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

[dark_b]

Nitpicking. Really. I mean I do agree that Imageworks is not the best CGI company but each film is leaps better in the CGI than the last. There were quite a few weightless or rubbery bad shots in SM2 and I can only think of one here. In quick motion you can't see Tobey or James' faces CGI-ed and you don't care. Sure if you freeze frame it, there is a problem but deal.

And there is no way the Hulk from four years ago had better CGI. Hulk had some of the worst CGI I HAVE EVER SEEN. One of the big problem I find that made a lot of people not see it was how incredibly fake and cartoony Hulk looked like in that movie.

how can hulk looks fake and move fake if they had a 100% realistic texture on hulk and they used motion capture?
how can this be fake?
could it be that maybe you think it was fake because it was a big green guy?

 

[dodus]

how can hulk looks fake and move fake if they had a 100% realistic texture on hulk and they used motion capture?

because he looks fake?

 

[Leenie]

The CGI was NOT BAD in this movie. Good lord. Everyone likes to pick this movie apart, it seems.

I wouldn't be surprised if I read something like this in the near-future:

"OMG, Spider-Man 3 used scenes from Batman & Robin in their action scenes! Grrrr, this movie sucks11111!!!!oneoneone!!!!"

The CGI, I thought, was great. Not distracting whatsoever. If you guys want to see bad CGI, check out the 1997 Spawn movie. Not only does that movie suck tremendously, but the CGI drove me nuts. I am aware that it's from 1997, but that's no excuse. It was AWFUL, even for 1997.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Harry Flying in the Alley was crap and Peter swinging and looking back to see blades flying at him in alley was also very bad!

 

[Mr Jide]

The CGI was overused, and was quite poor generally. It looked fake and had entire sequences made up using it, whcihc sucked! If I wanted to see a computer game, I'd play one!

SM1 and 2 are guilty of this more so than sm3

 

[DACrowe]

I never was distracted by the CGI once in SM3. I'll say that. There were a few scenes or moments in SM2 that were and most of SM1 had that problem when there was sunshine out (and he swang mostly in the sunlight), but 3 never distracted me once.

As for Hulk. They worked hard on it. But it looked terrible. He looked like he was made out of rubber. He looked honestly like a cartoon character. For such a giant monstrosity he has almost no weight. When he is bounding around it is a rubber monster. He looked even worse in the previews and it did affect people's perception of not seeing the movie. I mean compared to Gollum or especially King Kong made by rival studio WETA, this just looked bad. I'm sorry to say. I hope they do it better in the sequel but Hulk in that movie when he was interacting with people reminded me of Roger Rabbit.

SM3 did not.

 

[Qwerty©]

As for Hulk. They worked hard on it. But it looked terrible. He looked like he was made out of rubber. He looked honestly like a cartoon character. For such a giant monstrosity he has almost no weight. When he is bounding around it is a rubber monster. He looked even worse in the previews and it did affect people's perception of not seeing the movie. I mean compared to Gollum or especially King Kong made by rival studio WETA, this just looked bad. I'm sorry to say. I hope they do it better in the sequel but Hulk in that movie when he was interacting with people reminded me of Roger Rabbit.

SM3 did not.

I keep on hearing this about the CGI in the Hulk movie, and it leaves me in disbelief.

The Hulk movie was boring and uninteresting, but the one thing it has going for it is that it has fantastic CGI. Sometimes I feel that when fanboys dislike a film, they have to criticise everything, even the things that are good.

The Hulk CGI still holds up today. But people didn't like the movie, so they won't accept this.

Consequently, I like Spider-Man 3, but I can admit the CGI is just sloppy (save for the Sandman scenes, which were great) and thats because of Sony Imageworks, the laziest CGI company in the world. Consistency is not in their vocabulary.

 

[SLYspyder]

No one in this world can convince me the CGI in Hulk was bad. Dacrowe, the reason why people didn't see the hulk was because the movie SUCKED...HARD! The only thing it had going for it were the action scenes.

As for Spider-Man 3, I have no complaints.

 

[DACrowe]

Actually my only real problem with the movie was the annoying and destracting editing that hindered the film more than it helped and the ridiculously contrived ending with Hulk fighting his dad, the giant bubble. If that climax had been handeled differently and it went with a more traditional editing I think it would have been a much better movie.

I did not think Hulk was boring. I thought Bana was great, as was Connolly and Nolte and Elliot were fantastic in their roles. Particularly Nolte. I think both movies make the big mistake in their climaxes of taking away a great actor (Nick Nolte and Thomas Hayden Church) and replacing them with a giant CGI monster. Albeit Bubble Man was much more laughable and scene-ruining than the Sand Puff Marshmellow man.

No I call the Hulk CGI bad, because it was. It reached for a level higher than Sony IMageWorks, but it FAILED. It looks so cheesy. Hulk does not blend with actors at all. And it is not size. Look at how King Kong blends with Namoi Watts and NYC in Peter Jackson's King Kong. It feels natural. Hulk really looks like a cartoon character in a Toy Story movie bounding around. He has no weight and his body looks rubbery.

Hulk is one of the worst CGIs in a superhero movie not because it is inferior work and a lower level of attempting than say Ghost Rider (which is a terrible movie on all accounts). But because Hulk looks fake. They tried hard but he looks like a weightless piece of rubber that is too shiny bouncing aroun d the screen who is not of the same demension as Jennifer Connolly when he holds her.

I am not one to criticize in mass. I don't think the CGI ruined Hulk. I merely said it looked fake and was a major factor of MOST non-fans I know not going to see it. Most downright refused to see it after the Superbowl commerical and the trailer.

SM3 did not suffer from that.

 

[Qwerty©]

No I call the Hulk CGI bad, because it was. It reached for a level higher than Sony IMageWorks, but it FAILED. It looks so cheesy. Hulk does not blend with actors at all. And it is not size. Look at how King Kong blends with Namoi Watts and NYC in Peter Jackson's King Kong. It feels natural. Hulk really looks like a cartoon character in a Toy Story movie bounding around. He has no weight and his body looks rubbery.

Hulk is one of the worst CGIs in a superhero movie not because it is inferior work and a lower level of attempting than say Ghost Rider (which is a terrible movie on all accounts). But because Hulk looks fake. They tried hard but he looks like a weightless piece of rubber that is too shiny bouncing aroun d the screen who is not of the same demension as Jennifer Connolly when he holds her.

I just do not know how anyone can say the things you are saying when presented with that.

 

[Superman45]

spiderman faded in and out of "bad cgi" it would look a little fake but then snap back into reality, like when sandman shifts his weight and crumples into sand when he is first coming out of the sand pit. That looked totally real.

But its not fair to say its bad cgi. Cheak out the sci fi channel to see bad cgi.

 

[shigsy2003]

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.

This is the only part where I felt the CGI was poor. Everything else (especially Sandy) was spot on.

 

[englishtrebor]

First of all, people saying that Transformers, Star Wars, Pirates Of The Carribean have better CGI can't accurately compare to Spider-Man. The effects in those movies were mostly used to make polygons, ships, structures, environments, etc. The Spider-Man effects were used to make human-like shapes. There's a reason why Sandman's effects were some of the best. At no point was he in a regularly shaped human form, and the one time he was, when he was created, was done perfectly, making it the best shot in the film.

Also keep in mind how hard it is to keep Venom from not looking cartoonish. The way he has no lips, no nose, and no pupils makes it difficult. Another thing is that the New Goblin, Symbiote Spider-Man, and Venom were all costumed in black and fighting at night. To keep us from being completely blinded, they had to add specific lighting that wasn't actually there, making some of the shots seem weird.

The first scene with Sandman is ranked among the best visual effects ever made and will probably get Spider-Man 3 the Academy Award this year.

 

[X-Maniac]

I saw nothing about the CGI that looked 'not right'. Most of it moved so fast - the action was so frantic - that there wasn't really time to assess it. Do you lot have freeze-frame options in your auditoriums???!!!

I saw nothing wrong with the CGI in Superman Returns when i saw it at a cinema, but when i saw it at home, I noticed a few things. I saw nothing wrong with the CGI in X3 either (two questionable/odd bits of wirework though) and haven't noticed anything dodgy in X3 when I've viewed it at home. I tend to immerse myself right into the story and it has to be something pretty major to stand out and distract me.

As for SR's CGI, which seems sometimes more obvious than that in Spidey 3 or X3, Superman Returns relied more heavily on CGI than X3 (which used more practical FX where possible) and when the unmasked face of Superman is computer-generated it's more obvious than when a masked Spider-Man is CGI. I'm not sure they have mastered a photo-realistic human form yet.

Some of the worst CGI was in Spider-Man 1 when Goblin nukes the board into skeletons on the balcony. The skeletons were so fake it was terrible!

 

[Eternalzero]

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.

I didn't see it recycled at all. Screencaps and comparison to trailer bits could help the arguement.

I remember reading that scene was a very complex one, that's all.

 

[chaseter]

I just do not know how anyone can say the things you are saying when presented with that.

Yes, the giant poodle was beautifully crafted in CGI as well as the others

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

....thoughts?

I would think that they were not bad,but there was too much in my say.

 

[Qwerty©]

Yes, the giant poodle was beautifully crafted in CGI as well as the others

I never said anything about the poodle, smart alec.

 

[EnvyEquatesHate]

Harry Flying in the Alley was crap and Peter swinging and looking back to see blades flying at him in alley was also very bad!

Err Most of that was Live Against Green Screen dude.

 

[dark_b]

because he looks fake?

of course it feels fake because it is normal to seea big green guy.but everything on the green guy was realistic.

 

[DACrowe]

No he wasn't. He was too light, rubbery and shiny. He did not look photorealistic. HIs movement was off because he seemed to bounce around like a giant piece of green rubber. There was no weight to him.

And when in shot with other actors for more than a second he looked like Roger Rabbit. Compare to King Kong holding Namoi Watts in Peter Jackson's movie and interacting with her to Hulk holding Jennifer Connolly and acting with her. King Kong looks real and Hulk looks like a cartoon.

There is no arguing this.

 

[buggs0268]

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.

Dude. You two guys are Superman fans coming him here to trash Spiderman. I am a Superman fan first but I would never stoop this low. And hey, this is the same company that you swear is flawless in SR's effects in a thread in the SR section. See here his opinion of SR's flying effects, done by the same company, and a lot of them looking like a reall bad CGI effect:

"It was fantastic man. Everytime he flied it felt nice and believable."
http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=11827436&postcount=2205

"Oh yeah, same damn company did both effects. So in one film bad CGI looks flawless, and in another film wiht good CGI, it looks bad."

I'll find more and then add them here. This is hypocrisy at it's finest. SR was full of totally fake looking effects. Spiderman 3's effects are far superior to that fake looking crap in your beloved SR.

Dont be fooled. Bosef and El payoso are totaly SR fans and are just pissed that SR is doing so good. Go into the SR forum's and see their *****ing. And I am a Superman fan, and their actions here pi$$ me off. On behalf of Superman fans, I apologize for their kindergarten behavior.

I am a Superman fan first and I am very happy that Spiderman is doing so well.
Here El Payaso, fake CGI

 

[buggs0268]

Very true. In Spiderman 3 we can even see twice some of the already re-cycled CGI shots. They deleted aunt May and replaced her with Gwen for the landing shot.

Dude. That landing shot in Spiderman 2 with aunt may wasn't CGI. That was on location wire work with the actress who played Aunt May. There are many pictures showing it, and in the commentary Raimi and the others comment on the actress, even though being old, loved the wire work. She had played Peter Pan when younger and was used to it. And she wanted to go as fast as possible. So there was no CGI in that shot, unless you want to count the wire removal.

 

[dodus]

^Oh! Busssssttttteeeeeddddd.

 

[dark_b]

No he wasn't. He was too light, rubbery and shiny. He did not look photorealistic. HIs movement was off because he seemed to bounce around like a giant piece of green rubber. There was no weight to him.

And when in shot with other actors for more than a second he looked like Roger Rabbit. Compare to King Kong holding Namoi Watts in Peter Jackson's movie and interacting with her to Hulk holding Jennifer Connolly and acting with her. King Kong looks real and Hulk looks like a cartoon.

There is no arguing this.

this not possible.
i respect your opinion buti think that here you are just wrong.