Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

[argh923]

Originally Posted by Dragon Tattoo

It looks perfectly fine. Anyone who's bitching about the CGI in these trailers is just bitching to bitch.

Originally Posted by Draven

It looks perfectly fine TO YOU. Not everyone shares that opinion. That sequence where the tower is collapsing and he's dodging out of the way looks like a video game cut scene to me.

Originally Posted by anomynous

The CGI is easily the worst looking thing about the movie

Exactly. It's laughingly, The Mummy Returns bad.

[fumanstan]

Originally Posted by TallGuyMe

Hi! Welcome to the internet!

Good one.

[Dragon Tattoo]

Originally Posted by argh923

Exactly. It's laughingly, The Mummy Returns bad.

I'm glad I don't have your fucking eyes then.

[Sierra Disc]

I loved the first two Spider-Man movies and like a lot of part 3, but sometime in the last few years it became fashionable on the Net to hate them I guess.

[DaveyJoe]

Originally Posted by Dragon Tattoo

I'm glad I don't have your fucking eyes then.

Yes, curse that excellent vision and attention to detail that is able to recognize iffy CGI!

[Dragon Tattoo]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe

Yes, curse that excellent vision and attention to detail that is able to recognize iffy CGI!

Certainly sounds a curse to me -- the sad kind that forces you to constantly bitch about a comic book movie not looking "real enough".

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Dragon Tattoo

Certainly sounds a curse to me -- the sad kind that forces you to constantly bitch about a comic book movie not looking "real enough".

The only way a comic book movie works is if it looks realistic. Did your mother make this movie or something? You seem pretty defensive without having seen more than a few trailers.

[Dragon Tattoo]

Originally Posted by Draven

You seem pretty defensive without having seen more than a few trailers.

I could say the same to you. You seem needlessly dismissive despite the same.

And I could argue that going into a movie determined to hate it (and wishing for its failure) is far worse than keeping a positive attitude.

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by argh923

Exactly. It's laughingly, The Mummy Returns bad.

Whoa! I agree that the CGI is obviously low rent but it's nowhere near that bad. Especially when you take into account this film's relatively small budget.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by RocShemp

Whoa! I agree that the CGI is obviously low rent but it's nowhere near that bad. Especially when you take into account this film's relatively small budget.

I don't think that $80 million figure that was thrown around is accurate. I've read the budget may be around $200 million.

[RichC2]

Originally Posted by Sierra Disc

I loved the first two Spider-Man movies and like a lot of part 3, but sometime in the last few years it became fashionable on the Net to hate them I guess.

3 was terrible, 2 is classic, 1 I didn't care for. But I have seen a little more hate flair up toward them lately.

The Budget for Amazing Spider-man is still rumored at $100m, though the initial "cut" rumor had it pegged at $90m, didn't see $80m. Still considering whats been done on substantially cheaper budgets it should still be top tier. Especially with a cheaper cast on board. I don't think the CG looks great, but it didn't in the original 3 either.

I recall back in '99 The Matrix came out with "revolutionary" special effects and was a $63m movie, then the sequel came out a few years later with triple the budget and was a CG eye fuck. I think the lower budget can be helpful with visual effects at times (and $80 - $100m isn't a "low" budget) it just depends on whose behind the wheel. I prefer them using the money on amazingly rendered money shots than blowing it on an "effects extravaganza".

[Paul_SD]

Originally Posted by Draven

The only way a comic book movie works is if it looks realistic. Did your mother make this movie or something? You seem pretty defensive without having seen more than a few trailers.

I agree. The viewer shouldn't have to meet the material half way to be entertained. After he pays his ticket he shouldn't have to 'do any work'.
The movie should not only be beyond our imperious reproach, it should sit in our laps, run it's fingers through our hair, and put the popcorn into our mouths.
Anything less is clearly bullshit.

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by Paul_SD

I agree. The viewer shouldn't have to meet the material half way to be entertained. After he pays his ticket he shouldn't have to 'do any work'.
The movie should not only be beyond our imperious reproach, it should sit in our laps, run it's fingers through our hair, and put the popcorn into our mouths.
Anything less is clearly bullshit.

Sarcasm aside, that's exactly my point of view regarding derivative works (be they based on a comic book, novel, etc.). I think it's total bullshit when you're expected to have read the source material in order to "get" the movie.

[Matthew Chmiel]

Originally Posted by Paul_SD

I agree. The viewer shouldn't have to meet the material half way to be entertained. After he pays his ticket he shouldn't have to 'do any work'.
The movie should not only be beyond our imperious reproach, it should sit in our laps, run it's fingers through our hair, and put the popcorn into our mouths.
Anything less is clearly bullshit.

Originally Posted by RocShemp

Sarcasm aside, that's exactly my point of view regarding derivative works (be they based on a comic book, novel, etc.). I think it's total bullshit when you're expected to have read the source material in order to "get" the movie.

THIS.

I can't agree with these statements enough.

[Solid Snake PAC]

I will say one thing...I'm so glad this doesn't have that sound stage look that Raimi's did for some reason. Maybe it was the film stock he used but...it didn't really help out on the sets.


alsp:
If i need to know backstory on something from a movie to understand...before I see the movie..the movie has failed. The Avengers handled all that shit really well and so matter of fact that it was quick.

[Paul_SD]

Originally Posted by RocShemp

Sarcasm aside, that's exactly my point of view regarding derivative works (be they based on a comic book, novel, etc.). I think it's total bullshit when you're expected to have read the source material in order to "get" the movie.

I understand that and agree with you. Any work should exist on it's own and not need supplemental information to properly follow. Enhancing is fine, but the essential exposition must be in the material- and how well it's integrated is what separates the pros from the amateurs.

But I was really talking more about the ability to get into the spirit of something. If a movie is just a special effects extravaganza, and the characters and plot are just the connective tissue for a bunch of set pieces- then yeah, the quality of the effects are paramount (though frankly that kind of material bores me and I usually avoid it anyway).
But if the characters and plot are strong enough I can cut a dodgy effect here and there some slack. A lot of people it seems, can't or won't.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Dragon Tattoo

I could say the same to you. You seem needlessly dismissive despite the same.

And I could argue that going into a movie determined to hate it (and wishing for its failure) is far worse than keeping a positive attitude.

Whatever. My first few comments in here were that I wanted to see it but so far it didn't look too good. From the initial views, Garfield is too scrawny, his hair is ridiculous, the costume looks weird and the effects looked sub-par...TO ME. As more trailers come out, I get less enthusiastic and it seems to be getting worse, not better.

I never said I would go in determined to hate it. Why the fuck would I pay money to see something I was going to hate? I only see movies I think I will enjoy.

The entire point of a trailer is to get people interested in the movie. When it comes to ASM, the trailers have gotten me LESS interested as the whole Oscorp conspiracy seems to be a major plot point and his origin is now more complicated that "he was bit by a radioactive spider" which, regardless of what happens in the comics, is what I want a Spider-Man origin to be.

Maybe it will be the best thing ever. I just wish the trailers reflected a better movie than what I THINK this looks like.

[fumanstan]

I'm confused, are people insinuating that people need to be familiar with the comics to understand Amazing Spider-man? I don't see how that discussion had anything to do with this... yet.

[Dragon Tattoo]

Originally Posted by Draven

Whatever. My first few comments in here were that I wanted to see it but so far it didn't look too good. From the initial views, Garfield is too scrawny, his hair is ridiculous, the costume looks weird and the effects looked sub-par...TO ME. As more trailers come out, I get less enthusiastic and it seems to be getting worse, not better.

I never said I would go in determined to hate it. Why the fuck would I pay money to see something I was going to hate? I only see movies I think I will enjoy.

Sounds to me like you don't think you'll enjoy this movie, then. Which means you shouldn't go see it and should really stop commenting in this thread. You have nothing even remotely good to say about it. So that's that, then.

Unless I've missed something. If not, then you have those terrible Raimi movies to keep you satisfied. May their CGI scenes sate your desire for a realistic spider-powered superhero story.

[Groucho]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC

If i need to know backstory on something from a movie to understand...before I see the movie..the movie has failed. The Avengers handled all that shit really well and so matter of fact that it was quick.

The Avengers is kind of a poor example, since the backstory is given in no less than five previous feature films.

[mostaccioli]

Originally Posted by RichC2

3 was terrible, 2 is classic, 1 I didn't care for. But I have seen a little more hate flair up toward them lately.

The Budget for Amazing Spider-man is still rumored at $100m, though the initial "cut" rumor had it pegged at $90m, didn't see $80m. Still considering whats been done on substantially cheaper budgets it should still be top tier. Especially with a cheaper cast on board. I don't think the CG looks great, but it didn't in the original 3 either.

I recall back in '99 The Matrix came out with "revolutionary" special effects and was a $63m movie, then the sequel came out a few years later with triple the budget and was a CG eye fuck. I think the lower budget can be helpful with visual effects at times (and $80 - $100m isn't a "low" budget) it just depends on whose behind the wheel. I prefer them using the money on amazingly rendered money shots than blowing it on an "effects extravaganza".

isn't cgi like a director it's the talent of who's doing it?

[Solid Snake PAC]

Originally Posted by Groucho

The Avengers is kind of a poor example, since the backstory is given in no less than five previous feature films.

Not really. They tell you what the characters have been up to. And that's enough. Cap was on ice and now he's not. Thor had shit come up on Earth and it was handled also that that somehow Odin had to get Thor back to Earth cuz of the bridge being gone. Iron Man is a cocky fuck and they didn't want him for the group. Banner has been hiding and doesn't want to be found. Also that he was working on something akin to the formula that Rogers' was created from..and it obviously backfired on him. Widow is a spy...and Stark won't listen to her. Hawkeye doesn't really count cuz this is really his moment in the movies. Loki was after the throne and failed. This is all you get from the movie and then some. That's a A LOT of stuff they just mentioned in the movie and it's enough really.


It's a living and breathing universe where you don't need it all. Just a little and you're good.

[bluetoast]

Except that one joke where Thor jumps into the cage and Loki asks "Will you always fall for that?", at least my friend was asking me during the movie whether that was from the original Thor. There are a couple moments like that, which will leave people scratching their heads. The enjoyment is definitely enhanced by the viewing of the 5 previous movies, although not absolutely necessary.

[DaveyJoe]

Originally Posted by Dragon Tattoo

Certainly sounds a curse to me -- the sad kind that forces you to constantly bitch about a comic book movie not looking "real enough".

I want my movies to look like movies, not video games. I don't care if the actions are possible in real life or not, it's possible to make impossible things look better. Nothing in this movie looks more fantastical than what happened in Spider-Man 3, but the special effects looked much better. I don't hate special effects, just poorly done, rushed, special effects. The crew needed more render time or better direction.

My issues with this movie don't stem from the fact that I want a Spider-Man movie to fail, but that I want to see the best possible Spider-Man films being made. I think this rush job from Sony with an unlikely director is not the best possible Spider-Man film and will be average at best. I refuse to pay my hard-earned money for something that is just okay. Again, the best thing that could happen is that Sony fails, and the rights to Spider-Man revert back to Marvel, who have obviously treated their properties with much more respect than any other studio.

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by bluetoast

Except that one joke where Thor jumps into the cage and Loki asks "Will you always fall for that?", at least my friend was asking me during the movie whether that was from the original Thor. There are a couple moments like that, which will leave people scratching their heads. The enjoyment is definitely enhanced by the viewing of the 5 previous movies, although not absolutely necessary.

And that's why the movie works so well. Although the plot is threadbare, it had to be such in order to keep the ball rolling without being bogged down by exposition. And I love that the exposition was handled "in transit". People where almost always constantly on the move when the backstories were being laid out. It's similar to The Terminator how Kyle Reese fills in Sarah Connor on what's going on while they're fleeing from the Terminator.

And I love that the previous movies just made moments better rather than be an absolute pre-viewing necessity.