The Amazing Spider-Man I don't want the new Spider-Man film to be in 3D

[chaseter]

Well lets hope they don't take it out of the 80 already allotted.

 

[©KAW]

That would be insane. CGI, Set Pieces and 3D rendering. All for 80M, that's not even possible, unless Spider-Man in seen only once and the villain(s) whoever they are has no powers.

 

[Matt.S99]

Wasn't 3D the reason they did NOT go with Raimi? HE wanted 3D, and the studio did not, or did I read that wrong?

I think the story was that Sony wanted the movie in 3D, but wanted it released in a short period of time and Raimi told them it would take 6 monts ONTOP of regular filming to make it 3D and Sony didn't want to give him that extra time, so Raimi just said **** it and left.

 

[©KAW]

Whether he was fired on he left, I'm glad he's gone.

 

[A&W]

I very strongly prefer it to be in 3d. If some people don't like it oh well. More options for people with different tastes.

3d movie goers and 2d movie goers both get what they want.

 

[A&W]

I don't think shooting it in 3d is that expensive anymore. The reason it was so expensive in rescent movies such as Avatar, was because they were covering the cost of developing the technology and tweaking it in the first place.

The tinkering is done. They have the camera set ups now. They can just use the 3d cameras instead of the 2d.

I don't know about converting it though from a movie filmed in 2d which doesn't look nearly as good. The 3d in Alice in wonderland doesn't look nearly as good because it was filmed in 2d.

 

[chaseter]

Cameron owns the technology that they used in Avatar. I doubt he just lets anybody use it. So don't expect Avatar visuals. Don't get your hopes up.

 

[Deaths Head II]

I thought I read something about the technology being given out to other studios. I might just be talking crazy though.

 

[chaseter]

He might have sold the limited rights to the technology....I have no idea. But Avatar was in production for years, for people to get their hopes up that this movie will look as good as Avatar are only setting themselves up for disappointment.

 

[Deaths Head II]

He might have sold the limited rights to the technology....I have no idea. But Avatar was in production for years, for people to get their hopes up that this movie will look as good as Avatar are only setting themselves up for disappointment.

Plus Cameron is more experienced with both 3D and CGI then Mark Webb is.

 

[©KAW]

How can you even make Spidey look like Avatar, 3D or not, they're two totally different animals? I say, just don't use the 3D as a gimmick, nobody wants to constantly see things being throw at the screen for cheap thrills. Plus, Sony's focus should be on characterization, character development and the story.

 

[MrSpyder]

I guess avatar showed how 3-d can work, maybe it can work for spidey hopefully

 

[TheSlag]

I was not crazy about the idea of 3D myself, I too kept thinking of the director/film makers "catering" to the 3D effect, as opposed to just telling a good story and letting the 3D effect fall where it will.

But after watching Avatar in 3D, and starting out being irritated with the 3D effect in it, it took about 20-30 mins into the film to basically forget it was in 3D, or to NOT notice it would probably be a better way to put it.

The 3D enhanced the story in Avatar without intruding into the story.

IF Spider-Man reboot can do that, more power to it, but I am still kind of leary, the 3D worked better with the world of Avator, as opposed to the world of Spidey (be that NYC, or a high school classroom.

So, I am a little leary of this announcement, but willing to hold out hope.

 

[©KAW]

IF Spider-Man reboot can do that, more power to it, but I am still kind of leary, the 3D worked better with the world of Avator, as opposed to the world of Spidey (be that NYC, or a high school classroom.

That's what I meant by Avatar and Spidey being two different animals. I remember when Sony announced that the next Spider-Man would not be in 3D, they saw Avatar numbers and changed their damn mind. Money seems to be the only motivation behind everything about these Spider-Man films. Just once I'd like to hear them talk about some of the content of the script, and why they think it's going to be a great film, or what they're doing differently this time around that we haven't seen before.

Oh, and hire WETA, so we can get some much better CGI/Visual Effects for this new film...because I personally don't believe the 80M dollar budget, and if they spend a 150M, they would love it if we only thought it cost 80M.

 

[TheSlag]

That's what I meant by Avatar and Spidey being two different animals. I remember when Sony announced that the next Spider-Man would not be in 3D, they saw Avatar numbers and changed their damn mind. Money seems to be the only motivation behind everything about these Spider-Man films. Just once I'd like to hear them talk about some of the content of the script, and why they think it's going to be a great film, or what they're doing differently this time around that we haven't seen before.

Oh, and hire WETA, so we can get some much better CGI/Visual Effects for this new film...because I personally don't believe the 80M dollar budget, and if they spend a 150M, they would love it if we only thought it cost 80M.

I agree, but even if they did dicsuss it (script, say more serious approach), I would be worried it would just be in general terms still. They are not (and should not) give any spoilers away.

But an announcement/press release about casting, or villain(s) later, should give us some indication of how serious they really are.

And perhaps an annoucement about the effects department too. I also think the 80 million is bogus, it's just a ballpark figure for the approx cost of making the movie IMO, not the overall cost with distribution/copies/advertising, etc.

 

[dark_b]

Cameron owns the technology that they used in Avatar. I doubt he just lets anybody use it. So don't expect Avatar visuals. Don't get your hopes up.

what technology does Cameron own?

the facial technology that they used on Avatar is now at WETA and they will use it on every movie that they can. the body motion capturing was not new but oldschool like from the last 5 years.

Cameron doesnt even own the cameras. he helped to develope the cameras. but they are not from him.

 

[Leenie]

This gives me the feeling that they're going for gimmick instead of story, like Avatar (no offense if y'all liked it, I hated it).

The only good news I've heard about this movie so far is Marc Webb. Again, this will be a "wait and see" kind of thing, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

 

[A&W]

Cameron owns the technology that they used in Avatar. I doubt he just lets anybody use it. So don't expect Avatar visuals. Don't get your hopes up.

it looked just as good in Christmas Carol.

any studio that wants to use the camera set up can do it. It's just two cameras angled the same way your eyes are angled. that's all it is. the big advancement was really digital storage. Before in order to store the film you had to have big reels, which made many camera angles impossible for a 3d camera because it needed twice as much room for storing the film. You had to store the film for the right eye and the left eye.

Now it's just a small digital storage device attached to the camera.

Unless they do like Alice in Wonderland where they film it in 2d and try to convert it, the 3d will be EXACTLY like the 3d used in Avatar, with one exception.

It will probably look better because now they are going to start doing 3d using 60 frames per second instead of 24.

hey if yaw don't like it, than see it in 2d. pissing and moaning just because others will choose to enjoy it differently is stupid.

and how on earth is 2d better than 3d? the more realistic the better. do we actually prefer spider-man look fake? or do we prefer it look real?

I like having it look like it's really right there in the theatre. If 2d was so much better we wouldn't have evolved to have two eyes angled just perfectly to give us depth perception in the first place.

 

[A&W]

Plus Cameron is more experienced with both 3D and CGI then Mark Webb is.

mark webb is not going to try and invent a new camera that films in 3d. so his being inexperienced is irrelevant.

that's like saying I'm not qualifed to turn my heater on because I don't have experience building furnaces.

just film it using the 3d camera set up and the 3d will look 3d. that's all it requires of the director. the 3d is in the technology, not in the director. You don't have to know how to build a camera in order to use a camera. And that's all that makes it 3d. the 3d camera and the glasses.

the camera does the work for you.

 

[A&W]

I hate cherry pepsi. I wish they would take it off the market. It's a gimmick. I only like regular pepsi and since I can't enjoy cherry pepsi I want them to take it off of the market so nobody else can enjoy it either.

 

[dark_b]

A&W making a movie 3D is not so simple but at teh same time not the end of the world. you have to understand all the settings and you need to understand how you will edit. MTV editing style will not look good. but i think we can all agree that we dont want MTV editing style.


and you need to decide what kidn of 3D stereo style you will use. there are 3 important ones. i think the way Cameron used it was the best since it didnt give us eye strain .

 

[A&W]

I posted this in the the other thread when someone brought up the "go see it in 2D" argument.

I have 2 theaters near me. Neither one of them showed Avatar in 2D. Both of them had it playing on multiple screens and every one of the screens was 3D. It's been that way throughout its entire release. I think this is Hollywood's ultimate goal with 3D. Convert all the 2D screens to 3D and then be able to charge 30-40% higher ticket prices. People were willing to pay those higher prices for Avatar. Who knows whether it will succeed with other movies, but I think that is Hollywood's plan.

just close one eye and it will be exactly like a 2d movie. that's the difference between a 3d movie and a 2d movie. with a 2d movie your seeing how it would look if it was right in front of you but with one of your eyes closed.

Every theatre in the city I live in and in the the two neighboring cities have it in 2d. and up by my parents it's the same deal. they live in a small town surrounded by two big cities. both theatres had Avatar in 2d.

I sometimes wonder if people are just saying that it's not being shown in 2d to help support their argument.

but one good point remains. why is your 2d priority any more important than my 3d priority?

With 3d I'm just wanting to view things the way nature intended. this is how were supposed to be seeing things with depth perception instead of looking like a flat piece of paper. this is the new way to view movies. eventually all movies will be 3d.

If you want to stay stuck in the past that's your choice but you can't expect to hold everybody else back with you.

3d is better and if anybody doubts it just ask yourself, if you were going to go blind in one eye so that everything you ever would see was in 2d, wouldn't you let your doctor treat your eye so that you could continue to see the world in 3d?

of course and the reason is simple. everybody and I mean everybody prefers to see things in 3d. You don't see people walking around covering up one eye, saying "3d is just a gimmick. I prefer 2d."

 

[A&W]

A&W making a movie 3D is not so simple but at teh same time not the end of the world. you have to understand all the settings and you need to understand how you will edit. MTV editing style will not look good. but i think we can all agree that we dont want MTV editing style.

wouldn't the camera crews take care of that though? that's what I mean. saying that Webb can't use 3d based on inexperience is like saying he can't use pavement for the streets in the movie because he doesn't have experience paving roads. and the director needs to decide how grey he wants the road to be.

and you need to decide what kidn of 3D stereo style you will use. there
are 3 important ones. i think the way Cameron used it was the best since it didnt give us eye strain .

I'm not sure what you mean by 3d stereo. Are you talking about stereoscoping? That's not for a movie filmed in 3d. That's for a 2d movie converted to 3d where they sort of cut out the object by tracing the outline and projecting it forward.

but yeah those are technical details. it's in the technology. and it's all already been figured out by Cameron. Now it's here for the taking and using.

and the eye strain was present for Avatar. it just varies from person to person. Cameron already figured out how to fix that. 60 frames per second instead of 24. that's what I'm saying. this is in the technology.

 

[A&W]

The only thing I fear about this being in 3D just because 3D movies are doing good is the fact that they will probably do stupid stuff like having more explosions for things that shoot out of the screen. There is good 3D and then there is cheap thrills 3D. Alice in Wonderland looks like cheap thrills 3D.

I agree about Alice. I don't like the way it looks at all, but that is the result of them filming the movie in 2d.

if they are stupid enough to fill it with a bunch of gimmicks and stuff shooting out of the screen, than it wont make any difference if it's in 3d or 2d anyways. If they are that dumb enough to do it like that than the whole movie would suck regardless.

 

[A&W]

a good way to explain this is like so. Michael Jackson was going to have 3d visuals for the screen behind him on stage. in one scene it was going to look like he had one million back up dancers on the screen presented in 3d so it looked like they were all standing behind him.

Michael Jackson didn't need experience in filming in 3d. He's not a camera man or a CGI artist. He's got people to take care of that for him, just like director's do.

Just like in his Ghosts video. MJ wasn't a CGI artist. That doesn't mean he couldn't use CGI did it? No.

All the 3d stuff and requirements for spider-man. The camera man will use a 3d camera and the computers will take care of the rest. It doesn't matter if Webb has worked with 3d before.