Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
#1477
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Muncie, IN [Member formerly known as abrg923]
Posts: 6,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
#1480
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.
#1481
DVD Talk Legend
#1482
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#1483
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.
#1484
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.
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.
#1485
DVD Talk Hero
#1486
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
I don't think that $80 million figure that was thrown around is accurate. I've read the budget may be around $200 million.
#1487
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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".
Last edited by RichC2; 05-17-12 at 10:23 AM.
#1488
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.
#1489
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.
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.
#1490
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.
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.
I can't agree with these statements enough.
#1491
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.
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.
#1492
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.
#1493
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.
#1494
DVD Talk Godfather
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.
#1495
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.
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.
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.
#1496
Moderator
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
The Avengers is kind of a poor example, since the backstory is given in no less than five previous feature films.
#1497
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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".
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".
#1498
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
It's a living and breathing universe where you don't need it all. Just a little and you're good.
#1499
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.
#1500
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
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.