I love that. It was a simple and slight thing with the little movement when Steve tried to pull the hammer and I loved Thor's reaction. I'm wondering if that will be a thing that will come into play later in the movie. No matter how many times I see this trailer, I never get tired of hearing James Spader as Ultron. It's so freaking good.
Not sure who the first was, probably Harry Potter, but this whole "Avengers: Infinity War part 1 and part 2" thing annoys me. Same with Hunger Games: Mockingjay part 1 and 2. With a book series, it kinda makes sense if they break the last novel into two. But for a completely original movie series there's no reason to do that.
I'm totally fine with studios going for four movies instead of 3, but the whole "Big Movie: Epic Sequal part 1" seems silly. I'm not happy to see this come to comic book movies. Just call part 3 "Infinity War" and part 4 "Forever War". Or whatever. Just not a fan of this part 1 and part 2 stuff.
I think it was Harry Potter that did two movies for one book which then happened with Twilight and now The Hunger Games. You even had the Hobbit broken into three movies. I'm curious to see how the Avengers does this two part movie thing. It could be very interesting.
Not sure who the first was, probably Harry Potter, but this whole "Avengers: Infinity War part 1 and part 2" thing annoys me. Same with Hunger Games: Mockingjay part 1 and 2. With a book series, it kinda makes sense if they break the last novel into two. But for a completely original movie series there's no reason to do that.
I'm totally fine with studios going for four movies instead of 3, but the whole "Big Movie: Epic Sequal part 1" seems silly. I'm not happy to see this come to comic book movies. Just call part 3 "Infinity War" and part 4 "Forever War". Or whatever. Just not a fan of this part 1 and part 2 stuff.
Haha, when I heard the rumor about Avengers 3, then read JLA would be doing it a month later, I thought " is this a trend now? Fuck you Harry Potter!"
I wonder if this is a way to squeeze out 4 Avengers movies before contracts expire. They'll film back to back & it's arguably 1 movie.
Not sure who the first was, probably Harry Potter, but this whole "Avengers: Infinity War part 1 and part 2" thing annoys me. Same with Hunger Games: Mockingjay part 1 and 2. With a book series, it kinda makes sense if they break the last novel into two. But for a completely original movie series there's no reason to do that.
I'm totally fine with studios going for four movies instead of 3, but the whole "Big Movie: Epic Sequal part 1" seems silly. I'm not happy to see this come to comic book movies. Just call part 3 "Infinity War" and part 4 "Forever War". Or whatever. Just not a fan of this part 1 and part 2 stuff.
Haha, when I heard the rumor about Avengers 3, then read JLA would be doing it a month later, I thought " is this a trend now? Fuck you Harry Potter!"
I wonder if this is a way to squeeze out 4 Avengers movies before contracts expire. They'll film back to back & it's arguably 1 movie.
M
They will be filming it together for sure, but, because of the Salkinds, for contract purposes it will count as two movies. The Salkinds tried to cheat their actors out of paychecks by filming the count of monte cristo as one big movie and then releasing it as multiple. Lawsuit says studios pay actors based on how many movies are released.
But, its still cheaper for studios to film one big movie instead of two years apart because they can keep the same sets, crew, locations without having to shut down production.
Isn't that how they filmed the Lord of the Rings trilogy as well as the Hobbit? I also seem to remember Back to the Future II and III and maybe even The Matrix II and III being filmed in a similar fashion.
The two-parters for Potter, Twilight and Hunger bother me more because they'd been able to fit the previous novels into a single film, so it's pretty blatant that the only reason they're doing it is for a cash grab. I don't think Hallows was even the longest Potter novel, though I may be wrong. Even so, that book had a lot of stuff that could be trimmed.
If they're purposely writing a story so long that it would require the audience to sit for more than three hours, then fine, split it into two. It's probably the last time we'll see some of these actors, so go out with a bang.
The two-parters for Potter, Twilight and Hunger bother me more because they'd been able to fit the previous novels into a single film, so it's pretty blatant that the only reason they're doing it is for a cash grab. I don't think Hallows was even the longest Potter novel, though I may be wrong. Even so, that book had a lot of stuff that could be trimmed.
If they're purposely writing a story so long that it would require the audience to sit for more than three hours, then fine, split it into two. It's probably the last time we'll see some of these actors, so go out with a bang.
Agreed.
Also, I think there is (or at least there is some belief there is) an optics problem once a franchise starts to have numbers as high as 4 attached to them. As silly as this sounds, the idea of a two-part Avengers 3 might actually track better than the idea of an Avengers 4.
Isn't that how they filmed the Lord of the Rings trilogy as well as the Hobbit? I also seem to remember Back to the Future II and III and maybe even The Matrix II and III being filmed in a similar fashion.
Yes, many movies have been shot at the same time. But when it comes to paying the actors, they are paid for two movies.
The two-parters for Potter, Twilight and Hunger bother me more because they'd been able to fit the previous novels into a single film, so it's pretty blatant that the only reason they're doing it is for a cash grab. I don't think Hallows was even the longest Potter novel, though I may be wrong. Even so, that book had a lot of stuff that could be trimmed.
If they're purposely writing a story so long that it would require the audience to sit for more than three hours, then fine, split it into two. It's probably the last time we'll see some of these actors, so go out with a bang.
Agreed.
Also, I think there is (or at least there is some belief there is) an optics problem once a franchise starts to have numbers as high as 4 attached to them. As silly as this sounds, the idea of a two-part Avengers 3 might actually track better than the idea of an Avengers 4.
Yea but they don't have to call it Avengers 3, or 4. It could be Avengers: Infitinity War and then Avengers Infinity Glove. Or whatever, doesn't matter. But Avengers: Infinity War part 1 and then Avengers: Infinity War part 2 seems silly to me.
The two-parters for Potter, Twilight and Hunger bother me more because they'd been able to fit the previous novels into a single film, so it's pretty blatant that the only reason they're doing it is for a cash grab. I don't think Hallows was even the longest Potter novel, though I may be wrong. Even so, that book had a lot of stuff that could be trimmed.
If they're purposely writing a story so long that it would require the audience to sit for more than three hours, then fine, split it into two. It's probably the last time we'll see some of these actors, so go out with a bang.
Agreed.
Also, I think there is (or at least there is some belief there is) an optics problem once a franchise starts to have numbers as high as 4 attached to them. As silly as this sounds, the idea of a two-part Avengers 3 might actually track better than the idea of an Avengers 4.
Yea but they don't have to call it Avengers 3, or 4. It could be Avengers: Infitinity War and then Avengers Infinity Glove. Or whatever, doesn't matter. But Avengers: Infinity War part 1 and then Avengers: Infinity War part 2 seems silly to me.
I get that. But I think in the age of these big book to movie franchise series, it may be that audiences have been trained to believe that 'Title Part One' and 'Title Part Two' is how the big finish breaks down. That Avengers: Infinity War Part Two will be some big, huge ending.
Now, we'll see if it actually is. It might be the end of one Avengers cast before the lineup changes is a big way, or Avengers reboots to a younger, cheaper cast.
But as silly as it is, it may be that this has become a success naming convention for an audience raised on Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games.
...in the age of these big book to movie franchise series, it may be that audiences have been trained to believe that 'Title Part One' and 'Title Part Two' is how the big finish breaks down. That Avengers: Infinity War Part Two will be some big, huge ending.
Now, we'll see if it actually is. It might be the end of one Avengers cast before the lineup changes is a big way, or Avengers reboots to a younger, cheaper cast.
But as silly as it is, it may be that this has become a success naming convention for an audience raised on Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games.
The two-parters for Potter, Twilight and Hunger bother me more because they'd been able to fit the previous novels into a single film, so it's pretty blatant that the only reason they're doing it is for a cash grab. I don't think Hallows was even the longest Potter novel, though I may be wrong. Even so, that book had a lot of stuff that could be trimmed.
If they're purposely writing a story so long that it would require the audience to sit for more than three hours, then fine, split it into two. It's probably the last time we'll see some of these actors, so go out with a bang.
Agreed.
Also, I think there is (or at least there is some belief there is) an optics problem once a franchise starts to have numbers as high as 4 attached to them. As silly as this sounds, the idea of a two-part Avengers 3 might actually track better than the idea of an Avengers 4.
Yea but they don't have to call it Avengers 3, or 4. It could be Avengers: Infitinity War and then Avengers Infinity Glove. Or whatever, doesn't matter. But Avengers: Infinity War part 1 and then Avengers: Infinity War part 2 seems silly to me.
I get that. But I think in the age of these big book to movie franchise series, it may be that audiences have been trained to believe that 'Title Part One' and 'Title Part Two' is how the big finish breaks down. That Avengers: Infinity War Part Two will be some big, huge ending.
Now, we'll see if it actually is. It might be the end of one Avengers cast before the lineup changes is a big way, or Avengers reboots to a younger, cheaper cast.
But as silly as it is, it may be that this has become a success naming convention for an audience raised on Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games.
I agree with everything you said. Just don't like it. looking forward to this naming convention to end.
The two-parters for Potter, Twilight and Hunger bother me more because they'd been able to fit the previous novels into a single film, so it's pretty blatant that the only reason they're doing it is for a cash grab. I don't think Hallows was even the longest Potter novel, though I may be wrong. Even so, that book had a lot of stuff that could be trimmed.
If they're purposely writing a story so long that it would require the audience to sit for more than three hours, then fine, split it into two. It's probably the last time we'll see some of these actors, so go out with a bang.
Agreed.
Also, I think there is (or at least there is some belief there is) an optics problem once a franchise starts to have numbers as high as 4 attached to them. As silly as this sounds, the idea of a two-part Avengers 3 might actually track better than the idea of an Avengers 4.
Yea but they don't have to call it Avengers 3, or 4. It could be Avengers: Infitinity War and then Avengers Infinity Glove. Or whatever, doesn't matter. But Avengers: Infinity War part 1 and then Avengers: Infinity War part 2 seems silly to me.
I get that. But I think in the age of these big book to movie franchise series, it may be that audiences have been trained to believe that 'Title Part One' and 'Title Part Two' is how the big finish breaks down. That Avengers: Infinity War Part Two will be some big, huge ending.
Now, we'll see if it actually is. It might be the end of one Avengers cast before the lineup changes is a big way, or Avengers reboots to a younger, cheaper cast.
But as silly as it is, it may be that this has become a success naming convention for an audience raised on Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games.
I agree with everything you said. Just don't like it. looking forward to this naming convention to end.
Comments
GEEKGASM!!!!! Thors face when Cap budges the hammer = PRICELESS. And good on them for that subtle nod. GOD I can't wait for this movie!!!!
M
Not sure who the first was, probably Harry Potter, but this whole "Avengers: Infinity War part 1 and part 2" thing annoys me. Same with Hunger Games: Mockingjay part 1 and 2. With a book series, it kinda makes sense if they break the last novel into two. But for a completely original movie series there's no reason to do that.
I'm totally fine with studios going for four movies instead of 3, but the whole "Big Movie: Epic Sequal part 1" seems silly. I'm not happy to see this come to comic book movies. Just call part 3 "Infinity War" and part 4 "Forever War". Or whatever. Just not a fan of this part 1 and part 2 stuff.
I wonder if this is a way to squeeze out 4 Avengers movies before contracts expire. They'll film back to back & it's arguably 1 movie.
M
Also, HD Scarlet is never a bad thing either...
But, its still cheaper for studios to film one big movie instead of two years apart because they can keep the same sets, crew, locations without having to shut down production.
If they're purposely writing a story so long that it would require the audience to sit for more than three hours, then fine, split it into two. It's probably the last time we'll see some of these actors, so go out with a bang.
Also, I think there is (or at least there is some belief there is) an optics problem once a franchise starts to have numbers as high as 4 attached to them. As silly as this sounds, the idea of a two-part Avengers 3 might actually track better than the idea of an Avengers 4.
M
Now, we'll see if it actually is. It might be the end of one Avengers cast before the lineup changes is a big way, or Avengers reboots to a younger, cheaper cast.
But as silly as it is, it may be that this has become a success naming convention for an audience raised on Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games.
Here ya go ...