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

[Spider-Ranger]

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

The same way every other thread turns into a TDK discussion..

 

[Silvermoth]

that picture looks like the unicorn is having a dump

THAT'S HER TAIL!!!!

 

[Spider-Aziz]

The same way every other thread turns into a TDK discussion..

Damn, comparing that movie to every other action movie is boring

 

[©KAW]

Nah, just most of Marvel movies, unfortunately.

 

[©KAW]

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).

No one is saying ILM or WETA don't have a few clunker CGI films. Spider-Man 2 and 3 was no better than ILM worst work HULK/Star War Prequels, they all suffered from cartoonish looking CGI or a bunch of inconsistencies throughout their films. You can't compare Spider-Man with their (WETA/ILM's) best work, and to me, you should be able to.

The problem is, Sony Imageworks has never created groundbreaking CGI.

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).

No, it doesn't. Spider-Man competes with the worst of ILM/WETA, not the best. I feel it should compete with their best films. And if I recall, and I do, Spider-Man 2 won an Oscar for special effects because Lord of the Rings didn't come out that year. If it did, Spider-Man 2 would have lost. Even SM2's own VFX supervisor thanked LOTR for not coming out that year--because he knew his ass was gonna be grass if it did. So basically, LOTR gave Spidey his win.

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.

Hey, I'm one of those people who thinks that ILM's best work has nothing to do with Star Wars, although it's where the creating and pioneering was born. This has more to do with Lucas being obsessed with CGI and using it as a crutch. This takes nothing away from the fact that ILM has created many groundbreaking CGI.

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.

Boy, it's as if very little thought goes into what you post. No one wanted Terminator 3 because it wasn't being written and directed by James Cameron. That's why T1/T2 is so revered, not to mention, Cameron had said that the story was finished with T2, he had nothing else to tell. Fans/general audience knew that T3 was just a money scheme from FOX. Most importantly, they knew that the heart and soul and brain (James Cameron) wasn't apart of it--and that trend continues.

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.

T2 Impressive only to "children" of the 80s/90s, say what? It's an R-rated movie, and has fans of all ages, it's constantly being shown on television and cable non-stop for a whole new generation. Adults, kids, Sci-Fi and action movie lovers alike love the film, just Google the damn thing. And T2 was a pioneer in CGI before Jurassic Park, and still is, Jurassic Park can't take that away from it--no matter how great its achievements were. T2 is no where near, not even close, to being as dated in visual effects as all three Spider-Man films.

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.

The highlighted part is king, and pretty much sums up and ends our debate.

Now, back to Spider-Man's 50 Year iconic legacy in the art of the upside down kissy face.

 

[DACrowe]

I just want to briefly clarify a few things, if you don't mind teacher.

No one is saying ILM or WETA don't have a few clunker CGI films. Spider-Man 2 and 3 was no better than ILM worst work HULK/Star War Prequels, they all suffered from cartoonish looking CGI or a bunch of inconsistencies throughout their films. You can't compare Spider-Man with their (WETA/ILM's) best work, and to me, you should be able to.

The problem is, Sony Imageworks has never created groundbreaking CGI.

No, it doesn't. Spider-Man competes with the worst of ILM/WETA, not the best. I feel it should compete with their best films. And if I recall, and I do, Spider-Man 2 won an Oscar for special effects because Lord of the Rings didn't come out that year. If it did, Spider-Man 2 would have lost. Even SM2's own VFX supervisor thanked LOTR for not coming out that year--because he knew his ass was gonna be grass if it did. So basically, LOTR gave Spidey his win.

Hey, I'm one of those people who thinks that ILM's best work has nothing to do with Star Wars, although it's where the creating and pioneering was born. This has more to do with Lucas being obsessed with CGI and using it as a crutch. This takes nothing away from the fact that ILM has created many groundbreaking CGI.

Eh. My point was you say they did a bad job on the Spidey films but I thought they were better than most of ILM's groundbreaking films from the same timeframe (CGI Yoda, Hulk, PIrate skeletons). In fact, the years of the Spidey films which were 2002-2007, the only thing ILM did that surpassed the Spidey sequels was Davy Jones. Everything else was beneath the level of quality of SM2/3's CGI. So...saying that it wasn't the caliber of ILM's masterworks of the '90s is irrelevant. During the time the Spidey trilogy was produced, two-thirds of it was superior to ILM's best efforts at the same time.

And insulting Spidey because LOTR didn't come out is lame. LOTR was great, but it ended. Spidey 2 still had the best CGI of 2004 (despite ILM's "best efforts" of I, Robot and whatever else they did that year). WETA also hasn't reached LOTR's level since. You're just complaining to complain.

Boy, it's as if very little thought goes into what you post. No one wanted Terminator 3 because it wasn't being written and directed by James Cameron. That's why T1/T2 is so revered, not to mention, Cameron had said that the story was finished with T2, he had nothing else to tell. Fans/general audience knew that T3 was just a money scheme from FOX. Most importantly, they knew that the heart and soul and brain (James Cameron) wasn't apart of it--and that trend continues.

T2 Impressive only to "children" of the 80s/90s, say what? It's an R-rated movie, and has fans of all ages, it's constantly being shown on television and cable non-stop for a whole new generation. Adults, kids, Sci-Fi and action movie lovers alike love the film, just Google the damn thing. And T2 was a pioneer in CGI before Jurassic Park, and still is, Jurassic Park can't take that away from it--no matter how great its achievements were. T2 is no where near, not even close, to being as dated in visual effects as all three Spider-Man films.

And Dodge City came out before Gone with the Wind. But Gone with the Wind pushed the medium further and was a great movie. That is why it is remembered and has new fans every generation and Dodge City does not. When I say children, I mean young people. If you were between 3 and 35 when those films came out (the target demographics being in there or growing into them) you loved the films. But T2 is gaining no new fans. It isn't a film that is being passed down from one generation to the next. It is a technical achievement. But the reason the Terminator films are no longer popular is because the "coolness" of the effects wore off when everybody was doing them and new generations have no sense of reverence to the franchise. They do for Indy, Star Wars and Jaws. Why? They're better movies that outlive their special effects as time passes and they get dated. Same applies to Jurassic Park.

And don't hide behind James Cameron left. Target audiences (teenagers and young people) in the mainstream don't know who directed the Terminator films. They're the Arnold Swarzzahgngger movies where he has a metal face. They just don't care anymore.

The highlighted part is king, and pretty much sums up and ends our debate.

Now, back to Spider-Man's 50 Year iconic legacy in the art of the upside down kissy face.

That's nice. I don't care if it is a more technically important film. I care which one I enjoy watching more. They're about the same. But I give SM2 the edge, because Peter Parker is more interesting than anybody in Team Connor, in my opinion. SM2's effects are dated, but I can still enjoy the movie's better aspects. T2's effects are dated and its flaws are therefore more glaring to see.

 

[The Bruce]

Osborn banging Gwen how's that for iconic? The Osborn "O face" still hunts me

 

[ModestMr.Green]

Osborn banging Gwen how's that for iconic? The Osborn "O face" still hunts me

And what a thrilling hunt it must be.