I don't want the new Spider-Man film to be in 3D

[ross2287]

Seriously, everything doesn't have to be in 3D.

Granted, there will still be the 2D print (which I'll see) and granted seeing Spidey swing into the audience in 3D could be cool, but it's unnecessary.

And I know all the pro-3D people will be on me about it, but pretty much for every pro-3D there's at least one anti-3D.

So, who's with me?

[Crook]

I will never get the b***hing against 3D so as long as a 2D print exists, and the extra money spent on it isn't from your pocket.

Honestly, what is the big deal here? I want to understand. :huh:

[ross2287]

Seems too bandwagony/gimmicky to me.

[Jick09]

Is the 3D going to damage the movie in any way?

I'm not pro 3D, nor am I anti. I'll simply choose one of these two options and watch it.
I want someone to give me good reasons to change my mind because ''it is too gimmick'' is all I hear.

[Deaths Head II]

Seriously, why does it matter at all? As long as the 2D print exists, it doesn't affect anything.

[Indie]

Seriously, why does it matter at all? As long as the 2D print exists, it doesn't affect anything.

It matters if they pull any cheep 3D gimmicky shots that completly take you out of the movie moment and are only there to show off the fact that they are using 3D. (you know, like punches or web shooting directly out at the audience)

[Rodrigo90]

3D is crap IMO.

[Indie]

3D is crap IMO.

I'm not quite ready to write 3D off all together, I just think it's hard to make it enhance the film and not detract from it.

[Deaths Head II]

It matters if they pull any cheep 3D gimmicky shots that completly take you out of the movie moment and are only there to show off the fact that they are using 3D. (you know, like punches or web shooting directly out at the audience)

I doubt they'll be doing that for gimmick's sake.

[Spider-Who?]

It matters if they pull any cheep 3D gimmicky shots that completly take you out of the movie moment and are only there to show off the fact that they are using 3D. (you know, like punches or web shooting directly out at the audience)

See, this is a ridiculous statement because it is a STAPLE cinematic shot to have things come at the camera, regardless of 3d being involved. I dare you to watch any of the Spider-Man flicks and not see at least one instance of this happening in any fight scene. And guess what? It happened with no 3d involved. So to be okay with it when its in 2d, but suddenly throw arms up in disgust if the SAME thing where to happen in 3d is hypocritical and lacks a whole lot of logic.

And personally, I couldnt care less if it where in 3D. I'm fine either way. The 3d technology has evolved far enough where serious film makers who want to use it don't have to worry about slamming it down our throats; they're (for the most part) aware that it is a tool just like any other.

[spider-neil]

there will always be a 2D print so its not worth worrying about

[weezerspider]

Well, its a waste of time and money if its not really enhancing the movie, so I'll complain until I'm proven otherwise.

[Mrpaul]

I'll wait and see no doubt

[White_Knight191]

Guys, what's the big deal about this? Go see the 2D version then... god...
Now I'm actually curious how they are gonna pull this off with the ''rumored'' 80 million budget...:huh:

[spider-neil]

if it isin 3D I hope they rent the fusion camera of james cameron. 3D looks rubbish otherwise.

I can understand the studios push for 3D they want a peice of avatar's pie but I don't think the reason avatar was so successful was the 3D.

[Goran]

Does this mean the whole movie will be in 3D like "Avatar"??
Or some parts of it?? when spidey is webslinging e.g.

[JustABill]

Every movie, save Avatar, that's been in 3-D has done it as nothing more than a mere gimmick.

[dark_b]

It matters if they pull any cheep 3D gimmicky shots that completly take you out of the movie moment and are only there to show off the fact that they are using 3D. (you know, like punches or web shooting directly out at the audience)but this is the directors fault.

this is a good reason to not like 3D. but its something that the director can fix if he doesnt use the gimmicky shots. so why not be afraid that the director will f... this up?

[dark_b]

See, this is a ridiculous statement because it is a STAPLE cinematic shot to have things come at the camera, regardless of 3d being involved. I dare you to watch any of the Spider-Man flicks and not see at least one instance of this happening in any fight scene. And guess what? It happened with no 3d involved. So to be okay with it when its in 2d, but suddenly throw arms up in disgust if the SAME thing where to happen in 3d is hypocritical and lacks a whole lot of logic.

And personally, I couldnt care less if it where in 3D. I'm fine either way. The 3d technology has evolved far enough where serious film makers who want to use it don't have to worry about slamming it down our throats; they're (for the most part) aware that it is a tool just like any other.you just owned everyone who used '' dont want things flying at me''

i have an example for you all. remember in Batman begins when the tample blows up ? a peace of rock is flying in to the camera. if this was a 3D movie everyone would complain how the shot was a gimmick. yet in 2005 noone said anything.
http://i47.tinypic.com/k04upl.jpg

Burton with Alice made almost every shot a gimmick 3D where something is flying or pointed in the camera. but this is hes fault not the fault of 3D. but they filmed this movie before Avatar. now that Avatar's 3D is very popular they will want to use it like Cameron did. so dont be afraid. it wont look like every second there is something flying into the camera.

[dark_b]

Well, its a waste of time and money if its not really enhancing the movie, so I'll complain until I'm proven otherwise.you have the right not to like the 3D. but proven wrong? how can anyone prove your opinion wrong? billion of people liked the 3D in Avatar so studios will use it.

it makes the movie to a lot of people better like color,stero sound,3D sound does.

[Dugath]

I think a lot of people have a misconception about 3D. Most people when they think of 3D they think about.. Things coming out at you..

But there is the 3D that adds "depth" to the scenes making it 3D (like in Avatar and in My Bloody Valentine maybe some others but I can not think of them right now). More movies are made with this in mind and not that "stuff coming at you".

But really there is no need to ***** about a movie being 3D , just take your ass to the 2D one.

[JustABill]

My Bloody Valentine? That whole movie was a gimmick. The 3-D was used to devert from the fact it was one of the worst horror movies put out in recent years not named ''Saw" or ''Hostel."

[spider-neil]

if the 3D is used like avatar then bring it on, if its used like gimmick then forget it

[Kahoot]

It matters if they pull any cheep 3D gimmicky shots that completly take you out of the movie moment and are only there to show off the fact that they are using 3D. (you know, like punches or web shooting directly out at the audience)
They had shots like that in ever Spider-Man movie but coz it was 2D no one cares.

[[A]]

Why, why do they have to do this..? Don't they know they're making the Spidey reboot incredibly shallow..? I mean, with ideas and statements like these..

[dark_b]

if the 3D is used like avatar then bring it on, if its used like gimmick then forget iti think there is a bgi chance that it will be used like in Avatar.

with Tron,ALice,Harry Potter and Clash of the Titans you need to understand that all of those movies were already filmed before Avatar was out. so all the shots were composed how they wanted.

spiderman will start months after Avatar. so i am positive that they will try to use it the same.

[Crook]

Tron was shot with the same 3D cameras that Avatar used.

[spider-neil]

Tron was shot with the same 3D cameras that Avatar used.


are you sure? the fusion camera is proprietary to james cameron.

[redfirebird2008]

I will never get the b***hing against 3D so as long as a 2D print exists, and the extra money spent on it isn't from your pocket.

Honestly, what is the big deal here? I want to understand. :huh:

I posted this in the the other thread when someone brought up the "go see it in 2D" argument.

I have 2 theaters near me. Neither one of them showed Avatar in 2D. Both of them had it playing on multiple screens and every one of the screens was 3D. It's been that way throughout its entire release. I think this is Hollywood's ultimate goal with 3D. Convert all the 2D screens to 3D and then be able to charge 30-40% higher ticket prices. People were willing to pay those higher prices for Avatar. Who knows whether it will succeed with other movies, but I think that is Hollywood's plan.

[Crook]

are you sure? the fusion camera is proprietary to james cameron.
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1630055/story.jhtml
MTV: How immersive is the 3-D? Is it start to finish, or does it pop up in key sequences?
Kosinski: Our approach is not like "Avatar," which I think is 3-D from the first shot to the last. Ours is sort of a "Wizard of Oz" approach. Ninety-eight percent of the 3-D is in the world of "Tron." The 3-D really starts once we get into the Tron world.
MTV: Is the technology you're using similar to what James Cameron used or what Robert Zemeckis has used?
Kosinski: It's a combination of technologies that Zemeckis has been using in terms of the completely digital motion-capture of a character and for the live-action camera system. We used a camera developed by James Cameron's company. We used a newer generation of camera than the one used on "Avatar." They built it specifically for us.

[Kahoot]

I posted this in the the other thread when someone brought up the "go see it in 2D" argument.

I have 2 theaters near me. Neither one of them showed Avatar in 2D. Both of them had it playing on multiple screens and every one of the screens was 3D. It's been that way throughout its entire release. I think this is Hollywood's ultimate goal with 3D. Convert all the 2D screens to 3D and then be able to charge 30-40% higher ticket prices. People were willing to pay those higher prices for Avatar. Who knows whether it will succeed with other movies, but I think that is Hollywood's plan.
All three cinemas I looked at had Avatar in 3D and 2D here. Like you say people were okay for paying for the 3D prices to see Avatar but they won't for lesser movies. In future 3D movies that fail will really fail when compaired to movies that fail now in 2D.

[Batman137]

I agree. NO 3D!!

I don't see whats so special about it.

[JustABill]

I agree. NO 3D!!

I don't see whats so special about it.
If done right like Avatar, there's certainly a ring of specialness to it, problem is Avatar's the only film so far that really worked with the 3-D and made it special/necessary.

[dark_b]

Tron was shot with the same 3D cameras that Avatar used.i meant how to use teh camera and what kind of shots will they have.
i meant what kind of action shots the movie will have. for example web flying in to the camera.

you know what i mean? for example Clash of titans will have some gimmick shots because it was filmed before Avatr.

[dark_b]

are you sure? the fusion camera is proprietary to james cameron.why are some allways writing like the cameras are from Cameron? Cameron helped to make the cameras. :yay:

Vince Pace and hes team has the cameras and is ranting them all around the world. the fusion cameras were already used on some basketball games and to film the U2 and Cyrus concert.

they didnt build the cameras. they used sony's cameras. Vince Pace and hes team builded a camera rig with all the settings to control the 3D stereo space.way to many people ignore Vince Pace. :cwink:

http://www.pacehd.com/

[JP]

So, don't see the movie in 3d. That simple.

[dark_b]

So, don't see the movie in 3d. That simple.some people have negative experience. they couldnt watch the 2D version of Avatar because the theater only had the 3D version. some are scared that they will not be able to watch spiderman in 2D

[Agent 194]

They've already said it's going to have more teen angst. That already sounds shallow to me.

[JP]

Woe is them.

[Tony Stark]

Seriously this is Hollywood copy-cat'ism at it's worst. This is just like delaying Clash of the Titans to remake it in 3D, just because Avatar was a success. This is like George Lucas saying he want's to make a 3D Star Wars after seeing Avatar.

I don't really care if it's in 3D or not, but I want a good movie first and foremost. Because even though Avatar was a visually breathtaking movie, the story was immature and not very original.

The story has to be before everything else.

[chaseter]

The only thing I fear about this being in 3D just because 3D movies are doing good is the fact that they will probably do stupid stuff like having more explosions for things that shoot out of the screen. There is good 3D and then there is cheap thrills 3D. Alice in Wonderland looks like cheap thrills 3D.

[weezerspider]

you have the right not to like the 3D. but proven wrong? how can anyone prove your opinion wrong? billion of people liked the 3D in Avatar so studios will use it.

it makes the movie to a lot of people better like color,stero sound,3D sound does.

I can be proven wrong. If you actually read what I said I thinks its a waste of time and money to make it in 3D if it doesn't enhance the movie. If the 3D enhances the movie, then I'm proven wrong. If its like every other 3D movie ever made(including Avatar), then it won't enhance the movie. I'll approve of 3D when I see a movie where 3D ACTUALLY makes the movie better.

[batboy99]

The 3D in Avatar was great. It wasnt just random scenes that were in 3D, it was the whole movie. Spider-Man should be like that. It all blends well. It's cool and it pops out, but it doesnt take away from the over all movie.

[batboy99]

The 3D in Avatar was great. It wasnt just random scenes that were in 3D, it was the whole movie. Spider-Man should be like that. It all blends well. It's cool and it pops out, but it doesnt take away from the over all movie.

[terry78]

Seriously, everything doesn't have to be in 3D.

Granted, there will still be the 2D print (which I'll see) and granted seeing Spidey swing into the audience in 3D could be cool, but it's unnecessary.

And I know all the pro-3D people will be on me about it, but pretty much for every pro-3D there's at least one anti-3D.

So, who's with me?

Well, Spider-Man doesn't want YOU to be in 3D! :cmad:

[Dugath]

Well, Spider-Man doesn't want YOU to be in 3D! :cmad:


LOL


I think people are focusing too much on "gimmick" 3D. When used properly by adding Depth it makes a movie look so much better. I think people just have to get used to it. I really think eventually all movies will be going the 3D way, again not for gimmicks but for the added ..immersion.

Some day someone will make a break through when it comes to the way we watch tv/movies..Holographics perhaps? SM 20.. in a Holographic Theater near you! :wow:

No SM in Holographic.. who's with me!?

(No SM with Smellivision either!)

[gdw]

Wasn't 3D the reason they did NOT go with Raimi? HE wanted 3D, and the studio did not, or did I read that wrong?

[Doc Ock]

I don't want the film in 3D either, I will just simply go see it in 2D, its that simple.

[Dugath]

Wasn't 3D the reason they did NOT go with Raimi? HE wanted 3D, and the studio did not, or did I read that wrong?

From what I remember he had a slight conflict of schedules.. and he wanted to cast one person while Sony wanted to cast someone different or something like that.

[©KAW]

There's no way this film is 80M bucks now that they've include 3D.

[chaseter]

Well lets hope they don't take it out of the 80 already allotted.

[©KAW]

That would be insane. CGI, Set Pieces and 3D rendering. All for 80M, that's not even possible, unless Spider-Man in seen only once and the villain(s) whoever they are has no powers.

[batboy99]

Wasn't 3D the reason they did NOT go with Raimi? HE wanted 3D, and the studio did not, or did I read that wrong?
I think the story was that Sony wanted the movie in 3D, but wanted it released in a short period of time and Raimi told them it would take 6 monts ONTOP of regular filming to make it 3D and Sony didn't want to give him that extra time, so Raimi just said **** it and left.

[©KAW]

Whether he was fired on he left, I'm glad he's gone.

[A&W]

I very strongly prefer it to be in 3d. If some people don't like it oh well. More options for people with different tastes.

3d movie goers and 2d movie goers both get what they want.

[A&W]

I don't think shooting it in 3d is that expensive anymore. The reason it was so expensive in rescent movies such as Avatar, was because they were covering the cost of developing the technology and tweaking it in the first place.

The tinkering is done. They have the camera set ups now. They can just use the 3d cameras instead of the 2d.

I don't know about converting it though from a movie filmed in 2d which doesn't look nearly as good. The 3d in Alice in wonderland doesn't look nearly as good because it was filmed in 2d.

[chaseter]

Cameron owns the technology that they used in Avatar. I doubt he just lets anybody use it. So don't expect Avatar visuals. Don't get your hopes up.

[Deaths Head II]

I thought I read something about the technology being given out to other studios. I might just be talking crazy though.

[chaseter]

He might have sold the limited rights to the technology....I have no idea. But Avatar was in production for years, for people to get their hopes up that this movie will look as good as Avatar are only setting themselves up for disappointment.

[Deaths Head II]

He might have sold the limited rights to the technology....I have no idea. But Avatar was in production for years, for people to get their hopes up that this movie will look as good as Avatar are only setting themselves up for disappointment.

Plus Cameron is more experienced with both 3D and CGI then Mark Webb is.

[©KAW]

How can you even make Spidey look like Avatar, 3D or not, they're two totally different animals? I say, just don't use the 3D as a gimmick, nobody wants to constantly see things being throw at the screen for cheap thrills. Plus, Sony's focus should be on characterization, character development and the story.

[Mrpaul]

I guess avatar showed how 3-d can work, maybe it can work for spidey hopefully

[TheSlag]

I was not crazy about the idea of 3D myself, I too kept thinking of the director/film makers "catering" to the 3D effect, as opposed to just telling a good story and letting the 3D effect fall where it will.

But after watching Avatar in 3D, and starting out being irritated with the 3D effect in it, it took about 20-30 mins into the film to basically forget it was in 3D, or to NOT notice it would probably be a better way to put it.

The 3D enhanced the story in Avatar without intruding into the story.

IF Spider-Man reboot can do that, more power to it, but I am still kind of leary, the 3D worked better with the world of Avator, as opposed to the world of Spidey (be that NYC, or a high school classroom.

So, I am a little leary of this announcement, but willing to hold out hope.

[©KAW]

IF Spider-Manhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=334297&page=3#) reboot can do that, more power to it, but I am still kind of leary, the 3D worked better with the world of Avator, as opposed to the world of Spidey (be that NYC, or a high school classroom.
That's what I meant by Avatar and Spidey being two different animals. I remember when Sony announced that the next Spider-Man would not be in 3D, they saw Avatar numbers and changed their damn mind. Money seems to be the only motivation behind everything about these Spider-Man films. Just once I'd like to hear them talk about some of the content of the script, and why they think it's going to be a great film, or what they're doing differently this time around that we haven't seen before.

Oh, and hire WETA, so we can get some much better CGI/Visual Effects for this new film...because I personally don't believe the 80M dollar budget, and if they spend a 150M, they would love it if we only thought it cost 80M.

[TheSlag]

That's what I meant by Avatar and Spidey being two different animals. I remember when Sony announced that the next Spider-Man would not be in 3D, they saw Avatar numbers and changed their damn mind. Money seems to be the only motivation behind everything about these Spider-Man films. Just once I'd like to hear them talk about some of the content of the script, and why they think it's going to be a great film, or what they're doing differently this time around that we haven't seen before.

Oh, and hire WETA, so we can get some much better CGI/Visual Effects for this new film...because I personally don't believe the 80M dollar budget, and if they spend a 150M, they would love it if we only thought it cost 80M.

I agree, but even if they did dicsuss it (script, say more serious approach), I would be worried it would just be in general terms still. They are not (and should not) give any spoilers away.

But an announcement/press release about casting, or villain(s) later, should give us some indication of how serious they really are.

And perhaps an annoucement about the effects department too. I also think the 80 million is bogus, it's just a ballpark figure for the approx cost of making the movie IMO, not the overall cost with distribution/copies/advertising, etc.

[dark_b]

Cameron owns the technology that they used in Avatar. I doubt he just lets anybody use it. So don't expect Avatar visuals. Don't get your hopes up.what technology does Cameron own?

the facial technology that they used on Avatar is now at WETA and they will use it on every movie that they can. the body motion capturing was not new but oldschool like from the last 5 years.

Cameron doesnt even own the cameras. he helped to develope the cameras. but they are not from him.

[Leenie]

This gives me the feeling that they're going for gimmick instead of story, like Avatar (no offense if y'all liked it, I hated it).

The only good news I've heard about this movie so far is Marc Webb. Again, this will be a "wait and see" kind of thing, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

[A&W]

Cameron owns the technology that they used in Avatar. I doubt he just lets anybody use it. So don't expect Avatar visuals. Don't get your hopes up.

it looked just as good in Christmas Carol.

any studio that wants to use the camera set up can do it. It's just two cameras angled the same way your eyes are angled. that's all it is. the big advancement was really digital storage. Before in order to store the film you had to have big reels, which made many camera angles impossible for a 3d camera because it needed twice as much room for storing the film. You had to store the film for the right eye and the left eye.

Now it's just a small digital storage device attached to the camera.

Unless they do like Alice in Wonderland where they film it in 2d and try to convert it, the 3d will be EXACTLY like the 3d used in Avatar, with one exception.

It will probably look better because now they are going to start doing 3d using 60 frames per second instead of 24.

hey if yaw don't like it, than see it in 2d. pissing and moaning just because others will choose to enjoy it differently is stupid.

and how on earth is 2d better than 3d? the more realistic the better. do we actually prefer spider-man look fake? or do we prefer it look real?

I like having it look like it's really right there in the theatre. If 2d was so much better we wouldn't have evolved to have two eyes angled just perfectly to give us depth perception in the first place.

[A&W]

Plus Cameron is more experienced with both 3D and CGI then Mark Webb is.
mark webb is not going to try and invent a new camera that films in 3d. so his being inexperienced is irrelevant.

that's like saying I'm not qualifed to turn my heater on because I don't have experience building furnaces.

just film it using the 3d camera set up and the 3d will look 3d. that's all it requires of the director. the 3d is in the technology, not in the director. You don't have to know how to build a camera in order to use a camera. And that's all that makes it 3d. the 3d camera and the glasses.

the camera does the work for you.

[A&W]

I hate cherry pepsi. I wish they would take it off the market. It's a gimmick. I only like regular pepsi and since I can't enjoy cherry pepsi I want them to take it off of the market so nobody else can enjoy it either.

[dark_b]

A&W making a movie 3D is not so simple but at teh same time not the end of the world. you have to understand all the settings and you need to understand how you will edit. MTV editing style will not look good. but i think we can all agree that we dont want MTV editing style.


and you need to decide what kidn of 3D stereo style you will use. there are 3 important ones. i think the way Cameron used it was the best since it didnt give us eye strain .

[A&W]

I posted this in the the other thread when someone brought up the "go see it in 2D" argument.

I have 2 theaters near me. Neither one of them showed Avatar in 2D. Both of them had it playing on multiple screens and every one of the screens was 3D. It's been that way throughout its entire release. I think this is Hollywood's ultimate goal with 3D. Convert all the 2D screens to 3D and then be able to charge 30-40% higher ticket prices. People were willing to pay those higher prices for Avatar. Who knows whether it will succeed with other movies, but I think that is Hollywood's plan.

just close one eye and it will be exactly like a 2d movie. that's the difference between a 3d movie and a 2d movie. with a 2d movie your seeing how it would look if it was right in front of you but with one of your eyes closed.

Every theatre in the city I live in and in the the two neighboring cities have it in 2d. and up by my parents it's the same deal. they live in a small town surrounded by two big cities. both theatres had Avatar in 2d.

I sometimes wonder if people are just saying that it's not being shown in 2d to help support their argument.

but one good point remains. why is your 2d priority any more important than my 3d priority?

With 3d I'm just wanting to view things the way nature intended. this is how were supposed to be seeing things with depth perception instead of looking like a flat piece of paper. this is the new way to view movies. eventually all movies will be 3d.

If you want to stay stuck in the past that's your choice but you can't expect to hold everybody else back with you.

3d is better and if anybody doubts it just ask yourself, if you were going to go blind in one eye so that everything you ever would see was in 2d, wouldn't you let your doctor treat your eye so that you could continue to see the world in 3d?

of course and the reason is simple. everybody and I mean everybody prefers to see things in 3d. You don't see people walking around covering up one eye, saying "3d is just a gimmick. I prefer 2d."

[A&W]

[QUOTE=dark_b;18058734]A&W making a movie 3D is not so simple but at teh same time not the end of the world. you have to understand all the settings and you need to understand how you will edit. MTV editing style will not look good. but i think we can all agree that we dont want MTV editing style.


wouldn't the camera crews take care of that though? that's what I mean. saying that Webb can't use 3d based on inexperience is like saying he can't use pavement for the streets in the movie because he doesn't have experience paving roads. and the director needs to decide how grey he wants the road to be.


and you need to decide what kidn of 3D stereo style you will use. there
are 3 important ones. i think the way Cameron used it was the best since it didnt give us eye strain .
I'm not sure what you mean by 3d stereo. Are you talking about stereoscoping? That's not for a movie filmed in 3d. That's for a 2d movie converted to 3d where they sort of cut out the object by tracing the outline and projecting it forward.

but yeah those are technical details. it's in the technology. and it's all already been figured out by Cameron. Now it's here for the taking and using.

and the eye strain was present for Avatar. it just varies from person to person. Cameron already figured out how to fix that. 60 frames per second instead of 24. that's what I'm saying. this is in the technology.

[A&W]

The only thing I fear about this being in 3D just because 3D movies are doing good is the fact that they will probably do stupid stuff like having more explosions for things that shoot out of the screen. There is good 3D and then there is cheap thrills 3D. Alice in Wonderland looks like cheap thrills 3D.

I agree about Alice. I don't like the way it looks at all, but that is the result of them filming the movie in 2d.

if they are stupid enough to fill it with a bunch of gimmicks and stuff shooting out of the screen, than it wont make any difference if it's in 3d or 2d anyways. If they are that dumb enough to do it like that than the whole movie would suck regardless.

[A&W]

a good way to explain this is like so. Michael Jackson was going to have 3d visuals for the screen behind him on stage. in one scene it was going to look like he had one million back up dancers on the screen presented in 3d so it looked like they were all standing behind him.

Michael Jackson didn't need experience in filming in 3d. He's not a camera man or a CGI artist. He's got people to take care of that for him, just like director's do.

Just like in his Ghosts video. MJ wasn't a CGI artist. That doesn't mean he couldn't use CGI did it? No.

All the 3d stuff and requirements for spider-man. The camera man will use a 3d camera and the computers will take care of the rest. It doesn't matter if Webb has worked with 3d before.

[SpeterMan3]

Is it just me, or is Michael Jackson always relevant in some way?

[A&W]

No it is not just you-LOL

[Doc Ock]

Is it just me, or is Michael Jackson always relevant in some way?

Maybe, seeing how most of the Spidey fans here seem to have a Michael Jackson avatar! :awesome:

[Pac-Master]

Maybe, seeing how most of the Spidey fans here seem to have a Michael Jackson avatar! :awesome:

I haven't noticed. :oldrazz:

[dark_b]

http://i49.tinypic.com/358crps.gif
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=63364

[Ajendo]

Marc Webb meeting up with the 3d team behind avatar caused some premature excitement on my part. I initially thought it was saying that, Webb was meeting with the cgi effects team behind avatar...that would have been sweet. :csad:

[Dark_Lord]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=63364
Great sign that they're talking with the Avatar team. Hopefully they'll tell him that 3D can be used and not be a gimmick.

[Mrpaul]

Great sign that they're talking with the Avatar team. Hopefully they'll tell him that 3D can be used and not be a gimmick.

Good point, I assume if they want to have that feel of a 3-D film, it's best to talk to the source

[Dark_Lord]

Good point, I assume if they want to have that feel of a 3-D film, it's best to talk to the source

It's also good that they want to shoot the movie in 3D and not just convert it during post production.

[FlawlessVictory]

I will never get the b***hing against 3D so as long as a 2D print exists, and the extra money spent on it isn't from your pocket.

Honestly, what is the big deal here? I want to understand. :huh:

The problem becomes when writers and directors start really going out of their way with the story/scenes just to make sure something looks "cool" in 3D. It could make the story suffer.

[©KAW]

Yeah, that or a Dancing Peter...Singing MJ.

[TheSlag]

Yeah, that or a Dancing Peter...Singing MJ.


LOL. True. OR.. those BIG HONKIN "GweMJ" lips that they centered in on in the preview for SM2, where she leaned in for the kiss at the cafe scene. :wow::wow:

LOL.. I could of only "imagined" *shudders* that in 3D. :woot:

[©KAW]

Marc Webb meeting up with the 3d team behind avatar caused some premature excitement on my part. I initially thought it was saying that, Webb was meeting with the cgi effects team behind avatar...that would have been sweet. :csad:
I'm trying to convince Sony now to let WETA handle the CGI/VFX, they keep putting me on hold. But do not worry, I shall be victorious.

[©KAW]

LOL. True. OR.. those BIG HONKIN "GweMJ" lips that they centered in on in the preview for SM2, where she leaned in for the kiss at the cafe scene. :wow::wow:

LOL.. I could of only "imagined" *shudders* that in 3D. :woot:Yeah, they have to be careful, but at least they're talking to the right people. Actually, the best people for the job. :yay:

[BenReilly]

I'm trying to convince Sony now to let WETA handle the CGI/VFX, they keep putting me on hold. But do not worry, I shall be victorious.

As much as I'd love to see it, it'll never happen. Sony already has their own effects company. The chances of them not using Sony Imageworks and contracting another company are slim-to-none.

Fantastic news on Webb meeting with Cameron though. Hopefully, he'll use the 3-D format correctly and get the most out of it. Spidey's definitely a great franchise for it.

[DACMAN]

I will never get the b***hing against 3D so as long as a 2D print exists, and the extra money spent on it isn't from your pocket.

Honestly, what is the big deal here? I want to understand. :huh:

No kidding. What does it matter as long as they can see it in 2D? It's freaken weird. Some people act like they're the ones putting up the money for this movie.

Besides, people who are against 3D are probably the same people that were against DVD's going to high def. And it's not that far off to think they would have been against movies and tv going to color. It's called progress.

[DACMAN]

Marc Webb meeting up with the 3d team behind avatar caused some premature excitement on my part. I initially thought it was saying that, Webb was meeting with the cgi effects team behind avatar...that would have been sweet. :csad:

I thought the same thing. But you never know. Maybe their people will talk to his people and something might happen. We can dream.

Man I'm looking forward to this movie.

[©KAW]

As much as I'd love to see it, it'll never happen. Sony already has their own effects company. The chances of them not using Sony Imageworks and contracting another company are slim-to-none.

Fantastic news on Webb meeting with Cameron though. Hopefully, he'll use the 3-D format correctly and get the most out of it. Spidey's definitely a great franchise for it.
Yeah, they have their own VFX company, but it's broken, and it makes Spider-Man look like he's a WET CLAY figure.

Sony Imageworks looks as if the company is filled with film students learning how to become VFX artists. And they're practicing on the Spider-Man movies.

When I get them on the phone what should I say...?

[conan69]

IMHO 3D sucks

[Kahoot]

What sucks about 3D?

[A&W]

The problem becomes when writers and directors start really going out of their way with the story/scenes just to make sure something looks "cool" in 3D. It could make the story suffer.

I truly believe that the appropiate way to do a movie in 3d is to do it exactly as you would in 2d but instead use a 3d camera. figure out all the action and camera angles and storyboard pictures without even having the 3d in mind.

The main thing the 3d has to offer is that it feels more realistic, because it feels like it's right there. It makes the CGI action scenes look cooler simply, because objects look more real when they have 3d depth as opposed to looking flat like a piece of paper.

But we don't need something popping out of the screen just, because we can. 3d should be used only for the sake of realism.

[A&W]

Maybe, seeing how most of the Spidey fans here seem to have a Michael Jackson avatar! :awesome:
Michael Jackson rules! :word:

[A&W]

It's also good that they want to shoot the movie in 3D and not just convert it during post production.

Like Alice in Wonderland which looks horrible and is probably going to turn audiences off 3D.

I wonder if theatre chains should refuse to show converted movies

[RustyCage]

So what if 3D's unnecessary? What harm does it do? I swear, people on here look for ANYTHING to be ridiculously radical about.

[eledoremassis02]

3D usually creates cheesy angles..

[DACMAN]

Like Spider-Man swinging towards the camera? Raimi did that one to death already.

[chaseter]

I'm trying to convince Sony now to let WETA handle the CGI/VFX, they keep putting me on hold. But do not worry, I shall be victorious.

I will join that phone tree. A lot of stuff in SM3 made me raise my eye brow and try not to cough out my coke. I want to go OMG WOW, that is amazing. Not OMG that looks terrible.

[Doc Ock]

Like Spider-Man swinging towards the camera? Raimi did that one to death already.

Indeed, he did......but in 3D it would be completely new! :D

[chaseter]

Avatar's 3D was to make you feel part of the world. They didn't rely on cheap gimmicks like arrows or monsters jumping out at you or stuff being thrown at the screen to make you jump. Movies like My Bloody Valentine use 3D as a gimmick. I just hope this movie doesn't use it as a gimmick. I don't want them to write a script based on 3D moments like Doc Ock's arms coming out at you or Spidey shooting web balls at the audience. Please don't over do that and please use it sparingly.

[Chris Wallace]

3D or no 3D is of absolutely no concern to me. While I think they should be a little more focused on making a good movie, I ain't shellin' out any extra money until I know if they have.

[DACMAN]

I will join that phone tree. A lot of stuff in SM3 made me raise my eye brow and try not to cough out my coke. I want to go OMG WOW, that is amazing. Not OMG that looks terrible.

While I agree most of the CGI sucked, especially the midair battle with Venom. This part looked amazing considering Peter was 100% CGI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmfUcyufyvY

At 1:20. Peter is completely CGI. The rest of the movie looked terrible.

[terry78]

Sandman was well done, don't deny this. I don't mean the third act big ass made of dirt Sandman, I mean his origin and when when he fought Spider-Man in human form.

[Kahoot]

His origin was well done? Have you not seen How It Should Have Ended: Spider-Man 3?

[terry78]

I mean the CG.

[Deaths Head II]

Yeah, the CGI on Sandman in those scenes were very good.