MCU's THE ETERNALS (11/6/20) 8 8

[InfantTerrible]

I think many of the Phase IV movies are going to underperform; People are still reluctant to bunch up in a close room; they are now more accustomed to Disney+ service; Many of A-list characters are gone, Iron-Man, the real Captain America; External agenda other than making good movies; Not respecting the source material; Same old tired MCU formula; B-list characters; Another slow build-up to the next big bad guy.....etc, etc

[jsilverjanet]

On 6/2/2021 at 9:18 AM, Gatsby77 said:

2) She's totally bat-sh*t f--kn' nuts.

 

they failed here.

if this were true we would have walked away scared of her. In the end, this episode in her life was portrayed in a sympathetic way, and she overcame it and became the hero. They could have gone a different route but it's disney, they have a product to sell and won't ever go to far in hurting their product lines.

 

[valiantman]

Someone has already mentioned the Celestial in the first Guardians of the Galaxy, right?

Tivan the Collector's explanation for the infinity stones included a small clip (that probably would have been awesome to include in the Eternals trailer, even though it's from 7 years ago).

https://youtu.be/r30nn9RqlvE?t=154

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by valiantman

[paperheart]

On 6/2/2021 at 7:01 AM, drotto said:

It is not hard evidence, just like you can not give me hard viewing numbers for how many people really watch any streaming show. But we can use internet trends and YouTube views as a rough measure of interest compared to past shows and movies.  Those numbers seem to show interest has dropped off.  

 

Again the MCU is not dead, by any stretch, but it will be extremely difficult to reach Endgame levels.

wow, going way out on a limb here that Phase 4 won't match the second highest grossing movie of all time 

Edited June 5, 2021 by paperheart

[Bosco685]

"We had cameras and actors and film sets and a -script - this will truly be unique!"

Edited June 8, 2021 by Bosco685

[D84]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

"We had cameras and actors and film sets and a --script - this will truly be unique!"

Let's not jump the gun, saying they had a -script. 

[Bosco685]

3 minutes ago, D84 said:

Let's not jump the gun, saying they had a --script. 

[drotto]

6 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

"We had cameras and actors and film sets and a --script - this will truly be unique!"

I thought to be an indie film usually means: shooting a a shoe string budget, with friends you put in the film because you could not afford anyone else, high levels of improv, little to no CGI, and a labor of love usually with a single voice as opposed to a corporate overlord. Oh yeah, released on like 100 screens across the country and lucky to make 5 million.

 

I want to see a well done Superhero film made in this fashion.

[@therealsilvermane]

57 minutes ago, drotto said:

I thought to be an indie film usually means: shooting a a shoe string budget, with friends you put in the film because you could not afford anyone else, high levels of improv, little to no CGI, and a labor of love usually with a single voice as opposed to a corporate overlord. Oh yeah, released on like 100 screens across the country and lucky to make 5 million.

 

I want to see a well done Superhero film made in this fashion.

An independent film is literally any film produced outside of a major Studio. Their budgets can range from several million to no budget.

Martin Scorsese hasn't shot an independent film since before Mean Streets but his is still the lone (or main) artistic voice behind the camera.

The Blair Witch Project was produced for less than 50k but was picked up by a major distributor and was released in every movie chain across the country. There are no rules to moviemaking really.

To shoot the majority of a major Studio blockbuster film with all natural light on location is unheard of. One would definitely call that "indie style," even though most indie filmmakers use artificial lighting. It's difficult to successfully shoot a feature film with all natural light.  Terence Malick shot Tree of Life with mostly natural light for spiritual and aesthetic reasons. Malick is a heavy influence on Chloe Zhao so it makes sense for her to shoot in that style, as she has with all her films. She also might have had the luxury on Eternals (as in a very big budget) of being able to shoot with natural light as weather and the hours of the day don't always work with you.

Edited June 9, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[theCapraAegagrus]

15 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

"We had cameras and actors and film sets and a --script - this will truly be unique!"

[drotto]

9 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

An independent film is literally any film produced outside of a major Studio. Their budgets can range from several million to no budget.

Martin Scorsese hasn't shot an independent film since before Mean Streets but his is still the lone (or main) artistic voice behind the camera.

The Blair Witch Project was produced for less than 50k but was picked up by a major distributor and was released in every movie chain across the country. There are no rules to moviemaking really.

To shoot the majority of a major Studio blockbuster film with all natural light on location is unheard of. One would definitely call that "indie style," even though most indie filmmakers use artificial lighting. It's difficult to successfully shoot a feature film with all natural light.  Terence Malick shot Tree of Life with mostly natural light for spiritual and aesthetic reasons. Malick is a heavy influence on Chloe Zhao so it makes sense for her to shoot in that style, as she has with all her films. She also might have had the luxury on Eternals (as in a very big budget) of being able to shoot with natural light as weather and the hours of the day don't always work with you.

The point is except for some shooting techniques, there is nothing indy about this film.  This is a marketing stunt, trying to emphasize the directors strengths.  

[theCapraAegagrus]

29 minutes ago, drotto said:

The point is except for some shooting techniques, there is nothing indy about this film.  This is a marketing stunt, trying to emphasize the directors strengths.  

Monotonous camerawork.

[Gatsby77]

10 hours ago, drotto said:

I thought to be an indie film usually means: shooting a a shoe string budget, with friends you put in the film because you could not afford anyone else, high levels of improv, little to no CGI, and a labor of love usually with a single voice as opposed to a corporate overlord. Oh yeah, released on like 100 screens across the country and lucky to make 5 million.

 

I want to see a well done Superhero film made in this fashion.

They did that. It was called Chronicle.

Yes - still had a $12 million budget, but that's *extremely* low-budget & indy even by non-sci fi standards.

[@therealsilvermane]

36 minutes ago, drotto said:

some shooting techniques

And that's why Gemma Chan specifically said they shot Eternals like an indie film in this interview. I don't believe Ms. Chan was referring to the film's budget or marketing.

[Gatsby77]

10 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

To shoot the majority of a major Studio blockbuster film with all natural light on location is unheard of. One would definitely call that "indie style," even though most indie filmmakers use artificial lighting. It's difficult to successfully shoot a feature film with all natural light.  Terence Malick shot Tree of Life with mostly natural light for spiritual and aesthetic reasons. Malick is a heavy influence on Chloe Zhao so it makes sense for her to shoot in that style, as she has with all her films. She also might have had the luxury on Eternals (as in a very big budget) of being able to shoot with natural light as weather and the hours of the day don't always work with you.

This.

Shooting outside of a studio with all natural light is virtually unheard of.

Another high-profile example of this: The Revenant, which is why it took 9+ months to shoot.

[D84]

"Pretty much all at magic hour."

Did they only get 1 shot done per day?

[Gatsby77]

4 minutes ago, D84 said:

"Pretty much all at magic hour."

Did they only get 1 shot done per day?

That was my question too.

Apparently principal photography took 7 months, which is a *long* time.

Dr. Strange, for example, was only 5 months, and Guardians of the Galaxy was just over 3 months.

[@therealsilvermane]

4 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

17 minutes ago, D84 said:

"Pretty much all at magic hour."

Did they only get 1 shot done per day?

That was my question too.

Apparently principal photography took 7 months, which is a *long* time.

Dr. Strange, for example, was only 5 months, and Guardians of the Galaxy was just over 3 months.

In the article's excerpt from Ms. Chan's interview, she says "we shot it like an indie film." Perhaps she's referring to the exterior scenes. After looking at the trailer, the exteriors for sure were shot with natural light, especially with that moving camera which can't hide artificial lights. They do look they were shot at "magic hour" as you see either sunrise or sunset in many shots. However some of those interior shots in the trailer look like they would have been artificially lit. They look great with a directional "source lighting" feel (as in light comes from fire, a skylight, or other objects). You can also bump up the exposure a little in post-production depending how the film is shot.

I would have a hard time believing the entire film used natural lighting from production and into post-production. Gemma Chan is just an actress on the film and isn't necessarily there in the editing and effects work phase.

Or she might have been exaggerating a bit.

[Larryw7]

Chanel commercials are shot with natural lighting.

[valiantman]

9 minutes ago, Larryw7 said:

Chanel commercials are shot with natural lighting.

Gemma Chanel?