Whatever happened to the cinematography in MCU? All the movies since Avengers looked like uninspired TV episodes...

Whatever happened to the cinematography in MCU? All the movies since Avengers looked like uninspired TV episodes. Even TASM movies had more style.

Other urls found in this thread:

imdb.com/name/nm0005665/
youtube.com/watch?v=JUw67hayZAs
youtube.com/watch?v=doaQC-S8de8
youtube.com/watch?v=VFI0jsnTCvg&feature=youtu.be&list=PL7oGGg7qjS8HLG5Ka2ClJ_UA_fBELWogg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Thor 2
>GoTG
>Ant-Man
>Iron Man 3
>Age of Cucktron

>Iron Man 3
>Ant-man
>cinematography

Who cares about cinematography? It's a dumb Sup Forums meme that arbitrary decided if something looks good or not

I care. I can't watch movies that look bland, they leave no impression on me.

But we don't care about you.

>who cares about a visual medium looking good when you can have quips?

You care enough to post in my thread.
Don't ever reply to me again.

Iron Man 3 was Shane Black directing and as for Ant-Man
>imdb.com/name/nm0005665/
>youtube.com/watch?v=JUw67hayZAs

GotG looked great in some parts and like actors standing around a soundstage in others.

Okay.

compare this

I've never heard or seen an explanation as to why the MCU has bad cinematography. People just post those compilations like it's self evident which leads me to believe this is just another dank Sup Forums meme.

C'mon Age of Ultron looked like a Transformers movie and had no good shots apart from the one where they fought the robots.
Thor 2 green palette was tiring too.

..to this

the first Cap movie was gorgeous, it felt like a real movie

...

This looks clean. Should I watch this movie is the plot good enough to hold 2 hours of my attention? Or are there shitty plot holes and retarded writing like Batman stopping from beating Supes ass because both of their mothers have the same name?

Check the director credits.

I don't see why that's supposed to be impressive. It's just lit differently. And of course it would be, because it's raining and at night, so comparing that to inside during the day is disingenuous.

What is a "real" movie?

Love or absolutely fucking hate Snyder you can't say he's a shit visual director. I wish he'd step down as director and became just a visual director. Let Affleck direct

It's a visual medium, you can watch movies purely for the visuals.

Drive (2011)

Case in point. You think you've made some incredibly poignant value judgement here but you've said nothing beyond "just look at it! if you don't agree with me you're a pleb!"

That's a real human tho.

What makes that a "real" movie? Because it has scenes you can pause and screen shot then post on boards and say it looks neat.

No that's why I go to art galleries.
I go to movies to be entertained by the fullness of the production.
I don't know if you've ever sat through a movie's credits but there's a whole fucking lot of people working on it that are doing things that aren't visual in nature.

I can think of a couple movies that are only so-so in the visual department but have amazing sound design.

that's because it was directed by the guy who made Hidalgo.

>that arbitrary decided if something looks good or not
Fucking ignorant piece os shit.

I absolutely loved it, but then I've only seen the 3 hour long Ultimate Edition. If nothing else, it is a very nice film, visually.

this.
Snyder's movies may have the writing of a shitty anime, but they have the cinematography of top tier anime

Ghost Busters (2016) looked nice visually as well, user. I enjoyed it, visually.

And this is why Sup Forums opinions on movies are irrelevant. This board Animated movies threads are great, the problem is that most people here defending the MCU just go to the movies to go capeshit and only watch crap movies.

The CW flash show has bad cinematography too.

AoU had some nifty shots of the twins, and the PERFECT shot of Cap looking around an empty dance hall in his flashback. But the good shots were far outweighed by the bad.

Thor 2 should have benefited from the alien worlds; you can do some amazing things with otherworldly sets. But it was all same-y and the stuff on Earth was far too bland.

Civil War probably suffered the most. It was a great movie in my opinion, but the weight of things was lessened because of very generic camera angles and lighting.

There's better looking movies than his. He does have some nice shots, but a few shots inbetween crappy storylining isn't really notable.

;_;

Does it have an underlying message, a theme? If that's so, it's a real movie. It doesn't have to be necessarily good though.

As for superhero movies for example, Spider-Man 2 and Superman are both good movies.

Malick's visual style is good and usually detached of the chart you posted. Snyder for example, uses fake, animated lightning, high contrast on shit filters and is a bad visual director.

All movies are real but he means movies with identifiable filmic merits, filmic referring to stuff that comes after scriptwriting and manifests itself in the audiovisual component that makes film film as opposed to a stack of paper. Things like directing, editing, art department, score and so on.

the golden ratio is a hoax that nobody should fall for these days

>It's bad!
>You just don't know! But I do! It's bad!
>No I won't explain why it's bad! It just is!
Listen bro I can honestly say that I don't give a shit whether or not the MCU has bad cinematography or not. I'm not going to get offended or defend it if it does.

I'm just pointing out that you fucks never even attempt to define it beyond "it looks like a TV show!". For people that insist they're so smart and informed you can't seem to argue your position for shit.

If anything, good cinematography feels wasted when the rest is shit.

The BvS fight had some stellar shots but goddamn the context, dialogue and pacing ruined it.

>He was tricked into liking Marvel because of Evansposting.
Hotheads begone.

>And this is why Sup Forums opinions on movies are irrelevant.


No, so are Sup Forums's opinions on movies, because they've admitted they're politically bias to movies as well. No one here has an opinion that is relevant to the movie genre and can push it forward.

>MCU just go to the movies to go capeshit and only watch crap movies.

No, people go there to be entertained. That's what movies first intention are. To bring joy and snap you from the real world. That's what music is, that's what plays are, that's what books are. They're meant to entertain you. That's why it's called "entertainment".

There are different ways to entertain an audience, the MCU has their way, but other movies have a way where they can trigger a sense of relaxant from the visuals alone. MCU does it by being exciting and keeping the fans laughing and invested.

>tripfag

No where, because one is a fucking poster.

Who determines merit?

>not believing in the golden ratio

saved

Rotten Tomatoes :^)

>Does it have an underlying message, a theme? If that's so, it's a real movie. It doesn't have to be necessarily good though.


Who's to say what makes a real movie? Many MCU movies have an underlying message and theme. On top of that, some of the best movies in history don't have specifically a message or theme. Sometimes it's just taking use through a narrative that we can respect.

This. It doesn't matter how visually interesting the DCEU movies are because when I'm sleeping through them all I can see are the insides of my eyelids.

>I'm just pointing out that you fucks never even attempt to define it beyond "it looks like a TV show!

Well, let's me tell you this: If you use the American shot as your main way of filiming, if you don't create any dynamism with the angle of view and you use close ups for the sake of doing close ups you are using the same cheap techniques TV shows use for Fast paced filming in small spaces. The MCU movies look like a TV show since they are filmed like tv shows. There's no attemps are composition beyond "put the guy you are trying to film in the middle".

>I go to movies to be entertained by the fullness of the production.
Why are you lying about going to the art galleries plebbo?

He probably believes it's some kind of meme about nature or something like that.

He probably meant sadpanda.

Art galleries occasionally have pop art and comic book exhibits so it gives me an excuse to get out the house.

>There's no attemps are composition beyond "put the guy you are trying to film in the middle".

But that's not true, because there's various examples of this in Ant-Man and some of Marvel's most recent works. Hell look at Doctor Strange.

This is not me defending this shit, i'm just saying this is a silly argument with people who already go in with a confirmation bias.

>I care if movies look pretty but if you also care about writing, acting, editing, scoring, or sound design YOU'RE the pleb

>This thread

It seems Anons are confused with people simply wanting to be entertained, as overall philistinism of the worlds population.

Can I compare it to this instead?

>Hell look at Doctor Strange.
That does not look good, at all. It really does look like a CGI shitfest the likes of Transformers and I say that looking excited for the film.

This. I can't quite put my finger on it but I could feel how Civil War and Winter Soldier looked soulless and lacked depth. The plot and action was pretty good, but cinematography dragged this movie down for me.

The Star Spangled Man sequence is one of my favorite things Marvel has done. Literally Cap's theme song.

Special effects have ALWAYS been part of cinematography.

....are people finally joining me in saying Cap 1 is the best MCU film?

The Russo Brothers came from directing sitcoms like Community. As much as I like those two films, they DO look like "really expensive television" as OP put it.

youtube.com/watch?v=doaQC-S8de8

Educate yourselves and see why many people say Avengers look like a TV show, which includes a scene showing why the Avengers has bad cinematography

Marvel cinematography peaked with Blade 2

user, it was always the only good MCU film, you've been right all this time.

Pfahahaha

It's too much. It's almost as bad as this.

youtube.com/watch?v=VFI0jsnTCvg&feature=youtu.be&list=PL7oGGg7qjS8HLG5Ka2ClJ_UA_fBELWogg

Honestly I'm torn as to whether or not I'd be willing to sacrifice cinematography for their ability to manage large casts and different storylines in one movie.

Because goddamn BvS was pretty but it was really painful to watch them switching gears so hard every time they did it.

Both movies deeply bothered me when I was watching them. The fights are good, but everything between feels stilted and incredibly disjointed.

You kinofags have your own board to shit up. Go back there.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Marvel
It's a Warner film.

Strange is the only movie since guardians that look like a movie.

You don't have to sacrifice anything. Ensemble cast movies have been done before and they didn't all look as cheap as The Avengers.

>Marvel films will never look this good

...

That was a great video. I really want WB to let Snyder do his seven samurais with Justice league. hope he doesnt get fucked.

People is saying the cinematography was great.

the movie wasnt, marvel was afraid of the word nazis, of violence and it was pretty generic, but is a well done solid film, the problem was the script. Captain America could had been a really good 80's movie classic.

Here I lined up some shitty shots for you to appease your autism.

What's shitty about them

Guardians looked like a videogame though

I lined them up shitty and didn't feel like adjusting them to be symmetrical. I didn't mean the shots themselves, just how I lined them up.

Side note: You can literally do this with any movie.

Can you guys post BvS and MoS? i have no idea what this things are called

here's the lazy way to do it

I dunno, it still looks like Civil War to me. Maybe it's the ratio...

1,2,3,4, 5, are shit, 6 is ok, 7 is pretty good, 8 ad 9 are ok.

Keep in mind this is strictly from the trailer.

Yes, it did, but it was a well done videogame.

They are all good. Shut the fuck up.

Maybe it's the camera and your overall confirmation bias.

I'm sure it'd be better if it was shot in 25mm and in black in white and show with actual film.

So what? Trailer is more than enough to judge the cinematography's quality as its composed of different scenes and set pieces which gives us an overall impression of how the movie will look like.

I know. But i do believe it will be a good looking movie, looks way better in the trailer than the TV crap we saw in Civil War. From the trailer it looks too CGI, but there's hope for it,

>three random close ups
>two insert shots of the Hydra symbol

C'mon at least add some variety to the compositions you're putting in there

I enjoy the contrast between 1 and the picture below it. If you know of Strange's origin, then you know what's to happen to him. Then those two images...go hand and hand.

MARTHA

>Trailer is more than enough to judge the cinematography's quality as its composed of different scenes and set pieces which gives us an overall impression of how the movie will look like.
It used to be like that.

In the trailer they waste frames on showing us his hands and big "where is he" shots.

This was the only good shot.