Things you noticed for the first time on DVD

[Lantern Venom]

Didn't that whole Venom and Sandman thing only happen in like 2000 when Venom came back in the relaunch of the Spider-Man comics? Hardly guys who were always at odds.

That was the major interaction between the two in the comics' history. They didn't have much interaction before the Reformed Sinister 6 saga.

Anyways, I agree they team up too quickly, but I can justify one of your points by saying Marko can be taken as secondary person in a pair. I mean, who seems more the the leader of him and the Burglar who robbed the wrestling place? Probably the robber, and Marko was convinced into doing it (due to his daughter).

However, the team up occurs quickly, but Sandman acting as a 2nd party seemed very in character for that version of Marko.

The character may have had continuity with the retconned Uncle Ben killing but even that seems wrong to me. He's one of the most powerful Spidey villians and he's never been a brainless henchman. It seems more logical that a marquee villian would want to be in control rather than being led.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The character may have had continuity with the retconned Uncle Ben killing but even that seems wrong to me. He's one of the most powerful Spidey villians and he's never been a brainless henchman. It seems more logical that a marquee villian would want to be in control rather than being led.

Sandman has always been more of a pawn. Look at the original Sinister Six and the 2nd incarnation...Ock was in charge, and though Sandman tried to rebel in the 2nd SS story, he was being pushed around. It is an accurate portrayel as I see it.

 

[Vaportrail]

Something I noticed:

They say that you should out-do yourself with your sequels.
Spidey 1: Peter's mask is destroyed by a pumpkin bomb.
Spidey 2: Peter's mask is burned by sparks, forcing him to remove it. Puts it back on, only to rip it off and reveal his identity to his villain.
Spidey 3: Villain rips off mask, drops it. Peter puts it on. Villain 2 pounds on him, ripping it up. Villain smacks Peter in the face, ripping mask off again.

Eh.
I think it'd be alright to leave it on once in a while. He really did take his mask off a lot in this movie. It bugged me a bit the first time I saw it too. Like, he fights Sandman in the armored car, then hops up onto a building and takes it off. He's standing over a crowd WAITING FOR HIM TO SHOW UP, and isn't even wearing it yet.

This is New York City. There's people. Like, lots of them. Not too smart, Parker.

-Vaportrail

 

[<(o_o)>]

Does anyone get horizontal lines through their screen during the news footage scenes in Spider-Man 3? I noticed this when watching the Blu-Ray disc version but they weren't in the dvd version. Does anyone else experience this with their Blu-Ray disc?

 

[kward711]

Does anyone get horizontal lines through their screen during the news footage scenes in Spider-Man 3? I noticed this when watching the Blu-Ray disc version but they weren't in the dvd version. Does anyone else experience this with their Blu-Ray disc?

yes. You can see on blu-ray because the picture is sharper. Its to make the Newscast seem more TV like.

 

[d.k.]

Does anyone get horizontal lines through their screen during the news footage scenes in Spider-Man 3? I noticed this when watching the Blu-Ray disc version but they weren't in the dvd version. Does anyone else experience this with their Blu-Ray disc?

Yeah
It's not just on blu ray though
It was visible (to me at least) in the theatres and on my 480p tv ha

 

[Jspider13]

I have noticed that a lot of the visual fx, character animation, compositing was a bit sloppy, looked like a lot of the artists got really lazy.

 

[kward711]

I have noticed that a lot of the visual fx, character animation, compositing was a bit sloppy, looked like a lot of the artists got really lazy.

well they did spend 2 years on the birth of sandman scene.

 

[Jspider13]

well they did spend 2 years on the birth of sandman scene.

...and?

 

[Blader5489]

...and?

He is saying that the best CG in the film took an extraordinary amount of time to make, which is why it looks so much better than the rest of the film's CG.

Still, all of the CG in SM3 is leagues better than the fx in SM1 and 2, especially the first movie.

 

[kward711]

He is saying that the best CG in the film took an extraordinary amount of time to make, which is why it looks so much better than the rest of the film's CG.

Still, all of the CG in SM3 is leagues better than the fx in SM1 and 2, especially the first movie.

yeah. for instance, in the first film they couldnt do a goblin aerial fight but they could it in SM3.

 

[batman11]

yeah. for instance, in the first film they couldnt do a goblin aerial fight but they could it in SM3.

Exactly. No doubt the CG got better, but they clearly slacked in areas.

See the shot where Peter is falling to the ground, trying to free his hands from the webbing in the final battle. His face there is very bad CG work.

 

[Jspider13]

He is saying that the best CG in the film took an extraordinary amount of time to make, which is why it looks so much better than the rest of the film's CG.

Still, all of the CG in SM3 is leagues better than the fx in SM1 and 2, especially the first movie.

I still think Ock's tentacle CG is flawless and way more believable than anything in SM3

 

[kward711]

I still think Ock's tentacle CG is flawless and way more believable than anything in SM3

Well they did change the visual fx supervisor for SM3. in SM2 it was John Dykstra. In SM3 it was Scott Stokdyk.

and I think its easier to generate CG mechanical tentacles over CG sand and black goo.

 

[batman11]

Ehh, the black goo is a questionable call. Look at Smallville, not sure if you watch it or not, but recently, remnants of Braniac were found. It was a black, liquid type goo very similar to the symbiote. Smallville has quit a small visual effects budget, but the goo looked believable and quite creepy.

 

[Blader5489]

I still think Ock's tentacle CG is flawless and way more believable than anything in SM3

The tentacles were great. The CG Spider-Man and Alfred Molina were not.

 

[omid17]

I still think Ock's tentacle CG is flawless and way more believable than anything in SM3

 

[BobJM]

That's because tentacles are so much more easier to do...

 

[omid17]

That's because tentacles are so much more easier to do...

not in motion

 

[BobJM]

Honestly, how real do u want a black alien goo to look? So I don't know how "realistic" that can get.

The sand was phenomenal. The Birth of Sandman scene was better than any CGI from SM2 by far.

 

[batman11]

The Birth of Sandman scene was better than any CGI from SM2 by far.

This I agree with, although as I said before, there were some really shoddy moments in 3, which shouldn't have happened.

 

[BobJM]

Kinda like there are shoddy moments in SM2.

 

[batman11]

Kinda like there are shoddy moments in SM2.

Yeah, but 3 took place 3 years after 2. Those shoddy moments shouldn't have happened.

 

[BobJM]

Just because CGI gets better, doesn't mean it gets totally perfected.

 

[batman11]

Just because CGI gets better, doesn't mean it gets totally perfected.

I never said it has been perfected, I meant that some of the same crappy moments in 2 happened again in 3.

In particular I'm referring to the final battle, where Pete is falling to the ground while trying to remove the webbing from his hands. His face there is extremely poorly done.

Overall the CG was better, but as I said before, they slacked on certain scenes.