[OT] Spiderman -- and why I have hope for Attack of the Clones

[Moon_Goddess]

ought to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

God that's one thing I never thought I'd hear PC say. Wow, made my day.

 

[Black Omega]

-----------------------------------------------------
Spiderman looked like one of those old Hulk Hogan toys
where you can stretch the arms way out - all rubber and
no bones
-----------------------------------------------------
I figured this was intentional. They used quite a few common Spiderman poses from the comic book, especially the Todd McFarland 'I contort while I swing' version.

 

[mmadsen]

The action scenes were AWESOME - while the non-action parts were lame - half of the greatness of Spider-man is his supporting cast and basically they were bad across the board. . (except Mary Jane)

Wow, you really did have the exact opposite reaction, nemmerle. I disliked most of the action, I enjoyed the non-action parts, and I liked the entire cast. I really enjoyed the JJJ bits.

Speaking of MJ, some of those wet t-shirt scenes were just plain laugh-out-loud gratuitous.

 

[Lizard]

My concern with Attack of the Clones is not that I've already seen the good parts; it's that what I've seen turns me off. The effects look cartoony, and, far more importantly, the acting seems terribly wooden.

Similarly, I almost didn't see Spiderman, because the ads painted such a bad picture. Am I alone in finding the CGI highlights in the ads really unappealing?

I honestly believe these reactions are because you "know" it's CGI.

I think someone should do some double-blind tests, showing people photos, and lie about which are CGI and which are models (or real images), and ask people to rate the 'realism' of them. I strongly believe the results will show that most people CAN'T tell the difference, but react according to their prejudices, ranking real images as 'fake looking' if they believe them to be CGI, and CGI images to be 'realistic' if they are told they are models/real pictures.

I saw Spiderman. At no point did I think "Oh, that's CGI." It all looked real to me. (Compare to, say, Babylon 5 or Hercules, where the CGI is painfully obvious -- but it still is much better than what could be achieved with traditional FX technology. Unless you're a luddite.)

 

[PenguinKing]

I think someone should do some double-blind tests, showing people photos, and lie about which are CGI and which are models (or real images), and ask people to rate the 'realism' of them.

I've done it. And you're right - I know people who can spend ten minutes pointing out the "mistakes" and "failures of realism" in a real, undoctored photograph if you tell 'em it's computer-generated.

(These tend to be the same people who unaccountably never notice the wobbling plastic sword or the fact that you can see the man in the rubber suit's wristwatch in scene 27 - they'll forgive anything, no matter how glaring, as long as there were no computers involved. )

- Sir Bob.

 

[WanderingMonster]

Holy non-sequitir, Batman!

Speaking of MJ, some of those wet t-shirt scenes were just plain laugh-out-loud gratuitous.

I--I don't understand.

 

[Droogie]

Saw the movie twice already and really enjoyed it.

I never begrudge a film for less-than-stellar special fx. I could tell that the fx weren't as good as, say, ILM could do, but they were certainly good enough to get the action across. Its all a matter of budget: if you wanna cut corners, you go to a lesser effects house. If you have a nice fat budget, you go to the best in the business, which is ILM.

I just really like Sam Raimi's style. He was the right director for this one. The script was spotty at times, and there were a few plot holes and choppy scenes, but its definitely good enough to get into my DVD collection.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I'm pretty much in agreement with Nemmerle, which doesn't happen as often as one might think.

By the third or fourth time MJ and Peter were filling 5-minute bathroom breaks of screen time awkwardly staring or mumbling at each other, we were trying to hold back the laughter. By the 6th time (when the natives--munchkins--were getting restless) we didn't even bother.

The action part of the story was great, though.

I'm definitely in agreement with PKitty on the last scene. It looks like someone went back and re-wrote it a half dozen times and eventually just settled because it was late and they were tired. Viva la revolution!

 

[Frostmarrow]

I agree. Every time I saw a Spiderman teaser, I couldn't help but wonder "Just what about this is making everyone scream how awesome it looks?" I just didn't get it - and after seeing the movie, I still didn't.

The best scenes in the movie were with Toby McGuire, not Spiderman.

This was always my opinion about the comic. I read it to follow the life and adventures of Peter Parker. I couldn't care less about Spider-Man. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[mmadsen]

I'm definitely in agreement with PKitty on the last scene. It looks like someone went back and re-wrote it a half dozen times and eventually just settled because it was late and they were tired.

That's where it stumbled for me too. Actually, I was pulled out of the movie when MJ held on to a whipping cable then caught herself on a thick metal bar after falling. Leave that stuff to the superheroes, OK? It strains credibility enough to have Batman, a super-gymnast, catching himself while falling. Don't have every cute girl pull off a superhuman feat too.