I want to say I saw an article (maybe even a post on here) that said it was going to be loooooong.

aggie1906 said:

---

I want to say I saw an article (maybe even a post on here) that said it was going to be loooooong.

---

You may be thinking of a post I made not too long ago where I wondered if this movie would crack 3 hours, given the number of characters and everything that we think will happen in this movie.

http://www.slashfilm.com/avengers-infinity-war-runtime/

Quote:

---

While Avengers: Infinity War hasn't finished its final cut yet, Russo told Collider that their film may indeed be the longest MCU movie yet:

Quote:

---

"The current cut is over 2 , yes. Most of it is a movie you can show. Still a lot of work left to be done It's certainly going to be a film that lives in the two and a half, two and a half plus range."

---

The longest MCU movie as of now is the Russo brothers' last film, Captain America: Civil War, which clocked in at 147 minutes. While it wasn't an official Avengers film, it featured the majority of Avengers heroes, culminating in a massive fight scene that featured 12 heroes packed into the screen, the largest number of heroes we had seen in one shot together. Infinity War will definitely beat that set piece.

---

So I assume Hela is the version of death in the MCU that Thanos is trying to impress?

I was wondering the same thing actually

I've read several hypothesize that. It makes sense.

Noticed that Nick Fury isn't on the full characters poster. I guess he's just a cameo at best?

What was the last thing that happened to Fury in these movies? I can't even remember that last time we saw him or what he was doing. And why haven't we seen him since?

TCTTS said:

---

What was the last thing that happened to Fury in these movies? I can't even remember that last time we saw him or what he was doing.

---

he showed up at the farm in Age of Ultron, and then dusted off the helicarrier from storage to rescue the people of Sokovia.

TCTTS said:

---

What was the last thing that happened to Fury in these movies? I can't even remember that last time we saw him or what he was doing. And why haven't we seen him since?

---

Last we saw Fury was at the end of Ultron. I don't remember him saying he was going anywhere specifically.

So Age of Ultron? Any in-story reasons given as to why he wasn't in Civil War?

Well, to the world he is dead. Only a select few know he is still alive.

Ha, man, I have zero recollection of that.

I'm thinking with him having a big role in Captain Marvel, he is probably involved with that and that's why he hasn't been around.

But yeah, him not being in Civil War makes no sense. Even having him at the Avengers base would be nice. But hopefully they explain in the next few movies.

TCTTS said:

---

Ha, man, I have zero recollection of that.

---

He "died" in Winter Soldier to the rest of the world, and then popped up in AoU. Since then I don't think we've heard from him.

Yeah, but Captain Marvel takes place in the '90s.

Since Ultron, we've had...

Ant-Man (2015)
Captain America: Civil War (2016)
Doctor Strange (2016)
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)
Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

I guess there's no reason for him to have been in most of those, it just seems weird that there has been no mention of him in five movies since his last appearance.

Super excited to see him with a bigger role in Captain Marvel, if that is indeed what is planned.

He should have been in Civil War. He put together the team, it makes no sense that he's not there when they are split apart. The rest of the movies don't really matter.

The only reason I can think of that he wasn't in Civil War, aside from themeatically, is that it takes place in the span of a few days, for the most part.

Terrorist attack in Lagos
(undetermined amount of time)
Sokovia Accords debate, Peggy Carter's funeral, UN bombing the same day, Cap rushes to Romania the same day to bring in Bucky, Bucky is captured, Zemo sets him loose, Stark and Romanov are given 36 hours to bring Cap and Bucky in, Cap and Bucky race to Siberia, finale

So in the finale when Cap says "it's been a long day," I think he does mean it literally. IIRC he has the same dirt on his face from grabbing the helicopter that he does at the Berlin airport before suiting up.

I guess in that 36 hour window they could have brought in Shield, but it was mostly a need to know basis under the jurisdiction of General Ross, and he wasn't sharing command.

That would be amazing. Also, $50 says we see how he gets his eye patch.

TCTTS said:

---

That would be amazing. Also, $50 says we see how he gets his eye patch.

---

I think they've already stated he will have two eyes in this movie (so I'd be shocked if he didn't lose one).

I guess the only reason I can think of that he hasn't been in the movies is that (since he is officially dead), the avengers have really become a team to be led by Tony and/or Steve. It would feel a little out of place for him to come back in and be in charge again.

TCTTS said:

---

Had it previously been announced that both Avengers 3 & 4 were the first ever films to shoot entirely in IMAX? Can't remember seeing that anywhere, but either way, awesome news...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/imax-screen-more-hollywood-tentpoles-2d-citing-clear-preference-1024590

---

IMAX means they are able to capture a wider field of view at higher resolution?

So conventional cuts just chop down the size of the IMAX copy and you see less on the periphery?

IMAX = taller field of view at higher resolution. Standard presentation of an IMAX-shot film means they "chop off" of a bit of the top and bottom.

This format guide for Dunkirk may help explain it better...

Do they just literally chop off a little off the top and bottom? Or do they do some post production panning in addition to the cropping so you don't lose stuff. Similar to what they used to do when converting wide screen to 4:3 VHS/DVD, back in the day when no one had wide screen at home.

If they just chop it off, then does that mean anyone who didn't see it in theaters will be doomed to never see it in its original format ever again?

Also, how much of a difference does it really make? I find it hard to believe that this will take away from the viewing experience significantly, unless it was intentionally made to do so. But then again, I'm not an expert on film by any means, and feel lucky if I have the time to watch more than one movie in theaters each year.

No panning, but the amount they cut off is so minimal and inconsequential. They're framing the shots for standard widescreen. Then whatever's above/below that is nothing anyone's going to miss.

And yeah, part of the point of true IMAX is that it's an experience you literally can't and will never get anywhere else. Not even at home. Studios have to give audiences a reason to keep coming back to theaters or the whole system falls apart. Seeing something - even if just a sliver of "extra" footage on top and bottom that you'll never see again, as part of an image three stories high - helps ensure that.

TCTTS said:

---

No panning, but the amount they cut off is so minimal and inconsequential. They're framing the shots for standard widescreen. Then whatever's above/below that is nothing anyone's going to miss.

And yeah, part of the point of true IMAX is that it's an experience you literally can't and will never get anywhere else. Not even at home. Studios have to give audiences a reason to keep coming back to theaters or the whole system falls apart. Seeing something - even if just a sliver of "extra" footage on top and bottom that you'll never see again, as part of an image three stories high - helps ensure that.

---

The extra height makes it far more immersive, I think.

IMAX is pretty cool, but I would much rather just see a movie normally. I'm not really dying to see something in IMAX if it's available.

GOTG V2 is out today.