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

Why do people think the effects in Spiderman 1/2 look fake?

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

Why do people think the effects in Spiderman 1/2 look fake?

Old 07-10-04, 08:04 PM
  #1  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why do people think the effects in Spiderman 1/2 look fake?

I honestly don't understand how people complain about the effects in spiderman 1 or 2. The first movie of course had some scenes that didn't look perfect like when Peter Parker was initially jumping building to building, and when Spidey made that slingshot landing on the bridge, but the rest of the CG looked sooooo convincing. And the 2nd spierman had even better (actually perfect in my opinion) effects. Are people that cynical?

I saw the sequel with my girlfriend and she said "it still looks fake". We had a big argument and my point was that without the CG, the best they could do is have spidey swing 2 story buildings w/ no close up shots and no fluidity when swinging from hightower to hightower. And how the hell are they gonna get shots of spidey leaping from a rooftop on to traffic?!

I hate people that complain about these types of things. The movie could not have been done any other way, and the CG of spiderman specifically is one of the better CG of an actual human (most movies do CG of people, but from afar, no closeups). It is really hard doing CG of actual people up close because nothing can exactly imitate poeple. Don't they realize that they're seeing something that could not have been done before? I mean you have Spiderman on screen swinging and flying thru the skies! To my eyes, most of the effects look perfect! Are we that jaded as consumers that we have expectations that can't be met?!

Maybe these people don't remember how unperfect stop-motion animation was. Those people really need to see the documnetary featured in the original Jurassic Park dvd.

And I hate it that even though people complain about effects, or these movies, they rent/buy the dvds (i.e. Matrix sequels, Spiderman 1). Truly lame.
Old 07-10-04, 08:09 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,349
Received 26 Likes on 14 Posts
The CG Peter Parker/Spider-Man in the first movie looked terrible. Was it tolerable? Sure. But that doesn't mean it was good. A few action scenes in #2 were obvious as well, but it never took me out of the film. Anyway... its just opinion. Some people think the Hulk looks terrible, and others think its one of the greatest works.

But anyway, just because it can't be done any other way doesn't mean people can't criticize the way it looks. Ugly is ugly, regardless of how difficult it is to create or how much time and effort was put into it. Long story short, don't worry about what other people think. Some people have higher standards of quality, or are more perceptive of small details, or just don't care
Old 07-10-04, 08:10 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 8,085
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I don't understand what you're getting at.

The effects don't look fake?

or

They look kinda fake but theres no other way to do it?

or

People say those look fake but then rent other fake effect movies?
Old 07-10-04, 08:13 PM
  #4  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
thank YOU fumanstan for understanding what I'm getting at. And you're right. I loved it and that's all that matters. Thanx!

Last edited by indy2029; 07-10-04 at 08:16 PM.
Old 07-10-04, 08:16 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 8,085
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I guess I don't get a cookie.
Old 07-10-04, 08:18 PM
  #6  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
no, you don't. I think you can respond to this without any help.
Old 07-10-04, 08:49 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 3,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You're right, most of the sequences couldn't be done without CGI. But that doesn't change the fact that some of the effects looked phony. Some looked great (doc ock's tenticles), but there were plenty that looked less than photo realistic. The worst was when they replaced the characters with CGI during fight scenes. The one that sticks out to me was during the train fight. There were quite a few shots that looked quite cartoonish.

I'm under the opinion that spotting imperfect CGI isn't subjective. CGI either looks real or it doesn't; it's really not open for debate. We all know what real life people and objects look like and how they move in real world environments. So if you thought all the effects in Spiderman were perfect, you weren't looking as closely as others. Or perhaps you're just able to suspend disbelief better than everyone else, causing you to forget about the poor CGI. But trust me, it was there.

It doesn't change the fact that the movies are really cool though.
Old 07-10-04, 09:17 PM
  #8  
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
maybe it's because people aren't familiar with what a person with spider abilities would look like in REAL life, so they have no point of comparison for what a "cgi" spidey should look like.
Old 07-10-04, 09:23 PM
  #9  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by caiman
You're right, most of the sequences couldn't be done without CGI. But that doesn't change the fact that some of the effects looked phony. Some looked great (doc ock's tenticles), but there were plenty that looked less than photo realistic. The worst was when they replaced the characters with CGI during fight scenes. The one that sticks out to me was during the train fight. There were quite a few shots that looked quite cartoonish.

I'm under the opinion that spotting imperfect CGI isn't subjective. CGI either looks real or it doesn't; it's really not open for debate. We all know what real life people and objects look like and how they move in real world environments. So if you thought all the effects in Spiderman were perfect, you weren't looking as closely as others. Or perhaps you're just able to suspend disbelief better than everyone else, causing you to forget about the poor CGI. But trust me, it was there.

It doesn't change the fact that the movies are really cool though.

Nice observation. Some people are able to suspend disbelief more than others. Glad people enjoyed the movie though. It rocked!
Old 07-10-04, 09:38 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's all a matter of how much you want to suspend disbelief. If you we want to pick on movies for not looking photo real, I could go all day long pointing to movies left and right. Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers, AI, T2, Titanic, Spiderman, Lord of the Rings...hell I can't think of a single movie with CG that looked perfect. Hell I can't think of a single special effects movie that looked perfect.

So it's just a matter what you're willing to let slide. personally, I don't expect photo real omg I can't tell at all! simply because well...in general that's rarely ever accomplished save for the most simple or generic things. Only when it gets Scorpion King/Air Force One bad do I say enough is enough (and those movies kinda sucked which didn't help) but otherwise my limits are fairly broad. Otherwise I'd never be able to watch a SFX movie made before the last decade.

But different strokes...some have different limitations. Other people just like bitching.
Old 07-10-04, 10:37 PM
  #11  
Suspended; also need updated email
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 16,564
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 13 Posts
um has anyone actually seen a man swing through a city of high rise buildings using webs ?

there is no such thing as anything real to compare it with!

No FX are perfect but they were good enough to do the job
Old 07-10-04, 11:31 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Friggin Fiji
Posts: 1,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Snowlarbear and Original Desmond say what I keep thinking ... there is no real life comparison ... for most of the stuff ... web slinging and such ... but yes, why do some effects look better than other (within the same movie?) i think that the rubbery / bouncy factor has not been done right by any CGI company yet .... while skin and texture is getting fantastic (and I think they would not shy away from close ups ... i actually think that this one slow swinging spider shot is a CGI close-up .. then again, that is easy ... movement, especially very abrupt stops of movement need so much work still ... worst examples: Darth Maul hopping of his speader bike. Blade and Nisa in Blade 2 looking like the fighting Ninja Cats in Cats&Dogs and the above mentioned spidey landing on the Queensboro bridge (at least they cut that very quickly short and tight) ...

The only shot that bugged me in Spider2 is very much at the end, when MJ runs into the arms of her fiance and PP struts a cool spider pose on that crane ... then he puts the mask on, MJ looks back, and then he is such an obvious CGI rubber doll when getting up just before he leaps off ....

But all in all ... i am having a hard times finding flaws in this movie ... maybe that this time we only get to see one MJ nipple in a wet dress ....
Old 07-11-04, 02:11 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carrollton, Ga
Posts: 4,809
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
CG is everyone's favorite whipping boy nowadays. Why, I'll never know. But you can bet when a movie with quite a few FX comes out, the first thing people will do is whine about the CG because they've got nothing better to do. Maybe it's nostalgia for the old ways of doing things. CG is not perfect and never will be. Stop-motion damn sure wasn't perfect. Never was and never will be. Miniatures weren't perfect. Never have been. But back then people watched the movie. They didn't whine about effects.
Old 07-11-04, 02:38 AM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For most, it's just hip to complain about CGI.

The first wasn't as good as the second, but they're both pretty big successes in terms of animating a human. Which is mainly the reason people complain... we all know what a human looks like and how they move, so anything that isn't real (dummy, CGI) will be easier to spot. Of course, no one knows what a guy swinging around skyscrapers on ropes looks like, but I suppose they can act like they do.
Old 07-11-04, 03:13 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 3,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by yecul
Of course, no one knows what a guy swinging around skyscrapers on ropes looks like, but I suppose they can act like they do.
I wasn't going to say anything, but you're like the fifth person in this thread to make that same point so I now feel the need to say this: We don't have to have witnessed a guy flying from building to building in real life in order to know what looks physically real and what doesn't.

When you detect something onscreen that looks fake, it's not based on what you've experienced beforehand. It's based on what you know about physics, and what something would look like in that situation. We understand the physical nature of the human body; how it moves, acts, and reacts to other objects and forces (like gravity). If you saw a guy falling from a building in a movie, you would be able to tell how real or fake it looks. But have you actually ever seen a guy falling from a building (I assume you haven't, but who knows)?

The same thing applies to Spider-man. When he swings from building to building, the CGI work is given certain physical properties that either hender or enhance the effect. And we know enough about the world around us to be able to pick up on subtle mistakes in these properties, such as the fluidity of his movement, and the effect of gravity on his body. It doesn't take much at all to be able to imagine what Spider-man should look like as he moves, despite the fact that you've never seen it in real life.
Old 07-11-04, 03:46 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The second one didn't look to bad, sure sometimes it was obvious CGI and had a "plastic" look to it, but I can deal with that..... The first one tho', it was god awful.
Old 07-11-04, 03:57 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Friggin Fiji
Posts: 1,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Terrell
Miniatures weren't perfect. Never have been. But back then people watched the movie. They didn't whine about effects.
I bet enough people did .. but they neither had the internet or DVDtalk.com


(funny .. if we had have the internet in the 70ies .. would there have been a super8filmtalk.com ???)
Old 07-11-04, 04:05 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Friggin Fiji
Posts: 1,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by caiman

When you detect something onscreen that looks fake, it's not based on what you've experienced beforehand. It's based on what you know about physics, and what something would look like in that situation. We understand the physical nature of the human body; how it moves, acts, and reacts to other objects and forces (like gravity).
I truly think you are making an excellent point there Caiman .. and I wiggled around my head a while ... and in some way i just came up with a picture of spiderman going SPLAT everytime he lands ...

If it is SO obvious that some basics of physics are neclegted ... then WHY the heck can no one get it right ???? it seems that rubber bouncy thing is the curse of all Jar Jar binks clones (I forgot to list him earlier, but I hoped I had finally forgotten about him) ... I believe that lots of money is paid to people who think up a way to make "meat taste like meat" (to quote Dr. Brundlefly) ... I think there really is an issue that what these characters are doing in those movies are beyond the laws of physics ... either after a 200 yard jump you break your bones and leave a spot ... or you have rubbery bones and bounce accordingly .... (and look like CGI) ...

now that would be a cool super hero ... GCI-man !!!!

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.