Wallcrawling

[TheForgotten]

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

This is one of those things that make me wonder/worry... In ten years are these effects/stunts gonna look dated too?

Can Spider-Man's abilities be made much more realistic than ASM? Food for thought.

To some extent they fixed the terrible issue of Spider-Man feeling weightless when swinging thanks to the practical effects and improvement in CGI.

I think, like mentioned before, the Inception style practical corridor they used would be great for Spider-Man. I think we could see some more improvement on the cinematography aspect, but displaying his powers I think they covered most of what Spider-Man can do, espacially in ASM's school sequence/final batte and IMO some of the train sequence in SM2 when he's being grabbed by Doc Ock's arms and standing up right sideways on the side of the train.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

This is one of those things that make me wonder/worry... In ten years are these effects/stunts gonna look dated too?

Can Spider-Man's abilities be made much more realistic than ASM? Food for thought.

I think when it comes to something like Spider-Man, its really hard to get it 100%, at least right now. Look at how much has improved over the last 10 years. There are some CGI shots of Spider-Man swinging that could look more realistic, so I think there is still room for improvement.

In the long run, I imagine the effects of Spider-Man swinging/crawling will still look good even if a little dated. Look at the final swing of Spider-Man 1... looks good even 10 years later IMO.

[Spiderdevil]

Originally Posted by SoNicRaDiATioN

I'd like to see an upside down battle, but where it's not upside down optically to the audience. Imagine a battle with Spidey and Venom in the Bugle. All the reporters desks with it's various items like desk lights or computers just hanging from the ceiling as they progress through the office during battle. A glass of water on the desk perfectly still above their heads (insert gag here). People scrambling out of the office who look like they are the ones running across the ceiling, etc. And the lighting effect could be cool (particularily at night) as they are lit from the inverted perpective (from the ground up-ceiling down).

That would be insanely epic

Raimi had the knack for such moments,like DocOck and Spidey dishing it out on the side of a speeding train

[Spiderdevil]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

I think when it comes to something like Spider-Man, its really hard to get it 100%, at least right now. Look at how much has improved over the last 10 years. There are some CGI shots of Spider-Man swinging that could look more realistic, so I think there is still room for improvement.

In the long run, I imagine the effects of Spider-Man swinging/crawling will still look good even if a little dated. Look at the final swing of Spider-Man 1... looks good even 10 years later IMO.

Almost everything from the Raimi trilogy holds up till date

One thing about TASM-In the practical stunts and all,we can see the suit folding here and there around the body and wrinkling,while in the CGI shots,the suit looks skin tight.That is one of the reasons why most can easily distinguish between practical moments and CGI ones and it takes out some of the fun imo,thats one point where Raimi wins,you could harldy tell a difference between the practical sequences and CGI ones

[Jexx]

why is this a topic?

I would think it would be covered under general discussion.

[TheHeatKitchen]

Originally Posted by Jexx

why is this a topic?

I would think it would be covered under general discussion.

Can't that be said about most topics though? That's why I don't like general discussion threads. They get way too long and if you want to mention something you have to filter through 40 pages of messages to make sure you don't repeat someone else. and Lord help you if you do.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

Almost everything from the Raimi trilogy holds up till date

One thing about TASM-In the practical stunts and all,we can see the suit folding here and there around the body and wrinkling,while in the CGI shots,the suit looks skin tight.That is one of the reasons why most can easily distinguish between practical moments and CGI ones and it takes out some of the fun imo,thats one point where Raimi wins,you could harldy tell a difference between the practical sequences and CGI ones

Something like this would hold up:



But then you have scenes where Peter puts on the wrestling costume after his Uncle's death, climbing on the side of a building and swinging... and it looks really bad.

[Spiderdevil]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Something like this would hold up:



But then you have scenes where Peter puts on the wrestling costume after his Uncle's death, climbing on the side of a building and swinging... and it looks really bad.

Yeah I agree,It looked too smooth

But it still looks like that in some scenes in CBMs today

[Picard Sisko]

I don't think this will hold up fairly well:

[Spiderdevil]

The part where the Submarine and the Aircraft crash together at the beach is Horrible CGI,Likewise in Thor the Battle with the Huge Tin man or whatever that was

SM1 had better CGI than that despite being released almost 10 years earlier

[Picard Sisko]

The CGI in Spider-Man 1 was either incredible... or terrible IMO.

Spider-Man 2 had some shots during the fight scenes that looked video game-ish, but overall it was really good for its time IMO.

Spider-Man 3 had a lot of amazing CGI, such as:



But then you have:

[Picard Sisko]

I think a lot of the budget for Spider-Man 3 went to Sandman's effects, and with the script being changed/worked on during filming, a lot of stuff got thrown in last-minute. Who really knows anymore.

[spider-neil]

I like that Webb was prepared to use more practicle effects then Raimi but I think he could have used even more practicle effects in ASM. For instance the school fight, there were a lot of instances where Spidey was CG and he really didn't need to be. The fight in the beginning was Lizard v Peter Parker and I think every shot with Peter is practicle so why should that change when he puts on his costume?

[SpideyFan866]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

Almost everything from the Raimi trilogy holds up till date

One thing about TASM-In the practical stunts and all,we can see the suit folding here and there around the body and wrinkling,while in the CGI shots,the suit looks skin tight.That is one of the reasons why most can easily distinguish between practical moments and CGI ones and it takes out some of the fun imo,thats one point where Raimi wins,you could harldy tell a difference between the practical sequences and CGI ones

I disagree with this. Now while I agree that there are moments where you just know it was done w/ cgi, i feel there moments where it was very seamless.

thats something i can't say for the Raimi films. I could ALWAYS distinguish the practical/real from the cgi.

Also, as far as real actor to CG model, ASM wins by a longshot.

P.S. Why do people keep saying that the cg model in ASM never had wrinkles in the suit? There were many scenes where he had wrinkles, typically replicating those in the real suit.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by SpideyFan866

I disagree with this. Now while I agree that there are moments where you just know it was done w/ cgi, i feel there moments where it was very seamless.

thats something i can't say for the Raimi films. I could ALWAYS distinguish the practical/real from the cgi.

In Spider-Man 1, there were a few moments of the movie that looked pretty real (the final swing, Spider-Man dodging razor bats in the burning building, etc). Then Spider-Man 3 had some great CGI moments (and also some of the worst).

In The Amazing Spider-Man, there is tons of CGI that looks... real. There's a few shots of Spider-Man swinging during the crane scene that look fake, but even then its not that bad.

Also, as far as real actor to CG model, ASM wins by a longshot.

[Spiderdevil]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

I like that Webb was prepared to use more practicle effects then Raimi but I think he could have used even more practicle effects in ASM. For instance the school fight, there were a lot of instances where Spidey was CG and he really didn't need to be. The fight in the beginning was Lizard v Peter Parker and I think every shot with Peter is practicle so why should that change when he puts on his costume?

Because its not possible to have a real dude spin around so quickly and make a cocoon

Parts which can be practical are practical,like when he pulls Gwen and prepares to throw her out of the window

[Spiderdevil]

Originally Posted by SpideyFan866

I disagree with this. Now while I agree that there are moments where you just know it was done w/ cgi, i feel there moments where it was very seamless.

thats something i can't say for the Raimi films. I could ALWAYS distinguish the practical/real from the cgi.

Also, as far as real actor to CG model, ASM wins by a longshot.

I dont have the same opinion

Most parts of the action in TASM looked video-gamish aswell,I think it was the lighting because I saw a couple of shots which looked video-gamish and I though that they could have done better with the CGI but then I see them being performed practically in the commentary reel and realize that they were not CGI and still looked that way

I still think Raimi used the best combination of CGI and Practical work,Whedon did too for Avengers.

P.S. Why do people keep saying that the cg model in ASM never had wrinkles in the suit? There were many scenes where he had wrinkles, typically replicating those in the real suit.

Shots like?

[Rise_-]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

I dont have the same opinion

Most parts of the action in TASM looked video-gamish aswell,I think it was the lighting because I saw a couple of shots which looked video-gamish and I though that they could have done better with the CGI but then I see them being performed practically in the commentary reel and realize that they were not CGI and still looked that way

I still think Raimi used the best combination of CGI and Practical work,Whedon did too for Avengers.


Shots like?

I don't think you can fault the CGI Spidey model, it was incredibly detailed.

Although it was still obvious when there was a real Spidey in the shot and when there was a CGI one.

[Picard Sisko]

As of now, CGI will always looks like CGI.

But TASM did a much better job at making CGI look "real." Of course, this has to do with advancements in technology, but still.

[SpideyFan866]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

In Spider-Man 1, there were a few moments of the movie that looked pretty real (the final swing, Spider-Man dodging razor bats in the burning building, etc). Then Spider-Man 3 had some great CGI moments (and also some of the worst).

In The Amazing Spider-Man, there is tons of CGI that looks... real. There's a few shots of Spider-Man swinging during the crane scene that look fake, but even then its not that bad.

Yeah. There are a few exceptions in SM2, including what you named.

And yeah, SM3 has some great CGI, though mainly the Sandman stuff when he's fighting Peter in the sewers.

[Picard Sisko]

IMO Spider-Man 2 didn't have any "bad" CGI, its just feels outdated. Remember when Doc Ock was kidnapping Mary Jane after throwing the car through the window? That didn't fool anyone lol.

To me, THIS is bad CGI:





not this:

[Picard Sisko]

There was CGI in Spider-Man 3 that looked bad simply because... it was incomplete. Its as if they rushed it, or maybe it just wasn't in the budget to finish.

[SpideyFan866]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

IMO Spider-Man 2 didn't have any "bad" CGI, its just feels outdated. Remember when Doc Ock was kidnapping Mary Jane after throwing the car through the window? That didn't fool anyone lol.

To me, THIS is bad CGI:





not this:

Agreed.

SM2's CGI isn't bad at all. But alot of it has become dated.

I think the effects for the tentacles hold up well, but as far as the CGI spidey model goes, it hasn't aged well at all IMO.

[Picard Sisko]

I think all CGI at this point will become outdated eventually. Which is why, the less CGI the better. Of course, its unavoidable with Spider-Man.

I agree, the tentacles still hold up well today.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by Spiderdevil

Because its not possible to have a real dude spin around so quickly and make a cocoon

Parts which can be practical are practical,like when he pulls Gwen and prepares to throw her out of the window

True, but there were times when Spidey was on the floor shooting webs, why did that need to be CG?