The Amazing Spider-Man The Official Marc Webb Thread

[©KAW]

double post

 

[Retroman]

Webb is proficient in the use of visual effects. A number of his music videos have lots of fx shots which have helped win him awards.

I'm still not on board with the idea of a reboot but i think Webb (how ironic) deserves a chance to prove himself. He's certainly got a big job on his hands taking over from Raimi, proving the sceptics wrong and directing his first big budget feature of a franchise that's already worth billions.

It's good to read (if that rumor is true) that he will be Spider-Man from page one though i'm a little worried that their focus is Ultimate Spider-Man. Recalling the few issues i've read from that series i hope they don't draw too much inspiration from that incarnation. The 80 million budget is another thing that worries me because there's only so much you can pull off without the use of (expensive) CG. Especially if they are throwing a couple classic Spidey villains in the mix.

Now i need to rent 500 Days of Summer on dvd this weekend to see what all the fuss is about.

 

[©KAW]

Spider-man had a $139 Million budget.
Spider-man 2 had a $200 Million budget.
Spider-man 3 had a $258 Million budget.

All of this money, 597M in budget money to be exact, and the Spider-Man movies has some of the most crap-worthy CGI/Visual Effects you'd ever expect to see in a big-budget film. Maybe now that they only have 80M to work with, someone will actually have to be 'CREATIVE' for the first time in this franchise's history.

Besides the train scene in SM2 and the birth of Sandman, everything else in this series' VFX was mediocre at best.

For goodness sake Sony, your Sony Imageworks studio sucks, if you want quality VFX take the film to WETA (Lord of the Rings, Avatar) special effect company where James Cameron's new technology resides. Your company is mediocre, we don't have time for you to play catch up, get some professionals for Spider-Man.

 

[Octoberist]

Maybe it's time to get WETA or ILM or even Double Negative to do the CGI.

BTW, i love 500 days of Summer. go marc webb!

 

[Octoberist]

has anyone mentioned that Richard Donner just had The Omen under his belt before tackling Superman?

 

[Scarlet Spider]

has anyone mentioned that Richard Donner just had The Omen under his belt before tackling Superman?

Richard Donner's only big hit pre-Superman, was a horror film. Most of his prior experience came from television. Donner had a very distinct personality though. He took the job of making a Superman film, very seriously. He saw it as protecting a piece of Americana.

 

[craigdbfan]

His first film X-15 a movie based on a pilots who had to test out rocket planes, which obviously dealt with flying. He was familiar with filming said object through the sky.

Superman deals with a super hero who's main ability is flight. Donner was hired for Superman due to his background with special effects and how he dealt with flying in that very movie.

He also made a comedy afterwards and then The Omen.

Again Marc Webb has only shown that he is really good at directing a "love" story and handling characters masterfully.

We still have no idea how he will handle the special effect duties that will come with the Spidey reboot.

Just to keep things in perspective. Its a legitimate point to worry about.

 

[spider-neil]

if you are giving the effects to ILM/weta just hand over the entire 80m budget.

anyway, the reason the SM movies are so expensive is its shot in new york.

 

[hatebox]

Let's face it, Sony are hoping they've found their own Christopher Nolan in this guy. But even (or especially) compared Nolan, Webb's got a hell of a lot to live up to.

 

[The Caped Knight]

I hope its more Spectacular Spider-Man than Ultimate Spider-Man.

Spectacular did a brilliant job of mixing 616, Ultimate, Raimi, and 90's Animated to create one of the best iteration of the characters yet.

If Marc can pull all that off then he's got a winner.

My thoughts exactly .

 

[Retroman]

Just look at some of the music videos Webb has directed over the past decade or so. Effects aren't really alien to him guys but i do agree that 80 million is pretty measly in this day and age. If he can actually make that work and give us a great Spider-Man movie more power to him but i have my doubts.

http://www.marcwebb.com/

 

[rocco2216]

Exactly, no one knows what any director or actor for that matter is capable of. I mean Christopher Nolan thought outside the box when he cast Heath Ledger as the Joker. People thought he lost it lol.

 

[<(o_o)>]

Just look at some of the music videos Webb has directed over the past decade or so. Effects aren't really alien to him guys but i do agree that 80 million is pretty measly in this day and age. If he can actually make that work and give us a great Spider-Man movie more power to him but i have my doubts.

http://www.marcwebb.com/

That does seem really low for a big budget movie that should cost at least twice as much than what they were given. I hope it isn't true but maybe Sony want to do a CGI Spider-Man cartoon movie instead of live action movie.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I don't think the 80 million number is true.
Can an 80 million SPidey movie work ?
Yes if you don't have spidey swinging thru NY , have a gritty look a la D9 to hide imperfections , not shoot in the states and keep your VFX grounded. And not grounded in reality but grounded as in not having grand sweeping shots but small stuff.

That stuff just won't work with an audience that's have witnessed Raimi's last 3 films. Regardless of how people on this ( and another) forum(s) feel about the quality of the VFX , no one can deny that the movies were enjoyable to the general audience. IF that wasn't the case those movies wouldn't have brought in billions on dollars. The VFX were big massive shots that cost a crapload of money.

Wise lesson here : You have to spend money to make money.
Even a "small" movie like Watchmen ( if you compare the scale with stuff like King Kong , Superman Returns , Iron Man , Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions) with no name actors cost 130 million.

I can't see the reboot costing LESS then 180 million which is what i think the article should've posted.


Also yay for Webb. I was getting sick of "rain drops keep falling on my head " and peter's emo look anyway

 

[dark_b]

Sure thing Maze.

80 million is very low but they can make it work.

how?

district 9 and other similar movies are bad examples.

 

[matrix_ghost]

if you are giving the effects to ILM/weta just hand over the entire 80m budget.

anyway, the reason the SM movies are so expensive is its shot in new york.

Oh yes.
Like doing having virtual humans douking it out in virtual cities with sweeping camera moves is cheap....

C'mon. The VFX for these movies are huge and expensive. Spiderman 2 VFX budget alone cost more then then production costs ( which includes paying NY to shoot the movie there).

 

[dark_b]

I don't think the 80 million number is true.
Can an 80 million SPidey movie work ?
Yes if you don't have spidey swinging thru NY , have a gritty look a la D9 to hide imperfections , not shoot in the states and keep your VFX grounded. And not grounded in reality but grounded as in not having grand sweeping shots but small stuff.

That stuff just won't work with an audience that's have witnessed Raimi's last 3 films. Regardless of how people on this ( and another) forum(s) feel about the quality of the VFX , no one can deny that the movies were enjoyable to the general audience. IF that wasn't the case those movies wouldn't have brought in billions on dollars. The VFX were big massive shots that cost a crapload of money.

Wise lesson here : You have to spend money to make money.
Even a "small" movie like Watchmen ( if you compare the scale with stuff like King Kong , Superman Returns , Iron Man , Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions) with no name actors cost 130 million.

I can't see the reboot costing LESS then 180 million which is what i think the article should've posted.


Also yay for Webb. I was getting sick of "rain drops keep falling on my head " and peter's emo look anyway

i agree 100%.

 

[ultimatefan]

First of all, this 80 million budget story is most likely BS. It´s not even big enough for a Sherlock Holmes movie these days. Sony reportedly wanted to spend 200m on the next Spidey movie. It´s still their flagship franchise, they won´t pull stops on it. They´re already saving money by getting a newcomer director and most likely unknown actors so they can spend more on FX and stuff.

I can´t comment on Webb´s film directing - haven´t seen 500 Days Of Summer yet- but I´m happy they went with the same tradition as a Chris Nolan or a Pete Jackson, a director who comes to big budget blockbusters with an indie filmmaking sensibility, instead of some action hack who just knows to shoot explosions,.

 

[spider-neil]

how?

district 9 and other similar movies are bad examples.

district 9 wasn't shot in new york.
the prawns are in essense tall humans not a superhuman, totally different type of dynamic

 

[©KAW]

It means they're going to have to be a hell of a lot more creative. Although I personally don't believe the budget that's being reported, and assume it will be debunked soon. But I like the idea of a much lower budget, I happen to think Raimi & Co. (Sony Imageworks) did horrible job on the visual effects (minus the train scene and the birth of Sandman) Spider-Man films should have been groundbreaking on all levels. They had the money and three movies to produce groundbreaking visual effects and failed to do it.

Spider-Man's VFX are already outdated. There's better stuff in other big-budget movies. I still think to this day, there is no comic book movie that I have seen that's better than "THE MATRIX" visual effects even today. Same can be said for "TERMINATOR 2". Still light years beyond anything in Spider-Man. Which is a shame.

And the reason why is simple, Sony doesn't believe in quality, they will not go where there is much better visual effects (WETA, ILM, Digital Domain, etc.). They're greedy and want to keep Spider-Man for themselves, even if it mean the quality will suffer, and if Sony Imageworks is doing the VFX, you can just bet it will suffer.

 

[night0205]

Terminator 2 is credible because it was the first real focus on CGI in a film, after Abyss, and it led the way for Jurassic Park being the way it was, but there is no way in hell Terminator 2 has better CGI then any of the Spider-man movies. And Matrix, while an AMAZING FILM, has some CGI parts that are outdated as well, but so does Spider-man so I kind of see your point... However, even today, Jurassic Park has some of the best Special Effects I've seen... That movie blows me away.

You can do a lot with a low budget, HOWEVER, you need TIME to do it, and TIME is something that Webb does not have. One of the reasons why Lord of the Rings was so groundbreaking was because they spent seven years straight just working on CGI. Also, WETA is ran by Peter Jackson, so he can use it however he likes, while someone who doesn't own their own Special Effects company has to pay high price for CGI shots.

 

[matrix_ghost]

First of all, this 80 million budget story is most likely BS. It´s not even big enough for a Sherlock Holmes movie these days. Sony reportedly wanted to spend 200m on the next Spidey movie. It´s still their flagship franchise, they won´t pull stops on it.

I can´t comment on Webb´s film directing - haven´t seen 500 Days Of Summer yet- but I´m happy they went with the same tradition as a Chris Nolan or a Pete Jackson, a director who comes to big budget blockbusters with an indie filmmaking sensibility, instead of some action hack who just knows to shoot explosions,.

Exactly.
Each spidey movie has made over 300 million in the states alone .
And 'people forgot that its not the stars that make audiences want to see the movie , it's the name of the character. Spider-man
And you don't make a 80 million psider-man with half assed VFX

Plus considering that the studio has a script and a director , i think we'll see them finalising a cast very soon. Sony is seriously considering to shoot this movie in 3-d . Its still a question if sony is going to shoot the entire movie in stereoscopic 3d ( which i what i prefer) or convert the entire movie in 3d ( which IMO isn't the smart thing to do) however either way it's going to take longer hence why they need to start shooting this year .
Shooting a movie in stereo means that images need to created twice ( for the right and left eye) whereas conversions also take up time.

 

[rocco2216]

First of all, this 80 million budget story is most likely BS. It´s not even big enough for a Sherlock Holmes movie these days. Sony reportedly wanted to spend 200m on the next Spidey movie. It´s still their flagship franchise, they won´t pull stops on it. They´re already saving money by getting a newcomer director and most likely unknown actors so they can spend more on FX and stuff.

I can´t comment on Webb´s film directing - haven´t seen 500 Days Of Summer yet- but I´m happy they went with the same tradition as a Chris Nolan or a Pete Jackson, a director who comes to big budget blockbusters with an indie filmmaking sensibility, instead of some action hack who just knows to shoot explosions,.

Sherlock Holmes's budget was 80 million though

 

[dark_b]

i understand that with greenscreen and really a small director you can saev money. but 80 millions? i think not even 100 millions is enough to make a movie that will be on the same level like Spiderman 2 . i am talking about the scope. not the quality of realism.

 

[craigdbfan]

In this day in age both have to be up to par if you want to make close to a billion in the BO.

Thats why the $80 million is absolutely stupid. It will not work.

$150 in the least for rebooted Spider-Man. He is still incredibly popular and worth a lot to Sony.

I can't see why they'd go to $80 mil. It doesn't make any sense.

Hopefully that report is complete bogus.