|
CelticPredator posted:Is it not? They show the jet, and then REALLY huge closeup of the jet's machine gun firing. There's nothing to compare the gun to, so, no, it's not shown as a "giant" machine gun. There's a lot i like in Cap 2, but that scene is one of the less exciting and interesting-looking ones.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:You mean aside from Downy showing up at the end and it being directly referenced and shown in Iron Man 2? CelticPredator posted:Is it not?  SuperMechagodzilla posted:Look at it. It's tiny. And here are the road spikes underneath: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Hat, I did find the official clip, my bad. Sir Kodiak posted:There's nothing to compare the gun to, so, no, it's not shown as a "giant" machine gun. I don't know, this implies scale pretty well for me.  CHA-KA  Right in your face. Even closer in 3D! That's a big gun. I mean, I don't see why you need Cap standing next to the gun to imply scale, when they literally shove the thing in your face. And then there's this shot.  That's a big rear end plane. I don't see how that couldn't be perceived as a threat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Right in your face. Even closer in 3D! That's a big gun. I mean, I don't see why you need Cap standing next to the gun to imply scale, when they literally shove the thing in your face. Have you seriously never seen a close-up of a small object in a movie?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Oh, I have. But why would that gun be tiny? What would the point of that? How could anyone even have the idea that it is a small gattling gun? I'm trying to figure this out. I mean, it's not my favorite looking movie, but I don't see how someone could watch that scene and say "Oh, the gun is small and not a threat to Captain America."
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
The gun actually does look pretty small in the shot. It takes up a tiny fraction of the available space when it pops out, and following that first shot of the jet hovering - where the jet looks kinda (relatively, for a jet) tiny just makes it worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:How could anyone even have the idea that it is a small gattling gun? I'm trying to figure this out. I mean, it's not my favorite looking movie, but I don't see how someone could watch that scene and say "Oh, the gun is small and not a threat to Captain America." The claim is not that "the movie is communicating that the gun is small and unthreatening." The claim is that the movie is not visually communicating "the gun is large and threatening."
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Well, I guess this is an agree to disagree thing. I don't know. I never had a problem with those shots. Although the jet isn't a real kind of jet, and it is the same one used in The Avengers. So it might be smaller than a real sized jet but it's a decent sized plane, I suppose. Although, new idea, one that does dispute everything I've said before, maybe that was the point? Maybe you're supposed to think that way. The shot context was viewed from Cap's point of view. Which makes the plane completely non-threatening, and easy to take down? CelticPredator fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Action cinematography in a movie that is being highly praised for its action should aspire to be better than the standard of "not having a problem."
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Again it is very much an "agree to disagree" issue here. I never had a problem with those shots either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Again it is very much an "agree to disagree" issue here. I never had a problem with those shots either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Although, new idea, one that does dispute everything I've said before, maybe that was the point? Maybe you're supposed to think that way. The shot context was viewed from Cap's point of view. Which makes the plane completely non-threatening, and easy to take down? Sir Kodiak posted:It would be a lot more engaging if the jet and spikes were really intimidating but Captain America was so amazing he overcomes them, rather than communicating that they aren't a threat before he bypasses them. You know, build tension, then release it. This is, after all, supposed to be an escalation from the elevator fight. Further, it's not "completely non-threatening." It's just not not impressively threatening. It's not played for humor or character insight. So, then, what is the value of the scene? mind the walrus posted:Again it is very much an "agree to disagree" issue here. I never had a problem with those shots either. Sir Kodiak posted:Action cinematography in a movie that is being highly praised for its action should aspire to be better than the standard of "not having a problem."
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:Neither did I, but that doesn't mean they're without problems. Of course not, but it's also not a game to try and convince people who didn't have a problem with those shots that they need to do a 180 on their original opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Of course not, but it's also not a game to try and convince people who didn't have a problem with those shots that they need to do a 180 on their original opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
What's the value of it? To show that Captain America can take down a jet. As well as jumping off a building, as well as beating 7 people in a small metal box. To show that Captain America isn't someone to be messed with. As well as to show Hydra is willing to go far to take this dude down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:... therefore there's no point putting forward an opinion that is different to theirs. Yes. That's exactly what I said and I'll fight you if you try to say otherwise. No seriously though that's not what I said. It's fine to put forth another opinion but there's a difference between debate and argument, and most people in this thread could use a primer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:What's the value of it? [...] To show that Captain America isn't someone to be messed with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:No seriously though that's not what I said. It's fine to put forth another opinion but there's a difference between debate and argument, and most people in this thread could use a primer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Holy loving poo poo, shut the gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:What's the value of it? To show that Captain America can take down a jet. As well as jumping off a building, as well as beating 7 people in a small metal box. To show that Captain America isn't someone to be messed with. As well as to show Hydra is willing to go far to take this dude down. And how is this served by not making the efforts to take him down as impressive as possible?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Right in your face. Even closer in 3D! That's a big gun. I mean, I don't see why you need Cap standing next to the gun to imply scale, when they literally shove the thing in your face. It's a close up, and in table-breaking size, but look at the other compositional elements. The gun is isolated in the middle of the frame. Why is there so much empty space on either side? You can see a whole wide expanse of water and trees. Cap is offscreen, but we know from earlier shots that he is in front of and below the plane. However: the gun is pointing at a slight upwards angle, making the plane seem like it's lower to the ground and/or smaller than it 'actually' is. If it is pointing at Cap, Cap must be above the plane. (If it's not pointing at cap, that kinda defeats the point of the shot.) In Predator, when Jesse Ventura goes nuts with his (presumably much smaller) minigun, a similar shot is thrown in for a split-second, and is used to show the muzzle flash eclipsing most of screen.  Jesse's body fills the entire frame, and the background is squeezed off to the left, entirely out of focus. Besides the gun itself, and the fire, Jesse's arm and the harness with the knife attached are the next most prominent elements. The composition is pretty simple, but the shot only lasts for the blink of an eye. The gun itself isn't terribly imposing or anything. The point of a shot like this is to amplify the explosion of fire, and to emphasize that it is being wielded - hence the arm, and the knife, and the harness. The Cap 2 shot has, like, a river.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Holy poo poo this is a dumb loving tangent. Let's talk about something more important: Thor and Thor 2 and my needing to throw down against anyone who hates those movies. Thor and Thor 2 are two of my favorite MCU movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
I love Thor 2. I also love Thor 1. They aren't my favorite, but I think they both do some really cool and interesting things. It's a tangible detail, but the rainbow bridge is one of my favorite visual effects in the MCU. It looks so dope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
I've never understood the problems that people had with Thor or Thor 2, or with Jane or Darcy or any of the scenes on Asgard, or anything like that. "Whimsy?? In superhero films???"
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
I found a lot of the Earth stuff in Thor 1 boring, and it's my least favorite of the Marvel movies. But Thor 2 fixed all those problems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
I thought the shot comparison was interesting, personally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Okay...I see what you're saying, but I don't agree. It just seems like a nitpick to me. It's just storytelling through the visual medium. So he's saying that the story is being told poorly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 12:24
|
|
|
I didn't really like Thor 2. I probably liked Thor 1 better. Thor 2 was just kind of dull I did really like the elf designs but they too, were just kind of dull in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:I didn't really like Thor 2. I probably liked Thor 1 better. At least no more dutch angles! And Thor getting teleported to the subway was funnier than anything in Thor 1.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
I like the Thor movies, but I think they're not particularly good. 2 especially has problems for me, foremost among them that the villain is barely in the movie. I think Frieg and Sif have more lines than he does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I like the Thor movies, but I think they're not particularly good. 2 especially has problems for me, foremost among them that the villain is barely in the movie. I think Frieg and Sif have more lines than he does. I don't see that as a problem. The tornado in Twister didn't have any lines either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Natalie Portman's role in Thor 2: 1. Fall in a hole. 2. Become ill and faint. 3. Hide in a closet while Thor's mom gets her poo poo kicked in. 4. Get kidnapped anyway, making her sacrifice utterly pointless. 5. Return to Earth and help Kat Dennings push buttons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
I loved the Thor movies, they were just plain fun to watch. Which is exactly what I want from my comic book movies. The MCU has had some really fun movies save for a couple(The Incredibly Boring Hulk and Ironically Less of a Man 2).
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I don't see that as a problem. The tornado in Twister didn't have any lines either. Yeah, Thor 2's villain has very simple motivations (revenge) and is a very simple character just in general. And that's perfectly fine because not every villain has to be a philosophical megalomaniac. Honestly, if you took out the twist in DKR (as in, made it explicit from the start) that's basically what Bane would be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, Thor 2's villain has very simple motivations (revenge) and is a very simple character just in general. And that's perfectly fine because not every villain has to be a philosophical megalomaniac. I liked that Thor 2's villain was secondary in the story. The story isn't about the conflict between Thor and him. It happens, it is kind of the B-storyline compared to the Thor/Loki relationship taking the A-storyline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
I suppose I'm a heretic, then, in that Loki bores me. He was good in Thor 1 and adequate enough in Avengers, but I think he ran his course after that. Good actor with a lot of charisma to be sure, but the character has overstayed his welcome with me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Perhaps I've drunk too much of Marvels shared universe kool-aid, but the main thing that disappointed me about Thor 2 is that we had a climactic battle in London and we didn't get a single Captain Britain or MI13 reference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I love Thor 2. I also love Thor 1. They aren't my favorite, but I think they both do some really cool and interesting things. It's a tangible detail, but the rainbow bridge is one of my favorite visual effects in the MCU. It looks so dope. Do they sell a toy of the rainbow bridge? Possibly with the special edition DVD??
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Davoren posted:Perhaps I've drunk too much of Marvels shared universe kool-aid, but the main thing that disappointed me about Thor 2 is that we had a climactic battle in London and we didn't get a single Captain Britain or MI13 reference. Probably because Fox is trying to prove they own the rights to CB.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
 Here's the shot where the harrier is introduced in True Lies. In motion, it rises up to fully eclipse the cityscape in the background, so that the first thing you see is just the narrow tail fin. Cameron does not use a shot like the one in Cap 2, showing the full length of the plane, to convey power and menace. He uses a similar shot to briefly establish the specific location of the plane in relation to the terrorists before the mayhem begins. The shot above is the one used to actually convey the power and menace of the vehicle, in relation to a mere man. If you look at the Cap 2 shot, it's obvious that they put the tiny shield at the bottom of the image to show how fragile the star of freedom is, in the face of this black machine (so much for being banal on purpose). The filmmakers aren't total idiots. They just, for whatever reason, used the type of shot that James Cameron would use as a simple establishing shot as their 'oh poo poo' moment, instead of making the fighter jet into a looming presence. The fighter scene Cap 2 is actually extremely similar to the scene in Man Of Steel where Superman is brought aboard Faora's spaceship in the desert. The shots chosen for the space-ship landing are nearly identical. The problem is that, in Snyder's film, this is a dialogue scene designed to convey a vague unease - not an action sequence. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:36
|
|