Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Old 05-16-12, 03:23 PM
  #1476  
TGM
DVD Talk Legend
 
TGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 16,964
Received 399 Likes on 248 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by fumanstan
It's weird how polarizing this movie is. I still think Spidey 2 is one of the best comic book movies, but the trailer for this looks decent. I'm surprised there are people that are treating the clips and trailers like it's the worst thing over.
Hi! Welcome to the internet!
Old 05-16-12, 11:15 PM
  #1477  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
argh923's Avatar
 
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)

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.
Old 05-16-12, 11:18 PM
  #1478  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,349
Received 26 Likes on 14 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by TallGuyMe
Hi! Welcome to the internet!
Good one.
Old 05-17-12, 12:43 AM
  #1479  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

Originally Posted by argh923
Exactly. It's laughingly, The Mummy Returns bad.
I'm glad I don't have your fucking eyes then.
Old 05-17-12, 02:39 AM
  #1480  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
The Antipodean's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 6,636
Received 164 Likes on 117 Posts
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.
Old 05-17-12, 07:57 AM
  #1481  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DaveyJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 19,334
Received 184 Likes on 128 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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!
Old 05-17-12, 09:05 AM
  #1482  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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".
Old 05-17-12, 09:16 AM
  #1483  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 43,214
Received 1,607 Likes on 1,006 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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.
Old 05-17-12, 09:28 AM
  #1484  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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.
Old 05-17-12, 09:41 AM
  #1485  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 39,236
Received 598 Likes on 462 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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.
Old 05-17-12, 10:04 AM
  #1486  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mr. Cinema's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 18,044
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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.
Old 05-17-12, 10:16 AM
  #1487  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 45,294
Received 1,011 Likes on 803 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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".

Last edited by RichC2; 05-17-12 at 10:23 AM.
Old 05-17-12, 11:53 AM
  #1488  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Paul_SD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hiking the Sisyphian trail
Posts: 8,690
Received 72 Likes on 55 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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.
Old 05-17-12, 12:33 PM
  #1489  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 39,236
Received 598 Likes on 462 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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.
Old 05-17-12, 12:46 PM
  #1490  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Matthew Chmiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,262
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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.
Old 05-17-12, 12:52 PM
  #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.
Old 05-17-12, 01:09 PM
  #1492  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Paul_SD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hiking the Sisyphian trail
Posts: 8,690
Received 72 Likes on 55 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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.
Old 05-17-12, 01:46 PM
  #1493  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 43,214
Received 1,607 Likes on 1,006 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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.
Old 05-17-12, 02:23 PM
  #1494  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,349
Received 26 Likes on 14 Posts
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.
Old 05-17-12, 02:55 PM
  #1495  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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.
Old 05-17-12, 03:41 PM
  #1496  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 71,383
Received 122 Likes on 84 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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.
Old 05-17-12, 03:58 PM
  #1497  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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?
Old 05-17-12, 04:05 PM
  #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)

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.
Old 05-17-12, 04:09 PM
  #1499  
DVD Talk Legend
 
bluetoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 11,696
Received 271 Likes on 204 Posts
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.
Old 05-17-12, 04:41 PM
  #1500  
DVD Talk Legend
 
DaveyJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 19,334
Received 184 Likes on 128 Posts
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)

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.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.