Am I the only one who thought the CGI was shoddy?

[bosef982]

I mean, there were a lot of sequences that looked worse than animations in SM1 or SM2. The beginning of the Peter and Harry fight, when he first yanks him up and stuff was bad. The bluriness used to disguise the swinging into the alleyway was pretty obvious and bad. The CGI in the alleyway was pretty bad, as was most of the bluescreen tactics used during this entire movie.

Sandman represented the pinnacle of their CGI and it showed enormously. Great CGI creations there. Black Spidey was also well done for the most part.

However, when people started fighting, especially during the construction site scene, the CGI just ripped you out of the movie it was so sub-par to what we've seen before. You look at Superman Returns, Pirates of the Caribbean, or even some of Spider-Man 2 and I felt you saw much better and articulatued CGI sequences than what we saw in SM3.

Just bad....thoughts?

 

[El Payaso]

Not only shoddy but many many Spiderman's swinging was S-M1 and S-M2 CGI re-cycled!!! Most of the Spiderman rescuing Gwen from thne building was made out of those. Big shame.

 

[black_dust]

I thought it looked great

 

[Batman2008]

The initial Peter/Harry fight was not good at all. I felt the speed of the sequence was way too fast and was implimented to hide the bad effects.

 

[HarlequinOfHate]

I agree with bosef982. The computer animation in this film was not worth the near $300 million dollar price tag. Like in most movies with massive CGI...there were moments that wowed, and moments that were so cartoonish, I almost forgot how much time and cash they threw at this thing.


~HoH

 

[markaudette]

Truth be told, although I was impressed with the CGI (it doesn't take a lot to impress me, though) I really couldn't find where that $300 million budget made the picture shine.

 

[Batman2008]

Now I thought the look of Venom and the CGI to create him looked great! Now that looked real.

 

[Spider-Girl™]

Not only shoddy but many many Spiderman's swinging was S-M1 and S-M2 CGI re-cycled!!! Most of the Spiderman rescuing Gwen from thne building was made out of those. Big shame.

Spider-man wasn't supposed to be doing flips when he is trying to get somewhere quick, he's gonna use the swings he is most familiar with to get him where he needs to go. If something works why fix it?

 

[Mr. Socko]

I liked most of it. But there was times it looked fake, which is mad considering it's budget.

 

[El Payaso]

Spider wasn't supposed to be doing flips when he is trying to get somewhere quick, he's gonna use the swings he is most familiar with to get him where he needs to go. If something works why fix it?

So, if Spiderman 2 was so good, why making a sequel?

Now seriously, re-cycling old material with a $300 millions budget it's to be way cheap.

 

[Spider Boy]

I thought the CGI was great.... I did, however, not care for some of the initial camera shots filmed by the second unit.

For example, the CGI in the Sandman sequence was great, but the shot of the camera following the two policeman as they peeked around the side of the truck made me dizzy. Anyone else notice how much the camera bobbed up and down?

 

[The Lizard]

I thought that some of the sequence where Spidey is slamming the metal pipes down

Spoiler

to imprison Venom

looked clunky in places.


Fact is, Sony Imageworks is NOT the absolute best CG studio out there. I'd like to see The Orphanage provide the CGI for a future Spidey movie.

 

[Destroyah]

Sandman at the final battle looked so bad. like the lighting was off or something

it was like they couldnt completely mask him smoothly enough behind the steel beams of that building cause he looked so grainy moving behind it

poor thomas handen chruch = /
he was a cgi monster most of the film
he need more lines and interaction in this film cause i really liked him when he was just sandman and not some monster

oh, and the voice they used when he was a towering monster. good greif. not a fan of that, haha

 

[craigaat]

I think the majority of the budget was spent on paying actors.

The Lizard, I read your review and I agree 100%. I am also completely okay with a new cast and crew.

 

[kooguy911]

the sand effects were BRILLIANT

 

[Spider-Girl™]

Fact is, Sony Imageworks is NOT the absolute best CG studio out there.

No truer words were spoken

 

[Mr Jide]

You people are complaining about things that were problems in both sm1 and 2 and will most definately be a problem in sm4. The spidey flicks have always had cg issues. Sometimes they're great and sometimes they're not but imo, sm3 managed to do things and use the cg in the right places and far more effectively than they have in the previous movies.

 

[demitri_vampiro]

Truth be told, although I was impressed with the CGI (it doesn't take a lot to impress me, though) I really couldn't find where that $300 million budget made the picture shine.

i had the same feeling. sure there is quite a few cg shots, but 250 million??? i don't see where the money went.
same goes for the first 2 movies. i always had the feeling they looked much cheaper than they were.

all 3 LotR movies cost 350 million. in total there was 10 hours of movie, massive battles, many cg shots, location filming and many more, yet it was only 100 million more expensive than a 2 hour long spidey movie

 

[Kabuki_Jo]

i had the same feeling. sure there is quite a few cg shots, but 250 million??? i don't see where the money went.
same goes for the first 2 movies. i always had the feeling they looked much cheaper than they were.

all 3 LotR movies cost 350 million. in total there was 10 hours of movie, massive battles, many cg shots, location filming and many more, yet it was only 100 million more expensive than a 2 hour long spidey movie

We can easily see where the money went in SM3. But where did the money go in Superman Returns?

 

[DieSmiling]

I thought it was good, not great. It wasn't visibly poor, but I think it paled in comparisson to Superman Returns or Dead Man's Chest.

 

[DieSmiling]

We can easily see where the money went in SM3. But where did the money go in Superman Returns?

The effects in Superman Returns BLEW AWAY the effects in Spidey 3.

 

[Kabuki_Jo]

Where?

 

[J.Howlett]

Where the hell was the 300 million dollars? Seriously...where was it because it wasn't on the screen.

The visual effects were a major, major step down from Spider-Man 2, not to mentioned A LOT of recycled swinging shots of Spider-Man from Spider-Man 2.

I mean, for 300 million dollars and two films worth of development, they still can't get it right in terms of Spider-Man's weight and the rubbery look....?

No excuses at this price tag.

 

[DyeLorean]

The effects were good, not groundbreaking except for the birth of Sandman perhaps, but just good. And everything happened SO fast, I'm still trying to figure out what happened in the first fight between Goblin and Peter in those alleys. Same with the armored truck. Maybe I was sleepy cause I couldn't sleep much the night before, I had to got up early, I thought maybe that is why I couldn't follow everything that was going on in the screen, but since people here already mentioned it, my guess is that I wasn't so wrong about it.

D!

 

[DieSmiling]

Where?

Throughout the entire movie. Superman looks fluid on the screen -- it looks like Brandon Routh catching a plane. The effects in Spider-Man 3 were clearly shot on a green screen.

Granted, its all a matter of opinion, but I was blown away by Superman Returns. I thought Spidey was standard fair for a big budget movie these days.