SPOILER TALK: Avengers: Endgame

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

If you cannot believe a sequel can be a masterpiece.

[John 2,032]

Is Endgame a masterpiece? I don’t think so, but it’s a tremendously entertaining, poignant, and satisfying conclusion to these characters and the MCU, and a film that deserves its acclaim and box office success. 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Spider-Man 2 is a masterpiece.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

 

2 minutes ago, John said:

Is Endgame a masterpiece? I don’t think so, but it’s a tremendously entertaining, poignant, and satisfying conclusion to these characters and the MCU, and a film that deserves its acclaim and box office success. 

 

Would you say it's impossible to be a masterpiece because it's the 20th+ film of a series? Like arpy?

 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

56 minutes ago, Arpy said:

Where did I say that it couldn't be those things? In fact I would agree with you on most of those things - that it was fun, nostalgic and emotional.

 

Where I would diverge in opinion is comparing it to, or suggesting it's in the same league as those other films you suggested - because each of them (Jaws, Star Wars, ET, Titanic, Avatar weren't sequels, they stand or fall by the merits of being original ideas that later spawned franchises. Endgame is a sequel that feels like a sequel - it's like a 'side b' to Infinity War's 'side a' and if I had a list of the all-time classics, Endgame wouldn't be on there, or it would be lumped in with 'MCU Phase 1-3 or whatever...

 

 

You missed my point. In my comparison i wasnt talking about the quality (though I think it is exceptional) I am talking about the capture of interest these film all have in common. There is absolutely no denying that  That you aren't impressed with Endgame as much as some others is cool, but this film has captured something beyond what most film successes do. I for one enjoy seeing its succeed. 

I hope that Rise of Skywalker finds something similar. 

I would argue Skyfall is a masterpiece and its what the 25th Bond film. I know some would argue 

Generally to me a masterpiece has style, great performances, characters you enjoy, spectacle, and quiet human moment. It goes without saying that decent production values are helpful but not necessarily absolute. 

[Arpy 4,145]

31 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

 

Would you say it's impossible to be a masterpiece because it's the 20th+ film of a series? Like arpy?

 

Empire Strikes Back and Return of the King are sequels and I'd call them masterpieces. They're films that display a craft and skill of filmmaking that elevates the story beyond the confined of a genre. All of the creative elements - the acting, the music and the production design/effects act as one voice to make the whole production seem effortless and natural. An emotional component is part of that, yes, but Endgame has such sloppy parts, sloppy CGI, and questionable storytelling.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Annie Hall is a masterpiece.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Lol 

Rotk has each weakness you mentioned arpy. Sloppy cgi, questionable storytelling and battles than are dark and murky. It is hardly a perfect film. Stiill Its is okay as drax would say.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It does.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

EsB unlike Endgame is not as good as the first.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The Disney Marvel movies don't even have Kirsten Dunst. They suck.

[Arpy 4,145]

49 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

Lol 

Rotk has each weakness you mentioned arpy. Sloppy cgi, questionable storytelling and battles than are dark and murky. It is hardly a perfect film. Stiill Its is okay as drax would say.

In the smallest of places, it never stands out though. Endgame is drenched in CGI.

 

I would ask what's questionable about the storytelling in RotK, but if you thought Star Wars was better than ESB, it might just be another can of worms I don't want to open...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

ROTK isn't drenched in CGI?

 

Okay....

[Arpy 4,145]

Just now, Stefancos said:

ROTK isn't drenched in CGI?

 

Okay....

Part of why I love the trilogy as a whole is that it works with the CG it has, it manages to hide it quite well and in the heat of the story, it's used effectively. Not to forget, but most of the technology and software that would later be used on Endgame came from the developments made through the production of the trilogy, for the time it's really impressive that it they made it work the way it did. So, with the trilogy pushing the creativity of two areas of filmmaking, almost twenty years later we get - more obvious CGI? 

 

Maybe that's the difference, the effects being a vehicle for the story, and Endgame, a story as a vehicle for the spectacle resulting in shitty CG.

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 hours ago, Stefancos said:

ROTK isn't drenched in CGI?

 

This focus on production value is getting really, really silly.

 

The story dictates the quality of the film. The quality of the effects is just a technicality.

 

EDIT: This made me smile.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Larry of Arabia achieved all its amazing shots without the crutch of computers. Beat that!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

This focus on production value is getting really, really silly.

 

The story dictates the quality of the film. The quality of the effects is just a technicality.

 

My point exactly!

 

ROTK isn't perfect, it is still a masterpiece.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Indeed. Its not perfect.

 

But its better than a lot of films that are.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Just now, Chen G. said:

My name is Chen, I tend to state the blindingly obvious time and time again and.

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

8 minutes ago, The Original said:

Larry of Arabia achieved all its amazing shots without the crutch of computers. Beat that!

 

And yet it also has a character who turns on a dime at least twice, eac time within the course of a single scene: "I don't want to be on the front-lines anymore, it brings out the worse in me...never mind, I'm going back."

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Thats human nature though.

[Chen G. 3,949]

The idea is that by this stage, he's properly neurotic. But it was always a bit too ubrupt for me.

 

Typically in movies, when this trope gets played out, we spend the course of quiet scene or two with the character and see how he (or she) is just not cut-out for sitting out while their own endeavor gets realized. You'd think that, for a film so leisurely paced, it'll take the time to do so.

[mstrox 6,651]

They managed to make Borat with no CGI.  Why does The Avengers need so much?

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

You can only do that much with a subpar starting point.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

6 hours ago, Arpy said:

In the smallest of places, it never stands out though. Endgame is drenched in CGI.

 

I would ask what's questionable about the storytelling in RotK, but if you thought Star Wars was better than ESB, it might just be another can of worms I don't want to open...

With over 1400+ effects ROTK is drenched in CGI 

But if you thought ESB was better than Star Ward that is another reason why you and I do not see eye to eye. You may even think the ESB soundtrack is superior. The majority here do so you would not be alone. 

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

This focus on production value is getting really, really silly.

 

The story dictates the quality of the film. The quality of the effects is just a technicality.

 

EDIT: This made me smile.

Another pile of utter bullshit being regurgitated by the mighty chen. The quality of a film is totally reliant on production values.without them a film is a book or screenplay. Like it or not effects can drive a story forward. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

To me, the core of any movie are its narrative, its themes, its characterization and plotting, as well as the way in which such elements are directed. Effects are technicalities: they can look like shit and the film - if it got the other elements right - would be an enjoyable, even a great one.

 

Also, when you buy into the story, you can be compelled to believe that the effects are better than they really are. Empire Strikes Back is actually a great example, where - when you first see him - Yoda is very clearly a puppet. But the storytelling is so strong that after a short period of time you get used to it, and you forget that you're looking at a puppet. Actually, that's E.T in a nutshell.

 

That is the power of storytelling - not of effects. And - to bring the discussion full circle back to The Return of the King - you'll find absolutely no piece of storytelling more powerful than:

 

 

To say that I cried doesn't even begin to describe my initial reaction to this scene. So who cares about the CGI in the movie?! Honestly, to pick on that is just pettiness, in my book.

 

Spoiler

In fact, if I were being brutally honest, I would say picking on CGI as the crux of one's criticism of a film is reserved for those who lack the ability to get to the bottom of a story, and so focus on the external and more obvious (but also more superficial) elements of filmmaking, such as the quality of its effects.

 

Even my issues with Endgame aren't in the slightest that its CGI. How else would you do those kinds of setpieces, anyway?

[mstrox 6,651]

No amount of CGI can sap the emotional depth from Legolas surfing down an elephant's trunk.

[Chen G. 3,949]

ITS FUN!

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

Yeah, I love it every time I do it!

[Arpy 4,145]

40 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

With over 1400+ effects ROTK is drenched in CGI 

But if you thought ESB was better than Star Ward that is another reason why you and I do not see eye to eye. You may even think the ESB soundtrack is superior. The majority here do so you would not be alone. 

 

Effects that were essential and necessary to facilitate and convey the story. 

 

I might go off on a little tangent here, but the CG is truly spectacular during the Minas Tirith sequences - especially when Gandalf leads the garrison from Osgiliath back to Minas Tirith, there's this shaky pan that reveals the city right next to them and you wouldn't question that it was out of the ordinary, or that it was a physical place!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

There undoubtedly is CGI in that shot, but it has to be said that Minas Tirith is a physical miniature composited into the frame.  I mean obviously compositing was done in a computer at that point, but Minas Tirith is probably my single favorite miniature in movie history!  Celebrate the practical effects!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I was never caught up in LOTR, I saw them once which was enough. On a black friday I bought two sets one for mom(she liked it a lot) and one for me. Then mom died so I got hers back, married Dave so suddenly I had three copies then my sister inlaw gave me the bluray collection. So then I had 4 sets. Last Christmas I took 52blurays and dvds to work set them on the breakroom table & 30 minutes later they were all gone. We kept the bluray set just in case. Only my mom's set was opened. 

 

I didn't even make a dent in our film collection.

[Chen G. 3,949]

9 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

it has to be said that Minas Tirith is a physical miniature composited into the frame.  I mean obviously compositing was done in a computer at that point, but Minas Tirith is probably my single favorite miniature in movie history!  Celebrate the practical effects!

 

True, but that's still not a practical effect in the sense of something that's actually on the set. Its still trickery of some sort.

 

Besides, the challenge with CGI isn't in those types of wideshots, because you're too far away to scrutinize the effect. Its more in a medium shot that you'd want stuff to be practical.

 

And yeah, I love Minas Tirith. Its just so impressive as a concept.

[Arpy 4,145]

5 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

There undoubtedly is CGI in that shot, but it has to be said that Minas Tirith is a physical miniature composited into the frame.  I mean obviously compositing was done in a computer at that point, but Minas Tirith is probably my single favorite miniature in movie history!  Celebrate the practical effects!

Yes, it's a marvel of planning the shot with a motion rig, compositing elements into the frame, and a CG overlay for other effects, atop an awesome shot of physical riders on physical horses on a real field with real mountains!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

The big-atures segments were always among my favorites in the DVD appendices.  There's something so satisfying about a great miniature.

 

Just now, Arpy said:

Yes, it's a marvel of planning the shot with a motion rig, compositing elements into the frame, and a CG overlay for other effects, atop an awesome shot of physical riders on physical horses on a real field with real mountains!

 

Yeah!  When you've got so many different elements coming together to make a great effects shot, I love it!

[Holko 9,516]

Actually the Pelennor was a completely digital creation, 360 degrees, made up from tons of reference photos of actual ground and mountains and sky but not a 1:1 recreation of a real place at all. So it's that panorama+the bigature+the riders shot probably against a blue/greenscreen+grading and other effects on top.

[Arpy 4,145]

Even though I always felt the shot going into the pits beneath Orthanc was a bit wonky, I never realized it was actually a bigature until I saw that segment! It's crazy the amount of artistry that went into those films for those shots!

3 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

The big-atures segments were always among my favorites in the DVD appendices.  There's something so satisfying about a great miniature.

 

 

Yeah!  When you've got so many different elements coming together to make a great effects shot, I love it!

 

[Fabulin 3,511]

.

[Chen G. 3,949]

The battle is so complex that to hold it in a more complicated topography would have been one step too many, I think.

 

Which - to contrast with Endgame - isn't to say that there's no using of the environment in the course of the action. The topography does plays a part in the arrival of the Rohirrim (who emerge from the high-ground), of Aragorn (who arrives from the nearby river) and in Faramir's assault on Osgiliath; and obviously there's interaction with the city's landscape, which is inherent to this being a siege battle. 

 

The Battle of Stirling also takes place on flat ground, and yet its the best battle in film history.

[Arpy 4,145]

1 minute ago, Fabulin said:

Still a pity the battle took place in an empty map editor in front of a logistically ridiculous city.

TBH I was disappointed the Orcs didn't come through portals that came from the sky through which giant flying centipedes came... Oh wait.

[mstrox 6,651]

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

The Battle of Stirling also takes place on flat ground, and yet its the best battle in film history.

 

Which one is that?  The one at the end of Hobbit?

[Fabulin 3,511]

.

 

[Holko 9,516]

We already had the burning of a Rohan village early in TTT.

 

Mental gymnastics for no crops anywhere outside the Shire: it's winter in TTT, early March in RotK.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Silvestri's Avengers scores > Shore's LotR scores.

[Fabulin 3,511]

.

[Jurassic Shark 12,053]

I haven't listened much to the Avengers scores, but they're probably better than TTT and RotK.

[Chen G. 3,949]

I like the main Avengers theme, and that's about it when it comes to music from the MCU.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Its the most distinctive theme.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

9 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

I haven't listened much to the Avengers scores, but they're probably better than TTT and RotK.

There is an entire sub forum to discuss that lotr stuff

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 minute ago, Stefancos said:

Its the most distinctive theme.

 

Its a really nice tune! 

 

But I suppose it only stands out as much as it does because so much of the material surrounding it is just...not good.