Why isn't marvel good at cinematography?

Why isn't marvel good at cinematography?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/RvTPpP58SaE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

it doesnt need to be because its fans are drooling retards who dont even know what cinematography is.

either I need glasses or these pics of that airport scene get lower res every time you autists post them.

Get glasses, you blind retard.

Lol

MCU exists solely as an assembly-line machine where the bare minimum work is committed before they start to sell your overmarketed undercooked flicks. It's cinema McDonald's. You aren't meant to ponder on it. Just mindlessly consume and pretend it's not bad for you.

>airport
>heliport

wtf why is none of it at all unique

MCU movies are like soap operas, they shoot them in the cheapest, most efficient way possible so they can churn them out as fast as possible. They shoot purely for visual clarity and nothing else, not for style or dramatic impact because that would take too much time and thought.

As long as you can see a character doing things under even lighting conditions then that's good enough for Marvel!

Nice try DCucks

>2:23 AM Saturday, July 29, 2017 (GMT+5:30) Time in India
go to bed already apu

(checked)
This, it should have been called out from the beginning when they unveiled their multi-tier roadmap but the fanboys were too busy saying ZOMG DR STRANGE ON THE BIG SCREEN!
(checked)
Nice try.

Why did the set that fight in the most boring location possible? I hated it the first second I saw

Yeah this looks so much better

youtu.be/RvTPpP58SaE

oh my god that actually looks horrible

what better place for an inconsequential "fight" where nobody wants to hurt each-other than what can best be described as an empty parking lot

capeshit fans can't tell the difference.

Thank you based pajeet for this glorious post.
Salam malik brother.

I don't know. I guess they prefer to not have some kind of distinctive style or flair. It's maybe helpful when you plan on having a large variety of cinematographers and directors. It's also maybe helpful when you have characters from different movies appearing in later movies. So, you don't have a situation where it possibly seems kind of weird if you were to have Superman appear in a Tim Burton Batman movie in Gotham City.

No vision or deeper thought than "let's get this goofy shit on silver screen somehow" is involved in the creative process of the producers tasked with making these.

"War"

Is this Loss.jpg?

Because they are directed by committee. The only marvel film that doesn't look like complete clinical ass was Guardians 2 and that was because they gave the director full control.

I thought Doctor Strange looked pretty decent too

there were some really shitty parts though like that interdimensional place where he fights the giant angry face

Time to poo Pajeet

Strange only looked good because of the piles of starving CGI artists making inception esque visuals. The shot composition and color palette was utterly boring and par for the course.

It's a shame when you look at what could have been. Edgar Wright could have made such a good Ant-Man film.

>When a low budget tv show has better cinematography and shot composure than a $300m movie

yeah you're probably right

nepal scenes still looked nice imo

most everything else was pretty dull

>It's cinema McDonald's. You aren't meant to ponder on it. Just mindlessly consume and pretend it's not bad for you.
you mean it's exactly like comics in general.

they're just vessels for serialised stories and time passing tales of basic heroism. They were never meant to be deep or meaningful.

Spider-Man 2, the best superhero movie to this day, isn't "about" anything either. it's just a timeless story about responsibility told well.