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

[Spider-ManHero12]

the CGI was amazing. I loved every bit of CGI there was. the Crane sequance, Giant Sandman, everything is perfect! IMO. the Battle royal had the most CGI and I thought it was great. I have never seen so much CGI and it being so amazing in a Comic Book film.

 

[Capt Throbberson]

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?

Yeah, that bothered the hell out of me.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

The problem to me was there wasn't enough stunt work laced within the action. In the train sequence, the CGI added the stunt work for things it couldn't do. The CGI in 3 was the main thrust with stunt work sprinkled inbetween.

I kept thinking "wow this is CGI" for the majority of the action sequences.

 

[CGHulk]

The CG work in this film is really good!

 

[Anti-Venom]

They have definitley improved the CG characters! I thought the CG Spidey in the first two films was pretty fake looking. But he was flawless in Spidey 3.

Yeah, the CG FX at the end were not so good. Even Venom was fake looking in a few shots.

The bluescreen work was also pretty bad in the first fight with Harry.

John Dykstra did the VFX for 1 and 2, but not 3.

 

[Sun_Down]

I thought a lot of the CG was very poor. The first fight between Harry and Peter and Venom come to mind. Every time Venom was on screen, I felt like it took me out of the moment.

 

[vgamer7289]

I totally agree.

There was CGI that far surpassed the first two films (Sandman, First fight between Harry/New Goblin and Peter, Black Spidey)

But there were also moments that were far worse than the first two, like something out of a movie nearly ten years ago (The part where he saves Gwen, Venom in action)

 

[The_Shadow]

Yes

 

[aSSSSpen]

i cringed most of the movie. rami edited the film in such a way that it reminded me of high school and how i would do the reports or projects at lunch om the day it was due. Or just said f--ck it and didnt care to do it. The actors seemed to not have their heart in it and gave contract obligation vibes through the whole film. CGI was horrible, i couldnt believe it. The Crane scene!!!???? W.............T............F was that? And the reason i sam didnt want to do venom was exactly what i thought. Just too difficult. Obvious in the shots of venom. Barely any tongue, if any. Too quick and rushed to get a good look. Just couldnt get that to work for the 15 min he only had. It really felt cheap and lazy. felt like it didnt come from the same film makers that did the first two. id say spiderman 3 is the halloween 5 of the spidey series. what went wrong, seriously?

 

[dark_b]

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?

it looks to me that you didnt understand him. the way the camera goes around spiderman,the way hes arm and leg moves is almost identical in some shots.

do you understand now?

 

[dark_b]

You should've seen the film in IMAX trust me the cg was incredible during the harry peter scene, especially at 3 stories high. I saw it in a regular theatre first and thought the same thing, but in IMAX omfg.

wouldnt it make more sense that in imax it looks mroe fake since it is suposed to be more clear?

 

[dark_b]

You and others who ask this question, simply don't know how expensive CG is. This movie involved hundreds of of CG shots, including alot of stuff that was seamless like backgrounds. CGI costs more than building sets and is extremely time-consuming. And the official number was 258 million.

a lot of times are backgrounds made with photoshop
you think than when you saw harry talking to petter on hes glider that the buildings behind him were 3d ? maybe one of two. but if the background doesnt move in 3d than it is cheaper and easier to make it in photoshop.

 

[Da_Joka]

The CGI with the American flag when Spider-Man was going to the construction site was by far the worst CGI Spider-Man has ever had.

 

[dark_b]

The CGI with the American flag when Spider-Man was going to the construction site was by far the worst CGI Spider-Man has ever had.

i dont remember very well but i think the running was very fake.

did raimi ever use motion capture?

 

[dan1]

The CGI was excellent. Are you kidding me?

Dude, if you think this CGI was shoddy, my only advice could be to go get yourself Cryogenetically frozen and wake up in 20 years to watch more movies. By then they should be able to make everything look totally real no matter what.

But who care if something isn't perfect. The directing and photography were amazing and the CGI WAS great!

This coming from someone very down on the current comic books and never doing backflips over Organics, whathaveyou.

Spider-Man 3 over time I believe will be considered a masterpiece of film.

-Dan1

 

[dark_b]

i have a question. the opening sequence had scenes from teh first two moveis.
right before the 3 movei starts they also showed the final webslinging from spiderman 2 reight? this was not from the third movie?
i dont remember very good.

 

[Comicfan]

I thought a lot of the CG was very poor. The first fight between Harry and Peter and Venom come to mind. Every time Venom was on screen, I felt like it took me out of the moment.

I felt the same

 

[dark_b]

i think they used a mechanic venom head in somce scenes b. because in close ups when he opened hes mouth it just looked to real.

i think they didnt make a lot of mistakes with venom. teh sand in sandman was to good to be true. i am really suprised that sony did the sandman effects. could it be that another CGI house made it because it looekd to good.

 

[Comic Book Boy]

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.

That's not true at all.

 

[Kent]

I thought like 95% of it looked great... problem is, nowadays everyone sees shoddy CGI. Even if there is no CGI in a certain scene I can bet money someone will tell you the CGI in that scene was bad.
More to the point, people are looking way too hard for bad CGI.

 

[StylishHokie21]

Shoddy? Are you joking? This topic is a joke, right?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I thought the CGI was just ****ing great.

Someone mentioned that the difference between this one and the past two is that this one relyed more on the CGI than the stunts.....but....that makes logical sense when you look at how much more the scenes demanded in terms of movement and action. I just plain think the things the movie demanded were just too hard for stuntmen to pull off.

 

[jakinj]

ok I'm sorry but I'm categorizing this thread in a general hating category. If there's anything sm3 had going for it, it was the action scenes and the cg. "The Birth of Sandman" in particular was just straight amazing and made anything in sm1 or sm2 look ghetto. Peter ripping off the symbiote, and it retracting all over the place like a living, rubbery entity was amazing. And whoa.. the crane scene? The harry vs. spidey aerial fight? You guys SERIOUSLY thought they looked shoddy?

I'll tell you what cg was shoddy for its time. Anything in Star Wars episode 1 to 3 was shoddy. Anything in Matrix 2 and 3 was shoddy. Spawn (which was the first movie in history that made me realize how BAD cg could be) was shoddy.

HOWEVER, I will agree that Venom looked like a muppet.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

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

Why are you so obsessed with Superman Returns?

I can't even go into a Spider-man effects thread without seeing your stupid avi.

 

[El Payaso]

That's not true at all.

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.