The Amazing Spider-Man This movie NEEDS the real spider-man

[©KAW]

Oh. So the movies have made billions of dollars and they've failed?

Yes, they have in many ways, failed. Making big money at the box office doesn't equal quality; or Transformers 2 would be better than The Godfather. And I was specifically talking about them failing in making Spider-Man move like Spider-Man, without him looking like a shiny badly programmed clay figure.

Look- I have always argued that they should use more stunt work. When, back in 2001 they announced that Spidey would be mostly CG, I wasn't cool with it and said so on these boards. But- i also understand Raimi's point. Spider-Man should not look like a human acrobat. He was never presented that way in the comics and shouldn't be on film. I personally feel that there's a way to achieve that without solely using CG and again- there are times when the CG looks like crap. But there are also times when it looks great. Groundbreaking even.

But Raimi had acrobats/stuntmen in the Spider-Man films, my point is, they were piss poor at their job in bringing Spidey's movements to life. This guy kills the acrobats/stuntmen in these films on all fronts. All I'm saying is why not use him or more people like him?

Dude you're letting your Raimi-hate take you round the bend. Sony Imageworks is a great FX house. No one is doing better. Maybe WETA is a little better, but they have problems too.

Iron Man's CG isn't any better. The Hulk wasn't either. Avatar's characters don't look like living beings. Batman gets a pass only because he doesn't have to move as elaborately as Spidey does, so the CG isn't that hard to pull off. An organic character like Spidey is just tough to realize.

But that having been said, the Spidey movies have been very good movies about a great character. And NO SUPERHERO FILM has had better action than Spidey 2 & 3.

Raimi-hate, yeah, I got enough to go around, but it isn't the reason why I think Sony should let WETA handle the bulk of the CGI. I think they're better and more consistent at their craft than Imageworks.

No one is saying CGI have to be perfect, but most of the CG in Spider-Man is way below great (for 200-258 million dollar films), even in the latest film, SM3, there's plenty of horrible and now dated CGI (beyond just Spider-Man) very dodgy work. No matter how many times I've heard them say it's gonna be groundbreaking, it never is. The Train Scene/Birth of Sandman are SM2/SM3's redeeming VFX scenes for me. Even SM2's Oscar win was because 'Lord of the Rings' happen to not come out that year. Not to mention, the director of "District 9" a SONY film went to WETA, ouch.

How can anyone call Imageworks a great FX house, their best consistent work is Stuart Little 2. As we've both pointed out, Sony uses CG in places where it isn't needed. And that's the point of the thread, having a great acrobat/stuntman would greatly improve on the overall quality of Spider-Man's movements.

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

all excellent points made in this thread regading using an over abundance of CGI in replace of hiring actual stuntmen for the Spider Man films. This is definitley the way they need to go, hire this dude.

 

[spider-neil]

Yes, they have in many ways, failed. Making big money at the box office doesn't equal quality; or Transformers 2 would be better than The Godfather. And I was specifically talking about them failing in making Spider-Man move like Spider-Man, without him looking like a shiny badly programmed clay figure.

But Raimi had acrobats/stuntmen in the Spider-Man films, my point is, they were piss poor at their job in bringing Spidey's movements to life. This guy kills the acrobats/stuntmen in these films on all fronts. All I'm saying is why not use him or more people like him?

Raimi-hate, yeah, I gotta enough to go around, but it isn't the reason why I think Sony should let WETA handle the bulk of the CGI. I think they're better and more consistent at their craft than Imageworks.

No one is saying CGI is perfect, but most of the CG in Spider-Man is way below great (for 200-258 million dollar films), even in the latest film, SM3, there's plenty of horrible and now dated CGI (beyond just Spider-Man) very dodgy work. No matter how many times I've heard them say it's gonna be groundbreaking, it never is. The Train Scene/Birth of Sandman are SM2/SM3's redeeming VFX scenes for me. Even SM2's Oscar win was because 'Lord of the Rings' happen to not come out that year. Not to mention, the director of "District 9" a SONY film went to WETA, ouch.

How can anyone call Imageworks a great FX house, their best consistent work is Stewart Little 2. As we've both pointed out, Sony uses CG in places where it isn't needed. And that's the point of the thread, having a great acrobat/stuntman would greatly improve on the overall quality of Spider-Man's movements.

I think sony imageworks can achieve great effects when they have time.
there was the bit in SM2 when doc ock knocks spidey off the train so he lands on his back in traffic he webs off the floor and swings up running up the wall to swing after the train again, the weight in spidey as he is running up the wall is perfect, I must have watched that scene a hundred times.

they can do it but they sometimes are just lazy, like with spidey makes the slingshot to fire himself at doc ock (when aunt may hits ock with her umbrella) that cg was TERRIBLE.

step 1 - real actor in suit makes the action of making the web sling shot (web sling shot added in post)

step 2 real actor walks backwards pulling on green webs (to be removed in post and replaced with cg webs) to create tension so when he releases the webs he fires forwards

step 3 - CG spidey for when spidey snaps forwards out of the widow

step 4 - real actor shot flying towards doc ock (camera tilted by 90 degrees) actor filmed falling downwards which is rotated in post to have him falling fowards

so basically the whole sling shot scene only required CG for spidey zooming out the window, wire removal and inserting webs.

 

[©KAW]

You've just executed a scene better than the producers and the director of SM2 who gets paid millions of dollars.

It's the same with Peter going after Ben's killer running through the alley, there was no need, what-so-ever for him to turn into a damn claymation character, jumping on the wall climbing. That entire scene could have been executed with no CGI. Yet here we are, looking at CGI so bad it looks like claymation, doing flips they could have hire this guy to do in real life and 20 times better.

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

yea, the CG in the first movie is extremely out dated

 

[spider-neil]

You've just executed a scene better than the producers and the director of SM2 who gets paid millions of dollars.

It's the same with Peter going after Ben's killer running through the alley, there was no need, what-so-ever for him to turn into a damn claymation character, jumping on the wall climbing. That entire scene could have been executed with no CGI. Yet here we are, looking at CGI so bad it looks like claymation, doing flips they could have hire this guy to do in real life and 20 times better.

shot 1 - peter runs down alley

shot 2 - cg peter jumps to the top building

shot 3 - real peter wall crawls on tilted stage

shot 4 - cg peter jumps to flag pole

shot 5 - peter (human gymnast) spins around flag pole

shot 6 - CG peter jumps to top of build

shot 7 - entire peter web swing cg

they should set themselves rules

rule 1: every time peter interacts with a object i.e. lifting, climbing, jumping (take off/land), it should be a real human

rule 2: every time peter webslings it should be cg (impossible for a human)

rule 3: the 'inbetween' super stuff should be cg
for example

step 1: human crouches down to jump and starts take off

step 2: cg character springs 100 foot in the air

step 3: human lands with gravity, inertia and weight effecting him

this would remove the 'spungy' effect of bad cg

look at the dark night

shot one: real human on edge of building jumps off

shot two: cg batman circles building using glider wings, heads towards building

shot three: real human smashes throuch window to engage guards

that is the way to shoot the shot

 

[©KAW]

shot 1 - peter runs down alley

shot 2 - cg peter jumps to the top building

shot 3 - real peter wall crawls on tilted stage

shot 4 - cg peter jumps to flag pole

shot 5 - peter (human gymnast) spins around flag pole

shot 6 - CG peter jumps to top of build

shot 7 - entire peter web swing cg

they should set themselves rules

rule 1: every time peter interacts with a object i.e. lifting, climbing, jumping (take off/land), it should be a real human

rule 2: every time peter webslings it should be cg (impossible for a human)

rule 3: the 'inbetween' super stuff should be cg
for example

step 1: human crouches down to jump and starts take off

step 2: cg character springs 100 foot in the air

step 3: human lands with gravity, inertia and weight effecting him

this would remove the 'spungy' effect of bad cg

look at the dark night

shot one: real human on edge of building jumps off

shot two: cg batman circles building using glider wings, heads towards building

shot three: real human smashes throuch window to engage guards

that is the way to shoot the shot

You know what's really sad about this, you're not a professional screenwriter, director, producer or special effects artist, yet, you would have served the Spider-Man movies better than those getting paid millions of dollars.

It just goes to show you what happens when you hire the wrong people for the job.

 

[spider-neil]

You know what's really sad about this, you're not a professional screenwriter, director, producer or special effects artist, yet, you would have served the Spider-Man movies better than those getting paid millions of dollars.

It just goes to show you what happens when you hire the wrong people for the job.

I'm actually a CG artist/animator and the scene in SM where spidey (inside the burning building) spins around the pumpkin bombs in slow motion was amazing it wasn't until after the movie I found out that shot was 100% cg (with the exception of the backgound plate), so given time they CAN make the impossible seem real.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I'm actually a CG artist/animator and the scene in SM where spidey (inside the burning building) spins around the pumpkin bombs in slow motion was amazing it wasn't until after the movie I found out that shot was 100% cg (with the exception of the backgound plate), so given time they CAN make the impossible seem real.

That scene always stunned me too. I thought for sure Spider-man was an actual stuntman, I never thought it was CGI.

The Spidey movies have been either very hit or very miss with CGI. The scene was just mentioned for example, very good. The train sequence, and pretty much most of the CGI in SM2, very, very good. CGI in SM3 was pretty shoddy at times.

I'm in agreement with those that are hoping we get a bit more real stuntman work. I mean, some of the stuff parkour artists can do looks superhuman, and it would be great to see Spidey doing some of that.

 

[The Slang]

I agree that that scene with spidey dodging the razor bats was a pretty good example of cgi, but the maneuvers themselves were nothing beyond human capabilities. A stuntman could have easily done those two moves (the jump + spiral and the jump + leg raise). Only the razor bats should have been cgi.

 

[spider-neil]

the thing I want to see most in the reboot is peter doing the extra ordinary in ordinary settings. that stuff always amazes me more, like for instance when peter catches the food on the tray in SM1, you're like 'whoa'.

look at the scene where peter is walking up the wall for the first time in SM1. when the camera is looking right at him and he is scaling the ball that is pretty impressive, the second the camera spins round him so the wall is now the floor its not impressive at all becuase it looks like he is just crawling on the floor.

I guess what I'm saying is make peter/spidey do the amazing but lock down the cameras.

how this for a cool scene, peter is in his room and the light bulb bursts so with the camera still locked on peter he crawls up the wall and changes the bulb. I guess you would achieve the shot by a revolving room.

ordinary camera
ordinary situation - light bulb breaking
extra ordinary action to change the bulb

 

[©KAW]

I'm actually a CG artist/animator and the scene in SM where spidey (inside the burning building) spins around the pumpkin bombs in slow motion was amazing it wasn't until after the movie I found out that shot was 100% cg (with the exception of the backgound plate), so given time they CAN make the impossible seem real.

Then you should know, ONE good shot out of a 2 hour movie, that's not good, there's just too many horrible CGI scenes within the film for that scene to make up for it. Not in the world of big budget heavy SFX films.

 

[spider-neil]

Then you should know, ONE good shot out of a 2 hour movie, that's not good, there's just too many horrible CGI scenes within the film for that scene to make up for it. Not in the world of big budget heavy SFX films.

three good shots. peter swinging after uncle ben's killer (th entire scene was cg including the building and cop cars) the end swing which was freaking AMAZING. I can watch that end swing forever.

 

[spider-neil]

if anyone has seen robocop there is an amazing scene where the police corner him (robocop)in the basement and open fire. awesome. I always thought it would be good to have spidey in that exact same position (blamed for someone else's crimes) and the new york police/SWAT open fire with shotguns, pistols, rifles and spidey using the most amazing acrobatics you have ever seen in your life dodging all the gun fire using pakour, gymnastics, cg and titled/revolving sets.

also you could shoot all the people firing with high speed cameras and then slow it down so they are moving in slow motion (so you see the recoil of the guns firing) and film all the spidey motion with normal cameras to show just how fast he is (reflexes faster than a normal human by a factor of 15).

 

[©KAW]

three good shots. peter swinging after uncle ben's killer (th entire scene was cg including the building and cop cars) the end swing which was freaking AMAZING. I can watch that end swing forever.

Not to me, it looked dodgy as hell, and I'm not talking about because he was a virgin at web-slinging. He looked as if he wasn't connected to the environment around him, almost void of weight while looking like a clay figure in clothes--which is my main problem with the direction and Sony's Imageworks' web-slinging.

I'll give you the slow-mo Spidey dodge scene and the first time Peter crawls up the wall (those were really good). Other than those two scenes, the Spider-Man movie's visual effects are mediocre to average at best (and dated as hell), as if they hired a bunch of film students/VFX artist (still wet behind the ears) to mess around to see what they can come up with.

You have to ask yourself this, why is that you can watch Terminator 2 today (right this second), done 20 years ago, and its visual effects can stand up to almost anything that comes out in 2010. That my friend is what's called quality visual effects, done by the hand of talent.

 

[david icke]

Not to me, it looked dodgy as hell, and I'm not talking about because he was a virgin at web-slinging. He looked as if he wasn't connected to the environment around him, almost void of weight while looking like a clay figure in clothes--which is my main problem with the direction and Sony's Imageworks' web-slinging.

I'll give you the slow-mo Spidey dodge scene and the first time Peter crawls up the wall (those were really good). Other than those two scenes, the Spider-Man movie's visual effects are mediocre to average at best (and dated as hell), as if they hired a bunch of film students/VFX artist (still wet behind the ears) to mess around to see what they can come up with.

You have to ask yourself this, why is that you can watch Terminator 2 today (right this second), done 20 years ago, and its visual effects can stand up to almost anything that comes out in 2010. That my friend is what's called quality visual effects, done by the hand of talent.

Your T2 argument holds no weight. The two are completely and utterly different. One is an amorphous blob, the other is trying to create a believable solid human being doing unbelievable moves.

You wouldn't be happy if weta did the work either, you would only be happy with a real life flesh and blood Spidey on film. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that you will never be happy with a SM film. Even if they do the characterisation the way you imagine it in your head, CGI will not get to the point you want it at to realise a totally belivable Spider-Man. By the time CGI gets to that point , you will be dead. lol

 

[spider-neil]

Your T2 argument holds no weight. The two are completely and utterly different. One is an amorphous blob, the other is trying to create a believable solid human being doing unbelievable moves.

You wouldn't be happy if weta did the work either, you would only be happy with a real life flesh and blood Spidey on film. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that you will never be happy with a SM film. Even if they do the characterisation the way you imagine it in your head, CGI will not get to the point you want it at to realise a totally belivable Spider-Man. By the time CGI gets to that point , you will be dead. lol

sometimes sony achieves the perfect weight though, for instance when spidey gets knocked off the train onto the street and webs himself up and runs up the wall to swing after the train, that was perfect

 

[david icke]

sometimes sony achieves the perfect weight though, for instance when spidey gets knocked off the train onto the street and webs himself up and runs up the wall to swing after the train, that was perfect

I thought that was great work, but I could still tell it was a sfx. I'm talking about it looking exactly as it would to you if a real actual superpowered Spider-Man was caught on film.
I think the scene in the flaming building in SM1 looks more real to us because it's in slow motion, if something is in real time we can more easily tell it's not real.
Basically, the closer a sfx is to a human being in real time action, the more our eyes/brain don't accept that it's real. That's why it's incomparable to a sci-fi blob or monster.

Lots of CGI heavy movies have both good and bad work in them, look at how awful Weta's work is on that Dino stampede scene in King Kong. Yes, some of that is down to time constraints, but all movies have that excuse.
The same quality sfx artists can work at different companies, the resultant work can be down to money and time.

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

You wouldn't be happy if weta did the work either, you would only be happy with a real life flesh and blood Spidey on film. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that you will never be happy with a SM film. Even if they do the characterisation the way you imagine it in your head, CGI will not get to the point you want it at to realise a totally belivable Spider-Man. By the time CGI gets to that point , you will be dead. lol

How do you figure?

we live in a time where we have touch screen cell phones, pretty much phones that can do almost anything short of giving you a BJ, 3D technology on the rise, technology in general (whether it's entertainment/medical, etc.) far more advanced than lets say 2 decades ago, 1 decade ago.

and you're trying to say "real human looking" CGI is several decades down the road still?

I don't buy it

I'm inclined to agree with the poster you're arguing with, the CGI in SM1 is CRAP, DATED and those scenes could've been filmed better with a better crew that has more passion for it.

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

Not to me, it looked dodgy as hell, and I'm not talking about because he was a virgin at web-slinging. He looked as if he wasn't connected to the environment around him, almost void of weight while looking like a clay figure in clothes--which is my main problem with the direction and Sony's Imageworks' web-slinging.

I'll give you the slow-mo Spidey dodge scene and the first time Peter crawls up the wall (those were really good). Other than those two scenes, the Spider-Man movie's visual effects are mediocre to average at best (and dated as hell), as if they hired a bunch of film students/VFX artist (still wet behind the ears) to mess around to see what they can come up with.

You have to ask yourself this, why is that you can watch Terminator 2 today (right this second), done 20 years ago, and its visual effects can stand up to almost anything that comes out in 2010. That my friend is what's called quality visual effects, done by the hand of talent.

Agreed 100%

 

[david icke]

The fact you think you can compare the effects of the T2 to the work done on a CG Spider-Man tells me you don't know what you're talking about.
They are completely different pieces of work.

Ok, I don't know when they will come up with realistic CG humans doing impossible things that will look as real as the actors on the set, but neither do you, and it is still a long way off.
and considering how picky Kaw is, yeah, he probably won't ever be satisfied with any advances done in his lifetime, and by extension, with any Spider-man movie. That's just the sense I get from his posts.

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

I agree with him, the scene with Parker chasing Bens killer in the first movie was shotty as hell. With a little more patience, time and in a nut shell, passion, that scene COULD HAVE been made to look a little better than it did. But that was in 2002, and I very much enjoy the movie so I let it pass

would I except that scene if it were released today, in 2010. Hell No

it's been proven time and time again (look at District 9 for example) that with the right team, right brains/hands behind the project, you can achieve more than you give yourself or the world credit for.

and I would wager that real looking CGI is no more than 10 years off, at the most.

 

[spider-neil]

I agree with him, the scene with Parker chasing Bens killer in the first movie was shotty as hell. With a little more patience, time and in a nut shell, passion, that scene COULD HAVE been made to look a little better than it did. But that was in 2002, and I very much enjoy the movie so I let it pass

would I except that scene if it were released today, in 2010. Hell No

it's been proven time and time again (look at District 9 for example) that with the right team, right brains/hands behind the project, you can achieve more than you give yourself or the world credit for.

and I would wager that real looking CGI is no more than 10 years off, at the most.

D9 didn't have to deal with the dynamics of a humaniod doing superhuman things

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

No, but the Progs looked real as hell, as if the actors were actually shooting scenes with real aliens.

 

[david icke]

No, but the Progs looked real as hell, as if the actors were actually shooting scenes with real aliens.

This is what I'm talking about...you just can't compare monsters, aliens, blobs etc with the work that is required to make superpowered human beings, they are the one thing that always look fake to the human eye/brain, as of course we have the real world examples of people around us to compare it to.
Just because they use the same method, CGI, does not mean they are comparable in the way of measuring quality of sfx.
You can only measure it against other examples of CG humans.