Avengers: Infinity War (2018) (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

My guess would be that the DVD, BD, UHD and streaming versions would be locked at 2.39:1, while the BD3D version would be 1.90:1, as this is how Marvel has previously handled IMAX 3D exclusive ratios on disc.

IMAX 1.90 is meant to be different than 1.85:1 in conventional theaters. Theoretically, 1.85:1 in a conventional theater is meant to be a smaller screen size. Then, 2.39:1 is meant to be bigger, by opening that 1.85:1 image on the sides. The IMAX 1.90:1 is supposed to be even bigger than that, by opening the tops and bottom of a 2.39:1 image.

IMAX theaters are also made to custom specifications so that the seating angle and viewing position is meant to be different than a conventional theater. As it was explained to me, the framing can be looser on the tops and bottom of IMAX screens because the viewer is focused on the middle of the frame, and the rest becomes peripheral information that fills one's field of view leading to a more expansive feeling - but the idea is not necessarily that one pays attention to each and every thing in that frame at all times.

I've been rewatching all of the previous Marvel films at home, and the 3D versions for many of the titles feature expanded and switching aspect ratios. The goal with those presentations seems to be more complete immersion rather than perfectly composed framing - I think the extra height adds to a better 3D presentation.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

In rewatching almost all of the previous Marvel films (almost done), I do have one concern with Infinity War that I hope ends up being not a thing. I'm slightly worried that the movie will feel more like Captain America 4, rather than Avengers 3. So far, the different standalone films have all had unique feels to them; a Captain America movie feels very different than a Thor movie, which itself is very different from an Iron Man movie.

When Joss Whedon was helming the first two Avengers movies, the characters still spoke in their voices as seen in their standalone films, but the films as a whole had a different tonal quality than the individual stories.

Even though Civil War featured most of the Avengers, it felt very much like a Captain America movie, as it should have, since it was a Captain America movie. But with the CA writing team of Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely scripting Infinity War, CA directors Anthony and Joe Russo directing, and CA cinematographer Trent Opaloch shooting, I think there's a potential for this to feel like the next Captain America film, and for the tone that Joss Whedon established for Avengers movies to be abandoned.

I know making Avengers: Age Of Ultron was a frustrating experience for Whedon, and perhaps one that he hasn't recovered from yet (I saw him speak a year after the film came out and he still seemed deeply hurt by the experience at that time), but it really felt to me that this should have been his baby.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I know making Avengers: Age Of Ultron was a frustrating experience for Whedon, and perhaps one that he hasn't recovered from yet (I saw him speak a year after the film came out and he still seemed deeply hurt by the experience at that time), but it really felt to me that this should have been his baby.

I get what you're saying, but I assume that he turned it down. If so, there's not much Feige could have done about that. So, I think the Russos are clearly the most qualified to take the range of any of Marvel's stable of directors.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I get what you're saying, but I assume that he turned it down. If so, there's not much Feige could have done about that. So, I think the Russos are clearly the most qualified to take the range of any of Marvel's stable of directors.

I think he was fired. Or rather, that he had a contract that was specifically for writing and directing Age Of Ultron, and for serving as a creative consultant concurrently for Phase 2 films and when that contract lapsed, it wasn't renewed. I've never seen one bit of reporting to suggest that Whedon was offered a Phase 3 contract and turned it down.

I do agree that the Russos are the next best choice of the directors Marvel has already worked with. And I have no doubt that they'll deliver a fine film. I just sincerely hope it feels like an Avengers movie rather than a Captain America movie.

For what it's worth, in hindsight, I think both Feige and Whedon were both butting heads unnecesarily over Age Of Ultron. Whedon very much wanted the sequence with the Avengers on Hawkeye's farm, and Feige very much wanted the sequence with Thor having his vision about the infinity stones in the cave, and each person wanted to cut the other's scenes. I think the film clearly needed both.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

For what it's worth, in my book Whedon's batting a .500 when it comes to the MCU, while the Russos are batting a 1.000. I loved the first Avengers; it was absolutely the event film it needed to be, and the movie works for me from beginning to end.

Age of Ultron, while there's a lot in there I like, does not work for me. It started losing me right off the bat, because I don't care at all for the cinematography, which I found oddly murky and overly cyan in hue. For a filmmaker who made a name for himself as a feminist storyteller, certain elements are oddly regressive -- especially Hawkeye keeping June, Wally, and Beaver tucked away on the farm happily busying themselves with domestic concerns until the man of the house comes home from work. The Banner/Romanoff romantic subplot seemed to come out of nowhere and didn't feel organic and the dynamic between Black Widow and the Hulk feels a bit too much like King Kong and Ann Darrow. The pacing is weird, primarily because the film has to serve so many different masters. Where the action scenes in the first Avengers all felt grounded in character, the spectacle often felt emptier here. Ultron was a bit too mustache-twirling as a villain. It's not a terrible movie, but it is a fairly mediocre one.

The Winter Soldier is one of the best standalone Marvel movies, and I thought CIvil War did a far better job than Age of Ultron at not letting the scaffolding requirements of connecting so many disparate elements of the MCU bog down the story that specific film was trying to tell.

I continue to be deeply skeptical that a movie with as vast a cast of characters as Infinity War, with a villain so out of scale compared to our heroes, can tell a satisfying character-driven story. But I'm more optimistic with the Russos than I would have been with Whedon.

IMAX 1.90 is meant to be different than 1.85:1 in conventional theaters. Theoretically, 1.85:1 in a conventional theater is meant to be a smaller screen size. Then, 2.39:1 is meant to be bigger, by opening that 1.85:1 image on the sides. The IMAX 1.90:1 is supposed to be even bigger than that, by opening the tops and bottom of a 2.39:1 image.

It still seems like a sales pitch to me, to get moviegoers to buy the premium tickets. I do accept that one would frame a 1.9:1 movie for an IMAX size screen differently than one would frame a 1.85:1 movie for a regular size screen. But having to frame for both 1.9:1 IMAX and 2.39:1 conventional means that either the IMAX framing is being compromised in favor of the conventional framing or the conventional framing is being compromised for the IMAX framing, or both are being compromised so that both are acceptable.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

For what it's worth, in my book Whedon's batting a .500 when it comes to the MCU, while the Russos are batting a 1.000. I loved the first Avengers; it was absolutely the event film it needed to be, and the movie works for me from beginning to end.

I agree that the first film is definitely superior. I've been rewatching all of the films in order this month. I've probably seen The Avengers more than any other MCU film, and even with all of those viewings, this most recent viewing still played as exciting, fresh and vital. The writing is snappy, the performances are great, and the assembly of the entire film just works. It works as a standalone movie, but it's even more satisfying as a conclusion to Phase 1.

One of my disappointments with Age Of Ultron is that it's more or less a standalone film. It's not really designed to be a culmination of the Phase 2 films, but I had every expectation it would be because the first Avengers movie was. It doesn't smoothly pick up from where the other films left off. For instance, at the very end of Iron Man 3, Tony Stark basically retires from being Iron Man. When Ultron begins, he's back as Iron Man, and it's never once discussed in the plot. Obviously, Tony is going to put his suit back on if he needs to, but it's a little disappointing that the film sorta negates the character development from the previous installment.

Age of Ultron, while there's a lot in there I like, does not work for me. It started losing me right off the bat, because I don't care at all for the cinematography, which I found oddly murky and overly cyan in hue.

I agree, I think the cinematography is one of the weakest points of the film. It was shot by Ben Davis, who is sort of the in-house guy for Marvel now; he also shot the first Guardians Of The Galaxy movie and Doctor Strange, and is currently shooting Captain Marvel. His images, to my eye at least, tend to have a very bland, murky, sort of overcast look to them, as if everything was shot on a cold, cloudy day. I enjoyed Guardians 2 so much more than the first one, and I think at least part of that is that a different cinematographer was used, and the colors and imagery were so much more lively. The look of the first Guardians doesn't always match the tone of the writing or performances. In rewatching Doctor Strange this week, I was also struck by how bland many of the non-effects sequences look, which is a shame because it's another film with lively performances and energetic storytelling. Looking over the filmography of Ben Davis, I'm seeing other films on that list that have that similar murky look, including Stardust and Wrath Of The Titans. He also did the recent Three Billboards, which was a great movie but not necessarily a great looking one.

Back to Ultron, I think the score is also incredibly bland, which was probably why Danny Elfman was brought on at the last minute to contribute some additional cues (which didn't really help).

And yet, despite all of the film's flaws, there's something about it that keeps drawing me back in. I've watched the film on 3D Blu-ray far more than I ever thought I would after seeing it in theater. The climactic battle goes on for way too long and is too repetitious, but the character beats throughout the film have this weirdness to them that I can't quite look away from. It's a giant scale movie that's essentially a small scale story about failure and hubris and the fragility of human life. I admire the ambition but it was a difficult choice of material to make fit into where the MCU was at that moment in time.

It still seems like a sales pitch to me, to get moviegoers to buy the premium tickets. I do accept that one would frame a 1.9:1 movie for an IMAX size screen differently than one would frame a 1.85:1 movie for a regular size screen. But having to frame for both 1.9:1 IMAX and 2.39:1 conventional means that either the IMAX framing is being compromised in favor of the conventional framing or the conventional framing is being compromised for the IMAX framing, or both are being compromised so that both are acceptable.

One of the most recent films to be released in 1.90:1 in IMAX and 2.39:1 in conventional theaters was the Clint Eastwood film "Sully" - the DP for that film, Tom Stern, said that they composed for 2.39:1 but protected the entire frame. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a similar situation here, though there is a video on the IMAX Facebook page that I haven't viewed that's said to be the Russos discussing the IMAX framing, so there might be more clues there. Disney also did the expanded ratio for the IMAX versions of Beauty And The Beast (live action) and Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. I only saw BATB'17 at home in 2.39:1, but I did see Pirates 5 in theaters. When you see it on a 100 foot screen, it's not so much that the extra information adds to the story, but it just helps in ensuring that the visuals fill your entire field of vision, which would fit with IMAX's mission statement of wanting to put you in the movie.

I would bet that all of the important information is within the 2.39:1 area but that the extra height is being used to give an increased sense of scale. So in individual closeups and two-shots, it may appear to have extra headroom in IMAX, but in larger scale sequences, the entire frame will be filled with nonstop action. I would imagine that the camera viewfinders had both ratios marked, and that the effects people also had both framelines on their monitors to ensure that it worked both ways.

 

[steve jaros]

In rewatching almost all of the previous Marvel films (almost done), I do have one concern with Infinity War that I hope ends up being not a thing. I'm slightly worried that the movie will feel more like Captain America 4, rather than Avengers 3.

FWIW, my concern is that it it be much more like Avengers 1 than Avengers 2. Avengers 1 was a joy, a tremendous entertainment machine firing on all cylinders, still a thrill to watch six years later.

IMO, Avengers 2 was a mess that got over because of the substantial goodwill built up by Avengers 1 and the other good Marvel stand-alone films. That's all that saved it from being Marvel-Disney's Batman vs Superman.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I obviously like Age Of Ultron more than most, but I didn't start out that way - the BD3D release really sold me on the film far more than the theatrical release did.

But to what you're saying the first Avengers is fun in a way the second one isn't. And I think Civil War (while not technically an Avengers movie) is a pretty great movie - but I'm not sure that it's really a fun one. I feel happy at the end of every viewing of Avengers 1 . Not so much after Civil War. I know the stakes for Infinity War don't necessarily lead themselves to "fun" but I really hope I come out of the theater feeling energized and excited rather than sad and depressed.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I couldn’t be happier that the Russos are doing these next two Avengers movies instead of Whedon. Of course, I have the right to change that opinion if they don’t turn out like I expect they will (ie: Great!). But based on the past performance of both I’m much more excited about these next two than I would have been if Whedon was directing.

Joss did a great job on “The Avengers” and he still did a solid job on Ultron, though Ultron certainly has some significant shortcomings. I’ve also really enjoyed a great deal of the entertainment that JW has delivered to us fanboys over the years (Buffy, Angel, Firefly & Serenity). But my nit-pick with him is that when I’m watching his stuff I often hear “Joss Whedon” talking through the characters instead of just hearing “the characters”, if you know what I mean. His dialogue often just has such a distinctive quality to it that it often just jumps right out to me as “Yep, that’s Joss talking out of these characters’ mouths, and EVERYONE gets a quip” at the expense of the characters just not sounding like themselves, at least in my opinion. And I felt like Joss never really was able to voice Cap right. Joss’s Cap feels different (and lesser) to me than Johnston’s and the Russos’. And boy, have the Russos completely nailed Cap.

The Winter Soldier is my absolute favorite of the MCU, and Civil War is pretty damn close. I just think that the Russos have a fantastic grasp on character, story, action and tone. They certainly leaned in a particular direction with tone in The Winter Soldier, but in Civil War (which still went pretty serious) I feel that they showed they have the right stuff for broadening that tone in the Airport battle. The style of the action there was perfect for The Avengers and they also seemlessly sprinkled in an appropriate amount of levity without it feeling too jokey (which I felt some of Whedon’s stuff didn’t quite nail, at least in Ultron).

Many of the comments from people who have seen the 20-some minutes that they have screened have indicated that humor was certainly present, so I don’t think we need to worry about it being devoid of the appropriate level of levity one might expect from a big superhero team up movie. Though I think the Russos are more likely to find the right balance in using humor when appropriate and not when things need to be serious and all “epic-y”.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Although I have seen every MCU film, and all but three in a theater, I have been much more selective in terms of which ones I buy. I will confess that I haven't actually seen Ultron since its theatrical opening night screening. I didn't really even dislike it that much. It just felt like it was there while it was on, and certainly enjoyable enough, but then I forgot about it from an emotional standpoint. So, it never felt like something that I particularly needed to purchase.

 

[Sean Bryan]

But to what you're saying the first Avengers is fun in a way the second one isn't. And I think Civil War (while not technically an Avengers movie) is a pretty great movie - but I'm not sure that it's really a fun one. I feel happy at the end of every viewing of Avengers 1 . Not so much after Civil War. I know the stakes for Infinity War don't necessarily lead themselves to "fun" but I really hope I come out of the theater feeling energized and excited rather than sad and depressed.

“Fun isn’t something one considers when balancing the universe. But this does put a smile on my face.”

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I feel happy at the end of every viewing of Avengers 1 . Not so much after Civil War. I know the stakes for Infinity War don't necessarily lead themselves to "fun" but I really hope I come out of the theater feeling energized and excited rather than sad and depressed.

I am pretty confident that Civil War was the setup and Infinity War is the payoff. Civil War was about fracturing the Avengers, putting them into disarray. I would bet that Infinity War ends with the world in more danger than its ever been but with the Avengers joined together again as a united front.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Shortcomings asides, Age of Ultron did have some great stuff.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Cool multi-poster panorama

 

[Jake Lipson]

And I think Civil War (while not technically an Avengers movie) is a pretty great movie - but I'm not sure that it's really a fun one. I feel happy at the end of every viewing of Avengers 1 . Not so much after Civil War.

I get what you're saying, but I think this is one of the reasons why Civil War stood out as being so effective and emotional, because there wasn't resolution with the team, as opposed to the end of most of the other movies where the villain has been overcome and mostly everybody's happy (at least temporarily) who deserves it. Although it was a dejected place to leave the audience, I think it tees up Infinity War better to leave the Avengers in a broken place. The fact that the wounds dealt to the team in Civil War haven't healed yet will make it that much harder for them to face Thanos. So, it was necessary to leave them exactly where they are.

In Homecoming, when Tony is about to announce Spider-Man as the next Avenger, Cap's side of the team aren't even members anymore officially (although we know they will be back.) So Tony was to add Peter to a team that, officially, included himself, a wounded Rhodes, Vision, and..who else? It seems everyone else are fugitives, or missing (since Thor and Hulk were unaccounted for thanks to Ragnarok.) That leaves the group extremely vulnerable, which is the most dramatic situation they could be in going into Infinity War.

I would bet that Infinity War ends with the world in more danger than its ever been but with the Avengers joined together again as a united front.

This. At least, the remaining Avengers. I wonder if they'll be at each other's throats throughout a portion of Infinity War, but then a major one of them dies, and that motivates the others to put aside their differences. Of course, Joss already did this with Colson, but it would probably work again. What if, for example, either Tony or Steve die before they are able to make amends with each other? That would be a pretty good motivator for the other one going forward, and I think it would work because they have had a closer working relationship than any of the Avengers had with Colson, who was important to them but not actually part of the group.

I want to be clear that the above paragraph is all speculation on my part, and that if any portion of it ends up being true, I did not know any spoilers and was just making a lucky guess.

We'll see what happens on Thursday.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Based on the trailers and some comments from the writers and directors, I believe that the story of Infinity War will be mostly broken into vignettes with Thanos being the central factor tying them together.

And I suspect that the character groups from the different vignettes won’t converge until the third act. So I’m not sure that the issues from Civil War will be fully resolved in this movie. It may not be until Avengers 4.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I’m not sure that the issues from Civil War will be fully resolved in this movie. It may not be until Avengers 4.

I wouldn't expect complete resolution since we know it is a two-part story, but I think they will have to press pause on their feud in order to come together and deal with Thanos. I suspect he will leave them in such a bad place at the end of Infinity War that they're not going to have a choice in the matter. But certainly, the personal issues that have come up between them will thread through both movies, I think.

On another note, I just realized that the next time I am leaving my house is for Infinity War. It's weird to think it is this close.

 

[TravisR]

It's weird to think it is this close.

I know it's coming out on Friday but in my mind, it's still coming out in May (since so many Marvel movies come out then) so it seems like it's sometime 'next month' rather than in under a week.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I know it's coming out on Friday but in my mind, it's still coming out in May

Yeah, I get that The good thing is that it is still the "summer kickoff movie," and its inevitable success in April will continue to prove that the calendar is almost irrelevant. The Hollywood studios need to understand that if you bring good content, audiences will show up no matter what time of year it is, and the fact that Infinity War will be a huge hit on what is traditionally an off weekend will reinforce that notion.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yeah, I get that The good thing is that it is still the "summer kickoff movie," and its inevitable success in April will continue to prove that the calendar is almost irrelevant. The Hollywood studios need to understand that if you bring good content, audiences will show up no matter what time of year it is, and the fact that Infinity War will be a huge hit on what is traditionally an off weekend will reinforce that notion.

I think they realize that as Black Panther is another example.