Good Job Bob
Member
Just watched that clip.That kind of struck me as weird too. Felt like a very TV budget thing to do.
Wow, it really does look like a low budget TV show; fucking Whedon.
Just watched that clip.That kind of struck me as weird too. Felt like a very TV budget thing to do.
Uh huh, yeah, that's the fans' fault. Not like every damn time she's on screen she's in some ridiculous pose to show off her body.Joss Whedon said:All I can say is that Scarlett gets to do a lot more than be hot in "Avengers". It's definitely dispiriting to have a woman play an heroic role and then be reduced to body parts by fan commentary, but that can only change slowly. And is.
Uh huh, yeah, that's the fans' fault. Not like every damn time she's on screen she's in some ridiculous pose to show off her body.
Her normal scenes involve her knocking out people with her hair.It's entirely possible that they only showed ridiculous poses in the trailers because they are avoiding story spoilers and her normal scenes involve story spoilers.
Don't watch the TV spots. The one I saw today had Hawkeye and it ruined on the arrows work.I've only watched the official full trailer and the black widow jiggle scene. I've decided to watch nothing else to avoid spoilers.
Her normal scenes involve her knocking out people with her hair.
Her normal scenes involve her knocking out people with her hair.
Y do u think she's an Avenger. U think those r ordinary hair. It secretes venomous poison. Black WidowHer normal scenes involve her knocking out people with her hair.
Almost everything about this shot is inexcusably bad, from the conception of it through to the execution. Holy crap.
Her breasts are the exception
This is exactly how I imagined this film looking when Joss Whedon was announced as it's director. I'm almost impressed with myself.
Yes, you're a fortune-teller because you can point out the obvious.
Based on this thread, I feel like I am crazy for thinking this movie looks good, technically speaking. I have no problem with this "looks like TV" nonsense, I guess I just do not care I guess.
Dude, the lighting is in no way moody or gritty or stylistic enough. It obviously looks like shit.
It's amazing how Spider-Man wasn't gritty in the slightest and managed not to look flat.
Bill Pope.
Do we know yet why Stark is back to the circle-plated chest? I mean, actual story reasons, and not the actual reason which is 'Joss liked it more.' I'm assuming that continuity is actually important to Marvel with regard to this project.
LOL do you really want to go there? Whedon has fucking Seamus McGarvey at his disposal. The man has been the DP on Joe Wright's films. Atonement is one of the most stunning looking films of the last decade.
The director chooses his DP and a lot of the look comes out of the way they collaborate. It is no surprise that this film has the same cheap look as every other piece of shit Whedon got his fingers in.
What you can't do is try to suggest the director of photgraphy on The Avengers is the problem.
Yup, every time McGarvey set up his lighting in an visually dynamic way, Whedon said "Yeah I like what you're getting at there, but try to make it look a bit more flat... imagine that we are making a TV show on a limited budget".
Yup, every time McGarvey set up his lighting in an visually dynamic way, Whedon said "Yeah I like what you're getting at there, but try to make it look a bit more flat... imagine that we are making a TV show on a limited budget".
Yup, every time McGarvey set up his lighting in an visually dynamic way, Whedon said "Yeah I like what you're getting at there, but try to make it look a bit more flat... imagine that we are making a TV show on a limited budget".
It's certainly more believable that the director with a history of cheap looking productions that hint at no fore-thought into how he's going to shoot his scenes is continuing that streak than to believe the director of photography renowned for his excellent work suddenly decided to ape Whedon's previous output against Joss' will.
It is no surprise that this film has the same cheap look as every other piece of shit Whedon got his fingers in.
It's certainly more believable that the director with a history of cheap looking productions that hint at no fore-thought into how he's going to shoot his scenes is continuing that streak
It's certainly more believable that the director with a history of cheap looking productions that hint at no fore-thought into how he's going to shoot his scenes is continuing that streak than to believe the director of photography renowned for his excellent work suddenly decided to ape Whedon's previous output against Joss' will.
Hahaha, oh wow, you actually have no idea what you're talking about.
I dare you to tell me this isn't an exceptionally well-written and more importantly, directed scene:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j6A0WHQSpfI&api_format=3&vndel=results
Whedon's directorial feature filmography:
-Serenity
-The Avengers
Serenity may not have been able to do what District 9 did with 30 million dollars, but it certainly didn't look like shit for it's budget.
I'm not saying that true talent to make a digitally captured frame have depth doesn't exist (i.e. David Fincher + Jeff Cronenweth). I'm saying that I think if Whedon told the After Effects dude to pump up the contrast, ratchet down the saturation, and maybe throw on a nice film grain filter, the negative backlash to the "look" of the movie would be immensely reduced.
It's *really* nothing special.
I haven't watched this scene, but it doesn't surprise that he'd be able to direct a few scenes of a TV series spanning 100+ hours well.Hahaha, oh wow, you actually have no idea what you're talking about.
I dare you to tell me this isn't an exceptionally well-written and more importantly, directed scene:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j6A0WHQSpfI&api_format=3&vndel=results
It's the other way around. But for Whedon, he looks at something like this:
http://newcomicreviews.com/unsorted/6/1/avengersstrikeoneandamiss.gif[img]
and says "good enough." Either he's not gonna put in the effort to make it look better or he hasn't got the talent.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://f.cl.ly/items/3B3M3o0R461Q3G461f0T/lol.gif Oh man that's good. I don't even know which specific part of your stupidity I should bold, since it's all quite ridiculous. Do you watch movies?
1. I said 'Productions' not films. It includes his TV stuff.
2. There are many people besides Fincher and team that can shoot good looking digital footage. You are also acting as if directors and their DP's don't go through extensive periods of camera tests during pre-production to nail down the look that they want. This is the aesthetic that Whedon has said 'Yes. I'm happy with that' to. There is a reason why even outside of this forum there are people saying it looks cheap. It isn't just a few of us.
You really don't need to start using maybe's and what if's to start trying to concoct imaginary situations where Whedon as acting director didn't get to call the shots that a director is in charge of. I'm sure once the film comes out and he sees what he's being criticized on, he'll be able to blame other people without any help from his fans.
There's no "what if" involved when it comes to the fact that being a writer/director on a summer tentpole is hard as fuck. Let alone for someone whose entire career was in TV. There's also no "what if" that Whedon was hired because he had the best nerd cred/pricetag ratio that Marvel was willing to shell out for, and because he can't go around making demands when he should consider this opportunity a gift from the producers. It's not an imaginary situation that he is under enormous pressure, and also enormous constraint. "Oh, what's that Joss? You want to block out that many camera positions for this little dialogue scene? Well, the water simulation for the helicarrier CGI is starting to look awfully expensive...". If you're gonna give him 100% of the blame if the movie is bad, he should get 100% of the credit if the movie is great.
Do we know yet why Stark is back to the circle-plated chest? I mean, actual story reasons, and not the actual reason which is 'Joss liked it more.' I'm assuming that continuity is actually important to Marvel with regard to this project.
Do we know yet why Stark is back to the circle-plated chest? I mean, actual story reasons, and not the actual reason which is 'Joss liked it more.' I'm assuming that continuity is actually important to Marvel with regard to this project.
What the fuck is this shit?
Just chillin, drinkin, having small talk about what we should or not do regarding the fate of the earth.
"Don't know if I should do this"
"Well you shouldn't"
"Why?"
"We have a Hulk"
"Didn't he piss off?"
"Doesn't matter, we team of OG's, we avenge earth"
"hmmm, let me think about it while I look at the city"
Badass motherfuckers
I can't tell if you like it or not. :lol
Did you get the sense from that scene that Loki is a mischievous, dangerous, intelligent demigod that is looking to conquer Earth?
I might obviously be blowing out of proportion but it looked like they were having a pretty calm moment considering the situation, intelligently talking about the ifs, no harm done, not feelings hurt.
Just rationally talking to each other, chillin.