or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › ABC's Joss Whedon/Marvel Cinema Universe tie-in: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ABC's Joss Whedon/Marvel Cinema Universe tie-in: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. - Page 5

post #121 of 1009
I enjoyed it. I went in with TV expectations. Not movie.
post #122 of 1009
Steranko; now there's an idea..
post #123 of 1009
I liked the pilot. Feels like AVS is overrun with naysayers these days, so I've come here less and less because I enjoy talking with other fans more than reading negativity, but I do want to throw my two cents in. I thought it was funny and paid good fan-service. (That bit where Coulson stepped out of the dark in dramatic fashion was spot on to his character from the movies. He's dominate in his job yet light-hearted as a person.) I like how it is tied in to the current Marvel Cinematic Universe as we have it to date (which includes Iron Man 3's Extremis). Makes me wonder if they have the episodes timed to tie in new movies as they come out, the next being Thor 2 in November. It's interesting to me how they didn't necessarily take the time to explain some bits from the already established universe the show is set in, but really, a newcomer won't NOT understand the plot; they'll just have certain lines pass over their heads that MCU fans will get. I like the oh so brief glimpses into the characters that teases what we can expect from them. I've got a notion that Coulson might actually be a clone; maybe not, but it is certainly clear that his death wasn't just faked. Re: the explosion: I don't expect cinema worthy special effects so those kind of things don't detract for me personally. As long as this doesn't turn into another crime procedural set in a superhero context, I think it has good potential and have set it to the top of my recording priority list. And at first it might be procedural...in the same way Fringe was...but given the vast universe it is set in, eventually I think it will find some solid ground to stand on become a great serialized story. As much as I enjoyed the pilot, I think the show will only get better and that is very exciting to this nerd!
post #124 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpeacock22 View Post

"Re: the explosion: I don't expect cinema worthy special effects so those kind of things don't detract for me personally.

I've wondered for awhile why CGI explosions look so bad with today's technology. I've wondered why they just don't give up trying to animate something that entropically complex and just use real explosions, done with stunt teams and fake sets with the right angles and lighting, and "photoshop" them into the scene in a seamless way that should be doable for The Really Smart Guys who develop software these days. Wouldn't that give a better result? And surely that would have to be easier than the animation method.

You could build up a whole library of various booms! after awhile, amortizing out the costs. Not my field, but I'd be interested to hear what an AVS member like vfxproducer who's in the business thinks about it.
post #125 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I've wondered for awhile why CGI explosions look so bad with today's technology. I've wondered why they just don't give up trying to animate something that entropically complex
entropically?
Way too fancy of a word for a Saturday morning....tongue.gif

Quote:
just use real explosions, done with stunt teams and fake sets with the right angles and lighting, and "photoshop" them into the scene in a seamless way that should be doable for The Really Smart Guys who develop software these days. Wouldn't that give a better result? And surely that would have to be easier than the animation method.
To be serious for a moment, my guess is it's probably way more expensive to do the real thing.
Secondly, it wouldn't take long before all of the sharp-eyed net freaks to start complaining all "explosions" look the same....rolleyes.gif
post #126 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

entropically?
Way too fancy of a word for a Saturday morning....tongue.gif
To be serious for a moment, my guess is it's probably way more expensive to do the real thing.
Secondly, it wouldn't take long before all of the sharp-eyed net freaks to start complaining all "explosions" look the same....rolleyes.gif
Add in the fact that real explosions probably aren't that exciting. The fake explosions we see with CGI have likely been dramatized with extra fire, extra noise, extra stuff flying all over the place, they're "better" explosions than the real ones.

And fake ones are much safer, ask the guys at Mythbusters how easily things can go wrong, the time a cannonball went a whole lot further than planned comes to mind. eek.gifbiggrin.gif
post #127 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Add in the fact that real explosions probably aren't that exciting. The fake explosions we see with CGI have likely been dramatized with extra fire, extra noise, extra stuff flying all over the place, they're "better" explosions than the real ones.

You can see no better example of that than any time a fragmentation grenade is used on screen. Go watch a video on YouTube and then pay attention the next time you see one explode in a big ball of flame on TV. The same applies to the occasions that people use C4 to create massive explosions from one block.

The flame mortars they use for explosions on television are more "real" optically than CGI but they are no less unrealistic. It would be nice for once to see someone throw a grenade that doesn't destroy an entire house though.
Edited by VisionOn - 9/28/13 at 11:13am
post #128 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

the time a cannonball went a whole lot further than planned comes to mind. eek.gifbiggrin.gif
Yeah, when dealing with balls, anything can happen.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f9b_1380313509
post #129 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpeacock22 View Post

As long as this doesn't turn into another crime procedural set in a superhero context, I think it has good potential and have set it to the top of my recording priority list. And at first it might be procedural...in the same way Fringe was

I certainly hope this show takes less time than Fringe to stop doing filler episodes.
post #130 of 1009

I found the show close enough to the movies I'll pass. A couple hours per year perhaps... once a week no way. :) 

post #131 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post


You could build up a whole library of various booms! after awhile, amortizing out the costs. Not my field, but I'd be interested to hear what an AVS member like vfxproducer who's in the business thinks about it.

Whenever possible, VFX crews will try to get productions to shoot specific fire and explosion elements for a scene that can be composited into the scene in post production. It happens all the time. It's especially important when the fire needs to feel like it is interacting with an environment - let's say for example a fireball that needs to feel like it is racing down a hallway towards camera. And every VFX facility in the world will save these elements and reuse them over and over again in other productions, building large libraries of stock practical fire, smoke, and explosion elements over the years. There are companies that have been doing what you suggest since the beginning of the VFX industry.

This works well for *small* fires and explosions. The problem is, these need to be filmed against a black or green screen so they can be separated over the background and cut out easily. And if your explosion needs to be really big (say like a building exploding), that's impossible. So sometimes you try to shoot a small miniature explosion and scale it up, but there's a point where that just doesn't feel right and doesn't work. My guess is that a lot of the fire and explosions that you *think* are CGI area actually real stock fire elements that have been composited into a scene poorly, or scaled up too much or layered together in a way that isn't quite natural.

Sometimes you can't get production to shoot elements or pay for you to shoot elements, or it's just impossible to shoot a specific element that you need. And that's when people will turn to CGI fire. It is almost always a last resort, because we know it doesn't look great, and it will almost always be more expensive than using real fire/explosion elements.

I'll give you an example. In the recent series finale of Burn Notice, there's a climactic scene with a series of explosions. I won't give much away so as to avoid a spoiler for a show in the wrong thread. But suffice to say that there are a series of cuts that alternate between practical on-set explosions, practical stock explosions composited into the scene in post production, and CGI explosions. The only place the CGI was used was when it had to look like the entire building was going up in flames. There was just no way to do that with real fire. If a company does a scene like that well, the audience won't be bothered by the difference between the real and fake fire and probably won't notice. If a company does a scene like that poorly (or the production won't pay for them to spend the time to do it well), then all the fake fire will pop out and be very obvious and distracting to the audience.

On a related note, my avatar for this forum is a single frame from a practical miniature underwater explosion that was filmed to use as a torpedo detonation in a submarine movie I worked on. The real fireball was about 2 foot across, but when composited into the scene it was about 1/3 the length of a November class Soviet submarine.
post #132 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Yeah, when dealing with balls, anything can happen.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f9b_1380313509

Darwin Award nominee. At least he survived. eek.gif
post #133 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by vfxproducer View Post

Whenever possible, VFX crews will try to get productions to shoot specific fire and explosion elements for a scene that can be composited into the scene in post production. It happens all the time. It's especially important when the fire needs to feel like it is interacting with an environment - let's say for example a fireball that needs to feel like it is racing down a hallway towards camera. And every VFX facility in the world will save these elements and reuse them over and over again in other productions, building large libraries of stock practical fire, smoke, and explosion elements over the years. There are companies that have been doing what you suggest since the beginning of the VFX industry.

This works well for *small* fires and explosions. The problem is, these need to be filmed against a black or green screen so they can be separated over the background and cut out easily. And if your explosion needs to be really big (say like a building exploding), that's impossible. So sometimes you try to shoot a small miniature explosion and scale it up, but there's a point where that just doesn't feel right and doesn't work. My guess is that a lot of the fire and explosions that you *think* are CGI area actually real stock fire elements that have been composited into a scene poorly, or scaled up too much or layered together in a way that isn't quite natural.

Sometimes you can't get production to shoot elements or pay for you to shoot elements, or it's just impossible to shoot a specific element that you need. And that's when people will turn to CGI fire. It is almost always a last resort, because we know it doesn't look great, and it will almost always be more expensive than using real fire/explosion elements.

I'll give you an example. In the recent series finale of Burn Notice, there's a climactic scene with a series of explosions. I won't give much away so as to avoid a spoiler for a show in the wrong thread. But suffice to say that there are a series of cuts that alternate between practical on-set explosions, practical stock explosions composited into the scene in post production, and CGI explosions. The only place the CGI was used was when it had to look like the entire building was going up in flames. There was just no way to do that with real fire. If a company does a scene like that well, the audience won't be bothered by the difference between the real and fake fire and probably won't notice. If a company does a scene like that poorly (or the production won't pay for them to spend the time to do it well), then all the fake fire will pop out and be very obvious and distracting to the audience.

On a related note, my avatar for this forum is a single frame from a practical miniature underwater explosion that was filmed to use as a torpedo detonation in a submarine movie I worked on. The real fireball was about 2 foot across, but when composited into the scene it was about 1/3 the length of a November class Soviet submarine.
Thanx for the education.smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Darwin Award nominee. At least he survived. eek.gif
Hopefully, it knocked some sense into him.....but I'm not holding my breath.biggrin.gif
post #134 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by vfxproducer View Post


I'll give you an example. In the recent series finale of Burn Notice, there's a climactic scene with a series of explosions. I won't give much away so as to avoid a spoiler for a show in the wrong thread. But suffice to say that there are a series of cuts that alternate between practical on-set explosions, practical stock explosions composited into the scene in post production, and CGI explosions. The only place the CGI was used was when it had to look like the entire building was going up in flames. There was just no way to do that with real fire. If a company does a scene like that well, the audience won't be bothered by the difference between the real and fake fire and probably won't notice. If a company does a scene like that poorly (or the production won't pay for them to spend the time to do it well), then all the fake fire will pop out and be very obvious and distracting to the audience.

I know exactly which scene you're referring to in BN. It looked very fake, obviously CGI. In fact, that was the very scene (because it was just a couple of weeks ago that the BN finale aired) I was thinking of when I made that post above.

Thanks for all that "insider" info, cool to know. smile.gif
post #135 of 1009
SOOOO BUMMED.....

Finally had an opportunity to sit down and watch it with the family a couple nights ago. Went to pull up the recording and it wasn't there, which I know it was before. I believe an impatient kid may have accidentally deleted it. So there is a downside to the whole house dvr!
post #136 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

SOOOO BUMMED.....

Finally had an opportunity to sit down and watch it with the family a couple nights ago. Went to pull up the recording and it wasn't there, which I know it was before. I believe an impatient kid may have accidentally deleted it. So there is a downside to the whole house dvr!

You can watch it here:

http://watchabc.go.com/marvels-agents-of-shield/SH55300807
post #137 of 1009
Coulson interviews people for jobs. Land speeder Corvette.

Now you are up to speed. wink.gif
post #138 of 1009
Fios dvr (i thought most did) has a folder that shows sit in after theyre deleted so they can still be recovered.

Theres also ondemand.
post #139 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcowboy7 View Post

Fios dvr (i thought most did) has a folder that shows sit in after theyre deleted so they can still be recovered.
My DirecTV DVR doesn't have that feature.frown.gif
post #140 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

My DirecTV DVR doesn't have that feature.frown.gif

I can't imagine many that would unless they have a crazy amount of storage space. Even then, "deleted" recordings would have to be automatically flushed after a period of time to make way for new ones.
post #141 of 1009
Oh yea obviously they get deleted even from there eventually, its a rolling thing, but at least its there for a while.
post #142 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

"deleted" recordings would have to be automatically flushed after a period of time to make way for new ones.
Sure, but it would still be a great thing to have.

I have had the misfortune of "accidentally" erasing some of Ms. Oink's shows and having to bear the consequences (a week in the outdoor pen frown.gif).
post #143 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

My DirecTV DVR doesn't have that feature.frown.gif

Yep, that's the boat I'm in. However, I appreciate the update on the interviews and landspeeder vette! And I'll try to check it out online too. Thanks!
post #144 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

My DirecTV DVR doesn't have that feature.frown.gif
TiVos have that feature, of course the initial expense is what scares people away. The DirecTV DVR could easily have the same feature if they chose to implement it. Basically all DVRs could, it's not that big of a deal to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I can't imagine many that would unless they have a crazy amount of storage space. Even then, "deleted" recordings would have to be automatically flushed after a period of time to make way for new ones.
Typically DVR hard drives are always full once they've been in service a few months, what happens when you "delete" a program is some marker is removed from the file and it does not show up in the recorded list anymore and it tells the OS it's OK to over-write. When new programs are recorded they re-write over the old recording that you previously "deleted". TiVo allows this to happen chronologically so that the oldest "deleted" programs are over-written before newer ones so you can recover something you've just deleted.
post #145 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Yeah, when dealing with balls, anything can happen.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f9b_1380313509
Call me insensitive if you like, but THAT WAS HILARIOUS!! biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif
post #146 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Call me insensitive if you like, but THAT WAS HILARIOUS!! biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif
It soitenly was.biggrin.gif
post #147 of 1009

You guys are so gullible :p

 

 

 

 

 

ron

post #148 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by R11 View Post

You guys are so gullible tongue.gif






ron
Even if it was faked, it was still funny as hell! biggrin.gif
post #149 of 1009
It was definitely fishy that the camera fell in the perfect spot to catch his bleeding noggin. Plus the lady (or anyone) wasn't freaking out as blood was spurting out Monty Python style.
post #150 of 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Even if it was faked, it was still funny as hell! biggrin.gif
Yup.tongue.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › ABC's Joss Whedon/Marvel Cinema Universe tie-in: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.