THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Pre-Release Thread - Page 23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

I really hope this movie gets relentlessly positive buzz, just so we can watch the resolve of the haters in this thread slowly crumble.

If you're referring to me, I think "hater" is the wrong term, as it refers to jealous individuals who do not want others to succeed out of spite.  Whether the film succeeds or not is irrelevant to my feelings, which are on display in my previous post and cannot be classified under the "hater" banner.  "It's a principle thing", so to speak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jokezilla 

I'm hoping that the creative team aren't in it for the money, but just want to craft a great Spider-Man film.

LOL.

Did someone actually cite better CGI as an advantage this has over Raimi's first Spider-Man? Of course there's better CGI, it's been ten years. Same reason the special effects in Peter Jackson's King Kong look better than Cooper's. By that logic, the prequels are better than The Empire Strikes Back. #lamereasonsforaremake

Still, ragging on the CG in the '02 Spidey as a reason why this one's more worthy is pretty disingenuous. Last Starfighter has the most rudimentary CG ever, but the script is solid so who gives a shit?

Also, I guess I should take issue with Freeman blindly labeling everyone who's not leaping with excitement over this cynical exercise, but he's got his head so far up this movie's ass already it'd be kind of pointless to engage. I've stated my reasons for checking out on this time and again, doing it a fifth time isn't going to convince anyone.

This thread sort of reboots itself every page or so.

I won't like the movie because racist.

Oh fucking grow up with the passive aggressive shit.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradito 

This thread sort of reboots itself every page or so.

It's a money-making scheme!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

Still, ragging on the CG in the '02 Spidey as a reason why this one's more worthy is pretty disingenuous. Last Starfighter has the most rudimentary CG ever, but the script is solid so who gives a shit?

I don't understand how anyone can cite C.G.I as one reason one superhero movie is better than another. I still like "Superman II" more than a lot of the recent superhero/comic book movies, despite the fact that the special effects in its climatic last battle were so clunky and unconvincing (even at the time when they were 'state-of-the-art').

"Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" also has some of the lamest special effects out of all the Star Trek movies (especially compared to the last one), but it's still the most beloved and most resonant of all the Star Trek movies.

Ebert was one of the only people who was negative about the 2002 "Spider-Man" when it came out, in large part because he found the C.G.I inadequate. It never bothered me, though. The C.G.I. in the second one was better, but I don't think there's a huge difference between the two.

"Spider-Man" has bigger problems like inconsistencies in tone, acting, and writing. Some moments were really effective, but others were a little awkward. The sequel was way more confident and smooth in all of those areas.

I don't care what you guys say, the CG looks much better in the new movie than the originals, that's a frigging plus.  Just like bigger FX and a bigger budget is a plus that Terminator 2 has over Terminator 1.  You're all so hell bent on not giving this movie credit that you're unwilling to praise good SPX, and I'M the one with my head up my ass.

Garfield is a great dude and all, but I wish they'd gone with Donald Glover.

Yeah, someone give Donald Glover his movie career, right now.

And what about Joel McHale? Guy had bit parts in What's Your Number, The Big Year and Spy Kids 4. AREYOUKIDDINME

McHale was already in a Spiderman movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 

Garfield is a great dude and all, but I wish they'd gone with Donald Glover.

Yeah, someone give Donald Glover his movie career, right now.

Donald Glover is funny and all but can he actually act? Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield already showed their chops in that respect before being cast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

I don't care what you guys say, the CG looks much better in the new movie than the originals, that's a frigging plus.  Just like bigger FX and a bigger budget is a plus that Terminator 2 has over Terminator 1.  You're all so hell bent on not giving this movie credit that you're unwilling to praise good SPX, and I'M the one with my head up my ass.

Terminator is stil the better movie, though.

Seriously man, why are you getting so defensive about this film?

Yeah, I really have to question the idea that "better sfx" is somehow an indicator of higher overal quality. Ok, its maybe more pleasing to the eye? Without a good story a special effect is just a pretty picture (and not even always that).  Great special effects are just an ancillary bonus in a movie.

10 years later with the big budget?  It'd BETTER have better visual fx.  That's what's expected.  So it's not surprising that people here don't give the new movie a big plus solely because of that.  And I admit, the stuff looks good.  But I thought it was already done amazingly well in Spider-man 2.  

Still, I agree that most of us are being awfully hard on this poor big-budget contractual obligation.  Sarcasm aside, I can understand being a bit defensive if I was looking forward to it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Youngblood 

Yeah, I really have to question the idea that "better sfx" is somehow an indicator of higher overal quality. Ok, its maybe more pleasing to the eye? Without a good story a special effect is just a pretty picture (and not even always that).  Great special effects are just an ancillary bonus in a movie.

I fairness, this movie does have a good story. It's just that it's the story of SPIDER-MAN.

If seeing Raimi's 2002 movie redone with better FX is a premium for you then I guess you should be pretty psyched for this.

Just to put a positive spin on all of this, if this reboot leads to a proper telling of the Gwen Stacy's death/Green Goblin story, all will be forgiven.

Everything about this says to me, 'Deliriously enjoyable summer movie'. The negativity towards it is bewildering. 

The negativity is understandable, I'm just choosing to be positive about it, at least until release day.

I think the special effects in the first three were overall pretty decent, in the first Spider-Man most shots worked, although some were slightly rubbery, but for every rubbery shot there was an two awesome ones. Example of a good one, Spider-Man gets blown back through a brick wall by an explosion seen from behind, example of a bad one from the very same scene, just moments after The Green Goblin jumps from his glider and lands before Spider-Man; it looks "off", a tad too unconvincing.

In the second Spider-Man's swinging looked amazing, the effects were tremendous, check out the train sequence, it is mind blowing.

But on the third they must have concentrated on Sandman too much because there was a return of the rubber Spider-Man, perhaps the departure of John Dykstra was also to blame.

And as for the new one; the effects look pretty damn good. However, most of the action seems to be set at night, I think it's easier to make CGI look good in the dark as opposed to the often harsh sunlight of Raimi's flicks. Plus, alhough it's not my favourite fight from Raimi's trilogy, Webb has his work cut out if he's hoping to best that train sequence because damn... it was sweet.

There's tons of shots from the old movies that look jarring now.  Spidey leaping out of the bank and over the taxi cab door, being bashed by the clock tower pieces and thrashing around like a rubbery CG puppet.  I'm just saying every shot I've seen of CG spiderman in the new movie looks dramatically more convincing from a physical perspective.  So sorry.

Having just rewatched Spidey 2 on blu, I can say the effects (for the most part) hold up pretty well. Doc Ock especially; the combination of practical FX and CGI for the tentacles works like gangbusters. The train sequence (and skyscraper fight just before) also still looks great.

A fair amount of the shots with Spidey just webslinging through the city, though, haven't aged well or at least don't look all that great on blu. Not a dealbreaker for the film in any respect, but they don't look so great 8 years after in HD.

He's a MADMAN!!!

(Freeman, I mean)

Yeah, I make one comment about SPX and I get10 angry responses and I'm the one who's being overly defensive and protective.

I think everyone's being a little PEH-TEE.  And TAI-NEE.

Me included!

Haven't we gone so far into the modern age of special effects that we've seen a number of really good movies with special effects, and some bad movies with amazing visuals?

I really don't think about it - I'm going into Amazing Spider-Man assuming the effects will be top notch, because they should be. And if they're not, and the story is still involving and real, then I can forgive it.

No offense, but I think the most boring thing to discuss is movie special effects in relation to a film's quality. Kinda reduces movies to a light show, and I doubt Sony are big enough assholes that they'll follow Raimi's films with some thoughtless FX orgy.

FREEMAN WHY WON'T YOU HATE THIS MOVIE WITH US SIGHT UNSEEN?

I can comment on the SPX though because it's assumed the story will be good.  It's the Spiderman story after all.

I dunno, I'm gonna be a little more demanding of the story than that.

Well, for a film to become exceptional than all cylinders should be firing - story, effects, performances, music. Story is of course most important, as it is what everything else works in aid for, but special effects are also important, especially in a movie like this because a bad special effect can and will take you out of the story. If the Lizard punches Spider-Man in the face, or claws him, whatever, you shouldn't be thinking "oh, that CG looked bad", nor should you really be thinking "man, that CG looked good", preferably what should be going through your brain is "OH NO! The Lizard punched Spider-Man, Spider-Man is hurt, what ever shall he do!?". A good special effect shouldn't bring massive attention to itself, it just works seamlessly with everything else.

There's also the hope that there's a little more to it than just "punching."

I'm gonna be a total fucking snob about this movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

There's also the hope that there's a little more to it than just "punching."

 

I'm gonna be a total fucking snob about this movie.

But of course, my example was deliberatly broad to exemplify the point.

New IMAX TV Spot.

Do we really need another Spider-Man?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

Do we really need another Spider-Man?

*sings* All we want is what's beyoooooooond, Thunderdooooooome!"

OH. MY. GOOOOOOOOOD! THIS COULD MEAN SOMETHING!

Spider-man is a two-strapper!

:(  Pretty sure I made that joke already.

I've read all of the post release thread for the ASM. That thread me about 12 dollars. I'll probably check this out when its on redbox.