The Official "I Loved Raimi's Spider-Man' Thread - Part 1 of 99 Luft - Part 7

[Homer J. Fong]

Originally Posted by SpideyVille

I still continue to get crap from them, but whenever we talk about why, I start to realize that SM3 left such a bad taste that it made the trilogy as a whole seem not as good as it was.

And I don't understand that. I get why Spider-Man 3 would leave a bad taste in one's mouth - it did mine - but only in making one skeptical about Spider-Man movies afterward. I don't get why it would retroactively sour one on the first two. Those are still great. I love Raimi's first two. And even though I really dislike Spider-Man 3, I still wanted to see The Amazing Spider-Man, because it's a Spider-Man movie, so I wasn't even soured on Spidey after SM3.

Spider-Man 2 is in my top five superhero movies as well (there are also three different Batman movis up there, but that's just how great I think The Dark Knight, Batman Returns, and Batman: Mask of The Phantasm are). It's aged really well, but I think the first has aged well too; I've nver seen the perspective that Raimi's Spidey movies have are too dated.

[SpideyVille]

Yeah, like one thing I noticed was the argument usually goes from hate of SM3 to hate on Tobey. And I stopped comparing, not just the reboot but also the actors because they're two different versions. But it's this argument that becomes the whole Raimi films suck argument because Tobey was Spider-Man in those.

[Spider-Aziz]

CGI in SM1 always looked like a plastic doll in motion when Spidey moves

[Jick09]

I don't agree that the first aged well.
The silly moments are now just too juvenile, to me.

[SpideyVille]

I don't know. Just thinking of the top of my head, I can't think of too many scenes where it was obviously CGI, other than his first time webslinging, some of the stuff in the Parade fight and the final swing. If anything, I think the CGI in SM2 and definitely SM3 is much easier to spot.

[Spider-Aziz]

The final swing in SM1 is the easiest to call great CGI, looks decently natural

[Anno_Domini]

While I can't say any Spider-Man film fits into my top ten, Spider-Man 2 would if I had a top fifteen and Spider-Man would if I had a top twenty.

[henzINNIT]

Raimi's quirky style with give these films decent longevity imo. In 20 years, it'll be campy by design as much as it will by age. TASM is more likely to suffer from being "edgier" in its time.

I fear I'm already too old to judge the CGI. Still looks pretty good to me across all 3. It's always fake obviously. I can't say I noticed that much improvement from film to film, even in the 5 years between SM3 and the reboot.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by BatmanMaybe

The reboot used massive amounts of practical web slinging so it looks MUCH more believable. That's why it is essential to use CGI as a blending tool, and not a replacement for practical effects.

I heard all the buzz about that, but quickly forgot about it when I saw the film. TASM uses massive amounts of CGI for pretty much every significant action sequence. Can't say I noticed many instances of a practical Spidey.

[SpideyVille]

Just for the record, what's considered "bad" CGI. Is it that it looks bad visually, like too cartoony, or is it also that it looks real, but is still noticeable?

I was watching the Matrix Reloaded the other day, this time with more of a critical eye since I was young when it came out, and I thought a lot of the action heavy stuff looked had CGI that was really noticeable, especially during the Burly Brawl when they would cut back and forth between live-action and CGI shots. And I feel like with most Spider-Man movies, that was mostly a problem when dealing with characters who either weren't real, or didn't wear a mask, so it was much easier to tell what was fake.

[Dragon]

It's really quite funny how biased people can be in favor of a film they choose to support. There's actually no improvement as far as the CGI in TASM vs. the Raimi films. For example, with the school fight (Which BTW, I loved) Spidey's CG is more than obvious in every shot. In several he doesn't even look like a living being, but more like one of those rubber dolls with the wire skeletons. Yet it's still a fun scene to look at. It's similar to the battles over which studio produces the better CG. Again, since everyone's CG looks pretty obvious (The CG in The Avengers or Avatar by the celebrated WETA looks just as fake as in the Spidey films) what different does it make?

The Raimi films have held up simply because they're good movies. I doubt anyone will even care about TASM in a few years, unless the sequel is stellar. Then like Batman Begins which receives far, far more praise than it deserves it'll be piggy-backed onto the sequel as being great.

And as far as practical stunts in TASM, there's very little, and what's there actually illustrates why Raimi chose not to go with practical stunts- they make Spidey look like a human acrobat, not like someone with superhuman powers. The practical webswing looks like something Daredevil would be capable of. I still believe there is a way to get a happy medium between CG and practical stunts, I just don't think TASM pulled it off.

[Doc Ock]

I saw TASM in theaters and loved it BUT that doesn't change my love for the Raimi Spidey trilogy. When it comes to CG, I only care if works and doesn't look odd. Spidey 3 had alot of CG but in the end I thought it worked.

[SpideyVille]

Yeah, I've always said that Spidey was done well in SM3. Most of the flaws that the movie had were more on the Peter side, but Spidey looked his best, although some of the Black Suit stuff like the swinging and Sandman fight in the Subway were not too convincing.

[Spider-Aziz]

Agreed
CG still looks cartoony, but it works

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I have to agree with others who said comparatively the CGI in TASM was no better than in the last trilogy. The CGI was better, as the movie came out 5 years later, so it should be, but it was no less obvious than in the Raimi movies, and I spotted when it went from practical to CGI every time.

As far as people saying the Raimi movies are too dated? Sorry, its ********, the first 2 are easily better than TASM and both in general are superb movies and always will be. And the 3rd is no were near as bad as many make out either.

[VenomShock]

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

I have to agree with others who said comparatively the CGI in TASM was no better than in the last trilogy. The CGI was better, as the movie came out 5 years later, so it should be, but it was no less obvious than in the Raimi movies, and I spotted when it went from practical to CGI every time.

As far as people saying the Raimi movies are too dated? Sorry, its ********, the first 2 are easily better than TASM and both in general are superb movies and always will be. And the 3rd is no were near as bad as many make out either.

I couldn't agree more with what you've said here.

[SpideyVille]

For some reason, I feel like more people would like ASM because it looks "prettier" than the Raimi films in terms of graphics, given how only SM3 was released in the HD era.

[Homer J. Fong]

I recognize the effects as effects in all the Spider-Man movies, but almost never to the point where it becomes distracting and pulls me out of the storytelling. (Even in Spider-Man 3, that was never among my problems - I had many other problems with the storytelling.) I don't spend much time around the Spidey boards, but I have yet to hear/read an explanation for why the previous Spider-Man movies have become "dated," other than that the effects have dated...but effects date, it happens as technology changes. That's not a good enough reason. Even if you recognize, "Oh, that's an effect," that's not a good reason, because you can recognize techniques of editing, art direction, and music without being pulled out of the storytelling. They aren't perfect movies, but the ideas, themes, and characters in Raimi's Spider-Man movies haven't dated, not to me.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Originally Posted by VenomShock

I couldn't agree more with what you've said here.

Originally Posted by Homer J. Fong

I recognize the effects as effects in all the Spider-Man movies, but almost never to the point where it becomes distracting and pulls me out of the storytelling. (Even in Spider-Man 3, that was never among my problems - I had many other problems with the storytelling.) I don't spend much time around the Spidey boards, but I have yet to hear/read an explanation for why the previous Spider-Man movies have become "dated," other than that the effects have dated...but effects date, it happens as technology changes. That's not a good enough reason. Even if you recognize, "Oh, that's an effect," that's not a good reason, because you can recognize techniques of editing, art direction, and music without being pulled out of the storytelling. They aren't perfect movies, but the ideas, themes, and characters in Raimi's Spider-Man movies haven't dated, not to me.

Spot on, especially the last line, the effects arent the be all and end all of any movie, otherwise The Terminator wouldnt be the classic that it is today. Its all about the story and characters and how well they portrayed, which for the most part in Raimi's movies were spot on.

[SpideyVille]

I personally don't think the movies are dated, but for some reason, I feel like whenever people say that, it almost sounds like the same comparison you can make about the comics. I've always considered ASM to be like the Ultimate universe because some things were changed to appeal to people in today's audience. You can look at the first 50 issues of the ASM comic series and say those "dated" because they talk about things that were big in the sixties, but I agree, that doesn't make those stories bad or anything.

Personally, as a big Raimi fan, I enjoyed ASM, but at the same time I felt like had that been my firs exposure to Spider-Man or superheroes, it wouldn't have had the same impact on me as the first film did. For that reason, as much as people can complain about the movie on a technical level and how it doesn't compare to today's standards (which is a crappy argument because things were much different 5-10 years ago), I still rank those movies high on my list because there was just something about the stories that hit me in a way that makes me say they're awesome.

[TheForgotten]

Wait the CGI in The Amazing Spider-Man isn't much of an improvement over the first three?

Sorry, but I respectively disagree. Not only did they fix the physical weight of the web swinging, but also saying this isn't an improvement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDeROIQi0_c astounds me.

That or maybe I'm biased. But I doubt that.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by TheForgotten

Wait the CGI in The Amazing Spider-Man isn't much of an improvement over the first three?

Sorry, but I respectively disagree. Not only did they fix the physical weight of the web swinging, but also saying this isn't an improvement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDeROIQi0_c astounds me.

That or maybe I'm biased. But I doubt that.

Nah, I'd say you're biased. It's not an improvement. In some ways it's worse. The physical weight issue is exactly the same. It's the same everywhere. The Hulk in Avengers still looks like he's lighter than air.

As for the school fight- Again, this is a very fun sequence, but just looking at the shot of Spidey cocooning the Lizard, he looks like a toy. When he lands on the floor and starts firing the weblines to restrain the Lizard he looks completely like a cartoon character. And I won't even get into the problems with the Lizard. Above someone griped about the wall crawling in Spidey 1. This is the same. The CG in Spidey 2 and 3 were a lot better.

[TheForgotten]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Nah, I'd say you're biased. It's not an improvement. In some ways it's worse. The physical weight issue is exactly the same. It's the same everywhere. The Hulk in Avengers still looks like he's lighter than air.

As for the school fight- Again, this is a very fun sequence, but just looking at the shot of Spidey cocooning the Lizard, he looks like a toy. When he lands on the floor and starts firing the weblines to restrain the Lizard he looks completely like a cartoon character. And I won't even get into the problems with the Lizard. Above someone griped about the wall crawling in Spidey 1. This is the same. The CG in Spidey 2 and 3 were a lot better.

I thought Hulk looked great in The Avengers. I didn't see any physical weight issues.

The cocooning was the only part for me that looked too CG. The rest I thought looked great. I find it laughable that the CGI in Spider-Man 2 looked better and feeled better here. Especially 2. That's a big stretch.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by TheForgotten

I thought Hulk looked great in The Avengers. I didn't see any physical weight issues.

The cocooning was the only part for me that looked too CG. The rest I thought looked great. I find it laughable that the CGI in Spider-Man 2 looked better and feeled better here. Especially 2. That's a big stretch.

The Hulk did look great. He also looked lighter than Scarlett Johanson's Black Widow.

There was never a point in Spidey 2 when Spidey looked as cartoonish as he does in TASM. The CG is always obvious, but never as weird looking as in Amazing. 8 Years later and there was no improvement.

[TheForgotten]

Originally Posted by Dragon

The Hulk did look great. He also looked lighter than Scarlett Johanson's Black Widow.

There was never a point in Spidey 2 when Spidey looked as cartoonish as he does in TASM. The CG is always obvious, but never as weird looking as in Amazing. 8 Years later and there was no improvement.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.