Spider-Man: Homecoming' anticipation thread

[Samurai8472]

I was trying to think of a reason why the actor would do the shot himself rather than relying on a stunt double. As a rule, the only reason you'd need the actor himself -- whether for a stunt or any other kind of shot -- is if his face is going to be visible. So it'd have to be a shot where he takes the mask off, but why would he do that if he were fighting bad guys? So my guess is that he ducks into the pipe on the back of the truck in order to change back to his street clothes.

That's a pretty thin idea.

Garfield never took off his mask for the car jacking.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

If the actor needs to be in the suit he'll be in the suit. There doesn't have to be a "reason"

Looks like a bit of CGI will have to be done to touch up the suit. It's looking pretty amateurish.

The fake lenses and lighter blue make it my least favorite costume BEFORE touch up.


This IMO was the best look. Hardly any noticeable touchups

 

[Christopher]

If the actor needs to be in the suit he'll be in the suit. There doesn't have to be a "reason"

Of course there does. Actors are very busy people. When they're not on camera, they need to be rehearsing their lines, getting their makeup and hair touched up, catching up on precious sleep, working out to stay buff for the cameras, doing interviews, talking with their agents to arrange their next job, spending what few precious moments they can spare for their families and loved ones, etc. Thus, as a rule, if you don't see the actor's face on camera, then it's not the actor. Even if it's just a dialogue scene looking at one character over another character's shoulder, then the one whose face you can't see is going to be that actor's photo double standing in for them while the actor is off doing something else (with the actor's voice dubbed in later, of course). Or if it's a long shot where the characters are in the distance, say. As a rule, if you don't see the actor's face in the shot, it isn't them, it's their double. That's especially true of stunts, because you don't want to risk the actor if you don't have to.

Sure, if it's a dialogue scene like the one you posted, then you'd ideally want the actor in the suit for the sake of the performance. But that's not what this is. This is a shot of Spidey jumping onto the back of a truck. It's a stunt, and thus probably not a dialogue scene, so there's no reason for the actor to do it unless his face needs to be seen.

Looks like a bit of CGI will have to be done to touch up the suit. It's looking pretty amateurish.

It looks to me like a stunt suit that's not designed to be as detailed as the "hero" suit. A less detailed suit can work for stunt shots where the quick movement or the camera's distance obscures its details. Which is part of why I suspect it's for a scene where Spidey jumps into the pipe and pulls off his mask. The "hero" mask is probably not as easy to take off. (In past Spider-Man movies, the mask has pretty clearly been integrated with the rest of the suit, which creates a discontinuity in shots where he pulls it off and the mask is clearly a separate piece in those shots alone. Daredevil's season 2 costume is even worse with this.)

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Of course there does. Actors are very busy people. When they're not on camera, they need to be rehearsing their lines, getting their makeup and hair touched up, catching up on precious sleep, working out to stay buff for the cameras, doing interviews, talking with their agents to arrange their next job, spending what few precious moments they can spare for their families and loved ones, etc. Thus, as a rule, if you don't see the actor's face on camera, then it's not the actor. Even if it's just a dialogue scene looking at one character over another character's shoulder, then the one whose face you can't see is going to be that actor's photo double standing in for them while the actor is off doing something else (with the actor's voice dubbed in later, of course). Or if it's a long shot where the characters are in the distance, say. As a rule, if you don't see the actor's face in the shot, it isn't them, it's their double. That's especially true of stunts, because you don't want to risk the actor if you don't have to.

Sure, if it's a dialogue scene like the one you posted, then you'd ideally want the actor in the suit for the sake of the performance. But that's not what this is. This is a shot of Spidey jumping onto the back of a truck. It's a stunt, and thus probably not a dialogue scene, so there's no reason for the actor to do it unless his face needs to be seen.

Unless he just wants to do it himself whenever he can convince them to let him. It would hardly be the first actor in hollywood with that attitude.

 

[ichab]

He wants to be in the suit for the same reason Hayden Christion wanted to be in the Darth Vader suit. It's an iconic character and he gets to BE that character. Having your voice dubbed for a stunt double isn't the same as putting the outfit on and acting as that character

 

[Christopher]

Unless he just wants to do it himself whenever he can convince them to let him. It would hardly be the first actor in hollywood with that attitude.

Sure, but an explanation based in filmmaking logic and mainstream practices is more likely than an explanation that assumes an individual is just being weird. By definition, something that would be true in the majority of similar cases is more probable than something that requires an unusual exception.

 

[JD]

I don't see what would be so weird about him being in the suit. It's easily one of the most iconic costumes in mass media, so I can easily see why an actor would want to do it. I think I remember seeing him doing acrobatics on Twitter or one of the other social media services, so he can probably even do some of less dangerous stunts himself.
I don't know if I'd say it's always the photo double when you don't see the actor's face. I've seen plenty of scenes where they are going back and forth between characters and both actors were there even when they were shooting the other character. I think that's mainly true of b-roll type stuff, like if we see a close of a hand or only see a character walking down a hall from behind.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Yes, I'd say "as a rule" is definitely an overstatement, though I have no doubt it may often be the case.

 

[ichab]

I don't see what would be so weird about him being in the suit. It's easily one of the most iconic costumes in mass media, so I can easily see why an actor would want to do it. I think I remember seeing him doing acrobatics on Twitter or one of the other social media services, so he can probably even do some of less dangerous stunts himself.
I don't know if I'd say it's always the photo double when you don't see the actor's face. I've seen plenty of scenes where they are going back and forth between characters and both actors were there even when they were shooting the other character. I think that's mainly true of b-roll type stuff, like if we see a close of a hand or only see a character walking down a hall from behind.

Exactly. In Revenge Of The Sith Lucas was originally just going to put a tall guy in the Vader suit before Hayden Christensen begged and pleaded to be allowed to wear it himself. The brief scenes required him to do nothing more than walk, turn his head and cross his arms. Didn't matter. He got to play Darth Vader, which millions of fans would have jumped at the chance to play.

I can certainly understand Holland wanting to wear the Spidey outfit as much as possible for the same reason. Theses guys might be "professional actors" but many are also fans just like the rest of us.

 

[Christopher]

I don't see what would be so weird about him being in the suit. It's easily one of the most iconic costumes in mass media, so I can easily see why an actor would want to do it.

In a dialogue scene, sure, but this is a stunt with a mask on. It seems more likely that Holland is doing it because there's some specific reason he needs to be in the shot than just "because he feels like it."

And I explained why actors have very little time to spare for being on camera when they don't need to. This isn't a hobby where they can play around however they feel like. It's a very demanding full-time job that leaves very little free time, which is exactly why actors need doubles and stand-ins to fill in for them when their faces aren't needed on camera. Most laypeople have no idea how essential those doubles are to the process, and how often the person they're looking at onscreen is not actually the actor. Film is about creating illusion, after all.

I don't know if I'd say it's always the photo double when you don't see the actor's face. I've seen plenty of scenes where they are going back and forth between characters and both actors were there even when they were shooting the other character. I think that's mainly true of b-roll type stuff, like if we see a close of a hand or only see a character walking down a hall from behind.

You mean you've actually been on set to watch them shoot a dialogue scene? Like I said, they're good at creating the illusion that an actor is on-camera even when they aren't. Having both actors present is probably more common today when there's more use of multiple-camera setups or handheld, moving-camera shots. But in a traditional single-camera setup, if you're cutting back and forth between a shot of A over B's shoulder and B over A's shoulder, then that's usually going to be cut together from a take with A facing B's photo double and a subsequent take with B facing A's double. And if they do their job right, they cut together the picture and sound so smoothly that you don't notice the substitution.

And hand models are a totally different category of people from photo doubles. For a photo double, you want someone whose head and body look like the actor from behind. But hand models are a separate specialty altogether, because you want people whose hands are photogenic and look good in close-up. There are people who work exclusively as hand models.

 

[Set Harth]

The brief scenes required him to do nothing more than walk, turn his head and cross his arms.

And stand there without teetering forward like he was about to fall. Oh well.

 

[Chris3123]

Nice Guys actress Angourie Rice added to the cast in an unspecified role.

Given her age and hair color, my mind immediately went to Gwen Stacey. At the very least she has to be a schoolmate of Parker's.

 

[Christopher]

Nice Guys actress Angourie Rice added to the cast in an unspecified role.

Given her age and hair color, my mind immediately went to Gwen Stacey. At the very least she has to be a schoolmate of Parker's.

For what it's worth, in the comics, Peter didn't meet Gwen, MJ, or Harry Osborn until college. Most adaptations do conflate at least some of them with his high school cohorts, but it's not a given.

 

[The Old Mixer]

There are people who work exclusively as hand models.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ichab]

For what it's worth, in the comics, Peter didn't meet Gwen, MJ, or Harry Osborn until college. Most adaptations do conflate at least some of them with his high school cohorts, but it's not a given.

Interesting....

 

[Turtletrekker]

In the current "Spidey" comic, which tells "untold" tales of Peter's youth, both Gwen and Harry are depicted as Peter's High School classmates.

 

[Christopher]

In the current "Spidey" comic, which tells "untold" tales of Peter's youth, both Gwen and Harry are depicted as Peter's High School classmates.

Which means either it's out of continuity or there's a major retcon going on. I looked up some stuff about it, and apparently it's rather loose about continuity, because it's set when Peter was a decade or so younger yet is still set in what seems to be the present day.

 

[Samurai8472]

Yesterday was 1 year until the movie hits cinemas

 

[ichab]

Yesterday was 1 year until the movie hits cinemas

That's really cool. He's certainly enjoying the suit.

 

[JD]

In a dialogue scene, sure, but this is a stunt with a mask on. It seems more likely that Holland is doing it because there's some specific reason he needs to be in the shot than just "because he feels like it."

And I explained why actors have very little time to spare for being on camera when they don't need to. This isn't a hobby where they can play around however they feel like. It's a very demanding full-time job that leaves very little free time, which is exactly why actors need doubles and stand-ins to fill in for them when their faces aren't needed on camera. Most laypeople have no idea how essential those doubles are to the process, and how often the person they're looking at onscreen is not actually the actor. Film is about creating illusion, after all.

I wanted to be an actor for a lot of my life, and I meant it seriously, not just as a dream to become famous, so I know exactly what goes into being an actor. It's a hell of a job, and definitely not always as glamorous as people think.

You mean you've actually been on set to watch them shoot a dialogue scene? Like I said, they're good at creating the illusion that an actor is on-camera even when they aren't. Having both actors present is probably more common today when there's more use of multiple-camera setups or handheld, moving-camera shots. But in a traditional single-camera setup, if you're cutting back and forth between a shot of A over B's shoulder and B over A's shoulder, then that's usually going to be cut together from a take with A facing B's photo double and a subsequent take with B facing A's double. And if they do their job right, they cut together the picture and sound so smoothly that you don't notice the substitution.

I've never been on a movie set, but I love watching behind the scene stuff, so I've seen plenty of uncut behind the scenes footage of movies. I'm not saying it's always the case that both actors are there while filming, but I've seen plenty of examples where it was. With so many behind the scene features on DVDs/Blu-Rays, and with B-Roll videos being released online, it's pretty easy to see how scenes were shot without actually being on the set. I understand how busy actors are and I know that there are situations where they're using a double instead of the actor, but it's not always the case.

And hand models are a totally different category of people from photo doubles. For a photo double, you want someone whose head and body look like the actor from behind. But hand models are a separate specialty altogether, because you want people whose hands are photogenic and look good in close-up. There are people who work exclusively as hand models.

Sorry, I guess that was a bad example, it was just the first thing to pop into my head.

 

[LJones41]

For what it's worth, in the comics, Peter didn't meet Gwen, MJ, or Harry Osborn until college. Most adaptations do conflate at least some of them with his high school cohorts, but it's not a given.

The movies never get that right. I never understood why it was so important for Peter Parker to be constantly rebooted back into high school. The best period of the Spider-Man comics - well, for me - occurred when he was friends with MJ, Gwen, Harry and Flash at Empire State University. I've always believed those were Spidey's best years. Apparently, movie producers think otherwise.