The Avengers: Age of Ultron

[Score_Fan 36]

The infinity gauntlet is a glove Thanos wears, which is comprised of the Infinity Gems (The different Gems representing Time, Matter, Soul, Space, Reality, Mind). Basically, if you have the Gauntlet, you can do whatever the fuck you want.

[crocodile 8,372]

And it can be seen in Thor.

Karol

[Jay 38,847]

The first one or the second one?

[crocodile 8,372]

First one. I've not seen the second.

Karol

[Jay 38,847]

Where is it shown in the first one?

[Bilbo 3,749]

Odin's treasure room. It's in the background iirc.

[crocodile 8,372]

Karol

[Dixon Hill 4,236]

The mid-credits scene after the newest Thor gives a good indication of what Guardians of the Galaxy will be like; it definitely seems like Thanos is being saved for the third Avengers installment, with everything else focusing on the Infinity Stones leading up to his appearance.

[Wycket 36]

Guardians looks like it will have a nice 80s feel to it which will be nice.

[Dixon Hill 4,236]

Indeed. The Collector is somewhat reminiscent of David Bowie, which I wholeheartedly approve of.

[Koray Savas 2,254]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

Did the Collector hid a baby in his Labyrinth?

[Matt C 461]

Ben Davis, B.S.C. (Stardust, Guardians of the Galaxy) will be the DP for Avengers: Age of Ultron.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=91169

So those complaining about Seamus McGarvey's made-for-TV look on the first can rest easy.

[Unlucky Bastard 8,493]

It looked alright to me.

[Score_Fan 36]

Yeah, I never took issue with the look of TA.

[Bilbo 3,749]

I didn't know anyone was disappointed with how The Avengers looked.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

Compared to the epic look of The Dark Knight Roses The Avengers looks a bit....made for TV. It's rare to see a 200+ million film in 16:9

[Matt C 461]

I didn't know anyone was disappointed with how The Avengers looked.

Wally Pfister was. He was downright mean about how it looked, the framing in some areas, and ripping the digital aspect. I daresay he would've been just as blunt even if The Avengers was shot in anamorphic 35mm.

Seeing Ben Davis' work on Stardust, Wrath of the Titans, and Tamara Drewe -- he can handle a variety of looks and aesthetics. Hopefully James Gunn convinced Whedon to not only use Davis, but also shoot in scope as well.

[Jay 38,847]

There's no source listed, but an FSMer is claiming Brian Tyler has signed on to score Avengers 2.

http://filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=100844&forumID=1&archive=0

[BloodBoal 7,540]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

Which is relevant to Avatar 2, 3 and 4...because???

[BloodBoal 7,540]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

No, we stood together shoulder to shoulder to question the authorities! We cannot fall out in our hour of triumph!

Explain yourself LeBlanc

[Quintus 5,411]

I'll be sad if Horner can't be arsed with the sequels. He seems to be the only guy writing decent action cues these days.

[Unlucky Bastard 8,493]

Compared to the epic look of The Dark Knight Roses The Avengers looks a bit....made for TV. It's rare to see a 200+ million film in 16:9

What was the big deal about the film's aspect ratio? So many films are in 1.85:1, a perfectly valid format that suited The Avengers.

And at least it's consistent. The constant switching of the aspect ratio in TDK and TDKR was so distracting, it was almost farcical.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

I cant think of any 200+ million dollar films shot in 1.85 : 1

[JoeinAR 1,953]

I'll be sad if Horner can't be arsed with the sequels. He seems to be the only guy writing decent action cues these days.

Oh come on now, didn't you HEAR THAT MAN OF STEEL SCORE, IT WAS IF NOTHING ELSE

LOUD

[Quintus 5,411]

The action material was the weakest thing about the score, apart from one or two really badass cues.

[JoeinAR 1,953]

well it was Hanz zimmer after all, low expectations still = low reward.

[Unlucky Bastard 8,493]

I cant think of any 200+ million dollar films shot in 1.85 : 1

It makes no difference. It all depends on how the shots are composed. The Avengers looks fine.

[Bilbo 3,749]

Well at least we know there'll be plenty of drums. Yay!

Oh well, at least it isn't Zimmer.

[JoeinAR 1,953]

I wonder if at what point, if any, will the over saturation of Marvel films or Marvel Character related films (Sony's Spiderman) start to have an effect. Will there be a backlash at some point? Seriously if it were going to happen it probably would have by now.

Early predictions for next summers top films points directly to Marvel's Captain America: Winter Soldier, to be the top film of 2014. Color me shocked. I liked the first Captain America, but it showed nothing that lends itself to being top at the boxoffice,

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

At some point it must. I guess this is why Marvel is trying to do a few different kind of films like Antman (a comedy???) and Guardians Of The Galaxy (away from earth).

The problem with the Marvel films and the Marvel character films is that they are mostly the same kinds of action/adventure movies with slightly different characters.

[crocodile 8,372]

I'm fine with Tyler getting the gig. He's a perfect composer for those films if you think about it. And his music perfectly encapsulates Marvel cinematic universe - bold, loud, exciting... and not terribly memorable. A match made in heaven. It's a waste of time for Silvestri, to be honest (even though I like his two Marvel scores).

Karol

[Brónach 1,305]

Compared to the epic look of The Dark Knight Roses The Avengers looks a bit....made for TV. It's rare to see a 200+ million film in 16:9

What was the big deal about the film's aspect ratio? So many films are in 1.85:1, a perfectly valid format that suited The Avengers.

And at least it's consistent. The constant switching of the aspect ratio in TDK and TDKR was so distracting, it was almost farcical.

The aspect ration of The Avengers was clearly chosen on purpose to fit shots like the rotating group shot and vertical action. It's fine.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

It's OK, but could have been more epic.

[BloodBoal 7,540]

The aspect ration of The Avengers was clearly chosen on purpose to fit shots like the rotating group shot and vertical action. It's fine.

You know what's not fine? You not posting as much as you used to.

[crocodile 8,372]

Like The Dark Knight Rises. Say what you want about the film, but this is the only blockbuster in recent memory that looks absolutely massive. Probably because of it' CG-light, shot-on-film, mostly oldschool grand pompous (and vain too) approach.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

Yes! The way it looks give a certain weight to the whole story.

[Quintus 5,411]

well it was Hanz zimmer after all, low expectations still = low reward.

Sums up my feelings toward about 90% of what I hear in films these days. Zimmer is merely the current banner carrier, apparently.

[Unlucky Bastard 8,493]

It's OK, but could have been more epic.

Whatever that means.

[Matt C 461]

I cant think of any 200+ million dollar films shot in 1.85 : 1

Pacific Rim. Even though the studio claim it cost $190 million, I'm sure it was around $200 million without the tax breaks and such. But that was another mega-budget film shot in 1.85:1.

Oh, and Avatar is another -- even though the 2D version was exhibited in 2.35:1.

[Naïve Old Fart 10,238]

I cant think of any 200+ million dollar films shot in 1.85 : 1

"Toy Story 3".

I cant think of any 200+ million dollar films shot in 1.85 : 1

Pacific Rim. Even though the studio claim it cost $190 million, I'm sure it was around $200 million without the tax breaks and such. But that was another mega-budget film shot in 1.85:1.

Oh, and Avatar is another -- even though the 2D version was exhibited in 2.35:1.

How was in converted from 1.85 to 2.35?

[Unlucky Bastard 8,493]

I seem to recall Robert Zemeckis or Bob Gale saying on either the old BTTF DVD or the recent BD that they shot the film in 1.85:1 because they figured TVs were going to look like that anyway.

[Naïve Old Fart 10,238]

Sony have brought out a 2.35:1 TV.

[Not Mr. Big 4,719]

There's no source listed, but an FSMer is claiming Brian Tyler has signed on to score Avengers 2.

http://filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=100844&forumID=1&archive=0

That's a pretty boring choice. Don't get me wrong, he's a much better choice than hacks like Lorne Balfe and Steve Jablonsky but his music is still a little bit too generic for me.

[Naïve Old Fart 10,238]

I seem to recall Robert Zemeckis or Bob Gale saying on either the old BTTF DVD or the recent BD that they shot the film in 1.85:1 because they figured TVs were going to look like that anyway.

They should know, after all, they effectively created Sony Corp.

[Mr. Breathmask 566]

When you have to do group shots featuring a character as massive as the Hulk, it's probably a good idea to shoot 1.85:1.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,362]

Explain?

[Mr. Breathmask 566]

The Hulk towers over the other characters. You need the vertical space the 1.85:1 frame gives you.