His webslinging still looks off

[matthooper]

Yeah it doesn't look very real at times because he's a badly animated cartoon one moment and a stunt guy the next.

I agree. It's like the arguments about harry potter's flying. We all know the flying in the latest films is superior to the flying in the first harry potter. Why? I just think they do more blue screen and wire work instead of just cgi or maybe the cgi has gotten better. i don't exactly know but I just know when I watched chambers I liked the flying more than the last film's and so on with the next movie etc.

And god I hate kirsten's acting in this clip you posted except for the go gettem tiger.

But yes, absolutely. I'd love spidey's swinging to be believable in whatever sense one can believe a spider man swinging around. If it looks fake, I just know it, I'm human and I have an inate sense built in from birth of how objects move, and what you're pointing out about ways they can make it look more real might actually help. Landing on all four limbs for example is something I'd have never thought of...

I'm thinking that'd make him move more like a spider. I like when he uses all of his limbs connected to a surface when he moves. Spidey standing on his legs is just not an image I'm used to or think looks right... though I'm not saying he should never stand, but I think he moves more like a spider or cat, any animal that uses their limbs together to cling to a surface... They got it perfect again when spidey is thrown into the train and clings to the bar with both hands and feet. That looked good.

As for swinging. I want less video-game-ish camera movement for once. That definitely takes away from the believability of what we're seeing if it all looks like it came from Activision. And I'm with you on not breaking the rules. It's established that these characters are bound by physical rules very similar to our reality so if spidey for instance walked off a cliff unaware that there was no ground underneath him but stayed floating on air, we wouldn't believe it. It'd be cartoonish. And just because we don't know exactly how a spider-man would move, doesn't make him floating on air any less ridiculous.

Do you babelfish your text and convert it from your natural language?

 

[Robin91939]

One of the biggest complaints with the FX from movie one, was that Spider-man moved with little weight and the CGI character of Spider-man came off "too cartoony". This was actually a large contributer to Ebert giving the film a thumbs down if I recall.

The biggest improvement was the sense of real flesh and blood moving through the air in SPIDER-MAN 2. It really felt, looked, and seemed more realistic. I completely disagree about him not looking confident and sure, he looks- especially in the last scene of SPIDER-MAN 2 that he is having the time of his life. Or how about his movements after being thrown off of the train by Ock and going through the overpass in an acrobatic move? That wasn't swinging but it was his agile movements. Or any of his movements and swings inside of the bank? He moved very gracefully, and very Spider-man-like.

-R

 

[matthooper]

One of the biggest complaints with the FX from movie one, was that Spider-man moved with little weight and the CGI character of Spider-man came off "too cartoony". This was actually a large contributer to Ebert giving the film a thumbs down if I recall.

The biggest improvement was the sense of real flesh and blood moving through the air in SPIDER-MAN 2. It really felt, looked, and seemed more realistic. I completely disagree about him not looking confident and sure, he looks- especially in the last scene of SPIDER-MAN 2 that he is having the time of his life. Or how about his movements after being thrown off of the train by Ock and going through the overpass in an acrobatic move? That wasn't swinging but it was his agile movements. Or any of his movements and swings inside of the bank? He moved very gracefully, and very Spider-man-like.

-R

It's pretty simple, 99.9% of the time, if people liked the movie, they liked the effects, the haters hate the movie and in turn the effects.

If someone didn't feel the effects in SM2 were bad, I'd like to see what they feee is good. I can't imagine anything pleasing them. The effects in SM2 were virtually flawless.

 

[ultimatefan]

One thing, if you pay attention at both movies, in the second the camera follows him less closely during the swinging, which reduces the "gamish" FX.

There aren´t any problems with the Spider-Man CGI that don´t happen to all CGI-animated characters. The "weightless rubbery" thing happens with all of them, cuz it´s an inherent problem with the technique, it´s hard to communicate an object´s mass to computers. You can see the problem with Kong, with Superman, with Gollum. But it´s clearly evolving and it´s clearly the best technique to portray the kind of humanly impossible feats that Spidey achieves. There were points where stuntmen were discussed, but it just wasn´t viable.

 

[The Kid]

Do you babelfish your text and convert it from your natural language?

Is every post of yours just flamebait in this section or do you have something besides that to add?

 

[dark_b]

One of the biggest complaints with the FX from movie one, was that Spider-man moved with little weight and the CGI character of Spider-man came off "too cartoony". This was actually a large contributer to Ebert giving the film a thumbs down if I recall.

The biggest improvement was the sense of real flesh and blood moving through the air in SPIDER-MAN 2. It really felt, looked, and seemed more realistic. I completely disagree about him not looking confident and sure, he looks- especially in the last scene of SPIDER-MAN 2 that he is having the time of his life. Or how about his movements after being thrown off of the train by Ock and going through the overpass in an acrobatic move? That wasn't swinging but it was his agile movements. Or any of his movements and swings inside of the bank? He moved very gracefully, and very Spider-man-like.

-R

i agree that he looked 2 times more real. but he teh weight problem started with the second movie for me.

 

[Spider-Bite]

i think he looks how a real life spider-man would look.

 

[Spider-Bite]

i agree that he looked 2 times more real. but he teh weight problem started with the second movie for me.

only with that jump after saving those kids from getting hit by that bus.

 

[matthooper]

Is every post of yours just flamebait in this section or do you have something besides that to add?

Nah, that's pretty much all I have for this thread. You have people complaining about the physics of how a super-human with the powers of a spider would actually look in reality. It's beyond silly. How could anyone possibly know? When he lands on anything, he still has the grip from his feet, he has super human contortions that wouldn't look the same in reality. The filmmakers had cart blanch because no one knows how it would really look. I agree some effects looked awkward in SM1, but they corrected it for SM2, and I bet SM3 will look even better.

Someone compared it to how gymnasts would react. The best gymnasts would have 1% of Spider-Man's abilities. It just makes no sense to compare the FX to how an actual person would look.

 

[Eddie Brock]

you're right, this is minor

just kidding, but seriously, will it REALLY ruin the whole movie that Spider-Man has to follow the laws of physics like everyone else?

 

[hyzak]

Yes, you are. If that's all you can contribute to the discussion. A juvenile insult.

Very mature

j/k ... man! dont take it so seriously

 

[The Kid]

Nah, that's pretty much all I have for this thread. You have people complaining about the physics of how a super-human with the powers of a spider would actually look in reality. It's beyond silly. How could anyone possibly know? When he lands on anything, he still has the grip from his feet, he has super human contortions that wouldn't look the same in reality. The filmmakers had cart blanch because no one knows how it would really look. I agree some effects looked awkward in SM1, but they corrected it for SM2, and I bet SM3 will look even better.

Someone compared it to how gymnasts would react. The best gymnasts would have 1% of Spider-Man's abilities. It just makes no sense to compare the FX to how an actual person would look.

Well leave the snide remarks to the kids. I'm beyond such petty indulgences.

Like you say, you detected something was off with spidey in the first movie. We all probably did because, yeah we all have a built in sense of what looks real and what does not. It doesn't matter what that thing is or whether it exist in reality. I can name a number of moments in the matrix sequels that look like bad cgi and it doesn't matter if it's the matrix, it's just bad cgi. I can do the same with both spidey films and that's what this thread is about. What can they do to make it better?

What can they do to make it look more real? I think one issue is the camera movement being a little too free during some swing scenes and it takes me out of the movie. I remember a scene in blade 2 when blade was fighting that bald guy with the mouth kinda like the predators and during the fight this completely awful cgi shot came up that looked straight out of a cgi movie. Now let's get real. I know I'm watching a vampire guy and another vampire guy fight, but that just looked like crap.

We can do better than that for spider-man.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

the web-slinging looks perfect.

 

[Dragon]

I don't know how long spidey is supposed to have carried this superhero role for in this next film but I would have hoped that he would have cracked this webslinging thing...

alas, he still looks uncomfortable/unprofessional...

Does he? Not to me.

he still does that thing at the end of his swing where he tries to leap off for more aerial height. This is fine once in a while but it would be nice to see him reaching the top of his swing before letting go once in a while, it's rarely done, especially outside of a facial closeup.

He has to leap when swinging and can't reach the top of his arc.

Remember- Spidey's webline is elastic. He has to release before the apex of his arc or he'll be taken off from his chosen direction by the webbing continuing to stretch. And he must leap to get the correct momentum in order to be upright and ready to fire another line.

also judging from his clip, he still lands incredibly uncomfortable with his body jolting forward and his legs aren't together when he webslings.

He lands perfectly based on the physics he's dealing with. Any normal human would land face first with all of the momentum Spidey is generating.

Now spidey is supposed to have better balance and be more articulated that a leading gymnast but judging from his clips he wouldn't make any sort of state final, let alone a national or olympic competition.

No gymnast deals with the mechanics that Spidey does. When they swing from the high bar, again they're dealing with a stationary source, not Spidey's stretchable webline, which accelerates and increases the force propelling Spidey. Gymnasts don't deal with the kind of wind resistance Spidey does. And gymnasts land on a soft padding, not metal and concrete.

Gymnasts also make mistakes. I have yet to see any gymnastic competition will all 10.0 scores.

I know it's not necessary for what he performs but i've always had a problem with spidey being graceful in the films, and i feel he was at his best at the end of the first film but even then, he swings as if he's still unsure of himself and his movements in the air and doesn't always land with confidence, it's still looks like it's hard work when it should be second nature.

I know it's a minor thing to moan about but i have a feeling that those swinging clips come from the last piece of the film and hence the last piece of the current franchise and it would be a shame to see it go out with a whimper instead of a bang.

Unsure of himself? He propels himself head over heels into nothingness. He changes direction rapidly, swings into traffic flawlessly.

Spidey doing his aerial display is a thing of beauty as far as I'm concerned, and yes, even the added flaws to his movement make for a nice touch. he is after all Spider-MAN.

 

[nosebleed.]

The web-slinging looks great to me too...it has a good sense of gravity and weight with the minor imperfections that you'd expect from a human being. Spider-man is not a trained gymnast who is getting scored based on his form...he's just trying to get to where he's going and having a blast getting there.

I have more an issue of Spidey's strength when he pulls his punches than his web-slinging...but that's a dead horse that I don't feel like beating.

 

[superkong 500]

I really have no problems with the webslinging because I think that when he does it his agility is so beyond that of humans that he would actually defy gravity. If the rules of physics where to be followed with spidey then a lot of the beauty and grace of his movement would be lost, this doesn't mean that it coudn't be improved because I think there should be a balance between real life physics and the way spidey moves. So there still room for improvement but Iam fine with it how it is now.

However the thing that really bothers me is the way he lands, not because he lands with his legs only a lot of the time, but because when he lands is the moment in which physics should be heavily applied. In the air he has control once he gets the altitude. But when he lands there's no way of him to control his weight(Iam not speaking of the mid-air thing but the actual impact in the ground), the problem I have is that I don't see the momentum when he lands, most of the times for me it looks like if he had the weight of a paper he just sticks in the ground.

I don't see the effect of weight like bending of his knees or the arching of his back, he just lands and it feels like if his body was all one piece with no points of articulation. A good example is in spiderman 2 when he leaps from a dry cleaners to the ledge of a window, when he landed the effect of weight was almost seamless. I think that when he lands no matter if it is with his legs or in all fours there should be a sense of weight and there should be sort of a bouncing effect like when you see a car thrown from a crane or something similar, you can see the bouncing back effect. Of course spidey is not a car but there should be at least a sense that when he lands the pressure of weight is added specialy to his knees if you know what I mean.

 

[ZER0C00L]

the webswinging was always terrible in the spider man movies.
i liked the feel and look of how it was shot in the spider man animated series best. it made me want to be spider man. the movie makes me not care much for it.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

the web-slinging always and always will remind me of the comic book, that wont change.

 

[ultimatefan]

The weight thing is always a problem cuz Spidey can land from heights that no human being can without breaking himself in pieces. The landings will never be proportional to the actual impact of the falling. The same goes for the webswinging: when he reaches the end of the arc, with the height and speed of "flying" something like 90 stores high, a human body would break in two when he shoots the other web and starts another impulse, sometimes into a different direction. It´s just something that will never look entirely real cuz it´s not.

 

[Reikowolf]

Web Slinging = Spider-man's manner of shooting webs (impact webbing, web nets, web shooting to tie people up)

Web Swinging = Spider-man's movements while swinging on a web

 

[ultimatefan]

the webswinging was always terrible in the spider man movies.
i liked the feel and look of how it was shot in the spider man animated series best. it made me want to be spider man. the movie makes me not care much for it.

It´s easier in a cartoon. The fact that it´s a caricature of a human being makes the surreal aspect of it more acceptable.

 

[The Kid]

Not necessarily.

Creation of realistic physics in cartoons is a HUGE part of animation. You can't easily dismiss that.

the edge for cartoons though is that they have much more freedom depending on what kind of cartoon it is. If it's depicting something realistic, it'll establish certain rules about the world and break them when it's necessary to do more fantastic stuff. I'm thinking about when eyes pop out or something like that.

Oh and I'm talking about really minor things like shadows, movement of hair, blinking, breathing, elasticity of face and whatever other body parts, all of this stuff is given close scrutiny during animation. I also think the really good animation is the kind that doesn't really seem like animation. It's just natural.

 

[Sean Adisano]

the idea is to make him look agile but real.

the more flaws there are with him swinging the more believable he looks doing it.

body jolting = gravity
legs not together = realism (if they were together it would look more obviously CGI)

you are right tho... he doesn't move like in the comic.

but my rebuttle is also.. when he was knocked off the train in SM2.. that recovery (off the street, up the side of the building and the leap) was soooo comic book.. my fav part of the film by far

i agree with you 100% and i love that part in spidey 2 as well

realism is what we want when he swings, and i thought in spidey 1 his swinging was great, spidey 2 even better, and now spidey 3 i have no doubt it will be better than both 1 and 2...especially since now he has the symbiote and he's more powerful and he'll be doing alot more tricks...I CAN'T WAIT!!!

 

[LastSunrise1981]

I think they need to concentrate on his wall-crawling ability. In my honest and sincere opinion, there hasn't been enough wall-crawling or him displaying that particular ability.

 

[Sean Adisano]

I think they need to concentrate on his wall-crawling ability. In my honest and sincere opinion, there hasn't been enough wall-crawling or him displaying that particular ability.

yea, even his jumping ability as well.