The Amazing Spider-Man 2

[Ironwood]

Why ?

[jgsugden]

Likely, Marvel and Sony will make a deal down the road where Sony gets a cut of any Spidey revenue for a long time and Marvel gets the rights back to all Sony characters.  It is just a matter of time - I think it will happen when the rose starts to fade from the MCU and they need a big act to reignite the fires of fandom.

[Fordel]

This new clip makes me sure this movie will suck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8-Odemll7A

That looks like classic Spiderman to me.

[Khaldun]

Waiting for Iceman and Firestar to show up.

[shiznitz]

Lindsay Lohan as Firestar for the cry.

[eldaec]

This new clip makes me sure this movie will suck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8-Odemll7A

That looks like classic Spiderman to me.

Looks like a tired overexposed Spiderman to me.

[Fordel]

So classic Spiderman then?

[eldaec]

 

[rk47]

Electro is played by Jamie Foxx.
He gains his powers from an accident in Oscorp involving electric eels.
Hahah. Fuckno.

[Ironwood]

Spider-Man is played by Andrew Garfield.
He gains his powers from an accident in Oscorp involving Radioactive Spiders.
Hahah. Fuckno.

Your comments are slightly odd.

[Malakili]

This new clip makes me sure this movie will suck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8-Odemll7A

That looks like classic Spiderman to me.

The CG looked really bad to me.

[Ironwood]

Man, it's like you all don't remember Nicholas Hammond.

The CGI is fine.  Better every time they reboot.   

[Maven]

Watching this and catching a glimpse of Spider-Man 3 on television, the advances in CGI are apparent. Electro was quoted by one of the production staff as a "cinematic opportunity" for visual effects because of his unique nature.

I expect this movie to be a bunch of wit and comic book moments without tackling any serious issues or acting. In other words, should be good fun.

I thought it was interesting how they redid the "Spidey hits Rhino with a manhole cover" shot into something far more complicated in its execution. I had a problem with the river barrel sequence in The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug because of the high degree of physical implausibility in the action, but, for reasons because it's a comic book and Spider Man, I don't have the same reaction.

[Fordel]

The thing with this series of Spiderman movies, they were made for all the wrong reasons. They exist so Sony can try to squeeze as much blood out of this stone as possible.


Yet, I don't hate them. I actually enjoyed the first remake pretty well. Maybe it was because my expectations were just so fucking low, but I watched the first one and went 'yea that was fun'. Unlike say, that fucking Green Lantern movie, where I demanded the odd 2 hours of my life back. 

[rk47]

Spider-Man is played by Andrew Garfield.
He gains his powers from an accident in Oscorp involving Radioactive Spiders.
Hahah. Fuckno.

Your comments are slightly odd.

Yes because it's not enough for people to gain power from industrial electric accidents
It had to be mutated eels.
Next up: Mutated Rhino.
Followed with Mutated Scorpion.
And Radiated Octopus.
Not forgetting Vulture.

[Ironwood]

It's not without precedent, is my point.

[Velorath]

The CGI is fine.  Better every time they reboot.   

The CGI is crap. Who Framed Roger Rabbit had more convincing animated characters interacting with the real world 25 years ago (not even using computer animation). Looking at that last clip that was posted, I see maybe 3-6 seconds of footage where I feel like there might actually be a human being in a Spider-man costume being filmed. I mean it's to the point where I don't feel like there's someone there even as a placeholder or in a motion capture suit or something. It's not quite Phantom Menace bad but it's Hobbit 2 bad.

[Ironwood]

I'm not having this argument again with another Marvel movie.  I hear it every time, yet somehow I still manage to enjoy the movies.

Possibly I'm not the intended audience for this particular offense.

[Velorath]

I'm not having this argument again with another Marvel movie.  I hear it every time, yet somehow I still manage to enjoy the movies.

Really, you hear this argument with a lot of Marvel movies? Personally I find that most of the stuff they put out themselves has pretty good CGI where it's used, and it tends to be mixed in with a good amount of practical special effects. There are a few exceptions where maybe the CGI doesn't work as well, but usually only a couple bits per movie. Every trailer for Spider-man I've seen leaves me with the impression that in the majority of the action sequences Spider-man is going to be entirely CGI and Electro probably will be also. When I watch Iron Man, even during the action scenes they manage to convince me RDJ is there inside that suit. When I'm watching these trailers for Spider-man I feel like Andrew Garfield is playing Peter Parker and doing voice-over work for Spider-man.

[SurfD]

You do realise that no living human being could "realistically" do mo-cap work for Spider-Man, right?  I mean, half his gig is that he is so insanely agile and flexible that it practically defies logic.  Combine that with the fact that he does crazy gymnastic shit while sticking to the sides of buildings and whirling through the air on webs, and even an idoit would be able to tell that a "completely real" Spider-Man would be so painful and immersion breaking to watch it wouldn't even be funny.

[Khaldun]

Been trying to think about what bugs me about the clips--what's triggering my sense that it's not quite right--and I think part of it is the color palette, particularly on Spider-Man's suit, in relationship to the light. It just doesn't look physical--it looks like a comic-book panel. That might be okay if they actually went all the way there--abandoned CGI faux-realism and did something that was visually (not narratively) more like the Speed Racer film. But instead it just feels like a mistake--a bad bit of overtuning or oversaturation.

[Ironwood]

I'm not having this argument again with another Marvel movie.  I hear it every time, yet somehow I still manage to enjoy the movies.

Really, you hear this argument with a lot of Marvel movies? Personally I find that most of the stuff they put out themselves has pretty good CGI where it's used, and it tends to be mixed in with a good amount of practical special effects. There are a few exceptions where maybe the CGI doesn't work as well, but usually only a couple bits per movie. Every trailer for Spider-man I've seen leaves me with the impression that in the majority of the action sequences Spider-man is going to be entirely CGI and Electro probably will be also. When I watch Iron Man, even during the action scenes they manage to convince me RDJ is there inside that suit. When I'm watching these trailers for Spider-man I feel like Andrew Garfield is playing Peter Parker and doing voice-over work for Spider-man.

And this is what I've heard every time another Spider Man movies comes out.  It's a reasonable criticism on the face of it, but as SurfD points out, it kinda meanders into nitpicking and puppy kicking territory.

Again, Nicholas Hammond.  I'm ok with this film since it's not some overweight guy swinging obviously on a rope or climbing a wall with a wire-belt obviously attached.

At least this time around the Actor playing Spider-man and Parker can actually, you know, act like them.

[Ironwood]

it looks like a comic-book panel.

I... I just don't know what to do with you people.

 

[Khaldun]

Like I said, that would be groovy IF that's what the film was trying to do throughout. I just don't like the mix-and-match of everyday cinematography, CGI 'realism' and CGI 'comic-book'. If they're going to go comic-book, go ALL THE WAY comic-book.

[Velorath]

You do realise that no living human being could "realistically" do mo-cap work for Spider-Man, right?  I mean, half his gig is that he is so insanely agile and flexible that it practically defies logic.

I realize that. I also realize that human beings can't fly, you can't actually shoot or stab actors when you're filming a movie, it's not possible to fly an X-Wing through a trench in the Death Star, and that we can't bring back Dinosaurs to film the next Jurassic Park movie.  The job of special effects (and Directing/Cinematography) is to make me actually buy into whatever is happening on screen even when I know it clearly can't actually be happening. It's like watching a magic act. I know what I'm seeing is an illusion so to speak, but I'd still get more enjoyment out of someone doing tricks I can't figure out rather than being able to see the strings and trap doors through the whole show.

I do not buy into Spider-man in the same way I couldn't get into a lot of the action sequences in the last Hobbit movie, especially when Legolas and the elf chick were involved. To me, they might as well just a throw in full-on animated sequences is the movie while running a disclaimer at the bottom saying "Sorry, we couldn't figure out a way to shoot this scene".

[Maven]

Like I said, that would be groovy IF that's what the film was trying to do throughout. I just don't like the mix-and-match of everyday cinematography, CGI 'realism' and CGI 'comic-book'. If they're going to go comic-book, go ALL THE WAY comic-book.

Like Sin City, or a Marvel Animatic?

What do you mean by "ALL THE WAY" Comic Book? I expect the film, when I witness it, not to have any jarring elements when everything's mixed together. A trailer pulling from different points of the movie and mish-mashing them together is going to give a different impression from the finished work.

[eldaec]

Mostly I want the film not to be boring enough for this discussion to come up.

Disclaimer : I haven't seen this.

[Margalis]

I do not buy into Spider-man in the same way I couldn't get into a lot of the action sequences in the last Hobbit movie, especially when Legolas and the elf chick were involved. To me, they might as well just a throw in full-on animated sequences is the movie while running a disclaimer at the bottom saying "Sorry, we couldn't figure out a way to shoot this scene".

The movement is wrong.

The human eye is very perceptive of movement and how living creatures, especially other humans, move. Spider-Man is supposed to be agile as are LOTR Elves, but the way that they move comes off more as plain wrong than superhuman.

Aliens and dinosaurs and things like that work better because we don't have a working reference. Nobody knows exactly what a dinosaur walking around should look like, but we all know what a guy sliding down a thing or swinging on a rope should look like. This is a huge problem for animation in both movies and games, and usually the main reason why things don't look convincing.

Basically CGI humans doing somewhat human-ish things is hard.

[Ironwood]

Mostly I want the film not to be boring enough for this discussion to come up.

Disclaimer : I haven't seen this.

Yuuuuppp.

[Lantyssa]

Spiderman doesn't really qualify as human anymore.  He's a humanoid spider.  It should look wrong.

[Ironwood]

All I know is that ASM 1 got slated for it before it was released by the usual suspects and then they shut up once they saw the film.

And the movement they managed in ASM1 was extremely well done;  he acted like a fucking spider.  The school hallway scenes where he was crawling all over the lizard and webbing him were awesome.

[Maven]

Help me understand something. Is this thread now about speculation and personal wagering about the film's quality and merit based both on the limited information available and using historical reference to prior films and talent ... in order to pass the time until the film's release?

Like, is the arm-chair analysis being posted with the intent to sound off or to influence the subjective taste of others? Both? Neither?

Pretend I'm Brick Tamland.

[Lantyssa]

Some people don't love Lamp.

[Maven]

Some people don't love Lamp.

 

[Velorath]

Help me understand something. Is this thread now about speculation and personal wagering about the film's quality and merit based both on the limited information available and using historical reference to prior films and talent ... in order to pass the time until the film's release?

Like, is the arm-chair analysis being posted with the intent to sound off or to influence the subjective taste of others? Both? Neither?

Pretend I'm Brick Tamland.

The trailers contain CGI that I don't like the look of. I tend to be of the opinion the CGI hasn't advanced to the point that some directors think it has, in that when I see an all CGI character it almost invariably breaks my suspension of disbelief. I used these trailers as a springboard for a conversation about that.