The Amazing Spider-Man Less CG, More STUNTS In Amazing Spider-Man

[Oscorp]

I love the sound of this.

I really like what's said here:

"But Andrew is 100 percent game, and if he’s not shooting on the main unit, he’ll be on my unit. Even if he’s not called! He’ll be on my unit looking at what we’re doing. We discuss it, and we talk about the Spider-Man poses and thing."

 

[The Joker]

This is great news. In Spider-Man 2 they used real puppeteer tentacles as much as possible with Doc Ock which is why the always looked so authentic.

More of this kind of technique for Spidey would be most welcome

 

[Ajendo]

Garfield in the mould of Daniel Day Lewis?????

Hmmm sounds like we wont be getting no frequent stupid, ugly cry baby, stare in to space moments. Finally some real solid acting that can convey spider-man and his world the way its meant to be and not some dry, pathetic oversilliness.

As for the effects. I'm glad we have people who at least pretend to know what they're talking about. The use of cg in Raimi's movies was overused and mismanaged and that is a fact. Finally we have a crew that can utilise CG as a tool to aid what's going on instead of dumping cg effects all over the place to try and mask their incompetencies.

 

[Batspider77]

Garfield in the mould of Daniel Day Lewis?????

Hmmm sounds like we wont be getting no frequent stupid, ugly cry baby, stare in to space moments. Finally some real solid acting that can convey spider-man and his world the way its meant to be and not some dry, pathetic oversilliness.

As for the effects. I'm glad we have people who at least pretend to know what they're talking about. The use of cg in Raimi's movies was overused and mismanaged and that is a fact. Finally we have a crew that can utilise CG as a tool to aid what's going on instead of dumping cg effects all over the place to try and mask their incompetencies.

Well said.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Garfield in the mould of Daniel Day Lewis?????

Hmmm sounds like we wont be getting no frequent stupid, ugly cry baby, stare in to space moments. Finally some real solid acting that can convey spider-man and his world the way its meant to be and not some dry, pathetic oversilliness.

As for the effects. I'm glad we have people who at least pretend to know what they're talking about. The use of cg in Raimi's movies was overused and mismanaged and that is a fact. Finally we have a crew that can utilise CG as a tool to aid what's going on instead of dumping cg effects all over the place to try and mask their incompetencies.

While I agree that CGI was over used in SM1-3, you (and others) make it sound as though CGI is some rudimentary movie technique that only takes a few key strokes and BAM! you got your scene, thus equating to its use as a sign of a lazy and useless film(maker). CGI is just as a labor intensive, thoughtful, problem causing (and solving), artistic medium as any other tool in the film-making tool shed. You can’t tarnish the idea of CGI (and its artists) just because we feel it is used too heavily in a film. And yes, we can all agree that SM1-3 used too much CG, but calling the those who work with and use CGI as incompetent is simply juvenile and kind of ignorant. Keep in mind that the Raimi flicks had their fair share of practical effects (one of which, if I’m not mistaken was the highest fall for a stuntman to land on record – when Peter jumps down to the alley to see if Harry is ok), so they had a clue as to what they were doing.

It remains to be seen how this movie’s use of cgi and practical effects will look. It is a very good possibility that we’ll find ourselves with the same issue Raimi had but in reverse: the practical effects could look incredibly poor and we could be sitting here complaining that they didn’t use enough CGI.

CGI has its place. Right next to practical effects, miniatures, wirework, puppetry and editing. Neither should be placed on a pedestal above the others. And no artist/director should be slammed for their ARTISTIC CHOICE to use the tools at their disposal.

 

[chaseter]

LOTR had a ton of cgi in it but those movies are amazing. It's just how well you do the cgi. Same for the Pirates movie. Davey Jones was 100% cgi and he looked frackin amazing.

I am also cornfused at the sudden emergence of the all practical no cgi movement on here. Did any of these people think that maybe they are doing a ton of practical work because the budget is only 80 million? While I like practical effects, a mixture of practical and cgi is the best when portraying fantastic creatures, superheroes, etc. If we never see Spider-Man swinging high above the city because they wanted to go all practical and Spider-Man isn't jumping around doing awesome acrobatics but instead is street running because parkour is the cool thing now then I will be sad.

 

[Mako]

This is great news. In Spider-Man 2 they used real puppeteer tentacles as much as possible with Doc Ock which is why the always looked so authentic.

More of this kind of technique for Spidey would be most welcome

It certainly is

 

[Mary Jane Watson]

Realism Spider Man? No thanks.

 

[Mako]

So using practical effects rather than visual effects automatically means the film is grounded in realism ?

 

[©KAW]

He's use to crap worthy cartoonish CGI in Spider-Man. Sadly enough, even though it will be a blend of CGI/Practical--leaning more towards practical. We still have Hollywood's worst CGI company (Sony Imageworks) working on the film. That still can't be good.

 

[socool]

He's use to crap worthy cartoonish CGI in Spider-Man. Sadly enough, even though it will be a blend of CGI/Practical--leaning more towards practical. We still have Hollywood's worst CGI company (Sony Imageworks) working on the film. That still can't be good.

Just when I start agreeing with you, you say something like this. Sony Imageworks is the worst? Really? So all those movie with really bad effects were done by Imageworks? C'mon dude, they are mediocre, but that bad? No.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Sony Imagewords bad? They won an Oscar for S-M2. That's saying something.

 

[socool]

Sony Imagewords bad? They won an Oscar for S-M2. That's saying something.

He thinks they won by default...

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

He thinks they won by default...

*sigh*

 

[©KAW]

They did win by default, Lord of the Rings (WETA) would have kicked SM2's ass. They lucked out (said by Sony's head of visual effects) because LOTR wasn't released that year as planned. Google the acceptance speech if you don't believe me.

 

[Mary Jane Watson]

So using practical effects rather than visual effects automatically means the film is grounded in realism ?

Yup. Come on, you know that Spidey`s agility and reflexes are far superior to those of an ordinary human,. Now, We might will see Spider man on `high human reflexes and agility`. It worried me alot.

 

[©KAW]

There's camera tricks for that, speed up the background to capture his swiftness. I'm just sick of always seeing that wet claymation looking CGI instead of Spider-Man.

 

[Batman137]

This is good news..Good news indeed

 

[Mary Jane Watson]

There's camera tricks for that, speed up the background to capture his swiftness. I'm just sick of always seeing that wet claymation looking CGI instead of Spider-Man.

Sorry, I still have a funny feeling about that. It is like my spider sense is tingling.

 

[chaseter]

If I see Spider-Man chasing down a villain using parkour I am going to throw popcorn at the screen. Spider-Man can jump 20 feet in the air, run on walls, and swing...he doesn't parkour.

 

[Mary Jane Watson]

If I see Spider-Man chasing down a villain using parkour I am going to throw popcorn at the screen. Spider-Man can jump 20 feet in the air, run on walls, and swing...he doesn't parkour.

This.

 

[BattleCat]

And that's the truth, with some cheese on it!

If I see Spider-Man chasing down a villain using parkour I am going to throw popcorn at the screen. Spider-Man can jump 20 feet in the air, run on walls, and swing...he doesn't parkour.

 

[Catman]

Sony Imagewords bad? They won an Oscar for S-M2. That's saying something.

They won for two reasons. One, it was a weak year for visual effects. And two, the train fight was AMAZING.

 

[BattleCat]

What you stated as "facts" is actually, just your opinion. Now, that's a fact.

Garfield in the mould of Daniel Day Lewis?????

Hmmm sounds like we wont be getting no frequent stupid, ugly cry baby, stare in to space moments. Finally some real solid acting that can convey spider-man and his world the way its meant to be and not some dry, pathetic oversilliness.

As for the effects. I'm glad we have people who at least pretend to know what they're talking about. The use of cg in Raimi's movies was overused and mismanaged and that is a fact. Finally we have a crew that can utilise CG as a tool to aid what's going on instead of dumping cg effects all over the place to try and mask their incompetencies.

 

[TomPiltoff]

This article makes me worry.

Spider-Man is a ridiculously agile, acrobatic freakshow. He can do things no other human being can do. That requires CG.

Whatever you think of the Raimi films, they nailed how Spider-Man should move through the air. Things like zipping through that tiny space on the 18-wheeler, or jumping into the train and swinging on the pole? Perfect.