The Fight is Quicker Than the Eye

This was opening weekend for Marvel's Avengers: Age of Ultron. And, as any good comic book nerd will tell you, this weekend was a must weekend to visit your local movie theater. The one of our choosing was an AMC Theater, which was our second visit there. The first was for Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy - which was also the last movie we saw in a theater. Not only does the place have a great screen, a terrific sound system, and leather, auto-reclining lounge seats, but more importantly, when you purchase your ticket you purchase your seat! That's right, boys and girls, no rushing to get to the theater early so you can grab that perfect seat. You sit in your living room and, after a few clicks of your mouse on http://www.Fandango.com/, you have your specific seat. Can't beat it!

My intention is not to write a spoiler-laden article concerning the movie. So no worries. I do want to address something I wrote about 201 blog posts ago: the way movies present action scenes. In my very first post, "And no, I'm not switching to 'chick flicks' . . . ", I give a description of the terrible way fight scenes are portrayed: lots of quick cuts filmed with a shaky cam. You can never tell what is happening.

In the post I used Star Trek as the example. But to be honest, it was the same with the Transformers movies. I, for one, have no interest in ever watching any beyond the first installment. As a matter of fact, I wish I didn't watch the first installment either. I couldn't understand who was fighting whom, and I have to think that was the director's idea.

Attention Hollywood. Please remember, if there is nothing to see, why should we watch?!?

Now, I've been a big fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (so far). I've seen all of the movies, with the exception of Thor: The Dark World. For the most part, Marvel has made sure that the action is not lost on the audience. And I, for one, deeply appreciate that. Age of Ultron had a LOT of fight scenes in it (not a spoiler - have you SEEN the trailers?!?), and they are visually awesome. They don't even have to slow down the scenes, though when they do they are really breathtaking. There was one scene that really comes to mind. At one point in a fight, the action is slowed and you see Captain America jump forward and rotate in the air twice(?), before connecting with his intended victim. You can tell that Chris Evans did the stunt, because right after he connects you can see him falling downward, like he was going to land on a mat. I think the only complaint is that there is SO much action going on, that your eyes have trouble focusing on more than one of the individual characters at a time. I guess that means I need to watch it again to see the others. (Hey, Marvel! Can you say "Cha-ching!"?)

Speaking of movies making money, I think directors and studios can take a lot away from viewing the Marvel movies. And if they implement such care in making quality, it will be reflected in positive reviews from their audiences. Just like this one.

© Emittravel 2015

And no, I'm not switching to "chick flicks" . . .

Getting really tired of the trend in filming action scenes lately. It looks like they find a cameraman who is experiencing the DTs, give him a handheld camera with the zoom all the way in, and film the fight. The shots are so close up, and so jerky, that you can neither focus on what you are watching (the screen itself), nor tell what is happening. Makes me long for the old Kung-Fu movies where the fights were choreographed dances (or, for those of you wanting a little more recent example: "The Matrix")!

A couple of movies lately that I've seen where this seems to be the "norm" are "Star Trek" and "Clash of the Titans". In the fight scene in the bar in "Star Trek", for example, you really had no idea who was punching who, or who was winning or losing, at any given point.

The space battles were shown the same; just a lot of explosions, spastic imagery, and hollering. Maybe the studios are so concerned with actors being injured on the set, and the inevitable lawsuits that follow, that they do this to portray action without actually having the action. Probably takes less to film an action scene when you don't have to take the time to teach the actors choreography.

I'm told this is the way of action movies now-a-days. I think it is a cinematic copout.

Let's not be so lazy – and so insulting to us, the audience. I'm sure it is still possible to captivate without causing visual damage. Besides, don't actors have to sign a waiver anyways?

©Emittravel 2010