THE AVENGERS: I don't get it

Bill Anderson

unread,

May 6, 2012, 7:05:04 PM5/6/12

to

And I suspect I never will get it; I'm no more likely to understand it
than I am to suddenly begin enjoying hip-hop music. Its record-breaking
popularity is as foreign to me as ... as ... The Marcels' "Blue Moon"
was to my parents in 1961 when they couldn't figure out why anybody
would ever tamper like that with a classic Rodgers and Hart tune. Bahm
diddy bahm.

The Avengers are second tier, no, THIRD tier superheroes whom I
disdained even in childhood -- at least I disdained the ones who were
around in my childhood. I don't care if there's an audience for the
Transformers or GI Joe or Battleships or even The Avengers; it doesn't
upset me that, temporarily anyway, superheroes have somehow achieved
superpopularity, or that THE AVENGERS have broken all opening weekend
box office records. I'm just saying I don't understand, I'm old, I'm out
of it, popular culture is passing me by, and ... well ... I don't care.

There, I've said it. You guys go on and argue over whether to see THE
AVENGERS in Imax 3D or not, just go ahead. As for me, I guess, pass the
Geritol and bring on the Marigold Hotel.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

wlah...@gmail.com

unread,

May 6, 2012, 7:12:44 PM5/6/12

to

On Sunday, May 6, 2012 7:05:04 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:

> There, I've said it. You guys go on and argue over whether to see THE
> AVENGERS in Imax 3D or not, just go ahead. As for me, I guess, pass the
> Geritol and bring on the Marigold Hotel.
>

For me, it's seeing it on DVD when the library has it on the shelves and I don't have to waste a reserve on it. By then, the people talking about it now will have forgotten all about it even if they're young. There are too many amazing films I've yet to see that I just don't have time for recycled juvenile fantasies jumping around in their PJs . . .

moviePig

unread,

May 6, 2012, 11:49:07 PM5/6/12

to

Okay ...and I certainly empathize. But don't let us catch you
standing in line to see Bruce Wayne or Kal-El...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

Bill Anderson

unread,

May 7, 2012, 12:19:23 AM5/7/12

to

Did somebody say, "Superman reboot?"

nick

unread,

May 7, 2012, 7:58:00 AM5/7/12

to

. . . or asking for the senior coffee when he gets to the front of the
concession line.

nick

unread,

May 7, 2012, 8:11:45 AM5/7/12

to

On May 6, 7:05 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> And I suspect I never will get it; I'm no more likely to understand it
> than I am to suddenly begin enjoying hip-hop music. Its record-breaking
> popularity is as foreign to me as ... as ... The Marcels' "Blue Moon"
> was to my parents in 1961 when they couldn't figure out why anybody
> would ever tamper like that with a classic Rodgers and Hart tune. Bahm
> diddy bahm.
>
> The Avengers are second tier, no, THIRD tier superheroes whom I
> disdained even in childhood -- at least I disdained the ones who were
> around in my childhood. I don't care if there's an audience for the
> Transformers or GI Joe or Battleships or even The Avengers; it doesn't
> upset me that, temporarily anyway, superheroes have somehow achieved
> superpopularity, or that THE AVENGERS have broken all opening weekend
> box office records. I'm just saying I don't understand, I'm old, I'm out
> of it, popular culture is passing me by, and ... well ... I don't care.
>

But if popular culture is passing you by, it's passing you by with a
cultural artifact of your generation. It's a lot like Star Wars where
there was two audiences--the younger audience responding the whiz-bang
spectacular and an older audience, schooled in Flash Gordon and Buck
Rogers, who were appreciative that the things they grew up on were
being revisited but with better production values and a seriousness of
delivery. Like I pointed out in another post, what's interesting
about this summer is most of the big releases, The Avengers,
Battleship, Spider-Man, Dark Shadows, The Dark Knight Rises have their
roots in popular culture generations that had their moment long before
the current one. At some point thirty years or so down the road, you
have to guess there'll be a 500 million dollar Mighty Morphin Power
Rangers movie or something like that, once the kids who grew up on the
Power Rangers are old enough to run Hollywood. It's funny how the
tastes of kids is dictated by what their elders enjoyed when they were
young.

notbob

unread,

May 7, 2012, 8:50:03 AM5/7/12

to

On 2012-05-06, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And I suspect I never will get it;

I don't even care that I don't get it. Apparently, simple things for
simple minds. I'm sure Hello Kitty: The Movie, and the never ending
franchise, is not far behind.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Pitbull: "a gun you can pet" --Bill Burr

trotsky

unread,

May 7, 2012, 8:58:03 AM5/7/12

to

On 5/7/12 7:50 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-05-06, Bill Anderson<billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> And I suspect I never will get it;
>
> I don't even care that I don't get it. Apparently, simple things for
> simple minds. I'm sure Hello Kitty: The Movie, and the never ending
> franchise, is not far behind.

Which are the really good movies we should be concerning ourselves with?

nick

unread,

May 7, 2012, 9:40:46 AM5/7/12

to

On May 7, 8:58 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/12 7:50 AM, notbob wrote:
>

> > On 2012-05-06, Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> And I suspect I never will get it;
>
> > I don't even care that I don't get it. Apparently, simple things for
> > simple minds. I'm sure Hello Kitty: The Movie, and the never ending
> > franchise, is not far behind.
>
> Which are the really good movies we should be concerning ourselves with?

LOL and a A Little Bit of Heaven.

Bill Anderson

unread,

May 7, 2012, 10:58:55 AM5/7/12

to

On 5/7/2012 8:11 AM, nick wrote:
> On May 6, 7:05 pm, Bill Anderson<billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> And I suspect I never will get it; I'm no more likely to understand it
>> than I am to suddenly begin enjoying hip-hop music. Its record-breaking
>> popularity is as foreign to me as ... as ... The Marcels' "Blue Moon"
>> was to my parents in 1961 when they couldn't figure out why anybody
>> would ever tamper like that with a classic Rodgers and Hart tune. Bahm
>> diddy bahm.
>>
>> The Avengers are second tier, no, THIRD tier superheroes whom I
>> disdained even in childhood -- at least I disdained the ones who were
>> around in my childhood. I don't care if there's an audience for the
>> Transformers or GI Joe or Battleships or even The Avengers; it doesn't
>> upset me that, temporarily anyway, superheroes have somehow achieved
>> superpopularity, or that THE AVENGERS have broken all opening weekend
>> box office records. I'm just saying I don't understand, I'm old, I'm out
>> of it, popular culture is passing me by, and ... well ... I don't care.
>>
> But if popular culture is passing you by, it's passing you by with a
> cultural artifact of your generation.

Not really. I read Superman and Batman voraciously, and even Aquaman
and Plastic Man and Wonder Woman and Green Lantern and Captain America
and The Flash when friends with more dimes than I would let me read
their stashes. And OK, Uncle Scrooge when the Beagle Boys were
involved. But all that stopped, really, around ... the 9th grade?
10th? And that, for me, was about 1962, give or take. I really wasn't
reading comic books in high school.

So maybe that's why I don't connect with these characters:

Iron Man -- 1963
Hulk -- 1962
Thor -- 1962
Black Widow -- 1964
Hawkeye -- 1964
Loki -- 1962 (OK, technically 1949, but really that doesn't count)
Nick Fury -- 1963
Maria Hill -- 2005

and

Captain America -- 1941 and still around for me 15 years later. But
now, at age 64, I really have no interest in whether the old Captain has
finally defeated the Nazis. And for me, all the others are the "new"
comic book characters who never captured my imagination.

It's a lot like Star Wars where
> there was two audiences--the younger audience responding the whiz-bang
> spectacular and an older audience, schooled in Flash Gordon and Buck
> Rogers, who were appreciative that the things they grew up on were
> being revisited but with better production values and a seriousness of
> delivery.

I question whether that's the truth or hype or unsubstantiated guessing.
I turned 30 two weeks prior to the original Star Wars release in 1977,
and my appreciation for that movie had nothing to do with gratitude that
somebody was taking Flash Gordon seriously again. I liked the movie
because it thrilled me. It was a joy, start to finish, and there was no
nostalgia involved -- not for me, anyway. And I don't recall any of my
friends who loved it as well, several of whom were a good bit older than
I, saying they liked Star Wars because it brought back memories of Buck
Rogers. It was a good movie because it gave birth to a thrilling new
galaxy far far away.

Another difference between the popularity of Star Wars and that of the
Avengers is that Star Wars took weeks to build its audience. It opened
in only two cities that Memorial Day weekend of 1977, New York and Los
Angeles, and luckily I was in New York. When I came back home to
Tennessee I stopped by a summr camp where I'd been a counselor a few
years prior, and I discovered the kids had never heard of Star Wars. I
got to tell them the names of Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader for the
first time in their lives and they just gave me dumb looks. I said,
"Just you wait a couple of weeks."

The point is, I don't doubt at all that many who are attending THE
AVENGERS are doing so because it's bringing back memories of childhood.
Hooray for them, if that's what they want. What puzzles me is that
this particular movie about these particular characters has set an
all-time box office record in its first weekend. More people know
Superman than know the Avengers, and the movie with Christopher Reeve
was very popular indeed. But it didn't do the kind of business the
Avengers is doing. It's like somehow the zeitgeist over the past few
years has been overrun by adolescent dreams of grandeur. The Great
Depression had Astaire and Rogers; maybe the age of Fox News needs the Hulk.

Like I pointed out in another post, what's interesting
> about this summer is most of the big releases, The Avengers,
> Battleship, Spider-Man, Dark Shadows, The Dark Knight Rises have their
> roots in popular culture generations that had their moment long before
> the current one. At some point thirty years or so down the road, you
> have to guess there'll be a 500 million dollar Mighty Morphin Power
> Rangers movie or something like that, once the kids who grew up on the
> Power Rangers are old enough to run Hollywood. It's funny how the
> tastes of kids is dictated by what their elders enjoyed when they were
> young.

moviePig

unread,

May 7, 2012, 4:42:35 PM5/7/12

to

I think it's relevant to note that (the original) STAR WARS, had it
been released today (i.e., to the far older, wiser, and more jaded me)
would have been every bit as entertaining as it was back then. And,
indeed, that has nothing to do with whatever youth I wasted on Flash
Gordon or Robert Heinlein, but rather with SW's delivery of something
fresh -- in content, imaginative production, and most importantly,
attitude. That's why none of SW's subsequent caravan of sequels ever
gave me the same jolt of joy ...and why no pre-packaged franchise of
Marvel guys likely ever will. Eventually I'll see THE AVENGERS
because a moviegoer has to see record-breakers. But I regard it as
like a friend's birthday party: I'll be merry along with everyone
else, but I won't remember it, or much look forward to going.

Obveeus

unread,

May 7, 2012, 5:04:10 PM5/7/12

to

"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

>I think it's relevant to note that (the original) STAR WARS, had it
>been released today (i.e., to the far older, wiser, and more jaded me)
>would have been every bit as entertaining as it was back then. And,
>indeed, that has nothing to do with whatever youth I wasted on Flash
>Gordon or Robert Heinlein, but rather with SW's delivery of something
>fresh -- in content, imaginative production, and most importantly,
>attitude.

Perhaps I was slightly less enamored with the originality because I came out
of the theater after seeing STAR WARS the first time and my mind was
thinking 'that was almost as good as WIZARDS'.

> That's why none of SW's subsequent caravan of sequels ever
>gave me the same jolt of joy ...and why no pre-packaged franchise of
>Marvel guys likely ever will.

Agreed. No 'men in tights' film is ever going to cover original ground in
that way, but as summer films go, AVENGERS offers far more depth and
originality than HUNGER GAMES.

>Eventually I'll see THE AVENGERS
>because a moviegoer has to see record-breakers. But I regard it as
>like a friend's birthday party: I'll be merry along with everyone
>else, but I won't remember it, or much look forward to going.

Skip the 3D glasses in the theater just as you should skip the beer goggles
at the friend's birthday party. Both will be more fun if you see them and
accept them for what they are.

nick

unread,

May 7, 2012, 5:11:04 PM5/7/12

to

I'll go see The Avengers later this week out of the same sense of
duty--I'd thought about going today but the times didn't work out.
Nothing I'm looking forward to but whatever. Out of perversity/
personal taste, I'm more interested in Dark right now. But I don't
see anything to be gained by being cynical or hostile to its success
because anything that gets people into a movie theater is a long term
good thing. It's a good thing that the obituaries people had written
for the film industry just a few months ago turned out to be
premature.

Having said that I don't much get the massive success of The Avengers
either, other than maybe it's nothing more complicated than if people
liked the earlier Marvel adaptations, once you get all those
superheroes into the same movie, then it's something people really,
really want to see, extra value for money. If you're a kid, this is
can't miss material.

Obveeus

unread,

May 7, 2012, 5:28:35 PM5/7/12

to

"nick" <nickmacp...@AOL.com> wrote:

> But I don't
>see anything to be gained by being cynical or hostile to its success
>because anything that gets people into a movie theater is a long term
>good thing. It's a good thing that the obituaries people had written
>for the film industry just a few months ago turned out to be
>premature.

Not an obituary, but...

3D accounted for 52% of AVENGERS gross over the weekend. It seems to me
that that would be an indication that more people are opting for the 2D
version than the 3D version.

moviePig

unread,

May 7, 2012, 5:35:06 PM5/7/12

unread,

May 8, 2012, 7:16:18 AM5/8/12

to

I saw Hugo recently, and quite frankly saw nothing in my 2D version that
would have warranted the need for 3D. I know what clock guts look
like...and I know a cutesy orphan film when I see it. Hugo was not as bad
as TinTin, but neither of them qualify as movies that deserve the critical
accolades they recieved.

Obveeus

unread,

May 8, 2012, 7:19:14 AM5/8/12

to

"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

>Otoh...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7n2ylyf
>
>
> (http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/tags/3d/james-cameron-wants-convert-everyone-5d/59399)

I don't understand what he means by stillborn. Don't the sports broadcasts
offer both 2D and 3D versions of the same events?

trotsky

unread,

May 8, 2012, 7:49:11 AM5/8/12

to

Jimmy Cameron's filmmaking ideas have become oddly intertwined with the
sinking of the Titanic.

moviePig

unread,

May 8, 2012, 10:20:33 AM5/8/12

to

On May 8, 7:16 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

But, without any spear-in-your-face shots, in 2D you might well not
see what you're missing. I refer you to the post immediately
preceding yours (....from Bill Anderson, normally a 3D detractor
iirc).

My point is simply that 2D and 3D present slightly different technical
palettes to the filmmaker. (E.g., arranging visual elements on a
canvas is different from arranging them in a box.) And, while
watching a movie, I'd rather pretend there've been no such
compromises ...even ones I don't see.

moviePig

unread,

May 8, 2012, 10:25:46 AM5/8/12

to

On May 8, 7:19 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >Otoh...
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/7n2ylyf
>

> > (http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/tags/3d/james-cameron-wants-conv...)

>
> I don't understand what he means by stillborn. Don't the sports broadcasts
> offer both 2D and 3D versions of the same events?

Yeah. But they probably just feed us 2D viewers the left eye. I
think he's arguing against the cost viability of, e.g., redundant
camera crews.

Bill Anderson

unread,

May 8, 2012, 11:15:04 AM5/8/12

to

I clipped this from a longer piece on the movie in today's New York
Times. It addresses, though does not completely solve my puzzlement:

Several factors contributed to the enormous audience interest in “The
Avengers,” starting with its quality. The movie, stuffed to the brim
with special effects, has been popular with most critics, with the
review-aggregation site RottenTomatoes.com rating it at 94 percent on
the “fresh” scale. Audiences in exit polls gave the film a rare A-plus
score, an indication that word-of-mouth was strong. The Hulk, played
this time by Mark Ruffalo, has received particularly high marks.

“People come to the movies to see giant spectacles, but what really
makes the difference is over-delivering on expectations,” said Kevin
Feige, a producer of “The Avengers” and president of Marvel Studios.
“Maybe it’s delivering a movie that is funnier than people expected or
one that moves them a little bit more than they expected. Joss has
accomplished that.”

Marvel also expertly orchestrated one of the longest marketing teases in
Hollywood history. The studio planted the seeds for an all-star
“Avengers” movie in 2008 with the release of “Iron Man,” played by
Robert Downey Jr. Then a thunder god with a magic hammer, Thor (Chris
Hemsworth), got his own movie, followed by Captain America (Chris
Evans). Iron Man arrived with a sequel. All were worldwide hits.

This strategy, largely devised by Mr. Feige and mirroring how Marvel
historically approached the publication of its comics, carried enormous
risk. If even one of those prior films had flopped, “The Avengers” —
envisioned as a multifilm series — would have been thrown into question.

I think you need to go see it, Pig.

Obveeus

unread,

May 8, 2012, 11:28:56 AM5/8/12

to

"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

>On May 8, 7:19 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >Otoh...
>>
>> > http://tinyurl.com/7n2ylyf
>>
>> > (http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/tags/3d/james-cameron-wants-conv...)
>>
>> I don't understand what he means by stillborn. Don't the sports
>> broadcasts
>> offer both 2D and 3D versions of the same events?
>
>Yeah. But they probably just feed us 2D viewers the left eye. I
>think he's arguing against the cost viability of, e.g., redundant
>camera crews.

But under what circumstances would a TV show ever need something other than
just the 'left eye treatment'? Will the Oscar/Emmy/Grammy awards require
more? Sitcoms? Crime procedurals?

Obveeus

unread,

May 8, 2012, 11:33:31 AM5/8/12

to

"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

On May 8, 7:16 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

>But, without any spear-in-your-face shots, in 2D you might well not
>see what you're missing. I refer you to the post immediately
>preceding yours (....from Bill Anderson, normally a 3D detractor
>iirc).

When I do see a movie in 3D, I apparently still can't see the special stuff
that attracts others as I come out of the theater puzzled by why people pay
extra for the same film plus uncomfortable glasses.

>My point is simply that 2D and 3D present slightly different technical
>palettes to the filmmaker. (E.g., arranging visual elements on a
>canvas is different from arranging them in a box.) And, while
>watching a movie, I'd rather pretend there've been no such
>compromises ...even ones I don't see.

By that logic, you should avoid seeing any film where an editor was involved
in the final product.

moviePig

unread,

May 8, 2012, 11:38:17 AM5/8/12

to

On May 8, 11:15 am, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 4:42 PM, moviePig wrote:
>

> ...

I think Mr. Feige may not recognize the two-edged sword in his
strategy of "over-delivering on expectations". Moreover, I worry that
I've jumped the track of his prolonged marketing-tease by not seeing
IRON MAN 2 or CAPTAIN AMERICA 1. But, yeah, I plan to go and be
avenged. At least it won't be hard for the movie to over-deliver on
my expectations...

moviePig

unread,

May 8, 2012, 11:48:04 AM5/8/12

to

Well, all those instances are pretty much cinema verite. (Sitcoms are
filmed before a still-warm studio audience, and crime procedurals are
bouncy-cam.) So, having the extra eye may add a little more you-are-
there sensory bandwidth, but, no, probably not much in the way of
aesthetics. (Ironically, the sports I've watched on 3D tv actually
suffer for it, once the initial wow wears off.)

moviePig

unread,

May 8, 2012, 11:55:17 AM5/8/12

to

unread,

May 8, 2012, 7:17:36 PM5/8/12

to

4$ north of the Mason-Dixon. Yeah, I'm expecting Ridley to try to top
(or at least to rival) AVATAR and HUGO. Frankly, if I were a big-time
director, I'd love to try and flex the new (i.e., renewed) medium.
Meanwhile, lordy, I hope it doesn't take geeks to look forward to a
new 'R'-rated 3D ALIEN by the originator...

nick

unread,

May 8, 2012, 8:11:50 PM5/8/12

to

Think about that gap in time though. If my math is right, there was a
31 year gap between John Carpenter's Thing and the original. It's
been 33 years between Prometheus and Alien. We might hope for a
*better* audience but I'm expecting the usual run of pudgy 30-50 yr.
males populating the aisles, or as Randy Newman once sang, "these are
my people and this is my country."

moviePig

unread,

May 8, 2012, 10:24:25 PM5/8/12

to

If you're saying Scott may no longer have what it takes, that's
depressingly true. But re Dan O'Bannon's stomach troubles as a still-
viable movie theme, I think it's been kept alive pretty much as well
as, say, Romero's dead have. I'm not watching the ads for PROMETHEUS,
of course, but I'd be curious to know who *they* seem to think will
show up...

Arthur Lipscomb

unread,

May 9, 2012, 1:17:04 AM5/9/12

to

On 5/7/2012 3:21 PM, Obveeus wrote:

> "moviePig"<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 5:28 pm, "Obveeus"<Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> Not an obituary, but...
>>>
>>> 3D accounted for 52% of AVENGERS gross over the weekend. It seems to me
>>> that that would be an indication that more people are opting for the 2D
>>> version than the 3D version.
>>
>> I predict PROMETHEUS will invert the split. I predict it because 1) I
>> wish it, and 2) I'll dust off a 21-gun I-told-you-so about post-
>> converted 3D...
>

Prometheus was shot in 3D.

There's a website that lists which movies were shot in 3D vs converted:

http://realorfake3d.com/

> I agree with you that no one should bother watching a film in 3D that is
> only in 3D because of post-conversion. I will not agree with your belief
> that an intent to post-convert to 3D somehow diminishes the original 2D
> product at its point of creation. That might have been true with the 3D of
> decades ago where 3D translated to 'stuff shoots out of the screen at you',
> but I don't think that it is true of today's 3D where the scenes are given
> depth rather than lent to gimmickry.
>
>

There's still stuff that comes out of the screen in modern 3D but
nowhere near as much as before. I like the depth but wouldn't mind a
few more gimmick shots as well.

Obveeus

unread,

May 9, 2012, 7:19:29 AM5/9/12

to

"Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 3:21 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>> "moviePig"<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On May 7, 5:28 pm, "Obveeus"<Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Not an obituary, but...
>>>>
>>>> 3D accounted for 52% of AVENGERS gross over the weekend. It seems to me
>>>> that that would be an indication that more people are opting for the 2D
>>>> version than the 3D version.
>>>
>>> I predict PROMETHEUS will invert the split. I predict it because 1) I
>>> wish it, and 2) I'll dust off a 21-gun I-told-you-so about post-
>>> converted 3D...
>
> Prometheus was shot in 3D.

I think that was moviepig's point.

> There's still stuff that comes out of the screen in modern 3D but nowhere
> near as much as before. I like the depth but wouldn't mind a few more
> gimmick shots as well.

Movie makers need to spend their extra time/money on plot/character, not
faux pointy object effects. THE AVENGERS is a good current example. It is
doing blockbuster business (as opposed to just solid business) because the
film has better character/humor than most films in the genre, not because it
has better special effects.

moviePig

unread,

May 9, 2012, 9:14:04 AM5/9/12

to

On May 9, 1:17 am, Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org>
wrote:

> On 5/7/2012 3:21 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>

> > "moviePig"<pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> > On May 7, 5:28 pm, "Obveeus"<Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Not an obituary, but...
>
> >>> 3D accounted for 52% of AVENGERS gross over the weekend. It seems to me
> >>> that that would be an indication that more people are opting for the 2D
> >>> version than the 3D version.
>
> >> I predict PROMETHEUS will invert the split. I predict it because 1) I
> >> wish it, and 2) I'll dust off a 21-gun I-told-you-so about post-
> >> converted 3D...
>
> Prometheus was shot in 3D.

...and when the split is reversed so that a much higher percentage
choose to see it in 3D, that's what (I'll claim) will be responsible.

> There's a website that lists which movies were shot in 3D vs converted:
>
> http://realorfake3d.com/
>
> > I agree with you that no one should bother watching a film in 3D that is
> > only in 3D because of post-conversion. I will not agree with your belief
> > that an intent to post-convert to 3D somehow diminishes the original 2D
> > product at its point of creation. That might have been true with the 3D of
> > decades ago where 3D translated to 'stuff shoots out of the screen at you',
> > but I don't think that it is true of today's 3D where the scenes are given
> > depth rather than lent to gimmickry.
>
> There's still stuff that comes out of the screen in modern 3D but
> nowhere near as much as before. I like the depth but wouldn't mind a
> few more gimmick shots as well.

Startling the audience may be a waning practice. But if 'gimmicks'
includes creative ways to use 3D composition, then by all means...

Arthur Lipscomb

unread,

May 9, 2012, 10:31:06 AM5/9/12

to

At the same time if it had *bad* special effects, or was shot in black
and white or was a silent film, those would have an effect on the
overall enjoyment too.

The Artist is a great film but plenty of people will never watch it
because it's in black and white and/or silent. Lots of different
factors attract film goers to a theater. Just because the filmmakers
spend time getting the right sound mix or color timing doesn't mean they
skimped on the plot. I trust that the filmmakers can walk and chew gum
at the same time.

Granted lots of movies aren't that good but that has nothing to do with
3D. It's not like 3D made Michael Bay a worse filmmaker than he already
was.

Bill Anderson

unread,

May 9, 2012, 11:36:11 AM5/9/12

to

THE ARTIST is not by any stretch of the imagination a "great" film, and
it absolutely was not the best film of last year. It is, I concede, an
enjoyable way to pass some time. That it is a B&W silent movie had no
more effect on my enjoyment than the 3D in, I dunno, THOR or the final
Harry Potter. Scorcese did use 3D in HUGO to make one nice joke which
worked (for me) only because it came across as a wink/nudge about the
movie's otherwise understated use of 3D. The appearance of that dog's
nose was, I think, the only time in the film that a sharp object shot
out of the screen at the audience, and I (at least) laughed because it
was, taking everything else into consideration, an anomaly. It's the
overall artistry and heart of a film that makes it great, not the color
or the sound or 3D trickery.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog but even I can't define what "heart" means.

Obveeus

unread,

May 9, 2012, 11:39:25 AM5/9/12

to

"Bill Anderson" <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 5/9/2012 10:31 AM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:

>> On 5/9/2012 4:19 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>> Movie makers need to spend their extra time/money on plot/character, not
>>> faux pointy object effects. THE AVENGERS is a good current example. It
>>> is
>>> doing blockbuster business (as opposed to just solid business) because
>>> the film has better character/humor than most films in the genre, not
>>> because it has better special effects.
>>
>>
>> At the same time if it had *bad* special effects, or was shot in black
>> and white or was a silent film, those would have an effect on the
>> overall enjoyment too.

> It's the overall artistry and heart of a film that makes it great, not the
> color or the sound or 3D trickery.

Exactly.

moviePig

unread,

May 9, 2012, 3:14:09 PM5/9/12

to

On May 9, 11:36 am, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 10:31 AM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5/9/2012 4:19 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> >> "Arthur Lipscomb"<art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> >>> On 5/7/2012 3:21 PM, Obveeus wrote:

(Shirley in HUGO you have to give some nod also to the conspicuous
post-conversion of the famous man-in-the-moon shot ...one of the more
sophisticated and apposite in-jokes in my movie memory.)

moviePig

unread,

May 9, 2012, 6:03:44 PM5/9/12

to

On May 8, 11:15 am, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 4:42 PM, moviePig wrote:

> ...>

> I think you need to go see it, Pig.

Okay, I did.
My take is that AVENGERS is hog heaven for anyone who's able access/
build (even temporarily) an inner Marvel fan ...but that still leaves
it short of compulsory for an inflexible curmudgeon like me who's lost
his ear for superheroics and its ilk. Although Whedon is sure enough
funny,.his wit, of course, is always sideways to Marvel's milieu
rather than behind its back ...and it's telling that I received the
humor like I do the "grownup" lines smuggled into a Disney flick.
Still, the overall movie thankfully did seem to acknowledge the
audience as more than 12 years old.
Fwiw, I saw AVENGERS in 3D. And, speaking as one who generally
enjoys and has hopes for 3D, I judge that we bespectacled viewers were
very much in someone's mind in calling many -- maybe most -- of the
shots here. Sure, this was plainly post-converted 3D ...but was miles
better than, say, PIRANHA 3D a couple of years ago. And, although I
still plan not to have much truck with such movies, I must admit that
AVENGERS's hyper-effects -- likely achieved only via the delayed depth-
tuning -- did serve this comic-book movie well. (I occasionally
switched it on and off for subjective comparison; neither was more
realistic, but 3D was more fun.)
On balance, I'm satisfied to have seen AVENGERS ...but also
satisfied that I'm unlikely to crave a future entry. (My *least*
enjoyable moment was wrestling myself away from watching the 3D
PROMETHEUS trailer.)
Oh ...and one of the driest instances of the Whedon wit follows the
endless string of crawl-credits. Thanks to Mark Leeper for the heads-
up.

Tom

unread,

May 9, 2012, 7:06:49 PM5/9/12

to

On May 6, 6:05 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And I suspect I never will get it; I'm no more likely to understand it
> than I am to suddenly begin enjoying hip-hop music. Its record-breaking
> popularity is as foreign to me as ... as ... The Marcels' "Blue Moon"
> was to my parents in 1961 when they couldn't figure out why anybody
> would ever tamper like that with a classic Rodgers and Hart tune. Bahm
> diddy bahm.
>
> The Avengers are second tier, no, THIRD tier superheroes whom I
> disdained even in childhood -- at least I disdained the ones who were
> around in my childhood. I don't care if there's an audience for the
> Transformers or GI Joe or Battleships or even The Avengers; it doesn't
> upset me that, temporarily anyway, superheroes have somehow achieved
> superpopularity, or that THE AVENGERS have broken all opening weekend
> box office records. I'm just saying I don't understand, I'm old, I'm out
> of it, popular culture is passing me by, and ... well ... I don't care.
>
> There, I've said it. You guys go on and argue over whether to see THE
> AVENGERS in Imax 3D or not, just go ahead. As for me, I guess, pass the
> Geritol and bring on the Marigold Hotel.

>
> --
> Bill Anderson
>
> I am the Mighty Favog

Apparently, Laura Ingraham doesn't get it, either. Nor does she get
not insulting her listeners...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/laura-ingraham-angers-fans-by-mocking-adults-who-go-to-the-avengers/

Tom