Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

[bad-larry]

Originally Posted by morphinapg

I think you're overreaching with that "some of the VFX" line. There was like, one shot at the end when Banner's head was out in the hulkbuster that looked bad. I didn't notice any other effects in the movie that looked bad.

I don't know, I thought Corvus Glaive and Proxima Midnight looked a bit rushed. Proxima especially - she looked creepy in an uncanny valley way.

Thanos was mostly good, but I thought shots of his hands looked really cartoony.

The Russos can always just shake the camera some more though, that hides VFX shortcomings pretty well

Thank you

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by bad-larry

I don't know, I thought Corvus Glaive and Proxima Midnight looked a bit rushed. Proxima especially - she looked creepy in an uncanny valley way.

Thanos was mostly good, but I thought shots of his hands looked really cartoony.

The Russos can always just shake the camera some more though, that hides VFX shortcomings pretty well

Thank you

I thought those two looked fantastic, and didn't notice any unnatural level of camera shake.

[bad-larry]

Originally Posted by morphinapg

I thought those two looked fantastic, and didn't notice any unnatural level of camera shake.

I don't know what you mean by "unnatural" in this context, but the Russos consistently use hand-held camera to varying degrees in their movies. Hand-held camera makes the image shaky.

I know most people don't notice or don't mind, but it annoys me greatly.

IW wasn't wall-to-wall hand-held camera like Winter Soldier, (which I can't even watch) but it was there.


Thank you

[Cremildo]

Voted four stars in the poll.

I'm glad I watched this on the big screen. It wasn't in my plans. I hadn't seen an MCU movie in the theater since Iron Man (which I didn't like). But this time I could feel it. I could feel why this franchise has become this generation's biggest thing - this era's Star Wars. It gave me more entertainment and awe-factor than the new actual Star Wars movies. Only Chris Nolan blockbusters are on the same level of "this is what big screen events are all about".

And Infinity War is different from the previous ones. It actually has stakes, the villain is truly lethal for a change, the trademark witty banter takes a backseat to the gravitas of the plot. The action scenes are gargantuan in scope and fearsomely well edited. I didn't cry because those superheroes were never part of my childhood or my teenage years, but IW made me respect Marvel as a serious film studio for the first time ever.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Wait, what? Guardians 2 wasn't shot on IMAX. At all. They used the 8K VistaVision RED Dragon and just opened up the mattes for the "IMAX" scenes. As for Doctor Strange they shot predominantly on the large format Alexa 65, using XT for any high-speed work and Super 35 for the early Kathmandu stuff. Ragnarok was also shot mostly on the Alexa 65.

As we know, the "IMAX digital" cameras are basically an Alexa 65 with an IMAX sticker slapped on them which is what makes the ERMAGERD IT WUZ SHOT ENTIRLY UN EYEMAX hype around Infinity War so nonsensical. I'm quite sure it looks fantastic, but true IMAX it is not and removing the letterbox mattes for the whole movie is a rather cynical move as they could've done the exact same thing on any of the movies I've just mentioned.

Eh, hype machine gonna hype.

Premium tickets sell, Geoff boy.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bad-larry

I don't know, I thought Corvus Glaive and Proxima Midnight looked a bit rushed. Proxima especially - she looked creepy in an uncanny valley way.

Thanos was mostly good, but I thought shots of his hands looked really cartoony.

The Russos can always just shake the camera some more though, that hides VFX shortcomings pretty well

Thank you

Oh yes, definitely noticed that on the evil lady. The other dudes were so unreal looking to begin with that there was nothing "uncanny" about them to me, Thanos included, but her visage is so "human" (for want of a better word) that doing it all in CG looked a bit stiff and false, old-fashioned even, like she was entirely keyframed or something. I guess they thought they had to do her all in CG because she a big girl and Thanos and the rest of his crew were also fully CG, but ironically enough it's because she looks the most human in the face that the effects stood out to me as not being quite the full deck.

[Bolty]

I despise shaky cam and I have in fact rented shaky cam movies and 2 minutes in have stopped them.

This movie was not in any way a shaky cam movie. People are using this bogus claim as indirect put down.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bolty

I despise shaky cam and I have in fact rented shaky cam movies and 2 minutes in have stopped them.

This movie was not in any way a shaky cam movie. People are using this bogus claim as indirect put down.

I'm not sure about it being "bogus" as the Russos really do have a very "shaky" style to their action scenes, particularly the hand to hand combat stuff. But what they do so well is track the action from cut to cut, it's not as jarring as a Bourne or whatever because it's not as abstract in the edit; the cuts are mightily quick but they flow very well. Cap vs Bucky in Winter Soldier is one of my favourite movie fights in recent years as they've edited the shit out of it but it tracks brilliantly.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by bad-larry

I don't know, I thought Corvus Glaive and Proxima Midnight looked a bit rushed. Proxima especially - she looked creepy in an uncanny valley way.

I don't care. I'd let her stomp on me.

[dudeabides34]

Tomorrow at 540pm. Seats reserved. it's finally happening. JBX IMAX
Color me stoked!!

[Bolty]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm not sure about it being "bogus" as the Russos really do have a very "shaky" style to their action scenes, particularly the hand to hand combat stuff. But what they do so well is track the action from cut to cut, it's not as jarring as a Bourne or whatever because it's not as abstract in the edit; the cuts are mightily quick but they flow very well. Cap vs Bucky in Winter Soldier is one of my favourite movie fights in recent years as they've edited the shit out of it but it tracks brilliantly.

Yeah, the fights scenes are great. The rest of the movie has zero shake.

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by bad-larry

I don't know what you mean by "unnatural" in this context, but the Russos consistently use hand-held camera to varying degrees in their movies. Hand-held camera makes the image shaky.

I know most people don't notice or don't mind, but it annoys me greatly.

IW wasn't wall-to-wall hand-held camera like Winter Soldier, (which I can't even watch) but it was there.


Thank you

Unnatural would be shake that was intentionally added, not just that naturally happens when you're holding a camera and moving it. Natural handheld motion can really ground a scene, so it's a technique I particularly like for certain types of action, as long as the camera operators are competent and aren't shooting like an amateur, like Cloverfield (although it worked well in that movie because it WAS supposed to be shot by amateurs)

The Greengrass directed Bourne movies would be an example of really poorly done handheld shots. I don't think this movie fits that description.

[dudeabides34]

5 more hours!!

[Cremildo]

There's shaky cam, which can be a useful tool to instill a sense of instability and grittiness, and there's earthquake cam, which makes everything incomprehensible and unpleasant. I didn't see any of the latter in A:IW.

[AdubW1982]

This movie will probably make $2 billion WW.

[yeslek]

Originally Posted by AdubW1982

This movie will probably make $2 billion WW.

Easy

[trevrox]

So what's the deal... this was the first movie ever filmed entirely in IMAX, was supposed to have the IMAX aspect ratio for the movie. I made a trip to the only 4K Laser IMAX in New England but it was not in IMAX aspect ratio... Black bars on top and bottom the whole time. When I saw Black Panther there the IMAX scenes changed aspect ratios.

What gives?!

[punisher]

Originally Posted by AdubW1982

This movie will probably make $2 billion WW.

probably cost close to one to make it..LOL

Finally got to see it today..FANTASTIC....took me completely by surprise at the end...WOW

[bad-larry]

Bundling things together to make it easier to respond AND to make sure it's so long that nobody will read it:

Originally Posted by Bolty

I despise shaky cam and I have in fact rented shaky cam movies and 2 minutes in have stopped them.
This movie was not in any way a shaky cam movie. People are using this bogus claim as indirect put down.

As I said, The Russos have used hand-held camera to some degree in all of their MCU movies. That's not a bogus claim. Hand-held camera results in an unsteady image. That's not a bogus claim.

I don't like hand-held camera, and I wish that it wasn't used as much as it is nowadays. That's my setting. I'll say it as directly and as on-topic as I can: I don't think any of the Russos' MCU movies were made better by the use of hand-held camera.

Originally Posted by Bolty

Yeah, the fights scenes are great. The rest of the movie has zero shake.

Maybe the disconnect here is in semantics. Call it "hand-held", call it "unsteady", call it "wavy gravy", I don't mind. Whatever you choose to name it, it was there in the movie.

The scene where

[Show spoiler]the Guardians were looking at Thor's unconscious body in their ship

. That was unsteady. Or when

[Show spoiler]Spider-Man faded away in Tony's arms

, that was also unsteady. Did the use of hand-held camera make those scenes better than if they were shot on tripods? I certainly don't think so, but I am realistic enough to know that I am going to be shouted down.

Originally Posted by morphinapg

Unnatural would be shake that was intentionally added, not just that naturally happens when you're holding a camera and moving it. Natural handheld motion can really ground a scene, so it's a technique I particularly like for certain types of action, as long as the camera operators are competent and aren't shooting like an amateur, like Cloverfield (although it worked well in that movie because it WAS supposed to be shot by amateurs)

Yes, it is certainly natural in that a human holding a camera without support produces an unsteady image. I disagree that it looks natural or realistic. My world doesn't look like that. The way a camera captures and then displays motion feels unnatural and jarring.

For example, in the scenes I mention above, I would never agree that the motion created by the hand-held camera makes them look more natural. If I was

[Show spoiler]standing on the Guardians' ship looking at Thor,

my world wouldn't be bobbing and weaving like that. If I was

[Show spoiler]Nebula watching Tony's heart break as Spider-Man blinked out,

I wouldn't see it as a swervy, swooshy, seasick movie.

Does the world look like that to you? I am not trying to be snarky, I am genuinely curious. (resisting the urge to hilariously use the "you have a condition" quote...)

Originally Posted by morphinapg

The Greengrass directed Bourne movies would be an example of really poorly done handheld shots. I don't think this movie fits that description.

Yes, for sure there are degrees of shakiness. IW was nowhere near that one Bourne movie, or Beasts of the Southern Whatever, or even Winter Soldier. Obviously this is a matter of opinion and I am aware that I am in the vast, 1 in 14,000,605 minority, but I don't think hand-held camera enhances anything, ever.

Again, my opinion and you will all mostly disagree, but:

I don't think it is "immersive". It has never brought me into a scene because as I said, I don't see things like that. I am neither a neurologist nor an eye specialist, but I don't think the eye/brain team-up processes vision and motion the way a camera does. And not just at rest either. I have never stormed the beaches at Normandy, but I have played a fairly violent full-contact sport for many years and it just doesn't look like that to me.

I disagree that it "creates tension". I think that if you want to create tension in a scene, it should come from a good script, good acting, appropriate lighting/staging/blocking and sound. I think if you have to shake the camera to create tension, that comes off amateurish. Jump scares do not make a master horror director, and tickling someone does not make you a good comedian. (that is paraphrased from something I saw a stand-up comic say, but I forget his name)

And at this point, I feel like hand-held camera is 15 steps beyond played-out. It's used all the time in movies and TV in ways that are clearly just because it's trendy. I have a friend who works in the industry and he tells me of shoots where they were instructed to loosen the gimbals on the camera stands to imitate the shaky style. That didn't come from someone who was making a conscious and informed choice to go for a certain look, that came from a desire to be like everyone else.

Further in that vein it's used in tons of TV commercials now. I can't possibly buy that people feel "immersed" in ads for diapers or prescription drugs due to the use of hand-held camera. And what about TV news programs that swoop and woosh the camera around. What is that about? Does that motion make the news better? I especially see it in weather and sports reports.

Or cartoons! There are animated series and movies that employ a faux hand-held effect. That's just ridiculous. You can't possibly tell me that that makes a computer animated Godzilla cartoon look "natural".

Originally Posted by Cremildo

There's shaky cam, which can be a useful tool to instill a sense of instability and grittiness, and there's earthquake cam, which makes everything incomprehensible and unpleasant. I didn't see any of the latter in A:IW.

I've kind of expended my ammo already, but I just wanted to reiterate that I don't agree that it adds grittiness etc. I think there are better ways to do that. I see hand-held camera like I see celery in chicken salad. Many people don't notice it or if they do they don't mind it. A few people think the texture is a great addition. I see it as cheap filler that adds nothing and is usually there because people think they are supposed to do it not because they genuinely thought it out. (try walnuts or pecans instead of celery!)

This is my opinion. I'm not changing anyone's mind and you are all winning because hand-held camera is not going away.

Thank You

[morphinapg]

Originally Posted by bad-larry

For example, in the scenes I mention above, I would never agree that the motion created by the hand-held camera makes them look more natural. If I was

[Show spoiler]standing on the Guardians' ship looking at Thor,

my world wouldn't be bobbing and weaving like that. If I was

[Show spoiler]Nebula watching Tony's heart break as Spider-Man blinked out,

I wouldn't see it as a swervy, swooshy, seasick movie.

Does the world look like that to you? I am not trying to be snarky, I am genuinely curious. (resisting the urge to hilariously use the "you have a condition" quote...)

The movie didn't look like that to me. I didn't notice any kind of excessive shakiness during those scenes while I was watching. And yes, when you move around in the real world, the image in your eyes actually is somewhat shaky.