His webslinging still looks off

[ultimatefan]

well it really depends on the genre of the animation and there are certain aspects that take more liberties than most but when it comes to movement, most animation in the 90s and beyond do their best to keep things legit. in the superhero field the only real thing i see them doing is altering masks to give the impression of certain emotions but that's about it.

Regardless of the level of realism, the fact that you´re not seeing a photorealistic human being immediately tells your brain it´s another reality. It´s instinctive. It´s the same thing with CGI or green screen, there will always be an instinct telling you it´s not real. The way to deal with it is not overanalyzing, nitpicking every detail, if I do that, I´ll destroy every FX and animation technique. The SM FX crews are doing some of the bost jobs in the market today - they didn´t win an oscar for nothing - but if you think someday you´re gonna see a Spider-Man swinging between building that will look entirely photorealistic, it´s just not gonna happen. The best you can do is suspend disbelief. When I saw the SW movies, it was easy to tell Chewie is just a guy in a suit, sometimes the scale of the models was notable too. You forget about it and immerse yourself in the fantasy, or there will always be a problem.

 

[ultimatefan]

thats why i think that they should used motion capture. it is very easie. you use motion capture to get the human version of motion. after that you can use your imagination and make him stronger,faster,....

but the movement would still be more natural. when a CGI artis riggs the CGI double from hes mind than.....we have very bad movement and it looks not natural.

Motion capture doesn´t solve all the problems. Even in Superman Returns it didn´t. You can´t capture the movements of a regular human being and turn it into a super-human acrobat. Even if you do, it will still look off. It´s the nature of the fantastical element of Spider-Man, has nothing to do with the FX crew being incompetent - and these are some of the most respected professionals in the market - or taking the wrong approach.

 

[November Rain]

Regardless of the level of realism, the fact that you´re not seeing a photorealistic human being immediately tells your brain it´s another reality. It´s instinctive. It´s the same thing with CGI or green screen, there will always be an instinct telling you it´s not real. The way to deal with it is not overanalyzing, nitpicking every detail, if I do that, I´ll destroy every FX and animation technique. The SM FX crews are doing some of the bost jobs in the market today - they didn´t win an oscar for nothing - but if you think someday you´re gonna see a Spider-Man swinging between building that will look entirely photorealistic, it´s just not gonna happen.

well i didn't realise until fairly recently that the entire ock drowing scene was done entirely in CGi, so yeah it actually does have the power to manipulate when done correctly, obviously when something is been done that is outside of human capabilities than yeah, fine.

but what i'm asking is hardly beyond human capabilities.

 

[ultimatefan]

well i didn't realise until fairly recently that the entire ock drowing scene was done entirely in CGi, so yeah it actually does have the power to manipulate when done correctly, obviously when something is been done that is outside of human capabilities than yeah, fine.

but what i'm asking is hardly beyond human capabilities.

I could kinda tell that he was CGI and it was a different situation. Spidey has to defy physics and human anatomy and phisiology to do what he does, so yes, it is.

 

[dark_b]

Motion capture doesn´t solve all the problems. Even in Superman Returns it didn´t. You can´t capture the movements of a regular human being and turn it into a super-human acrobat. Even if you do, it will still look off. It´s the nature of the fantastical element of Spider-Man, has nothing to do with the FX crew being incompetent - and these are some of the most respected professionals in the market - or taking the wrong approach.

but it would help them. or do you think that using motion capture would be a waste of time?

 

[ultimatefan]

but it would help them. or do you think that using motion capture would be a waste of time?

For most of the scenes that they could do with motion capture, it´s when they use wire, and they actually use more than people think. Wire works for some scenes, but not for all of them.

 

[Retroman]

FYI they ARE using motion capture on Spidey 3.
http://www.icommag.com/video-news.html

As for the webslinging in the trailer, at this early stage, the webslinging looks as good as the final swing in SM2 in my opnion.Especially the shots with the black suit look great. Very hard to tell whats CG and whats not with those.

Its kind of unfair though on the filmmakers to be nitpicking about effects that won't be finished for another 6 months. May 3rd is judgement day not November 17th.

 

[The Kid]

Regardless of the level of realism, the fact that you´re not seeing a photorealistic human being immediately tells your brain it´s another reality. It´s instinctive. It´s the same thing with CGI or green screen, there will always be an instinct telling you it´s not real. The way to deal with it is not overanalyzing, nitpicking every detail, if I do that, I´ll destroy every FX and animation technique. The SM FX crews are doing some of the bost jobs in the market today - they didn´t win an oscar for nothing - but if you think someday you´re gonna see a Spider-Man swinging between building that will look entirely photorealistic, it´s just not gonna happen. The best you can do is suspend disbelief. When I saw the SW movies, it was easy to tell Chewie is just a guy in a suit, sometimes the scale of the models was notable too. You forget about it and immerse yourself in the fantasy, or there will always be a problem.

No, bad animation is not made more acceptable because everything is animated. If it looks like bad animation, guess what, it is. That's how it works. EVERYTHING in movies and tv is basically animation since it's all just a bunch of images being displayed rapidly frame by frame. So the area of difference is become more minor now with cgi getting better.

Animators wouldn't have to check every frame for consistency if it were believed we couldn't decipher so easily if something was badly animated. And whatever rules are established for the animation must be obeyed. Final Fantasy Advent children containes some very good animation for instance, but just as in live action I can easily tell where the movements were more unrealistic compared to their normal animation. Go watch the movie yourself and come back here and tell me because it's all cgi, everything looked natural and smooth. At times, yes. At times, no. Was that the animator's choice, to bend the rules for that extra something however? Absolutely. Does that make it more acceptable and less fantastic? No, they wanted it to look fantastic so they took the liberty they have to do that... it's a videogame movie. And we can tell, easily, when they take those liberties...

Stick jar jar binks in final fantasy and there's no way in hell he'd be acceptable as part of that world, even there.

And that's what I'm saying. Bad animation is still bad animation.

 

[DACrowe]

You're never satisfied.

Anyways, the difference between Doc Ock "drowning" and Spidey swinging is Ock isn't moving. He's just standing still as he sinks to oblivion and that is done in a photorealistic manner. A guy who contorts his body like a spider while swinging 50 mph between skyscrapers is physically impossible. It denies the laws of physics, physiology and common sense. So you instinctively call it out as fake. If it was a sped up motion capture of a human being it would still cause the same reaction, theo nly difference would be that they would not be able to contort his body as much in the interesting angles of the comic pages thusly.

If the sfx were so bad the would not have been nominated in '02 and won in '04 by the way.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

the VFX team did an amazing job on spideys web-slinging, john dykstra even said that it was challenging to do these scenes of cgi, there hard work effort showed when you saw spiderman web-sling, its defenitley one of the best things in the spidey movies, to see spiderman web-slinging on screen makes you think of the comic books, thats a good thing.

 

[Spider-Who?]

this is the dumbest arguement in the world.

 

[The Kid]

You're never satisfied.

Is this directed at me? If so i wonder how you can assume this.

Anyways, the difference between Doc Ock "drowning" and Spidey swinging is Ock isn't moving. He's just standing still as he sinks to oblivion and that is done in a photorealistic manner. A guy who contorts his body like a spider while swinging 50 mph between skyscrapers is physically impossible. It denies the laws of physics, physiology and common sense. So you instinctively call it out as fake. If it was a sped up motion capture of a human being it would still cause the same reaction, theo nly difference would be that they would not be able to contort his body as much in the interesting angles of the comic pages thusly.

I have to say that's just Bull ****. Because I totally bought some swings in spidey 1. The fx will look bad if they're bad fx. The excuse that he's a mutant spider man doesn't excuse the fx being bad. Even if it's a human and it looks fake like ock did at times, it's because of bad fx. Simple. We can also accurately judge movement of objects through space because that's just what we do. We are human beings.

If the sfx were so bad the would not have been nominated in '02 and won in '04 by the way.

This doesn't change what I'm seeing on my dvd, you know. The matrix car thing, the train, most of ock's stuff was well done. I'm not saying those looked bad. But some parts still do, particularly with spidey and I guess that's why this thread exists.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

This doesn't change what I'm seeing on my dvd, you know. The matrix car thing, the train, most of ock's stuff was well done. I'm not saying those looked bad. But some parts still do, particularly with spidey and I guess that's why this thread exists.

the train sequance in spidey2 looked great, there is nothing wrong with the cgi, the biggest cgi scene in spidey2 was the train scene, all the cgi shots in both movies look great, when ock was drowning the camera had to be upclose and everything including ock was cgi, that was very challenging for vfx team.

 

[JayKay]

The CGI is fine, end of story.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

the cgi is perfect, the dock ock drowning scene at the end of spidey2 was one o the most amazing cgi scenes i have ever scene, the web-slining is one of my favorite cgi things in the spidey movies, all us fanboys love it, i dont see anything wrong with it.

 

[matthooper]

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park looked off too. I know when I see real dinosaurs in my backyard they look nothing like they did in the movie.

It's the same with Spider-Man. When I see genetically altered human spiders swinging though Manhattan, they look nothing like the Spider-Man films.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park looked off too. I know when I see real dinosaurs in my backyard they look nothing like they did in the movie.

It's the same with Spider-Man. When I see genetically altered human spiders swinging though Manhattan, they look nothing like the Spider-Man films.

hasnt the cgi improven though since jurassic park that came out in the 1990's?

 

[matthooper]

hasnt the cgi improven though since jurassic park that came out in the 1990's?

Dude, it was a joke. Do you have dinosaurs in your backyard?

I guess sarcasm isn't for everyone. My post was a jab at the idiocy of the topic. How can anyone know how Spider-Man would look? The CGI is amazing in Spider-Man.

 

[xwolverine2]

The CGI is fine, end of story.

well obviously "fine" aint good enough

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Dude, it was a joke. Do you have dinosaurs in your backyard?

I guess sarcasm isn't for everyone. My post was a jab at the idiocy of the topic. How can anyone know how Spider-Man would look? The CGI is amazing in Spider-Man.

your right, the cgi is amazing in spiderman, i dont see anything wrong with the cgi in spiderman, that train scene in spidey2 was amazing, spidey and ock were fighting on the side of the train, thats freakin amazing.

 

[Guyverjay]

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

 

[Pagrebo]

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park looked off too. I know when I see real dinosaurs in my backyard they look nothing like they did in the movie.

It's the same with Spider-Man. When I see genetically altered human spiders swinging though Manhattan, they look nothing like the Spider-Man films.

I don't care who you are, that there ^^ is F-U-N-N-E-E, funny! Good one, MattHooper!

For the record, I go to movies like Spiderman to be entertained. Are there aspects of the films that perhaps I don't like? Yes. But do I microanalyze those areas to the degree which takes away from my enjoyment of the film as a whole? No. I have two terms for those picking apart this or any other element of the movies: "suspension of belief" and "creative license". You need to have one, and allow everyone involved in the production the other. There is NO SUCH THING as an actual Spiderman, so everything on screen requires the audience to believe in the unbelievable. How those involved involved in the filmmaking process choose to achieve this result is up to them. So far, they seem to have done a respectable job of it(based on box office and critical results).

I respect your desire to input ways to improve the product, but do you not think that Raimi & company are doing everything within their abilities to create the best product possible? Do you not realize that Sony is not spending $250 million to "settle" for less than the absolute best? Everyone on here seems to like the first two films, and Raimi & company are on record as acknowledging that they need to improve EVERYTHING on each subsequent film. I'm sure they are every bit as aware(and more!) of every technical flaw in the films to date.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

listen to this, cgi was created in the early 1990's, and since then cgi has been improved on, the spiderman movies have alot of cgi in them, when i see the cgi in the spiderman movies i think they are great, spidey3 will have alot of cgi because of sandman and other things, why do you think in june they started post production, i dont see anything wrong in the spiderman movies and thats it.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Of all the things I usually nitpick, webslinging hasn't been one of them. I personaly think it looks fine, I'd rather they work harder on making characters like Spider-man and MJ act like themselves before they look to improving the webslinging.

 

[DarkArachknight]

I'd rather they work harder on making characters like Spider-man and MJ act like themselves before they look to improving the webslinging.

they'd have to get rid of kirsten dunst for that to happen. t: