Top 10 Reasons Why The Avengers Was Overrated

1. Serenity was better.
2. No Henry Pym and Janet van Dyne
3. Felt too much like a television show rather than an actual film.
4. The story was pretty average.
5. The majority of the movie takes place in the Helicarrier.
6. Hawkeye was a zombie through out half the movie.
7. Loki wasn't very threatening as a villain.
8. Samuel L. Jackson wasn't badass enough as Nick Fury.
9. No fight scene between Hulk and The Avengers.
10. Rather see a movie about The New Avengers instead.

1. Serenity was better. - eh was decent. nothing special.
2. No Henry Pym and Janet van Dyne - k
3. Felt too much like a television show rather than an actual film. - Not really. Felt like average blockbuster
4. The story was pretty average. - Agreed.
5. The majority of the movie takes place in the Helicarrier - Not a bad thing. Allowed us to see the characters interact, which was compelling.
6. Hawkeye was a zombie through out half the movie. k
7. Loki wasn't very threatening as a villain. - I'll agree. He may have had an army but Avengers had a hulk.
8. Samuel L. Jackson wasn't badass enough as Nick Fury - fuck it who cares.
9. No fight scene between Hulk and The Avengers - Well.. there was one with Thor.
10. Rather see a movie about The New Avengers instead - nope.

1. And.......
2. Quit Crying
3. Nah, It felt like an ordinary Comic book movie just with more heroes.
4. it was decent. Nothing special
5. It's called funny character interaction. the movie can't be all action all the time.
6. Quit Crying
7. He was pretty good I thought.
8. Um, Yes he was.
9. Hulk vs Thor. That not good enough?
10. Really?

For what the movie was, It was really good. It is a bit overrated, But still a great movie none the less.

You can't expect it to be anything more than a blockbuster. As far as blockbusters go, it did everything right in its action, SFX, music, direction, etc. My big issue was with Joss Whedon's writing, which plagues all of his work. It just feels like he can't go five seconds without making a snarky joke and I find it obnoxious. It's why I think Firefly is terrible.

I don't think people understand what I meant about how it felt like a television show. I wasn't talking about the writing, but rather how the film was made. The movie was shot in 2K digital cameras with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. I HATE that shit! That's basically how TV shows are shot. Movies are suppose to be shot on FILM. Yes, The Amazing Spider-Man was shot on digital as well. But at least it was shot in 5K with an aspect ratio of 2.39:1, so it will look better once you buy a 4KTV.

Shooting in 2K digital cameras is like using Unreal Engine 3 for PS4 games.

As for Samuel L. Jackson, I know it's not really a big deal but White Nick Fury was just a far better character.

Were you EXPECTING them to shoot on film? It's more expensive and less efficient.

It's not THAT expensive. Even I can afford to buy a 35mm film if I wanted too. Also filming on film isn't THAT hard to use as some directors make it out to be. Look how Marc Webb is going back to film for The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

I didn't say it was hard, but it's way more expensive AND inefficient compared to digital. Yeah, you could buy a 35mm reel of film, possibly multiple, but with film, every single time an actor messes up a line, the movie costs more and more. With digital, you can just keep shooting. Then there's the matter of paying to have the film developed, and with 35mm film, you won't know if you shot it correctly until you get the dailies the next day.

There is no benefit to using film beyond the aesthetic of the film itself. It's pretty easy to see why studios would be shying away from film, especially since a crisp film look won't greatly affect the film as a whole. For example, I saw The Avengers in digital and thought it was average. That wouldn't have changed if it was shot in 35mm film. I saw The Master in 70mm film print and loved it. I wouldn't have loved it a noticeable amount less if I had seen it in digital like most people did. I prefer film to digital, but it's never a major factor in my enjoyment of a film and it never should be.

WTF!? I can't believe what I'm hearing. Of course digital is easy to work with. It's inferior to film. Digital is mostly used for television shows and direct DVD movies. Most movies that are shot in digital are in 2K resolution, how do you think that's going to look by the time we move over to 4K? With film you don't have this problem, because the resolution can go beyond that.

It's sad how directors like Marc Webb, Jonathan Liebesman, Jon M. Chu, and John Moore are still willing to shoot on film, yet a lot of the big name directors bitch about how complicated film is.

Are you gonna disagree with ANYTHING I said? It's clearly inferior to film. That's not what makes it immensely easier and cheaper to use. Plus I guarantee you that studios wouldn't let those directors shoot in film if those guys couldn't pull a big profit back from the movie.

That's not the point. Point is, a lot of small directors are still willing to shoot on film. So shooing on film isn't as complicated as it's made out to be. And if it is, then so what? If a director is not willing to put more effort for better quality then he's lazy.

It's not laziness. The ones that don't use it are the ones that believe that a simple visual upgrade is not worth all of the production trouble that film provides. And my point in the earlier post fits right into this. The big blockbuster directors that use film are the ones who have enough financial backing. Is a director who uses digital lazy simply because they don't have it in the budget?

I'm talking about directors like James Cameron, Peter Jackson, George Lucas, David Fincher, etc. Big name directors who switched over to digital, yet small directors like Marc Webb, Jonathan Liebesman, Jon M. Chu, and John Moore still rather shoot on film. That's the point.

Also not believing it's worth the visual upgrade is going to come back to bite em' in the ass, since 4K is becoming the standard. That's what Hollywood gets for being cheap.

But 4K is a digital format so how is that a problem for the digital filmmakers?

Stupid reasons to bitch

@Jack

Because most movies shot in digital are in 2K, and still continue to shoot in that resolution. How do you think they're going to look on a 4KTV? I mean I'm sure it's still going to look good and all, but it might also look a bit too video-ish compare to other movies. Film doesn't have this problem because the resolution is beyond 4K.

My problem doesn't lie with the movie's story (Or the lack of), because, again, it's not a story-filled blockbuster - And it's not supposed to be. But when I see (Or hear) massive praise about a movie that is nothing more but popcorn, then I have a problem. It's not that it's bad; It's that it gets PRAISED for being bad. That's my problem.

Mecha wrote:

@Jack

Because most movies shot in digital are in 2K, and still continue to shoot in that resolution. How do you think they're going to look on a 4KTV? I mean I'm sure it's still going to look good and all, but it might also look a bit too video-ish compare to other movies. Film doesn't have this problem because the resolution is beyond 4K.

Well, 4KTV's aren't even standard. And 4K is creeping into film. Again, I don't care terribly about resolution.

So what are you going to do when 4K does become the standard and your favorite movies shot in 2K don't look as good? I don't care about resolution THAT much either, but how can you as a film buff pretend to not care? Fucking black and white films from the 1920s have higher resolution than 2K.

Mecha wrote:

So what are you going to do when 4K does become the standard and your favorite movies shot in 2K don't look as good? I don't care about resolution THAT much either, but how can you as a film buff pretend to not care? Fucking black and white films from the 1920s have higher resolution than 2K.

As a film buff, I care more about the movie itself. But by the time 4K becomes standard, we could probably be shooting in 4K and can always restore movies that aren't 2K, much like we have time and time again.

Dude, there is a lot of movies already being shot on digital 4K cameras. The Amazing Spider-Man, The Hobbit, The Social Network, etc. Yet, Hollywood still continues to shoot in 2K because they're fucking cheap.

There is no way you can defend 2K when 4K already exist.

I wasn't even expecting much of it to begin with.