DVD Talk Forum
Page 56 of 84
« First
6
46
54
55
56
57
58
66
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/568250-spider-man-2012-marc-webb.html)

Solid Snake 05-04-12 04:14 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
is that correct? This film is on a budget of $80 million?

bluetoast 05-04-12 04:21 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by abrg923 (Post 11218796)
Also, my point stands - there's nothing really in that trailer that tells Joe Public that this is a reboot. The ONLY thing is the brief shot of him walking in high school. People are going to think this is Spider-Man 4 and be terribly confused.

I hold to my opinion that this will be by far the least successful of the movies.
Is Joe Public really that stupid? People thought that "Joe Public" would be turned off of Batman Begins because it came off of Batman & Robin (although there was a longer wait between movies). I know our community is more in tune with movies and their production, but I would hope that information as basic as a film being a reboot can be gleaned by someone who is purported to be our average moviegoer.

Deftones 05-04-12 04:24 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC (Post 11219071)
is that correct? This film is on a budget of $80 million?
I thought I read it was closer to $120 million.

devilshalo 05-04-12 04:29 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
^ that's in addition to the $80M.

CloverClover 05-04-12 04:30 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by georgec (Post 11217844)
This movie just doesn't grab my attention. Despite how they're trying to revise some of the origin story, it just feels tired.
So true, it looks too generic almost made for TV

Supermallet 05-04-12 05:08 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by Dragon Tattoo (Post 11219046)
Oh please, if this is your complaint then you must think the CGI in the original Spider-man movie looks like an episode of Gumby.
rotfl

I think Gumby effects actually would have been better than some of the shots in the first Spider-Man.

bluetoast 05-04-12 05:37 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Particularly the ones of Macy Gray.

argh923 05-04-12 05:37 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by DaveyJoe (Post 11219055)
I don't remember the CGI in Spider-Man(2002) but the CGI in the sequels was very good. With all of the issues of Spider-Man 3 you could never complain about the special effects. Sandman looked amazing. The CGI in the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man does not look seamless, it needs a lot more work. One of the downsides of cutting a budget from over $200 million down to $80 million. It's not like there was one or two bad shots in the trailer, but the majority of the special effects shots look bad to me. Spider-Man is ten years old so it's understandable that the effects look a bit dated but with TASM it's obvious that the studio is cutting corners on the budget.
Exactly.

Originally Posted by bluetoast (Post 11219077)
Is Joe Public really that stupid? People thought that "Joe Public" would be turned off of Batman Begins because it came off of Batman & Robin (although there was a longer wait between movies). I know our community is more in tune with movies and their production, but I would hope that information as basic as a film being a reboot can be gleaned by someone who is purported to be our average moviegoer.
It's different. Batman and Robin was a commercial failure. Spiderman 3 was a resounding success. Joe Public doesn't see the need for a reboot and rightfully so, and will likely feel like "we've already seen them tell this story before".

And from the most recent trailer posted, no, I don't feel that most people can tell - solely based on that trailer alone - that it's a reboot.

gmanca 05-04-12 05:47 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
The visual FX from Sony Imageworks is the same in every movie they do: it looks like a painting and not an effect which is really bad when they mix live elements and effects as the difference is pretty jarring to me.

Deftones 05-04-12 05:49 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
I haven't seen the previous 3 spider-man movies in many years, but when Spidey was swinging through the air and between buildings, that always looked really fake to me. in this new trailer, it does not. looks way more realistic.

Mr. Cinema 05-04-12 05:50 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by Deftones (Post 11219082)
I thought I read it was closer to $120 million.
I think it's more like $220 million.

Mr. Cinema 05-04-12 05:51 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by Deftones (Post 11219186)
I haven't seen the previous 3 spider-man movies in many years, but when Spidey was swinging through the air and between buildings, that always looked really fake to me. in this new trailer, it does not. looks way more realistic.
The worst CGI from the original was of him jumping over the buildings. That was horrible looking.

Kory 05-04-12 05:54 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by DaveyJoe (Post 11219055)
I don't remember the CGI in Spider-Man(2002) but the CGI in the sequels was very good. With all of the issues of Spider-Man 3 you could never complain about the special effects. Sandman looked amazing. The CGI in the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man does not look seamless, it needs a lot more work. One of the downsides of cutting a budget from over $200 million down to $80 million. It's not like there was one or two bad shots in the trailer, but the majority of the special effects shots look bad to me. Spider-Man is ten years old so it's understandable that the effects look a bit dated but with TASM it's obvious that the studio is cutting corners on the budget.
I just watched Spider-man 3 yesterday and I was thinking the exact opposite thing. I thought the effects, especially those of Spidey himself, were AWFUL in Spidey 3. I had watched Spidey 1 and 2 a week or so before this and I was pretty impressed with them, but the effects in number 3 were atrocious.

kgrogers1979 05-04-12 06:10 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by Dragon Tattoo (Post 11219046)
Oh please, if this is your complaint then you must think the CGI in the original Spider-man movie looks like an episode of Gumby.
More like an episode of Power Rangers with the Goblin design...

georgec 05-04-12 06:22 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema (Post 11219188)
I think it's more like $220 million.
I think it's more like $2.2 billion.

Paul_SD 05-04-12 06:38 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by Deftones (Post 11219186)
I haven't seen the previous 3 spider-man movies in many years, but when Spidey was swinging through the air and between buildings, that always looked really fake to me. in this new trailer, it does not. looks way more realistic.
I think I read last year that one of the things Webb wanted to do was to use more practical effects and stunt work, especially in regards to the swinging.
The web swinging in the trailer looks exhilarating to me, regardless of how they did. Between the framing and the motion, along with the lighting and (again) use of color to 'pop out' the figure in the foreground and make action clear and readable- the special effects , at least going by the trailer are not an issue with me at all. I was also curious how well the 3D would work with all night shooting, but I can tell from the 2D trailer, that they thought it out well and it should look pretty damn good.

What is likely not to work nearly as well is the Ang Lee Hulk style origin elements. I actually did mind that aspect one bit in Hulk, because I thought it gave the material more thematic heft than it otherwise would have- but Spidey is different. The whole point of his appeal is that he was just an average kid from Queens, with above average intelligence, who had this thing foisted upon him. He is a hero because of the choices he makes.
This whole 'destined from birth' angle is another woeful trend we have to put up with in what seems like every other fantasy movie these days.

I'll likely have to look past that, just the way I looked past Dunsts miscasting and a few other details of the Raimi films to enjoy this film- but I don't see it as a huge hurdle right now.

Still love S-M2, and am happy to have it. No one will take it away from me.
It's still one of the most cohesive super-hero movies out there imo.
I can go into an 'elseworlds'* take on the character with an open mind and see how it is. If it works as a story and I care about the characters, no harm no foul. Eventually it will get rebooted again and more things modified anyway.


*yeah I know, different company- but I try to ignore the 'Ultimate' universe as much as possible.

Paul_SD 05-04-12 06:53 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by Supermallet (Post 11219128)
rotfl

I think Gumby effects actually would have been better than some of the shots in the first Spider-Man.
By the time he starts swinging in the first film, Raimi had already won me over. The CG could have been smoother, but he got the most important thing right and I was content not to pick nits about a few isolated shots.

Have to remember that ten years ago, this was the closest we ever got to seeing this character fully realized in live action. That they got better than 50% of the web swinging shots spot on was a huge achievement to me. Along with the first person perspective used in the little effects coda at the end, it was a blast to get what we got. Though I do remember getting the DVD as soon as it came out and realizing there just wasn't a whole lot of those scenes in the film. The good swinging shots were just too brief. Knew I would have to wait another two years to get a movie that had them through the whole thing, rather than just a couple scenes in the second half.

bluetoast 05-04-12 06:57 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
One of the things I wished we saw more of in part 1: When they first showed Peter Parker dodge Flash Parker's punch, we saw how quick Peter's reaction was, and how he saw things "slower" in a way. Yeah, kinda Matrixy but still neat. I expected at least one or two more of those during the movie. Maybe dodging the Goblin glider was an instance of that, but I forget.

yoshimi 05-04-12 07:10 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
After seeing the trailer today before The Avengers I think Raimi's part 3 might end up looking a whole lot better after this new version.

fumanstan 05-04-12 07:22 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by Deftones (Post 11219186)
I haven't seen the previous 3 spider-man movies in many years, but when Spidey was swinging through the air and between buildings, that always looked really fake to me. in this new trailer, it does not. looks way more realistic.
Agreed, the CGI shots of the first time Spidey is swinging is absolutely terrible. This looks far, far better.

Originally Posted by bluetoast (Post 11219262)
One of the things I wished we saw more of in part 1: When they first showed Peter Parker dodge Flash Parker's punch, we saw how quick Peter's reaction was, and how he saw things "slower" in a way. Yeah, kinda Matrixy but still neat. I expected at least one or two more of those during the movie. Maybe dodging the Goblin glider was an instance of that, but I forget.
I remember they do the slow motion in the burning building when Spidey is dodging a bunch of of those things the Goblin throws, right?

kgrogers1979 05-04-12 07:43 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by bluetoast (Post 11219262)
When they first showed Peter Parker dodge Flash Parker's punch...
They aren't brothers.

It's Flash Thompson.

bluetoast 05-04-12 08:24 PM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
My mistake.

RD1973 05-06-12 03:36 AM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by Supermallet (Post 11218262)
Not to derail the thread, but perhaps you could provide us with some comparison screenshots, Paul, so we can better understand what you mean when you say teal and orange grading, because I am not seeing this in movies where you claim it to be prevalent, so I'd love to know exactly what you're referring to.
Just check out the trailer for Brothers. Worse case of T&O I've ever seen.

whotony 05-06-12 09:24 AM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
Originally Posted by Supermallet (Post 11218262)
Not to derail the thread, but perhaps you could provide us with some comparison screenshots, Paul, so we can better understand what you mean when you say teal and orange grading, because I am not seeing this in movies where you claim it to be prevalent, so I'd love to know exactly what you're referring to.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Teal+and+orange

whotony 05-06-12 10:26 AM
Re: Spider-Man (2012, Marc Webb)
 
From the recent Born To Be Wild.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...h_f6206464.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...h_44b46dae.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...h_3fbf845b.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...h_e0ade017.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...h_02b56da0.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...h_61ac69db.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...h_b83e71c1.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...h_f1437634.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...h_9a73baa6.jpg


And someone started a topic a couple years ago.
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/...p-madness.html


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 PM.
Page 56 of 84
« First
6
46
54
55
56
57
58
66
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.