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

[spider-neil]

some shots were amazing.
some shots were rubbish.
like all movies. (even LOTR had some dreadful CG).
the amazing shots are oscar worthy. sandman's birth springs instantly to mind.

 

[superkong 500]

Ha I can't believe it. I think spidey 3 as bad as the plot execution the editing pacing and some of the acting was the cgi work was much better than the first two movies. In the first two films I cringed at a lot of the cgi spidey.
In this one they really improved on the way he moves, the weight physics issues and the texture of the cgi its a lot better than before.

I agree though that some of the harry peter fight looked bad and the texture looked flat cartoony as if they did it in a rush(somewhat unfinished) but the movement of the digital doubles really made me forgive this.

In the other films specially the first one there was absolutely no weight on spidey and even in part 2 when spidey and doc ock are fighting mid air in the bank scene they look like two rubber puppets really cartoony.

Some here say that the crane scene has bad cgi really? you gotta be kidding me that scene was spectacular.The bluescreen work did suck sometimes but all the other aspects of the scene looked great.

Venom however sometimes(not all the times) looked bad but not as bad as cgi doc ock on top of the train in part 2 or cgi goblin leaping on his glider in the parade scene in part1. Sandman looked awesome, the giant sandman looked stupid in design but the texture and movement look real so I have no complains there. Sandman's birth... just beautiful greatest sand texture ever.

So what's left I don't know and considering this was the biggest and the most action packed of the three they did a pretty good job in the vfx department and certainly without a doubt improved from the previous films.

 

[November Rain]

the majority of the effects were poor...

sandman's standing was probably the best aspects of it...as well as spidey attempting to get his costume off...

alot of these problems would have been alleviated if they attempted to do fight scenes with people's masks on. Having faces in scenes makes it a lot harder to do your job because of instead of trying to get everything else to look right, you spend your time concentrating on the face.

the cgi in the hulk film 4 years ago was far superior to anything scene in this one...



4 years ago....

 

[spider-neil]

there wasn't a single cg shot which pushed me out of the movie unlike the first two movies where some shots looked like tekken.

 

[hammerhedd11]

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.

Yeah, ecspecially since there are pictures of them filming gwen in spiderman's arms.

 

[hammerhedd11]

The part for me that i thought was a big let down as far as CGI goes was when Spiderman was falling and fighting Venom at the same time. His face didn't look 3D or realistic whatsoever. It's like they forgot to fix a rough copy or something. Some of you know what i am talking about...

Here is the shot from the trailer that i guess they didn't bother correcting for the final film.

Thats the only one i caught. I also have to point out that Spiderman 3 looks so much better on a small screen than on the big theater screen. It seems that the projector decreases the quality by some percent. The Harry vs Peter scene in the air looks better on the 7 min Spiderman 3 clip than in the actual theater. Some of you might have noticed too.

Overall for me Spiderman 3 was a great movie and i loved it very much.

Of course some CGI doesn't look good when freeze framed and in close up. You guys are looking way too much into this. The CGI was great. I agree that some shots where meh but I can't name one movie where it is all perfect.

 

[chaseter]

Yeah, ecspecially since there are pictures of them filming gwen in spiderman's arms.

Oh snizzap! That is his only complaint in here over the CGI...that they recycled shots which he has provided no proof over.

 

[venomscurse2]

The CGI system was brand new SM3 was the first movie to use it. The CGI will be better than FF2 POTC and maybe Transformers the system was brand new

 

[Mr. Socko]

The CG was teh suck! The entire venom/spidey fight was completely recycled from Spider-Man 2. All they did was replace Ock wif Venom.






I find your lack of sarcasm detection, disturbing

 

[hammerhedd11]

Oh snizzap! That is his only complaint in here over the CGI...that they recycled shots which he has provided no proof over.

I would respect his opinion and everything but when you lie about something to make the movie sound bad...it really pisses me off.

 

[Frank Noir]

Why the enormous budget then? When I watched the Yahoo trailer for Transformers, I was amazed they could do so much with a $150-200 million budget. ILM is the best SFX studio hands down.

Even the final trailers of SM3 looked unfinished. I was hoping for the CGI in the movie to be better, but it was the same. I did like the crane crashing through the building though.

 

[TheCaptain22555]

Whoa. I thought the CGI was excellent.

 

[chaseter]

Why the enormous budget then? When I watched the Yahoo trailer for Transformers, I was amazed they could do so much with a $150-200 million budget. ILM is the best SFX studio hands down.

Even the final trailers of SM3 looked unfinished. I was hoping for the CGI in the movie to be better, but it was the same. I did like the crane crashing through the building though.

Because it's one thing to make human character CGI and another to make other worldly or fanatical CGI characters. I even thought Starship Troopers CGI was great and still looks good...but they were fanatical bugs and not humans and the same is with Transformers. Human CGI is very tricky because we know what they are suppose to look like and how they are suppose to move. I thought the CGI was great for SM3...but I wish they would have integrated more stuntmen/real sequences because you can't beat the real deal.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Because it's one thing to make human character CGI and another to make other worldly or fanatical CGI characters. I even thought Starship Troopers CGI was great and still looks good...but they were fanatical bugs and not humans and the same is with Transformers. Human CGI is very tricky because we know what they are suppose to look like and how they are suppose to move. I thought the CGI was great for SM3...but I wish they would have integrated more stuntmen/real sequences because you can't beat the real deal.

Yeah I've don't think people have ever seen a robot move and talk unless they were extremley drunk.

 

[chaseter]

There is a great article in this month's IGN game magazine that talks about realistic, human CGI and the 'Uncanny Valley'. Human CGI characters such as Davy Jones, Spider-Man, Silver Surfer, etc...are very tricky to make believable to the audience's eyes because of the high level of difficulty as compared to things that are not living such as robots, backgrounds, buildings, etc...

 

[bellepheron]

There were an a few really incredible shots, most involving sandman, his birth was the pinnacle of CGI in the movie.

But there were plenty more bad shots. For me Venom didnt come across well onscreen as he does in the comics, on screen he looked out of place, like a cartoon charcter in amongst real ppl!! The birth of Venom was really badly edited, it starts well but then it all seems so rushed, he falls to the ground and is then instantly enveloped in symbiote and i mean like instantly!! watch it back and im sure youll notice!!

The absolutley WORST shot is one where hes talking to maryjane and then goes to save sum ppl and jumps out his apartment window. it is a SHOCKING shot!! worst shot in the trilogy possibly, 250 million for this yet 40 million for Sunshine?!?! What went wrong, if youve seen Sunshine youll know what im talking about!!

 

[Mr Jide]

The CG overall in these spidey movies have been good a best, with a few exceptions being incredible. However, one of the things I love about sm3 is, that the CG was used a lot more appropriately this time, in places where it was actually needed as opposedto doing stupid things like wasting CG on spidey jumping onto a 2 ft ledge. However, Odin is right, the CG in hulk was superior to that of this movie and thats a damn shame.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

I wasn't bothered by the FX at all. I don't know why anyone else should be getting all out of shape about it. I used to watch movies where the only way you could bring fantastical creatures to life was to use animatronics (Neverending Story) and/or Stop Motion Animation (Clash of the Titans). So long as I like the story, less than perfect CGI doesn't make me want to claw my eyes out a wail to the Heavens above in agony.

 

[Cyrusbales]

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!

 

[mre]

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.

I thought the CGI was amazing, but I did notice the recycled Spidey sequences.

 

[DieSmiling]

The CGI system was brand new SM3 was the first movie to use it. The CGI will be better than FF2 POTC and maybe Transformers the system was brand new

Uh, no. Transformers CGI will blow this out of the water, and POTC might too.

 

[Bat Attack]

I thought the birth of Sandman looked amazing. Especially when you see his head disintigrate.

 

[DACrowe]

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.

 

[Docker2.0]

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.

I agree 150 freakin %! Tell me fanboys and the most bi+ching type of people in the world!

 

[Spidey-Sean]

I was fine with the CGI for the most part. Sandman's birth was amazing of course. But this scene struck me in particular

It felt like it was going in slow motion, but unintentionally. It seemed awkward, like they weren't falling fast enough. That's really the only scene that pops out in my mind. Harry's glider was kinda cartoony sometimes too, but that doesn't bother me in the way this scene did.