The Amazing Spider-Man Kissing upside down in the rain?

[©KAW]

You obsess too much over visual effects. As I said once, I'd rather watch 1933 King Kong for the umpteenth time--stop motion, stilted dialogue and all--before I watch Avatar ever again. Or T2 for that matter.

T2 has visual effects that do stand up. They're a bit crude today, but still passable. Albeit, I think Jurassic Park had a lot more to do with breaking the door off its hinges than T2 did. It began with Young Sherlock Holmes (an utterly forgettable film), moved onto the Abyss, then T2, but the real breakthrough was Jurassic Park.

And in any case, I care about the story, not the SFX. That is why LOTR is now dated but still hugely watchable, as opposed to the Matrix films whose SFX has become dated and we realize that (at least the sequels) have terrible screenplays and a terrible lead actor.

As for T2 vs. SM2, I think both are overrated by their fans. Neither has ah uge amount of rewatch value for me. If I watch them each maybe once every 3 years (which I've learned to do with T2), it is fresh and fun in an escapist sort of way. However, if you watch them more than once in a blue moon (which I have done with each in the past) they become incredibly boring films. With that said I like Tobey Maguire's Spidey much more than Ed Furlong's John Connor. But I will concede T2 is the more influential film to cinema history. Doesn't mean I have to live though, in any case.

I'm not obsessed with Visual Effects, but if you're going to make a Spider-Man film, I want the best possible visual effects company on the job. No one is asking for perfection, just better that what we got.

I never said Jurassic Park wasn't groundbreaking stuff, indeed it is. Just that T2 visual effects holds up after 20 years, and Spider-Man's doesn't after only 2 or 3 years.

I happen to like the first Matrix, story included. Never cared for its sequels, because I thought it didn't need sequels (like ET). I said The Matrix trumps all three Spidey films in VFX, for its consistency. Not to mention, the VFX looks damn good throughout the film. LOTR VFX also holds up a lot better than Spider-Man's, as well.

There is no T2 vs. SM2, T2 would smoke Spidey, go outside these boards and test the waters. I never get bored watching the original Matrix or T2, I think they're damn good sci-fi/action films, and closer to any great comic book movies, than any super-powered comic book film I've ever seen, thus far. The very fact that we're comparing a movie's VFX that's 20 years old (T2) to a film that 6 (SM2) is very telling.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I like how you speak for everyone in the world kaw, wish we all had great taste like you.

 

[DACrowe]

I'm not obsessed with Visual Effects, but if you're going to make a Spider-Man film, I want the best possible visual effects company on the job. No one is asking for perfection, just better that what we got.

I understand your point, and it is a good one. But I was very impressed with the Spidey sequels. SM1 had bad CGI for the most part. I was underwhelmed when I saw it by the CGI and the fight choreography (albeit, the beatdown Spidey got at the end was suprirsingly brutal and shockingly believable), Thoguh I was blown away by the final swing sequence in 2002 and it still holds up pretty well.

While I wouldn't say SM2 and SM3 were the best CGI I've ever seen. And in both films there are obvious "weak shots" like when Spidey is swinging with the pizzas at the beginning of SM2 and Peter's CGI face at one point in the Harry/Gobby fight, as well as the Venom fight in SM3.

With that said Ock's look, Venom's look and Sandman's look impressed me. I thought most of the fight sequences were really impressive--most particularly the train fight in SM2 and most of the ariel fight in SM3 (Sandman would have been flawless if not for hte bad mud shot).

Still...if that is "second rate," I'll take it. ILM is supposed to be the best CGI company in the business and they've had two goes as the Hulk....and he has looked horrible in both films. I get that he is a much more complex CGI creation for most of a film than Spidey or Doc Ock. But he looked like a cartoon in both films (as did poodle dogs, the bubble, and whatever Tim Roth turned into). They also did the Star Wars prequels and all the CGI in the Spidey sequels was more believable than Yoda and all the other cartoony characters Lucas insisted on using. WETA at the beginning of the decade was supposed to have surpassed WETA with LOTR, but their next prestige project Narnia also looked worse than the Spidey sequels in terms of CGI.

The Spidey films aren't a CGI benchmark. But for their time 2 and 3 look great and are still the most viscerally impressive action sequences in a superhero movie to date. They are the benchmark for the genre in that regard.

I never said Jurassic Park wasn't groundbreaking stuff, indeed it is. Just that T2 visual effects holds up after 20 years, and Spider-Man's doesn't after only 2 or 3 years.

Agreed. Albeit, SM2 (other than the pizza scene) still looks good to me.

There is no T2 vs. SM2, T2 would smoke Spidey, go outside these boards and test the waters. I never get bored watching the original Matrix or T2, I think they're damn good sci-fi/action films, and closer to any great comic book movies, than any super-powered comic book film I've ever seen, thus far. The very fact that we're comparing a movie's VFX that's 20 years old (T2) to a film that 6 (SM2) is very telling.

To each their own. The only James Cameron movie I feel has a ton of rewatch value is Aliens. True Lies is fun, but kind of trashy. Titanic is too long. And Avatar is just too boring. His Terminator films are great, but I feel like they're similar to the Raimi Spidey movies in that they are not meant for heavy scrutiny or poking around as the story is smart...but not necessarily dense.

And I know T2 is hugely popular...albeit mostly with people who were "there" when it came out. I don't think future generations will revere it that much in the way something like Alien(s), Blade Runner, Indiana Jones, etc. hold up. They're really good at what they do and that is how I view SM2, for the record.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

This has nothing to do with the quality of film. Obviously, T2 is a better film. I'm just having a hard time believing that you legitimately think this...

is better than any of the cg from the spider-man movies, without having nostalgia cloud your judgment.

500n years ago, I felt the visual effects in the 90s movies realistic, now I find them far less realistic than the obviously not realistic looking Spider-Man movies

My sight evolved, and now I see how cheap CGI is back then

 

[Spider-Aziz]

You're very negative KAW, the movies don't deserve half the bashing you give them
Web of Shadows on the other hand...70% dreadful and 30% fun

 

[spider-neil]

personally speaking if a movie is compelling then the effects get a pass. I would rather a movie engage me first and foremost. regardless of whether I think the effects for the spidey movies are poor to average they are the movies that I watch over and over.

when you become a film maker you should never forget that most importantly you are there to tell the audience a story and everything else is secondary, effects, lighting, cinematography are just tools to get you get that story across in most engaging manner possible. directors like bay and snyder have forgotten that get get bogged down with the visuals.

 

[ModestMr.Green]

personally speaking if a movie is compelling then the effects get a pass. I would rather a movie engage me first and foremost. regardless of whether I think the effects for the spidey movies are poor to average they are the movies that I watch over and over.

when you become a film maker you should never forget that most importantly you are there to tell the audience a story and everything else is secondary, effects, lighting, cinematography are just tools to get you get that story across in most engaging manner possible. directors like bay and snyder have forgotten that get get bogged down with the visuals.

And here comes KAW to tell you about how much Raimi failed to deliver in the story aspect because of the 'All about one girl' thing. It's a losing battle here, guys.

 

[spider-neil]

And here comes KAW to tell you about how much Raimi failed to deliver in the story aspect because of the 'All about one girl' thing. It's a losing battle here, guys.

there are two ways to look at this;

a) was it a good story?

b) was it a good 'SPIDEY' story

I think 'a' is a definate yes, 'b' is debateable but coming from someone who has read spidey since he was 7 I think 'b' is a yes as well but KAW begs to differ and he is entitled to his opinion.

movie 1: story of the everyman who is given fantastic powers by a freak accident, in a moment of selfisness loses a guardian.

movie 2: powers are destroying the heroes life so gives up being a hero and the ity suffers as a result, has to take up the powers again despite give up his dreams (movie would have been better if he didn't get mj in the end to hammer home the sacrifice but I digress)

two movies that whilst not focusing on the hero 'spider-man' were utterly compelling.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Both a & b to me

 

[©KAW]

I understand your point, and it is a good one. But I was very impressed with the Spidey sequels. SM1 had bad CGI for the most part. I was underwhelmed when I saw it by the CGI and the fight choreography (albeit, the beatdown Spidey got at the end was suprirsingly brutal and shockingly believable), Thoguh I was blown away by the final swing sequence in 2002 and it still holds up pretty well.

While I wouldn't say SM2 and SM3 were the best CGI I've ever seen. And in both films there are obvious "weak shots" like when Spidey is swinging with the pizzas at the beginning of SM2 and Peter's CGI face at one point in the Harry/Gobby fight, as well as the Venom fight in SM3.

With that said Ock's look, Venom's look and Sandman's look impressed me. I thought most of the fight sequences were really impressive--most particularly the train fight in SM2 and most of the ariel fight in SM3 (Sandman would have been flawless if not for hte bad mud shot).

Still...if that is "second rate," I'll take it. ILM is supposed to be the best CGI company in the business and they've had two goes as the Hulk....and he has looked horrible in both films. I get that he is a much more complex CGI creation for most of a film than Spidey or Doc Ock. But he looked like a cartoon in both films (as did poodle dogs, the bubble, and whatever Tim Roth turned into). They also did the Star Wars prequels and all the CGI in the Spidey sequels was more believable than Yoda and all the other cartoony characters Lucas insisted on using. WETA at the beginning of the decade was supposed to have surpassed WETA with LOTR, but their next prestige project Narnia also looked worse than the Spidey sequels in terms of CGI.

The Spidey films aren't a CGI benchmark. But for their time 2 and 3 look great and are still the most viscerally impressive action sequences in a superhero movie to date. They are the benchmark for the genre in that regard.

If you look at the track records of WETA/ILM, they have achieve outstanding and groundbreaking CGI. Sure there's going to be movies, where the director treats CGI has a crutch to tell a story (points to George Lucas). But the difference is these CGI companies are the benchmark, not for a genre, but for the entire industry. There is no Spider-Man without ILM contribution to CGI, period, he'd be taking a cab everywhere he goes. I could go down the line a great films ILM was apart of (with great CGI). And for a company that hasn't been around for long, WETA has already established itself as second to (if not) a head of ILM.

My question to you is wouldn't it be better to go with the company, who has actually done groundbreaking CGI. In truth, take what Imageworks has done thus far, and figuring out how to make it better.

Agreed. Albeit, SM2 (other than the pizza scene) still looks good to me.

Nah, it's more than the Pizza scene. Unfortunately, there are scenes that shouldn't have even been CGI to begin with in all three films.

To each their own. The only James Cameron movie I feel has a ton of rewatch value is Aliens. True Lies is fun, but kind of trashy. Titanic is too long. And Avatar is just too boring. His Terminator films are great, but I feel like they're similar to the Raimi Spidey movies in that they are not meant for heavy scrutiny or poking around as the story is smart...but not necessarily dense.

I'm not going to go too much into the rewatch value of a film, especially one that's bigger that all three Spidey films combined. Let's face it, a lot of people are rewatching these said films, sometimes, far too many.

And I know T2 is hugely popular...albeit mostly with people who were "there" when it came out. I don't think future generations will revere it that much in the way something like Alien(s), Blade Runner, Indiana Jones, etc. hold up. They're really good at what they do and that is how I view SM2, for the record.

Are you serious or just trying to win a debate, T2 is revered as much as Aliens, Blade Runner and Indiana Jones. You have to be living up under a rock not to know this.

It took the The Dark Knight four years after SM2 was released, to take its crown away from him in the eyes of fanboys and the general audience, as the best comic book film. What's going to happen in the next 5 years, 10 or 15. You see, the difference between SM2 and T2, T2 ain't worried about any film taking it's crown away from it. 20 years and its still highly regarded as one of the best Sci-Fi/Action films and a pioneer film in CGI. Will SM2 have that effect in 20 years. I think not.

 

[©KAW]

And here comes KAW to tell you about how much Raimi failed to deliver in the story aspect because of the 'All about one girl' thing. It's a losing battle here, guys.

I don't have to, I have drones like you who do it for me, Thanks.

 

[chaseter]

T2 is loved but I don't think it is revered as much as Aliens or Indiana Jones. I mean really...Aliens and Indiana Jones are way better than T2.

 

[El Payaso]

T2 is loved but I don't think it is revered as much as Aliens or Indiana Jones. I mean really...Aliens and Indiana Jones are way better than T2.

I don't remember much of Aliens but Jones has never amazed me whereas T2 is still a magnificent sci-fi movie.

 

[NinjaCarm]

I agree with the notion that visual effects today do not feel all that tangible, why did effects in some films of the 90s look better than stuff now?

It's a pathetic reality. Thank goodness companys like WETA are around that incoporate photo realistic type effects in their films without feeling ungenuine.

I don't know if you all remember the first Spider-Man 2 teaser, the last scene of Spider-Man swinging towards Doc Ock... looked very photo realistic and incredible.

Before you know it in the actual film it was changed and looked different and you can tell it was special effects. What happened there? What was the problem on that shot that they needed to change that. It was great.

 

[chaseter]

I don't remember much of Aliens but Jones has never amazed me whereas T2 is still a magnificent sci-fi movie.

Crusade is such a grand, epic adventure. You are crazy

 

[Sentinel X]

Believe it.

Again with the still pictures, I remember the movie well, the visual effects are better and more consistent throughout than any of the Spider-Man films. Sony Imageworks don't believe in consistency. Would you like me to put a still picture of a claymation looking Spider-Man running on the roof after Uncle Ben's killer. Or that awful scene with Spidey holding the pizza. Come on, Raimi lover, good luck with convincing anyone outside of SuperHeroHype or the Sony Boards that any Spider-Man film trumps Terminator 2 in any conceivable way.

Nostalgia has nothing to do with it, Spider-Man having a lame visual effect company does. A company that producing effects that don't hold up 2 or 3 years later.

Ouch...you called me a "raimi lover"...that one stings

Anyways, sure go ahead....post these pictures in which T2 has waaaayyyy better cg as you imply. Im curious to see these myself.

T2 is loved but I don't think it is revered as much as Aliens or Indiana Jones. I mean really...Aliens and Indiana Jones are way better than T2.

T2 is considered a classic and from the people I've know, it seems to be much more well known than either of those films. Besides Indiana Jones is not that great ....but I dont want to get on a tangent.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

wait...so I post a picture of SM3's CGI, and its only for still pictures but not the product...then kaw wants to post a picture?

 

[©KAW]

Ouch...you called me a "raimi lover"...that one stings

It's short and to the point like "Raimi Hater." I think it's cute.

Anyways, sure go ahead....post these pictures in which T2 has waaaayyyy better cg as you imply. Im curious to see these myself.

To hell with pictures, watch the movie as a whole. The problems or grandness occurs not in still pictures, but the way it looks and moves visually on screen with its environment and to the situation in a particular scene. Lack of consistancy is my biggest problem with Spider-Man.

wait...so I post a picture of SM3's CGI, and its only for still pictures but not the product...then kaw wants to post a picture?

What is it with you all and still pictures, if that's the case, Venom looks great. Until the MoFo starts to move, then he, like Spider-Man, turns into a cartoonish shiny claymation type figure that shame production values.

 

[spider-neil]

KAW is right in that it is pointless posting still pictures of CG, it's only when you see models in motion does it pass the test of being photo realistic

 

[Doctor Jones]

I think we should all just CGI ourselves and see how real we look.

 

[El Payaso]

Crusade is such a grand, epic adventure. You are crazy

To me they all look like "Montezuma" the movie. t:

I'm kidding. I must have seen the Jones movies like once each (except the last one). I barely remember them except that Jones would always lose his hat and recover it in the last second or so.

 

[DACrowe]

If you look at the track records of WETA/ILM, they have achieve outstanding and groundbreaking CGI. Sure there's going to be movies, where the director treats CGI has a crutch to tell a story (points to George Lucas). But the difference is these CGI companies are the benchmark, not for a genre, but for the entire industry. There is no Spider-Man without ILM contribution to CGI, period, he'd be taking a cab everywhere he goes. I could go down the line a great films ILM was apart of (with great CGI). And for a company that hasn't been around for long, WETA has already established itself as second to (if not) a head of ILM.

Woah...doggy. I was not dissing ILM. But BTW do you work there because if you do...this all make sense now!

I know ILM made the original Star Wars and broke the ground that was Abyss, T2 and Jurassic Park. Blah blah blah. I was just saying that that doesn't mean Spidey's CGI was the pits (well maybe the first one's was...but still). I stand by the CGI in SM2 and SM3 was better than the Star Wars prequels and Ang Lee's Hulk from the same time period (which you can say was not using it as a crutch) or from TIH for that matter that came out after SM3. And it was more impressive than WETA's non-LOTR and KK efforts (Narnia movies).

So...to say that it just sucks seems to have little to do with anything other than hatred for the effects company. SMy point was it still looks better than some of ILM and WETA's work to, which means that they must have been doing something right (SM2 won an Oscar for special effects, if I recall).

Nah, it's more than the Pizza scene. Unfortunately, there are scenes that shouldn't have even been CGI to begin with in all three films.

Well none that bothered me or anybody else, it seems. I do agree that there were shots that didn't need to be CGI in all three. But if we want to talk about unnecessary CGI let's pull up ILM's efforts in Indy IV with the gophers and monkeys or basically anything Lucas has done since CGI was created.

Are you serious or just trying to win a debate, T2 is revered as much as Aliens, Blade Runner and Indiana Jones. You have to be living up under a rock not to know this.

No, I was stating my opinion. And I don't think the Terminator movies are as revered as Blade Runner or Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Jaws, etc. By that people still freak about three Star Wars prequels even though each one was a disappointment or Indy IV was treated like the return of cinematic royalty. Last I checked Terminator 3 squeaked by the BO and T4 bombed, while they made a short-lived TV show based on it that got canceled. So I really do not think that Terminator is held in the same breath as Speilberg and Lucas's classics by younger generations. Hence why people still want more SW and Indy, even if they didn't like the previous installments. A report about a Jaws remake is treated with amazing hostility from the mainstream, while "rebooting" Terminator excites what few fans are sticking with the franchise--albeit, Terminator is struggling to find a studio.

It took the The Dark Knight four years after SM2 was released, to take its crown away from him in the eyes of fanboys and the general audience, as the best comic book film. What's going to happen in the next 5 years, 10 or 15. You see, the difference between SM2 and T2, T2 ain't worried about any film taking it's crown away from it. 20 years and its still highly regarded as one of the best Sci-Fi/Action films and a pioneer film in CGI. Will SM2 have that effect in 20 years. I think not.

I never said T2 wasn't more influential. T2 is a technical achievement that was one of the CGI pioneers. Dodge City was one of the pioneers of technicolor too in 1939. But that doesn't put it in the same league as Wizard of Oz or Gone With the Wind, same with T2 with Jurassic Park. I don't think Terminator is getting any new fans because while hugely impressive to children of the '80s and '90s, the effects are dated and the messiah story of JOhn Connor isn't as amazing as some make it out to be.

And in the day it is personal taste. I agree T2 will live on as a benchmark technical film further than SM2. But I still find it a cold movie that is entertaining on a visceral level, but I don't care about the characters anymore (and probably less) than the ones in SM2. Avatar will be remembered as a technical and financial achievement for all time in 2009...but I still thought District 9 was better or Up in the Air for that matter. And Inglourious Basterds. And An Education. And....most popular does not mean I like it the best.

 

[Silvermoth]

I think we should all just CGI ourselves and see how real we look.

 

[PSYLENTGuardian]

How did a topic about a make-out scene turn into the HQ for all things CGI?

 

[spider-neil]

that picture looks like the unicorn is having a dump