really think they could've just cut his character out.

His character was needed for his dramatically beautiful death.

 

[CConn]

It wasn't that Modine was awful, it's that his character was awful.

My friends and I started laughing every time appeared on screen.