World Which film had the best swinging scenes??

[Johnny-Oh]

BRAB proves you wrong.

Umm no lol I proved his post wrong. You were desperately trying to diminish the accolates that SM2 which is why I said:

I never said that movies with Oscars for best visual effects look better than current CGI, what I said was that Spider-Man 2 was more impressive on its time than TASM 2 is now.

You don't need to take things out of context in order to seem right.

 

[spiderman2]

Congrats man! I remember you joining this place lol.

That avvy of yours is also a great scene!

Your is a great scene to and the music in that scene. I need to watch the movie again have seen it like 7 times so far.

 

[Airnick]

I agree to keep it civil, but I seem to be confronted with uncivil posts that make it appear that users are taking shots at me directly instead of the points I have been making. But, I will say those users aren't the only ones behaving in such a way. I'm just stating opinions, observations, and facts of physics. Tis all

Understood. I'm just saying EVERYONE should keep things civil. It's getting tiring coming on here, and seeing people acting childish.

Aiiiiirrrr.

How's it going Andrew?

 

[ThatSpiderGuy]

I never said that movies with Oscars for best visual effects look better than current CGI, what I said was that Spider-Man 2 was more impressive on its time than TASM 2 is now.

You don't need to take things out of context in order to seem right.

But Johnny my friend, saying Spider-Man 2 was more impressive for its time isnt a valid argument against the CGI of TASM2. The CGI of TASM2 is more advanced, you can't ignore that fact.

 

[LizardMan07]

You didn't. He's right.

What's your point anyways?

He doesn't know at this point.

If you're bringing up Oscars as a comparison. Which he did.

Then you're implying that every movie with an Oscar is automatically better then any movie without one.

You can't get past that.

I don't see the point in this anymore.

I didn't think people could actually argue that a movie that is almost 13 years old looks nicer when displaying the exact same thing that TASM2 does. Both using CGI, both using a guy in a red and blue suit.

But here we are, we've jumped the shark.

Always have this entire thread.

 

[Keehar]

But Johnny my friend, saying Spider-Man 2 was more impressive for its time isnt a valid argument against the CGI of TASM2. The CGI of TASM2 is more advanced, you can't ignore that fact.

Sure he can. The CGI is more advance in TASM 2 than it is in the likes of Jurassic Park, but Jurassic Park looks better. 2001 a Space Odyssey looks better. Star Wars looks better. Loads of older movies look better.

You can't ignore that fact.

 

[ThatSpiderGuy]

So I posted my actual arguements a while ago and Keehar still hasn't addressed them...

TSG, I'd love you to push some real physics onto the situation.

The funny thing is Keehar actually thought the MS paint was my amazing end the world arguement or something. It was literally just MS paint. What happened to the joy? The peace? The harmony?

I've never met somebody who bleats about being right so consistently and yet is so unequivocally wrong.

Thumbs up.
And yes, I'm doing my best as of now to stress the fact that physics in TASM films are better and that better physics gives us better swinging scenes.

 

[spiderman2]

You said 90's not 80's. No contradictions please. An old poll, and when was this poll made and where.

You're asking me why did an actor who starred in two movies, both which were less critically and financially successful, come in second to an actor who was more successful in the role?

Stop and think again about that.

Go back and look again I said it is hard for me to watch movies before the 90's and even some in the 90's. I know that the actor was in 2 movies that where less successful both financially and critically but my point is before asm2 ever one loved AG yet now after asm2 that has changed a lot. My point is that just because something is consider better the movies doesn't mean that the actor was better. You never see an actor get an oscro when he is in a movie that is consider bad. Dose that mean that there are never good performances in a bad movie? No its just an actors performance and the movies over all reception go hand in hand together. My point is even the worst of the worst reviews said he did a good if not great job and clearly by that poll people are not giving him that same kind of credit. There for cloded judgment.

 

[ThatSpiderGuy]

Sure he can. The CGI is more advance in TASM 2 than it is in the likes of Jurassic Park, but Jurassic Park looks better. 2001 a Space Odyssey looks better. Star Wars looks better. Loads of older movies look better.

You can't ignore that fact.

Yes, you see but those films used practical effects. The practical effects obviously LOOKS better because it is REAL.
And you can't seriously be telling me that the CGI in Jurassic Park looked better than the advanced CGI today?? Advanced CGI will ALWAYS look better than obsolete or should I say older CGI. The CGI Brontosaurus in Jurassic Park looks legitimately and incredibly fake if you were to re watch that scene right now. But most of the shots indeed look better because they actual used REAL stuff.

 

[LizardMan07]

The problem Keehar is that you're comparing the top of the bell curve to the centre of it. Jurrasic Park, Space Odyssey and Star Wars. "Lots of older movies" is just your filler. Space Odyssey is debateable.

If you want to compare the best practical effects than you have to use the best CGI, and that's Planet of the Apes at this point. Both films. Perhaps the tiger in Life of Pi, he was good.

If you want to compare TASM2 which is probable on the postive third of the curve then you have to do the same with an old movie.

Of course it's all irrelevant to the actual point*, but if you're going to be irrelevant at least do it right.

*The point is Raimi swing vs Webb swing in case you forgot

 

[Johnny-Oh]

I've studied that gif thoroughly, and yes he can shoot it and yes he does. There's no magic involved. Spider-Man basically does a bit of a front flip and shoots the web in between his legs towards the crane as he looks up while he plummets to the ground.
And yes he does need to "do all that crap" since it will allow him to swing farther down the street since gravity would be working with him. If he remains straight and doesn't get any ark, then he will not be able to swing such distances.and in case you didn't remember, but that shot at the end of that gif is the last time spider-man shoots his web at a crane in that scene. So, from there there's still quite some distance on his way to Oscorp, so he needs a lot of ark for him to be able to make that giant swing over to the building. Spider-Man after that swing just happen to encounter a crate carried on a lift, so he uses that to his advantage.
AND all this gives us a stunning shot

The crane was way too far when he first shoots the web and the angle in which he tries to swing makes it look like his web is either attached to something else or that the crane is in a different place. What makes it even worse is when you watch the full scene he had already used that crane and easily could have achieved what you're explaining by using it again before being so low. When the shot cuts to him getting close to Oscorp he swings in an angle in which it wouldn't be possible because as you explained, the crane is too far away.

All of that gives us a visually incoherent mess accompanied by terrible music

 

[ThatSpiderGuy]

How many posts would I find from ThatSpiderGuy or spiderman 2 for instance defending the Amazing Spider-Man movies? Want to make a guess?

Well it's safe to say that you will definitely find a lot from me, since I love these films and I stand up for the things I love.

 

[Keehar]

Yes, you can. Click on my name and new options are going to appear.

Looking better? Do you think that I care about your view about me? Gimme a break, dude.

Erm, friends list is not what I was talking about. If you want to know more about me, ask Airnick. He's one of them who's current online.

SpideyBoy111 (I think that it's his name) and Marx is an example. Can't go wrong with the facts.

I don't see any options on your name to report you. Just to view your profile, or PM you, or add you to buddy or ignore list.

For someone who doesn't care how he appears you sure went to a great deal of trouble to explain how brilliant you say your life is. Yeah you care what I think alright.

I don't want to know more about you. I never said that. You said I'm a loser who spends all day on here. All your buddies do be here throughout the day too I am betting. I was going to shame your hypocrisy by showing that. I'm am making my business here to show you and your friends are no better than anyone else like you wish you were. Nobody calls me names unjustly and gets away with it. Especially some teenager who is clueless about life.

Spideyboy111 and Marx. Is this the only names you've got? I'll check them out, but you said you knew people, so who else?

 

[spiderman2]

Sure he can. The CGI is more advance in TASM 2 than it is in the likes of Jurassic Park, but Jurassic Park looks better. 2001 a Space Odyssey looks better. Star Wars looks better. Loads of older movies look better.

You can't ignore that fact.

Star wars was great for its time and I love the old ones and I love Jurassic park to but they do not look better then asm2. No way that the star war movies that are 38, 35, 32, 16, 13, 10 years old look better. There is no way that Jurassic park that is 22 years old looks better no way!

 

[ThatSpiderGuy]

The crane was way too far when he first shoots the web and the angle in which he tries to swing makes it look like his web is either attached to something else or that the crane is in a different place. What makes it even worse is when you watch the full scene he had already used that crane and easily could have achieved what you're explaining by using it again before being so low. When the shot cuts to him getting close to Oscorp he swings in an angle in which it wouldn't be possible because as you explained, the crane is too far away.

All of that gives us a visually incoherent mess accompanied by terrible music

Well you can blame that on the fact that the camera doesn't show us the web attaching to the crane since it is focused on Spider-Man. But due to the angle of the webline and the momentum that Spider-Man gains that I explained in my previous post, I think it is safe to assume that it either attaches to the crane or it attaches to the building.
Everything else you are saying is getting a bit ridiculous. The camera angles change, and right now we are arguing about something due to the camera angles. I'd rather not get into that discussion because it would drive both of us crazy. Lol

 

[Keehar]

Go back and look again I said it is hard for me to watch movies before the 90's and even some in the 90's. I know that the actor was in 2 movies that where less successful both financially and critically but my point is before asm2 ever one loved AG yet now after asm2 that has changed a lot. My point is that just because something is consider better the movies doesn't mean that the actor was better. You never see an actor get an oscro when he is in a movie that is consider bad. Dose that mean that there are never good performances in a bad movie? No its just an actors performance and the movies over all reception go hand in hand together. My point is even the worst of the worst reviews said he did a good if not great job and clearly by that poll people are not giving him that same kind of credit. There for cloded judgment.

I'm saying to you you're wrong, he was never more popular. You say there's some poll that showed different here well where is it? I bet it was made after the movie came out am I right? That's no way to judge who's better. That's when people's judgements are really clouded because they're still all dazzled by the new movie. You have to get some perspective and let some time pass. Give people a chance to digest and assess the movies, and then decide.

The new poll is more accurate and less biased. You have to accept that your beloved favorite isn't the favorite for everyone. It's not the end of the world. Get over it.

Yes, you see but those films used practical effects. The practical effects obviously LOOKS better because it is REAL.
And you can't seriously be telling me that the CGI in Jurassic Park looked better than the advanced CGI today?? Advanced CGI will ALWAYS look better than obsolete or should I say older CGI. The CGI Brontosaurus in Jurassic Park looks legitimately and incredibly fake if you were to re watch that scene right now. But most of the shots indeed look better because they actual used REAL stuff.

I'm not talking about the practical effects, I'm talking about the CGI. Do you think every dinosaur in JP was a big huge machine model? Do you think every space shot in 2001 was a model?

The CGI brontosaurus looked terrific and still does. It would win over any of the video game CGI in Amazing Spider-Man.

How old are you btw?

 

[Johnny-Oh]

You didn't. He's right.

What's your point anyways?

Can you at least attempt to explain why? Because I've provided evidence as to why I am right in this argument and you haven't.

He doesn't know at this point.

If you're bringing up Oscars as a comparison. Which he did.

Then you're implying that every movie with an Oscar is automatically better then any movie without one.

You can't get past that.

I don't see the point in this anymore.

I didn't think people could actually argue that a movie that is almost 13 years old looks nicer when displaying the exact same thing that TASM2 does. Both using CGI, both using a guy in a red and blue suit.

OMG How many times to I have to explain this? Let me try for the third time:

I never said that movies with Oscars for best visual effects look better than current CGI, what I said was that Spider-Man 2 was more impressive on its time than TASM 2 is now.

You don't need to take things out of context in order to seem right.

SM2 got an Oscar because it had the most impressive visual effects of 2004, TASM 2 wasn't even nominated because it wasn't impressive, innovate or as good as several other films last year.

Even now I don't see TASM 2 and think "Oh is that real?" which was the argument "Andrew Lucas" used to diminish the Oscar that SM2 received, here is the quote:

Point is simple, if you're willing to understand it. It won an award but it didn't made me say, "Oh, is that a real?", Spider-Man earned as well, and even at the time, it was possible to recognize what was real or not, these days? Well, it's super fake.

Btw I can easily recognize the videogame-ish CGI in TASM and TASM 2 so that is a valid criticism for all Spidey films not just the Spider-Man trilogy.

 

[spiderman2]

The crane was way too far when he first shoots the web and the angle in which he tries to swing makes it look like his web is either attached to something else or that the crane is in a different place. What makes it even worse is when you watch the full scene he had already used that crane and easily could have achieved what you're explaining by using it again before being so low. When the shot cuts to him getting close to Oscorp he swings in an angle in which it wouldn't be possible because as you explained, the crane is too far away.

All of that gives us a visually incoherent mess accompanied by terrible music

Most of the music in asm1 I don't like its the worst part of the movie but the music in that part is pretty good. How do you know he was to far form the crane? Do we know how far he can shoot the web or how far he was form the crane?

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Well you can blame that on the fact that the camera doesn't show us the web attaching to the crane since it is focused on Spider-Man. But due to the angle of the webline and the momentum that Spider-Man gains that I explained in my previous post, I think it is safe to assume that it either attaches to the crane or it attaches to the building.
Everything else you are saying is getting a bit ridiculous. The camera angles change, and right now we are arguing about something due to the camera angles. I'd rather not get into that discussion because it would drive both of us crazy. Lol

It doesn't show the web but it shows the crane which is far away in an angle in which he couldn't possibly swing.

 

[LizardMan07]

OMG How many times to I have to explain this? Let me try for the third time:



SM2 got an Oscar because it had the most impressive visual effects of 2004, TASM 2 wasn't even nominated because it wasn't impressive, innovate or as good as several other films last year.

Whether it was impressive at the time is irrelevant to whether it is better than the current stuff.

That's the entire point of the arguement

We are comparing decade old CG to new CG, for some inexplicable reason people keep saying the old stuff is better. Oscars are irrelevant.

Again, you're proving that you don't understand your own arguement.

Keehar, if you want to report somebody, here's how.

 

[ThatSpiderGuy]

Whether it was impressive at the time is irrelevant to whether it is better than the current stuff.

That's the entire point of the arguement

We are comparing decade old CG to new CG, for some inexplicable reason people keep saying the old stuff is better. Oscars are irrelevant.

Again, you're proving that you don't understand your own arguement.

Keehar, if you want to report somebody, here's how.

EXACTLY, it doesn't matter how impressive it was back then, it matters how it looks compared to the current advanced subject matter.

 

[Keehar]

Keehar, if you want to report somebody, here's how.

I wasn't kidding you before. I can't read your MS drawings. The print is too small.

 

[Airnick]

@Keehar: Click on the triangle type thing, on the bottom left of your account name.

Edit: Not yours obviously lol. I meant the Person you wanna report.

 

[LizardMan07]

I wasn't kidding you before. I can't read your MS drawings. The print is too small.

http://i.imgur.com/08mfUlc.png

Here it is

For the future

Right click the image, click "open in new tab", view

I've already told you this, but you ignored it as "useless babble"

I was thinking of making another MS paint drawing teaching you how to open MS paint drawings but I decided that would be mean.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Whether it was impressive at the time is irrelevant to whether it is better than the current stuff.

That's the entire point of the arguement

We are comparing decade old CG to new CG, for some inexplicable reason people keep saying the old stuff is better. Oscars are irrelevant.

Again, you're proving that you don't understand your own arguement.

It was not irrelevant to our original argument in which you were NOT a part of, then you decided to interrupt taking everything out of context.

The real context is that your little friend tried to diminish the Oscar SM2 received and I explained why that was a desperate move, especially 'cause his point could be used against your much loved movies as well.