RocShemp

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.

devilshalo

Where is this that post production was rushed? Principle photography wrapped one year ago this month. They've been in post production since and yes, they've had reshoots up until this past January, but I fail to see a rush job other than to get vfx shots out for trailers and exhibitors (which are usually not finals). Are you expecting it to take 4 years of R&D like Avatar?

And you can keep wishing for this to fail till you die and the rights won't magically revert back to Marvel because of it. Disney might have some deep pockets but Sony is going to balk at any offer unless it's around what the purchase price for Marvel was. Paramount can afford to give up what they had because they have other franchises that can make up for the slate of films it gave up. Sony doesn't have that luxury and will take that property to the grave if they can.

DaveyJoe

Perhaps not post-production, but I feel like the entire thing was a rush-job once they found out Sam Raimi needed more time to make a better film. I listed a couple of reasons that the CGI doesn't look as good as it could, not enough render time, or a director that doesn't know how to seamlessly weave special effects into real tactile images on film. It could be the guys doing the CGI, or it could be Webb, I don't know. All I know is that it is very obviously fake, more so than films made years ago, or with smaller budgets. District 9 had better special effects and that was made with $30 million.

I know it, all I can do is vote with my money. I won't see this unless it gets excellent reviews. With The Avengers and TDKR, the bar is set high for comic book films this summer, and I don't see TASM matching those two flicks. I have no problem skipping this until a better Spider-Man movie comes along.

Draven

Great - so the rules for the thread are that once a new trailer is released, only people who are still impressed or excited can comment. Once you are unimpressed or not excited any longer, you have to stop commenting.

As for good things about ASM...well...so far it appears to be in focus.

devilshalo

District 9 was financed thru Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh using investors and money from the failed Halo project, also WETA was able to give a considerable discount to get it made and did their work around whatever projects took precedent. Sony did not pay any production costs. Plus Blomkamp filmed most if not all in South Africa, which if you notice, is where a lot of cheap films and film sequels go to get made (ie. Starship Troopers 3 which had a budget of around $10M)

DaveyJoe

Smart, so what's Sony's excuse for shoddy CGI?

Dragon Tattoo

Oh, don't get me wrong. You can cry and bitch all you want. I'm sure you, Davey and anonymous will continue to come into this thread and do so until and even after the film is released, if only to annoy us all.

Have fun. It's fucking pathetic (and thoroughly pointless), but have fun.

"Curse you Sony for not giving up the rights to a billionaire-dollar franchise to Marvel!"

Draven

So is praising a movie you haven't seen but hey, we can't all be perfect.

Dragon Tattoo

If you actually read my posts, you'd notice that I haven't praised anything. I don't think the special effects look worse than those in "The Mummy" movies (a ridiculous assertion) and I like that Spider-man makes wisecracks. Wow. In other words, I'm looking forward to a movie. In your world that may equal "unabashed praise" but in the real world that I reside in, it is simply known as "keeping an open mind."

auto

Something you're known for.

devilshalo

Have you seen the final version of the film to make that judgment? Can you tell me what is in the trailer that is a finaled vfx sequence and what are passable temps? The film opens in July, it's not uncommon that they take it up to a week prior to release to finish.

Solid Snake

Just remind people. Raimi's films had weird cgi too. A lot of it. Like this...

georgec

^ That doesn't look weird to me. It looks like Venom from the comics.

DaveyJoe

Yeah that shot looks fine to me. The lighting is good and there's nice texture on the costume.

Solid Snake

that's irrelevant. Not what I was pointing out either.

...then why does it look it's a cg guy jumping in front of a projected screen?

DaveyJoe

Venom was far from the highlight of the film but I think he looks well rendered there, and again, texture goes a long way to make something look realistic:



The background is a bit iffy though, I'll give you that. Sandman and Spider-Man effects were excellent in Spider-Man 3, and the special effects never took me out of the film during SM3. However, I find the CGI in TASM trailers to be a bit distracting, not only the effects themselves, but the direction. The scene with the collapsing building and the fan or vent falls directly into the camera... I hate that type of shot. It screams "movie trailer money shot" and takes me out of the film because I know it's CGI. Having real props falling around the actors is one thing but when it falls directly into the camera, I know it can't be real, so it takes me out of the action.

Solid Snake

For the most part but they had issues that took me out as well. For example when Spidey jumps up and starts to surround Venom w/ those rods. It looks bad. When a character is moving...a bit faster than a regular human would it gets bad too. It's all over. To make it worse the transitions from CG environment to set environment never looked right.

I will admit though...S3 had great transition from cgi character to actor. Avoiding discussion of the story itself and just the cgi. There's a lot of gold in there...but let's not be fooled by it alone. There are major flaws in there too that are hidden rather well via editing.

DaveyJoe

To be honest, I blocked a lot of the final act from my memory. The Venom stuff and giant Sandman were really awful. I wouldn't be surprised if there were visual flaws with the Venom stuff, it's obvious Raimi's heart wasn't in it when it came to that character. Damn studio interference.

Solid Snake

well let's go Spider-man 2. CG Doc Ock stood out like a crazy motherfucker in there. So did the people that Spidey saves and puts on those webs. While the sequence itself and in context works well....it's got poor cgi in there.

DaveyJoe

Movie came out 8 years, the effects will look a bit dated.

Solid Snake

I'm going in context though. If we're going out of it..yeah sure but it had issues regardless.

DaveyJoe

What do you mean? While watching Spider-Man 2 in 2004 I don't remember the effects taking me out of context, except for the bank heist scene when Ock threw the bags of coins. That was the only thing that seemed really fake to me, the train scene was excellent. If the effects for TASM are already bothering me in the trailers, there's something wrong.

Paul_SD

This was intended to be a 3D film from the start. Don't know if it was filmed in 3D, or just that the shots were composed and designed to maximize the effect post conversion, but I'm pretty sure that won't be the only shot we see going for that effect.
Frankly, that whole sequence looked pretty damn good to me. The things fall and break with believable weight weight behind them, and the character movement seems natural and has an appropriate weight to it. Not sure what it is you're seeing that bothers you.

I'm not sure if its better for CG animators to follow old school animation principles (like squash and stretch and the related drag in motion) or if incorporating those makes it look too cartoony. When you don't heed those in traditional animation, then the movements look too stiff and robotic.

Also, don't know if this being a Sony film that they would keep every single effects shot in-house, but what usually happens is that a ton of little mom & pop design studio make bids and separate shots/sequences are farmed out to many different houses- which is why some shots look much more polished than others. I guess it's the nature of the beast when you have so many complex effects per film and have a hard and fast release date. It makes sense to divvy up the work burden and not let it all fall on one groups shoulders.

bluetoast

You know what always bugged me about the Spidey movies? The webs pretty much stick to THE SKY, or some ridiculously high vantage point that doesn't exist, to allow him to basically go wherever the hell he wants. I mean it's okay to cheat once in a while, but when it looks like it's shooting to nowhere, that's a bit much. Hell, even on this new one, where is it attached, and how did he get there? He's already way above the city, going into a building, and the contact point is like...behind him. Ah, it's just a poster right? Doesn't matter...hopefully.

fumanstan

That's a big picture.