Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Turtletrekker, Jul 2, 2010.
Well then, Ditko was pretty accurate as to how such a creature would look in real life!
^ How did they take source material by accident?
Forgot to use a condom, perhaps?
new international trailer, avec nouveau footage.
They've definitely come a long way with the web-swinging scenes, considering how cartoony and CG it looked in that first Raimi movie.
And to all the people concerned that Spidey wouldn't move in a super fast, spider-like way in this movie, we can clearly see that's not an issue.
Parker in his wrestling outfit and chasing after Uncle Ben's killer was terrible. Especially when Parker is wall crawling.
^To some extent wasn't it supposed to be terrible at that point, because Parker was still learning the ropes?
Peter's movements maybe, but not the actual CG animation.
To be fair though, the CG in that movie is still pretty impressive, and works perfectly fine within the ultra comic booky style of the movie.
They've just made some very big strides in CGI since then is all.
Yes I was responding to davejames comments on the CGI in Spider-man 1.
I've seen more and more complaints about this online in recent years. I dunno...I've always thought it looked okay.
Nah...they just had, like, ten years of that on TV.
Of course it looked okay. Sometimes it seems like people just have an inability to judge a film in context to the time it was made. It's getting increasingly difficult, especially for those who don't really understand the process, because the quality of CGI, just like the computers that are used to process it, increases exponentially as time goes on.
In the past, there were only so many things effects wise you could do "in camera." There was less money involved. Effects progressed slowly. With the advent of technology, computers and CGI, the abilities and quality of effects are expounded on almost monthly.
You then get people watching a movie from just a few years ago and thinking it should be on par with movies made today, and suddenly the effects from the older film are "terrible."
I mean in comparison to CGI stuff today. I think it holds up.
Also, much of the swinging in this new movie isn't even CGI at all, if the director is to be believed.
I see. I think by today's standards it's a little dodgy, but nothing terrible. But for the time, it was perfectly good CGI.
There have been set videos of practical swinging/stunts
You can see this scene in the trailer.
Here's a scene from the movie. Nothing too exciting, it features Peter rather than Spidey and is quite reminiscent of a scene in Raimi's second movie, featuring Bruce Campbell as a snooty usher. But what's that peeking out of Peter's bag?!
OT: Are doormen really like that?
Well this clip fully proves Mark Webb's point.
They no doubt are doing new things with the characters.
A reboot was for sure in order. No debate on that.
This film is feeling very Deja vu.
I can concede that web swinging is a staple and hard to make it feel "new" after 3 films. This however isn't a scene, an interaction that had to happen. It did though cause it's a proven element on film with this character. Not new Mr.Webb, not fresh as you said you were going for.
The situation and dialogue seems to come off more cartoonish here.
The fact the situation is even being repeated, interpretations aside of cartoonish, is what is lame imo.
Separate names with a comma.