I want Marvel Studios to give Warren Ellis the rights to write a script to a Marvel Property. Just give him a laptop and 40 cases of booze and stand back. If the results end up being Nextwave the movie I will throw my wallet so hard to Marvel that sound barriers will be broken.
It's pretty badly done in post conversion or whatever it is called.
I disagree with this. I saw it in 3D and thought it was pretty nicely done for a modification done in post. Yeah, it suffers from the layers effect where you essentially have several 2D characters at various depths, but it was easy to follow and not hard on the eyes at all.
It's pretty badly done in post conversion or whatever it is called.
I disagree with this. I saw it in 3D and thought it was pretty nicely done for a modification done in post. Yeah, it suffers from the layers effect where you essentially have several 2D characters at various depths, but it was easy to follow and not hard on the eyes at all.
I don't know, it might be a shitty projector or my shitty eyesight, but I definitely saw a lot more blurring in this film than I saw in "proper" 3D films
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Yeah... the Destroyer was emphatically not killed by a sword through the spine.
like, they put a sword through the spine, and were distressed by the fact that it didn't kill him.
I wonder if Ebert didn't like the fact that the villains in Superman 2 were killed by a mere helicopter.
I want Marvel Studios to give Warren Ellis the rights to write a script to a Marvel Property. Just give him a laptop and 40 cases of booze and stand back. If the results end up being Nextwave the movie I will throw my wallet so hard to Marvel that sound barriers will be broken.
you and seven other people
0
Options
JimothyNot in front of the foxhe's with the owlRegistered Userregular
When's Ebert gonna put up an Avengers review? Premiere was weeks ago.
It's pretty badly done in post conversion or whatever it is called.
I disagree with this. I saw it in 3D and thought it was pretty nicely done for a modification done in post. Yeah, it suffers from the layers effect where you essentially have several 2D characters at various depths, but it was easy to follow and not hard on the eyes at all.
I don't know, it might be a shitty projector or my shitty eyesight, but I definitely saw a lot more blurring in this film than I saw in "proper" 3D films
To be fair, when I think "shitty post 3D" I think Clash of the Titans levels of bad.
But I saw Hugo a few weeks ago in 3D and I thought the 3D in The Avengers was much better. Maybe because it didn't do any of those "ooooh look things coming at you" things that 3D movies like to do.
I want Marvel Studios to give Warren Ellis the rights to write a script to a Marvel Property. Just give him a laptop and 40 cases of booze and stand back. If the results end up being Nextwave the movie I will throw my wallet so hard to Marvel that sound barriers will be broken.
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
edited April 2012
Ebert has a bad habit of turning off and not paying attention to anything Sci-fantasy. It's pretty much a recurring theme that at some point during anything Sci-fi (with the exception of Hard Sci-fi), he'll switch off and just stop caring enough to pay attention. His Thor Review is much like his Star Trek review, in that it reveals that he zoned out for bits of the movie he wasn't interested in, then blames the movie for his inattention.
Which is fair enough, as it's kind of his job as a critic, and it wouldn't really be an issue if he were honest in being aware of it and presenting his opinion as just that, an opinion. But he tends to try and pass himself off as an impartial authority, and therefore his personal opinion is objective fact, which is kind of galling. Is he a great repository of film knowledge and history, replete with access to research and an understanding of film far surpassing my own? Yes. Does that make his opinion the right one in every instance, even where he has a personal disinterest in the subject material? Far from it.
Samuel L. Jackson struggled to remember his lines when he started shooting superhero action blockbuster The Avengers - because he could only recall half the script page.
The movie star admits the eye patch his character Nick Fury wears played tricks with his mind - and he eventually had to learn his lines with one eye covered.
He tells Entertainment Weekly magazine, "I was trying to remember my lines, but when I got there, I put the eye patch on and could only see half the page in my head.
"I didn't figure it out until halfway through the day. I had to take it (script), cover my eye, and relearn the lines... There was just something in my brain that wouldn't let me learn it with two eyes and then put the patch on and remember them. It was f**ked up."
I want Marvel Studios to give Warren Ellis the rights to write a script to a Marvel Property. Just give him a laptop and 40 cases of booze and stand back. If the results end up being Nextwave the movie I will throw my wallet so hard to Marvel that sound barriers will be broken.
it would be awful
His Marvel anime projects with Madhouse are excellent.
I havent really been a big fan of superhero movies, but I loved this, it almost felt more believable because it was a world full of superheroes, as opposed to 'our' world with just one super dude in it.
Also that something awful review is weird, as I felt there was a lot of poignant and interesting stuff outside of the fact that the action and set pieces were amazingly framed and well done. Like, each line was an interesting little snippet of super-hero contemplation as well as believable as something the character would say.
Also this has had the best opening in Australia save the final Harry Potter, which is pretty crazy.
Green Lantern is awful. Everything in it is badly executed.
I watched the DVD knowing it was bad, and it delivered. I really feel sorry for anyone who saw it in the theater and thus had some hope that it could be good.
Not only were the bad parts bad, but there were bad parts that planted an idea of how they could be cool, and then completely ignored that option and were full-out bad. Which is worse than being plain old bad.
That said, there's maybe... 20 minutes total of cool stuff in the movie, most of which is the training sequence.
I guess it probably is at least a misdemeanor that I've only seen a couple of episodes of Batman: The Brave and the Bold, so I'll get on to that once I finish studying for the night.
Posts
it would be awful
I disagree with this. I saw it in 3D and thought it was pretty nicely done for a modification done in post. Yeah, it suffers from the layers effect where you essentially have several 2D characters at various depths, but it was easy to follow and not hard on the eyes at all.
he really liked Captain America
I don't know, it might be a shitty projector or my shitty eyesight, but I definitely saw a lot more blurring in this film than I saw in "proper" 3D films
like, they put a sword through the spine, and were distressed by the fact that it didn't kill him.
I wonder if Ebert didn't like the fact that the villains in Superman 2 were killed by a mere helicopter.
Jesus Christ Ebert, he had more depth & character than Obadiah Stane ever displayed.
you and seven other people
Watch him be the third negative review.
Also I will genuinely be surprised if he doesn't like it. Thor is the only Marvel movie he hasn't liked.
To be fair, when I think "shitty post 3D" I think Clash of the Titans levels of bad.
But I saw Hugo a few weeks ago in 3D and I thought the 3D in The Avengers was much better. Maybe because it didn't do any of those "ooooh look things coming at you" things that 3D movies like to do.
Also it wouldn't be out until 2043
thor wasn't all that good, and cap was.
Look, Natalie Portman is cool and all. But when I go see Thor, I want to see things being hit by a hammer.
But Thor was great
Which is fair enough, as it's kind of his job as a critic, and it wouldn't really be an issue if he were honest in being aware of it and presenting his opinion as just that, an opinion. But he tends to try and pass himself off as an impartial authority, and therefore his personal opinion is objective fact, which is kind of galling. Is he a great repository of film knowledge and history, replete with access to research and an understanding of film far surpassing my own? Yes. Does that make his opinion the right one in every instance, even where he has a personal disinterest in the subject material? Far from it.
and captain america, with all its montages, almost feels like a propaganda newsreel of a movie...and that makes me like it more
http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/244836
and they were fucking awesome
especially luke cage
Fucking brains, how do they work
especially with that not subtle at all yellowjacket nod
His Marvel anime projects with Madhouse are excellent.
Exactly how bad is Green Lantern.
Also that something awful review is weird, as I felt there was a lot of poignant and interesting stuff outside of the fact that the action and set pieces were amazingly framed and well done. Like, each line was an interesting little snippet of super-hero contemplation as well as believable as something the character would say.
Also this has had the best opening in Australia save the final Harry Potter, which is pretty crazy.
I watched the DVD knowing it was bad, and it delivered. I really feel sorry for anyone who saw it in the theater and thus had some hope that it could be good.
Not only were the bad parts bad, but there were bad parts that planted an idea of how they could be cool, and then completely ignored that option and were full-out bad. Which is worse than being plain old bad.
That said, there's maybe... 20 minutes total of cool stuff in the movie, most of which is the training sequence.
watch cartoons
don't watch GL
Cage and Iron Fist were great
Ultimate Spider-Man was alright, only because of Taskmaster
I guess it probably is at least a misdemeanor that I've only seen a couple of episodes of Batman: The Brave and the Bold, so I'll get on to that once I finish studying for the night.
like, i do think the movie felt a bit limited in scope and loki didn't have quite enough to do
still fantastic though! because every other aspect was brilliant and unlike something awful guy i couldn't overlook that
so the take-home message is that if you actively dislike the avengers then The Avengers is probably not for you
i didn't like it at all when I first saw it but I wouldn't be surprised if it was better the second time around