[dktorode]

the POV shots looked awesome in 3D... just saying

[yuna_anomander25]

been watching those trailers in youtube and reading people's comments,

seems many are not aware of gwen stacey's(sp?) existence, kept asking if the girl was MJ, and why she's blond, not a red-head,

and those are not just trolls, many do not know her, and i feel a little sad about that,

always wanted to see her, and in SM 3, she's just someone, not really given depth,

personally, i much prefer gwen,

loved the suit,

a bit off topic, anyone seen the Dark Knight Rises trailer, seems good, Nolan never lost his touch there,

a little nitpick, Bane could have been bigger, still undecided about anne hathaway as Cat Woman? maybe if i saw the movie,

This post has been edited by yuna_anomander25: 11 May 2012 - 03:35 PM

[cerveza_fiesta]

Just watched that POV trailer. Stuuuuuuupid. Looks like something off the start opening cutscene of a video game. They could at least have put a bit of real footage in there so it didn't look like such a CGI turd.

And from what I can gather of the plot, it's basically the first SM movie with new actors, mechanical web slingers and a slightly altered story? Woop dee doo.

Really not trying to troll here...how do folks think this is really going to advance the SM story or break any new ground?

[QuickTidal]

cerveza_fiesta, on 11 May 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

Just watched that POV trailer. Stuuuuuuupid. Looks like something off the start opening cutscene of a video game. They could at least have put a bit of real footage in there so it didn't look like such a CGI turd.

And from what I can gather of the plot, it's basically the first SM movie with new actors, mechanical web slingers and a slightly altered story? Woop dee doo.

Really not trying to troll here...how do folks think this is really going to advance the SM story or break any new ground?

I would answer to the notion that it's CGI (it's not, Marc Webb has gone out of his way to make it almost all practical effects except when he can avoid it) and to the "it's a rehash of the first film" it's not because they are telling the REAL spidery backstory (which raimi ignored) with Gwen Stacey (spidey's first gf), talking about his parents, and concentrating on his teens (instead of shifting the story forward to his adult life as spidey a half hour in like the Raimi one did).

I think it will be a reboot along the lines of Nolan's Batman films...

[cerveza_fiesta]

I just mean it's a guy who gets bit by a radioactive spider, some antagonist causes him to want to don a tight unitard, he swings around some and they fight at the end. Spiderman origins in a nutshell.

I dunno, darkening the disposition of a few characters and changing around largely insignificant story elements does not a new movie make in my book. They might be significant story elements if you're into and have read the whole comic series, but to the casual viewer that doesn't have intimate knowledge of the whole comic plotline, it is simply a remake.

Not to say they won't do a better job than the original with crybaby mcGuire...but it is a rehash. Something I never understand: there's obviously a long history and a zillion stories in the comics that could be transferred to film. Out of that zillion there are likely a solid dozen real awesome compelling ones. Why not just make a spiderman movie with one of those stories...or they could *gasp* do something original with input from the comic's illustrators and authors. This constant need to redo origin stories over and over and over drives me nuts.

And not to say they won't make money off it....it will most likely gross more than avengers...but still.

I don't know what you mean with the CGI POV sequence either...it's obvisouly CGI start to finish. From the fake pigeons, to the FPS-style arms and legs that come into the picture here and there....meh. Not interested.

[polishgenius]

cerveza_fiesta, on 11 May 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

And from what I can gather of the plot, it's basically the first SM movie with new actors, mechanical web slingers and a slightly altered story? Woop dee doo.

Well, it's the same in that it apparently shows Spidey getting his powers.

It's different in that Spidey learning to use his powers doesn't appear to be a great focus, and nor does him winning his girlfriend (who as QT pointed out is not the same one), and although there will no doubt be a moral realisation, this being Spider-Man, the driving force of the tale appears to be the conspiracy with his parents, not life lessons as with the first. Oh, and there'll be a much greater focus on Spidey's status as a vigilante and the police's distrust of him, that's pretty obvious.

Basically, from what we've seen so far, I think it's going to be basics similar, focus very different.

[QuickTidal]

cerveza_fiesta, on 11 May 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

I don't know what you mean with the CGI POV sequence either...it's obvisouly CGI start to finish. From the fake pigeons, to the FPS-style arms and legs that come into the picture here and there....meh. Not interested.

It's not actually. Though I can see why you'd think that. The entirety of it is POV camera work with practical effects matted in. So basically they did the camera work of the POV over the city buildings with it spinning around and jumping from building to building minus Spidey hands and feet...and then shot Garfield (Spidey) in the suit doing the motions for the hands and feet POV, and then matted those into the city run...hell even that last shot of him hitting the mirrored building is actually Garfield in the suit...

Would you like to know how I know this?

Other than hearing Marc Webb talk about the lack of CGI in his film (aside from like I said where it is unavoidable)...the Teaser trailer came out while they were still shooting. CGI work on films like this (especially CGI work for trailers) is done in post-production...an effects company (nine times out of ten, barring folk like Lucas or Cameron and their owned CGI companies) doesn't get into any real effects work till after the film is done shooting. This is done because the Director or editor might cut the film differently and therefore any CGI done while shooting would be worthless and a waste of cash. Basically, the editor sends finished scenes to CGI houses to get done up...and for the editing to get done the film has to be in the can first. They don't CGI dailies. Cutting and matting stuff in like they did though...easy peasy and costs much less.

Lastly, I know this because the arms and legs in the trailer (and that final shot of him fully) don't look CGI at all..which is what weirds me out most about what you said.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 11 May 2012 - 07:57 PM

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 11 May 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

Well, it's the same in that it apparently shows Spidey getting his powers.

It's different in that Spidey learning to use his powers doesn't appear to be a great focus, and nor does him winning his girlfriend (who as QT pointed out is not the same one), and although there will no doubt be a moral realisation, this being Spider-Man, the driving force of the tale appears to be the conspiracy with his parents, not life lessons as with the first. Oh, and there'll be a much greater focus on Spidey's status as a vigilante and the police's distrust of him, that's pretty obvious.

Basically, from what we've seen so far, I think it's going to be basics similar, focus very different.

Agree with the above. Totally.

[cerveza_fiesta]

QuickTidal, on 11 May 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

cerveza_fiesta, on 11 May 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

I don't know what you mean with the CGI POV sequence either...it's obvisouly CGI start to finish. From the fake pigeons, to the FPS-style arms and legs that come into the picture here and there....meh. Not interested.

It's not actually. Though I can see why you'd think that. The entirety of it is POV camera work with practical effects matted in. So basically they did the camera work of the POV over the city buildings with it spinning around and jumping from building to building minus Spidey hands and feet...and then shot Garfield (Spidey) in the suit doing the motions for the hands and feet POV, and then matted those into the city run...hell even that last shot of him hitting the mirrored building is actually Garfield in the suit...

TBH I watched the trailer in HD and it looked *better* but it still has the appearance of a PS3 cutscene to me. If you read reviews on this a lot of people are mentioning the judicious use of CGI in the trailer.

Do all of them not know what they're talking about too? I fully accept that they are all bloggers and might be completely wrong about it...what is the source you're quoting RE what you say above?

http://www.filmschoo...man-trailer.php

http://boscosgrindho...-we-all-wanted/

http://screencrave.c...inging-and-nyc/

all found using a google search with the terms spiderman trailer cgi

[QuickTidal]

For the naysayers (CF I'm looking at you)...

A 4 minute trailer which includes a portion of the bridge scene...almost all done with practical effects. And IMHO those practical effects are totally winning me the film...and I think the scene with Peter and that kid in the burning car is REALLY nicely done.



To answer your question CF, just Google "Marc Webb interviews about Spidey"...and you should find plenty about how he approached the film not wanting to use CGI.

As for the teaser with the POV, I go off what I know about CGI and what I know about composite matting...the hands and feet look real to me, and the city shots are definitely real. I have friends in the film industry, and I know for a fact that they would not have done that much CGI for a teaser trailer for a film where Webb wanted to distance the franchise from rubbery looking CGI...let alone that early on. If you say it looks CGI to you I can't fault you for your view of it...just wanted you to be aware it's almost certainly not.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 15 May 2012 - 01:36 PM

[QuickTidal]

I'm toying with the idea of going to see this tonight...toying...I haven't figured out if it's going to be worth it or not. If I go, I'll let you all know how it is.

[LadyMTL]

FWIW, my stepbrother saw an advance preview of Spiderman and he really enjoyed it. I think his exact words were "it was so much better than I thought it was going to be". Mind you, he was never a die-hard Spidey fan so maybe take that with a grain of salt? Also, he wouldn't tell me much about the plot or the CG or any of that because he didn't want to spoil anything but he did like the look of it.

[amphibian]

This movie's amazing.

And I love the subtlety of it - setting up all kinds of things for this movie and the next without bashing us in the head with them. I think I already know what the next movie will be about and that if they keep Webb on board (and the writers), it'll be a box office smash and a critical darling.

[LadyMTL]

For those who are interested, Grantland posted a really good article about the latest Spiderman (and reboots in general). I'm still on the fence about whether or not to see it but I found this an interesting read.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 04 July 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

This movie's amazing.

And I love the subtlety of it - setting up all kinds of things for this movie and the next without bashing us in the head with them. I think I already know what the next movie will be about and that if they keep Webb on board (and the writers), it'll be a box office smash and a critical darling.

Dammit Amph, I'd already made up my mind not to see it...now I want to see it again.

Curses.

[QuickTidal]

'pon Amph and others and critic's recco's I bought my ticket. Seeing it tonight. I'll weigh in afterwards.

[QuickTidal]

Just got back from seeing it.

and I can fully endorse Amph's opinion. Definitely one of the best superhero movies out there, and definitely on par with the first IRON MAN and BATMAN BEGINS.

Solid, believable acting. Realistic edge. Not at all campy. Deftly directed and has a number of excellent action setpieces.

Loved it.

[tiam]

I watched it yesterday aswell (in 2d) and thought it was very good. I thought Andreww Garfield was very good and the Martin Sheen and Sally Field influence in the film was good. Rhys Ifans was a good baddie and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

A few things though

Spoiler

Did anyone think that Spider man is a bit of a dick? Gwens father gets killed saving the day and makes Spiderman promise not to see his daughter to which he agrees. Then 5 minutes later, after an angsty funeral dodge, he pretty much states hes gonna ignore her fathers dying last request and keep seeing her?

Also the trailer was somewhat misleading. If you watch it it has a voice over with Rhys Ifans saying 'do you really beleive what what happened to you was an accident' which didnt even appear to be in the film and, other than a reference to an accident that wasnt an accident, no real connection to his parents either. It was hardly the untold story of Spiderman with a new twist. The end of credits sequence showing the guy with the fedora may have been peter parkers dad (I think its is though there is all sorts of speculation over the internet from Norman Osborne, the Hobgoblin aswell as others) but really it didnt set up the next film that well other than doing what the trailer/opening sequence did claiming there is something mysterious about his father.

[QuickTidal]

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 06 July 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

I watched it yesterday aswell (in 2d) and thought it was very good. I thought Andreww Garfield was very good and the Martin Sheen and Sally Field influence in the film was good. Rhys Ifans was a good baddie and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

A few things though

Spoiler

Did anyone think that Spider man is a bit of a dick? Gwens father gets killed saving the day and makes Spiderman promise not to see his daughter to which he agrees. Then 5 minutes later, after an angsty funeral dodge, he pretty much states hes gonna ignore her fathers dying last request and keep seeing her?

Also the trailer was somewhat misleading. If you watch it it has a voice over with Rhys Ifans saying 'do you really beleive what what happened to you was an accident' which didnt even appear to be in the film and, other than a reference to an accident that wasnt an accident, no real connection to his parents either. It was hardly the untold story of Spiderman with a new twist. The end of credits sequence showing the guy with the fedora may have been peter parkers dad (I think its is though there is all sorts of speculation over the internet from Norman Osborne, the Hobgoblin aswell as others) but really it didnt set up the next film that well other than doing what the trailer/opening sequence did claiming there is something mysterious about his father.

Spoiler

Spider-man IS a bit of a dick for along while in the comics. Especially during his time with Gwen and his interactions with Captain Stacey. In that respect it is the comics on screen a they are. The more benevolent and far more humble (though still wisecracking) Spider-Man doesn't really get created until the end of the tale that involves Gwen. It will be the second major event (the 1st being Uncle Ben's death) in his life to show him that he can overestimate himself and make poor decisions. The promise and recanting of said promise to Gwen's dad as he is dying...is also in the comics just like that. He promises, but then Spider-man is a teenager...and teenagers break promises all the time...and one promise a teen would not be able to keep is staying away from the girl he loves.

Trailers have for years used footage that gets cut from the final film. Richard Parker was recruited for the CIA by Nick Fury, and whatever his future is in the movies, he won't be showing up in a bad guy role. He never has in the comics and it serves no purpose to do so.

No, the guy in the credits sequence was Norman Osborne (you can see his glasses are the same as the hologram on the wall of Oscorp early in the film), and there is a very brief (blink and you miss it) moment in which the shadowy guy whips his hands around quickly and you can see they are enlarged and clawlike (Green Goblin)...probably because he dosed himself with the serum in a modified version to avoid the Lizard stuff. Either way, the end of the Gwen Stacey story arc (which I assume will play out over the next two films) concerns the Green Goblin as the bad guy in the comics. They were merely sort of introducing him.

Oh and how glorious was the practical effect webslinging? So awesome.

[tiam]

QuickTidal, on 06 July 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 06 July 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

I watched it yesterday aswell (in 2d) and thought it was very good. I thought Andreww Garfield was very good and the Martin Sheen and Sally Field influence in the film was good. Rhys Ifans was a good baddie and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

A few things though

Spoiler

Did anyone think that Spider man is a bit of a dick? Gwens father gets killed saving the day and makes Spiderman promise not to see his daughter to which he agrees. Then 5 minutes later, after an angsty funeral dodge, he pretty much states hes gonna ignore her fathers dying last request and keep seeing her?

Also the trailer was somewhat misleading. If you watch it it has a voice over with Rhys Ifans saying 'do you really beleive what what happened to you was an accident' which didnt even appear to be in the film and, other than a reference to an accident that wasnt an accident, no real connection to his parents either. It was hardly the untold story of Spiderman with a new twist. The end of credits sequence showing the guy with the fedora may have been peter parkers dad (I think its is though there is all sorts of speculation over the internet from Norman Osborne, the Hobgoblin aswell as others) but really it didnt set up the next film that well other than doing what the trailer/opening sequence did claiming there is something mysterious about his father.

Spoiler

Spider-man IS a bit of a dick for along while in the comics. Especially during his time with Gwen and his interactions with Captain Stacey. In that respect it is the comics on screen a they are. The more benevolent and far more humble (though still wisecracking) Spider-Man doesn't really get created until the end of the tale that involves Gwen. It will be the second major event (the 1st being Uncle Ben's death) in his life to show him that he can overestimate himself and make poor decisions. The promise and recanting of said promise to Gwen's dad as he is dying...is also in the comics just like that. He promises, but then Spider-man is a teenager...and teenagers break promises all the time...and one promise a teen would not be able to keep is staying away from the girl he loves.

Trailers have for years used footage that gets cut from the final film. Richard Parker was recruited for the CIA by Nick Fury, and whatever his future is in the movies, he won't be showing up in a bad guy role. He never has in the comics and it serves no purpose to do so.

No, the guy in the credits sequence was Norman Osborne (you can see his glasses are the same as the hologram on the wall of Oscorp early in the film), and there is a very brief (blink and you miss it) moment in which the shadowy guy whips his hands around quickly and you can see they are enlarged and clawlike (Green Goblin)...probably because he dosed himself with the serum in a modified version to avoid the Lizard stuff. Either way, the end of the Gwen Stacey story arc (which I assume will play out over the next two films) concerns the Green Goblin as the bad guy in the comics. They were merely sort of introducing him.

Oh and how glorious was the practical effect webslinging? So awesome.

Ah right was unaware it was a comic plotline. Just struck me as anticlimatic is all. A promise one minute then broken 5 minutes (in film time) later. But if its in the comic then fair enough.

Spoiler

Yes Osborn does seem like the most likely especially with his involvement in the eventual death of Gwen Stacy. Its very similar to Batman as someone upthread has said. They reboot the franchise with a weaker villain then have the second film with the most famous villain. I only found out today that Fury had Parkers dad recruited. I know they use different dialogue for the trailers sometimes but it did seem to portray itself as the untold story but it didnt really show anything to suggest Parkers transformation was deliberate. The Asian sleazy businessman guy with no morales did seem to know he was being followed but theres no way they could know all the spiders would fall on him and bite him.

I agree the webshooters were good and looked very well done when the Lizard eventually broke them and they exploded. I liked the emphasis on him being like a quick draw shot with them at some points in the film.

THe Stan Lee cameo was good with the action unfolding behind him while he listened to classical music. Probably my favorite shot with the lizard crashing through the wall while the music played.