His webslinging still looks off

[November Rain]

well i'm not sure when this thread became more orientated around the actual quality of the effects shots because they have never really come into question, at least from my point of view.

i feel spidey's swinging is good, not great.

There certainly has been limited maturity within it across the duration of the films, as i thought as time went on, the quality of his swinging would surely improve, while personally i feel it peaked at the end of the first film and shots so far from the third kinda cement this.

now, i realise there isn't a real life example of a spider-mad people can base their work on but This hasn't stopped the animation teams who have worked on spidey's swinging in the past. the 90s show although not consistently tended to have high levels of bringing across spidey's agility through the air while swinging. I know some of you will say, it's animation it's different but barring some bad shots of extended zero gravity, when it was good, it was really good.

another example would be the naughties mtv spiderman which has a high consistency of webswinging, there are very few bad shots of it there and at its best brings a whole new level of interpretation of how beautiful the effect can look when brought to life. There are very few times when i would see a scene and believe what i was seeing was beyond what could be brought to the big screen (thus making it humanly feasible, or at least look humanly feasible).

I listed my concerns around page 4 or five but it seems that the points i bring up are being ignored by the majority who are happy being complacent. Instead it's become more about the quality of the cgi which has never been an issue with me personally. My favourite scene that is relevant is the first time he actually tries it and arguably cgi-wise it's the worst one

so i'm a lil bemused. A little part of me wished i had addressed each issue individually in a seperate thread, especially when it comes to his landings and his leg lunges at the end of swings but meh, I just hope some of you are getting what i'm trying to put accross.

 

[ultimatefan]

well i'm not sure when this thread became more orientated around the actual quality of the effects shots because they have never really come into question, at least from my point of view.

i feel spidey's swinging is good, not great.

There certainly has been limited maturity within it across the duration of the films, as i thought as time went on, the quality of his swinging would surely improve, while personally i feel it peaked at the end of the first film and shots so far from the third kinda cement this.

now, i realise there isn't a real life example of a spider-mad people can base their work on but This hasn't stopped the animation teams who have worked on spidey's swinging in the past. the 90s show although not consistently tended to have high levels of bringing across spidey's agility through the air while swinging. I know some of you will say, it's animation it's different but barring some bad shots of extended zero gravity, when it was good, it was really good.

another example would be the naughties mtv spiderman which has a high consistency of webswinging, there are very few bad shots of it there and at its best brings a whole new level of interpretation of how beautiful the effect can look when brought to life. There are very few times when i would see a scene and believe what i was seeing was beyond what could be brought to the big screen (thus making it humanly feasible, or at least look humanly feasible).

I listed my concerns around page 4 or five but it seems that the points i bring up are being ignored by the majority who are happy being complacent. Instead it's become more about the quality of the cgi which has never been an issue with me personally. My favourite scene that is relevant is the first time he actually tries it and arguably cgi-wise it's the worst one

so i'm a lil bemused. A little part of me wished i had addressed each issue individually in a seperate thread, especially when it comes to his landings and his leg lunges at the end of swings but meh, I just hope some of you are getting what i'm trying to put accross.

Problem is, why do you people keep assuming who disagrees with you is being complacent? We just don´t see things the same way. Some things will please some people more and some people less, some will bother some people more, some people less. It´s human nature, doesn´t make anyone right or wrong. If you take my record here, I´m far from being complacent. There are plenty of movies based on comics I love that I hate or have mixed feelings about. I hate FF - and I take flack for that -, Elektra, Catwoman, didn´t like the DD theatrical cut (the director´s cut, yes). Have mixed feelings on Hulk - take flack for that too. Just because I enjoy the webswinging more than you that means I´m complacent?

 

[November Rain]

well, yeah it does...

when did complacent become a dirty word?

 

[DACrowe]

How so? Perhaps he tends to think the movie is a better representation of the web slinging than you. For example you used the '90s cartoon (which I loved) as an example of how it should be. Well I thought he was much slower and more rigid in his swinging that show than the agility and fluidity that they show in the movies.

I think the movies, particularly at the end of the second one and certain points in that film, nails it. His swinging is quick, effortless and like a fun ride. There is little technique but Spidey never really uses technique. Same with his fighting, it is all instinct from his powers. He doesn't have to land with his legs straight together as if he was Superman. He'd just as likely land on all fours and do a flip up (something that did happen in the aforementioned cartoon, in the opening titles no less). He quick and agile enough to contort his body in crazy ways. It is a good representation of old web-head IMO.

You cannot say that makes me or anyone else complacent. We just see things differently. I am much more concerned abut Sandman ending up being Uncle Ben's killer (soemthing I hope is proven wrong in the movie) or the overuse of loved ones in peril plot device, etc. The swinging has always been a highlight in the movies to me, and since he saved MJ from the GG at Times Square in SM1, his swinging has not looked off to me otehr than it is physically impossible. The textures for each film get better but the motion is unrealistic, hence that complaint of seeing it as thus.

But for adaptation and coolness they just get better every film. Take the shots of black suit Spidey going through traffic or soaring in the clouds. Looks more realistic than it did in '02 and ups the beauty of it. Now if you want more far shots like when Spidey and MJ swung to thatromantic music in SM1, I'd agree a few more epic awe-inspiring moments like that would work. But I disagree on the swinging as is.

That hardly makes me complacent. It means I like how the slinging has been executed nad am more concerned with other matters than how well he lands a swing in the movie.

 

[November Rain]

How so? Perhaps he tends to think the movie is a better representation of the web slinging than you. For example you used the '90s cartoon (which I loved) as an example of how it should be. Well I thought he was much slower and more rigid in his swinging that show than the agility and fluidity that they show in the movies.

well if he believes the movie is a better representation that means he is content/satisfied/pleased/complacent with what has been shown and he doesn't believe it should be tweaked.

as for the 90s show, i said at times it showed his swinging to be very graceful, from memory, the episode 'Turning Point' Had quite a few memorable swinging scenes as well as well as what i would consider typical dismounts i would associate with teh character, These aspects were improved in the 00s mtv version.

The problem is that it is hard to take scenes and directly compare without watching whole eps, i don't have the facilities to upload vids and youtube pretty much have full eps so you have to get through a few to see the parts i'm referring to but i'll try and post something relevant from both. Once they are up, direct comparisons can be made to see where you and I stand on comparitive aspects because at the moment i don't know which eps you are using as a reference point and it may be giving a different impression as to what i have and we'd just go round discussing points in a circle because we are thinking of different things.

I think the movies, particularly at the end of the second one and certain points in that film, nails it. His swinging is quick, effortless and like a fun ride. There is little technique but Spidey never really uses technique. Same with his fighting, it is all instinct from his powers. He doesn't have to land with his legs straight together as if he was Superman. He'd just as likely land on all fours and do a flip up (something that did happen in the aforementioned cartoon, in the opening titles no less). He quick and agile enough to contort his body in crazy ways. It is a good representation of old web-head IMO.

Yeah although spidey wasn't trained by anyone, it doesn't mean his webbing should lack in technique. With anything, sufficient practice as well as his inbuilt sense of balance and co-ordination should shine through.

As for his landings, I think you've missed my points about that, i've never once stated he should land similar to a gymnast, i even posted a picture about how it looks more natural to have him crouch up on impacts with horizontal surfaces. Infact the flip thing you mentioned is something that hasn't been done in teh film before, those are the kinda things i'm looking to see because i feel some of his scene look unnatural.

Take this spidey one trailer for example, about 17 seconds in you see him landing on the Bridge before his encounter with the goblin

I feel that this landing could have been done better because spidey seems unsure of himself while making it and the rapid stopping of momentum looks off, like he should have crouched into it more before erecting (haha) himself.

perhaps looking more like so upon landing

there is a better pic that is on the dvd but i don't have it with me, nor does my computer have a dvd drive, i'm currently trying to find it on the internet but to no avail, it's at night time on the brooklyn bridge.

You cannot say that makes me or anyone else complacent. We just see things differently. I am much more concerned abut Sandman ending up being Uncle Ben's killer (soemthing I hope is proven wrong in the movie) or the overuse of loved ones in peril plot device, etc. The swinging has always been a highlight in the movies to me, and since he saved MJ from the GG at Times Square in SM1, his swinging has not looked off to me otehr than it is physically impossible. The textures for each film get better but the motion is unrealistic, hence that complaint of seeing it as thus.

well i think i can but for some reason, you think i'm using it as a bad word or a form of insult. If you're satisfied for it, then you are satisfied.

Some people have called me a nit-picker, how is that any worse than me calling someone complacent. It shows one person is satisfied while another person isn't totally and since this thread is purely about swinging being complacent doesn't mean it's gonna be about the whole film, rather the topic in hand.

But for adaptation and coolness they just get better every film. Take the shots of black suit Spidey going through traffic or soaring in the clouds. Looks more realistic than it did in '02 and ups the beauty of it. Now if you want more far shots like when Spidey and MJ swung to thatromantic music in SM1, I'd agree a few more epic awe-inspiring moments like that would work. But I disagree on the swinging as is.

That hardly makes me complacent. It means I like how the slinging has been executed nad am more concerned with other matters than how well he lands a swing in the movie.

the thing is that even with the black suit on, there are still shots of spidey doing forward leg lunges for significant period of time, like he spends a large proportion of his time without a web line with his feet first and his head back.

I don't mind the qualityof the shots but another member mentioned it before and yeah, yours and his views on that are accurate and would enhance the viewing pleasure of the swinging. 'I' quite complacent on the angle of the shots, they have never really bothered me, it's more about what i see, the action in those shots.

it's quite interesting because you say his movements are unrealistic while alot of people are saying his movements are very realistic.

what would add more realism in your eyes?

 

[Eggyman]

Look at the way he moves when swinging in SM2, the part where he is chasing the guys in the car before MJ's play -- now that was fantastic I thought.

 

[notoriousnate87]

The webslinging Spider-Man sequences are excellent in the films. They are so amazing. 164 days left....

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

The webslinging Spider-Man sequences are excellent in the films. They are so amazing. 164 days left....

exactly right, i dont see anything wromg with the web-slinging in the spiderman movies, how much more do people want, the web-slinging is one of the best cgi scenes in the spiderman movies, i havent complained once about it, thats the way its staying, spidermans web-slinging in the movies is amazing.

 

[Eggyman]

exactly right, i dont see anything wromg with the web-slinging in the spiderman movies, how much more do people want, the web-slinging is one of the best cgi scenes in the spiderman movies, i havent complained once about it, thats the way its staying, spidermans web-slinging in the movies is amazing.

I aggree -- nice avi btw

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I aggree -- nice avi btw

thanks.

 

[Orko Is King]

If you want ****ty webswinging, watch the 70s show with Nicholas Hammond.

 

[The Kid]

No one wants ****ty webslinging. That's why this thread exists. And I agree. The swinging can definitely be improved to look not only less like a video game on playstation but truly capture spidey's graceful movement as he goes on the ultimate spin.

A great way to do that is shoot the web swinging as if it was really being shot in the real world like the normal scenes are.

The 90s cartoon swings, I thought were good because they looked like they were from a person on the street's point of view at times, while other times as if from someone looking out a window. Stuff like that adds to the believability.

 

[ultimatefan]

well, yeah it does...

when did complacent become a dirty word?

You clearly used it with a negative conotation. Complacent isn´t the same as pleased, satisfied or content, so your little "explanation" doesn´t stick. So what you mean is your personal standards are the only one acceptable, which makes anyone who doesn´t share them complacent... Wake up and smell the ego, will ya... Because I´m happy with something, doesn´t mean I don´t think there might be room for tweaking, I just don´t put it down because it´s not 100% inquestionably perfect - and nothing is, as a matter of fact.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

No one wants ****ty webslinging. That's why this thread exists. And I agree. The swinging can definitely be improved to look not only less like a video game on playstation but truly capture spidey's graceful movement as he goes on the ultimate spin.

A great way to do that is shoot the web swinging as if it was really being shot in the real world like the normal scenes are.

The 90s cartoon swings, I thought were good because they looked like they were from a person on the street's point of view at times, while other times as if from someone looking out a window. Stuff like that adds to the believability.

the web-slinging doesnt look like a playstation video game, the web-slinging in the spidey movies is grceful and looks like the comic books, look at spideys web-slinging in the movies, do you see anything wrong with it, i dont, it looks amazing.

 

[The Kid]

Now that I think of it, forrest gump probably has the most invisible cgi ever done on film.

 

[The Kid]

the web-slinging doesnt look like a playstation video game, the web-slinging in the spidey movies is grceful and looks like the comic books, look at spideys web-slinging in the movies, do you see anything wrong with it, i dont, it looks amazing.

I use playstation in the same sense of videogame breasts. Most breasts in videogames during the 90s were stiff as bowling balls and very unapealling. Now with games such as dead or alive and improvements in breasts animation, they look more like balloons filled with jello pudding. As many here have noted except you, the cgi in spidey one is inferior to the cgi in spidey 2 but still there are parts which don't look as good as they could be. So thinking in the terms of playstation, spidey 1 is ps1 and spidey 2 is ps2.

What we're discussing here is how breasts will look on ps3.

 

[Eggyman]

I use playstation in the same sense of videogame breasts. Most breasts in videogames during the 90s were stiff as bowling balls and very unapealling. Now with games such as dead or alive and improvements in breasts animation, they look more like balloons filled with jello pudding. As many here have noted except you, the cgi in spidey one is inferior to the cgi in spidey 2 but still there are parts which don't look as good as they could be. So thinking in the terms of playstation, spidey 1 is ps1 and spidey 2 is ps2.

What we're discussing here is how breasts will look on ps3.

You are a talented man. In one post you are discussing two of my fave things -- Spidey, and breasts.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I use playstation in the same sense of videogame breasts. Most breasts in videogames during the 90s were stiff as bowling balls and very unapealling. Now with games such as dead or alive and improvements in breasts animation, they look more like balloons filled with jello pudding. As many here have noted except you, the cgi in spidey one is inferior to the cgi in spidey 2 but still there are parts which don't look as good as they could be. So thinking in the terms of playstation, spidey 1 is ps1 and spidey 2 is ps2.

What we're discussing here is how breasts will look on ps3.

how much better do you think they can get with the cgi, in spidey2 the biggest cgi scene was the train sequance, iv watched the movie tons of times and have always thought that every cgi scene was perfect, its computer generated images, you cant have a person swinging from ropes above the city, you need to have cgi, cgi is the most realistic thing out there.

 

[The Kid]

how much better do you think they can get with the cgi, in spidey2 the biggest cgi scene was the train sequance, iv watched the movie tons of times and have always thought that every cgi scene was perfect, its computer generated images, you cant have a person swinging from ropes above the city, you need to have cgi, cgi is the most realistic thing out there.

Sometimes it can look awful like some stuff in the matrix sequels but that's not the main issue here. The topic starter, I think wants to see better movement through the air and more believable landing and such. I think to help improve that, raimi could shoot the scenes with less of a god's eye like we'd get in super mario and more like he'd film a live actor. That'd truly sell it.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Sometimes it can look awful like some stuff in the matrix sequels but that's not the main issue here. The topic starter, I think wants to see better movement through the air and more believable landing and such. I think to help improve that, raimi could shoot the scenes with less of a god's eye like we'd get in super mario and more like he'd film a live actor. That'd truly sell it.

he uses the spydercam, what more can you ask for, i love his landings, spideys is an agile character, he does flips in the air, what they have done so far with that is amazing, i couldnt ask for, spideys landings are cgi, when he lands its suppose to be like you landed with him and when he lands it looks very cool.

 

[The Kid]

You are a talented man. In one post you are discussing two of my fave things -- Spidey, and breasts.

Yes, both do have certain admirable qualities.

 

[Pagrebo]

Yes, both do have certain admirable qualities.

All of which, of course, begs the question, what happened to your beautiful, "Got Milk?" avatar, Wesyeed? You KNOW which one I'm talking about!!!

 

[Naite22]

To end this thread and make this forum less confusing let me make it very clear and simple... Take the swinging in spidey 3 (the first time you see him in the trailer, right before he lands in front of the american flag!), and compare to the first time you see spidey swinging in number 2 with the pizza's... Gentlemen & women (if any!), it's CLEAR! The improvement from spidey 2 to spidey 3 are eyestriking! It looks ****ing sweet!.. Problem is that too many are asking for too God damn much!!! It's CG guys... and it's simply incredible what they can do now at days. Be thankful for what we get!

PS: For the FIRST TIME (as seen in spidey 3) I'm finally 100% sadisfied... it looks too beautiful for words!

 

[November Rain]

You clearly used it with a negative conotation. Complacent isn´t the same as pleased, satisfied or content, so your little "explanation" doesn´t stick. So what you mean is your personal standards are the only one acceptable, which makes anyone who doesn´t share them complacent... Wake up and smell the ego, will ya... Because I´m happy with something, doesn´t mean I don´t think there might be room for tweaking, I just don´t put it down because it´s not 100% inquestionably perfect - and nothing is, as a matter of fact.

dude, chill pill...

fee free to look through all the posts on here, i've been completely civil to everyone.

i haven't used any 'mightier than though' complexes,

i haven't bashed anyone who doesn't seem to agree with me

I haven't replied to every single post which goes against my views in a dictatorship manner


if anything, the points i seem to be bringing up are being ignored by the masses and for some reason a large percent of people think i'm against the cgi

yeah, in general the swinging are highlight of the film and I do think they are fantastic BUT i think they can be improved and the vibe i'm getting is that everyone else doesn't think they can get any better, so yeah, they are complacent.

if you wish to take it on a negative slant, then it's up to you but it wasn't delivered with that intent and there is no evidence to suggest why it would be.

so chill out, ​

 

[Pagrebo]

the vibe i'm getting is that everyone else doesn't think they can get any better, so yeah, they are complacent.

And therein lies the problem that some are having with your position. The vibe you're getting??? You may be reading between the lines when in fact there's nothing to read. I haven't seen anyone intimate or state that the swinging effects CAN'T get any better. I think everyone with at least half a brain knows that ALL visual effects can & will get better as the technology improves. There are some on here who are simply satisfied with the status quo, but they still look forward to improvement. Satisfaction does NOT equal compacency.