Spider-Man: It is TIME!!!! Let's roast this sucker!!!!
#17
Posted 23 June 2004 - 08:14 PM
QUOTE
1) Kevin Smith sucks. I could go on and on (you all know this) but only if someone opens a thread (to date I have never opened one thread! LEGEND!)
I love you too, sweatheart. I know you only said that because I look like him. emind me to send you some wallet size pictures, civilian. Maybe a couple of blow-ups to replace the ones of your ex-girlfriend that you turned into dart boards
Damn, now I started this thread, I can't even finish the damn, thing because I am moving out of my place.
Go crazy on this subject guys,
Be back in while.
#18
Posted 23 June 2004 - 10:55 PM
I thought the CG was done well. Spiderman is supposed to be superhumanly fluid and agile, so whats wrong with making him so?
I have no feeling either way about William, but I personally dislike Toby. Sure, he gets the nerdy aspect of Spiderman well, but like said before, he's just really wooden. Although I'd say he looks a bit more he's made of plastic rather then wood, but the meaning is the same.
I have no feeling either way about William, but I personally dislike Toby. Sure, he gets the nerdy aspect of Spiderman well, but like said before, he's just really wooden. Although I'd say he looks a bit more he's made of plastic rather then wood, but the meaning is the same.
The Green Knight, SimeSublime the Puffinesque, liker of chips and hunter of gnomes.
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
#19
Posted 24 June 2004 - 12:38 AM
Kevin smith is great, I loved Dogma, Mall rats and Clerks.
Spider man I have never seen in theaters because in my comic book days I was a Venom devotee. As soon as he has a movie I'll see it. However I watched Spider man on video and I thought it was an ok movie, Certainly nothing incredible but not too bad. I do have a beef with the spider scene though, I mean come on it just sat on him and bit him? I don't think even radioactive spiders would do this without provocation.
Spider man I have never seen in theaters because in my comic book days I was a Venom devotee. As soon as he has a movie I'll see it. However I watched Spider man on video and I thought it was an ok movie, Certainly nothing incredible but not too bad. I do have a beef with the spider scene though, I mean come on it just sat on him and bit him? I don't think even radioactive spiders would do this without provocation.
Quote
I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
#21
Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:37 AM
in the starlog article it wouldn't rule out Venom, but implied they could certainly go to him in future films.
Has anyone been on the Spider man ride at Universal? it is freaking incredible! And spidey is cgi in that thing, no problems.
it's laid-out so it really is like riding through a comic book. Incredible.
Has anyone been on the Spider man ride at Universal? it is freaking incredible! And spidey is cgi in that thing, no problems.
it's laid-out so it really is like riding through a comic book. Incredible.
#24
Posted 24 June 2004 - 10:29 PM
I really enjoyed Spiderman and agree pretty much with everything that Chefelf mentioned. This was a fun film that had a good story and didn't screw around with the history to much. I really hate that with comic films. There is no point to alter most of what they do and the changes they did make to Spiderman were not to much of an issue - geneticly engineered over radioactive spider and the creation of his own webbing instead of building webshooters.
Just a note on this comment Civ, I see what you've said with most, but I'm curious about the inclusion of Batman. Apart from making Jack Napier the Joker and the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents what else was out of place here in the history of The Batman?
I'm a fan of the Superman movie but still carry a big grudge regarding the changes made to the back story in this film. Mind you, it's nothing compared to some of the bollocks I've read as potential script ideas for the supposed next film.
QUOTE
4) I liked the set up of the character in SPIDERMAN. It was faithful to its source, unlike the nonsense of say, SUPERMAN, BATMAN, BATMAN FOREVER, THE HULK, and DAREDEVIL, to name a few off the top of my head.
Just a note on this comment Civ, I see what you've said with most, but I'm curious about the inclusion of Batman. Apart from making Jack Napier the Joker and the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents what else was out of place here in the history of The Batman?
I'm a fan of the Superman movie but still carry a big grudge regarding the changes made to the back story in this film. Mind you, it's nothing compared to some of the bollocks I've read as potential script ideas for the supposed next film.
Luminous beings are we... not this crude matter.
Yoda
Yoda
#25
Posted 24 June 2004 - 10:43 PM
QUOTE (Just your average movie goer @ Jun 23 2004, 07:15 PM)
There's a limit on going over the top and William Dafoe exceeds it. And I'm sure that the line is probably a fine one - but William Dafoe goes very far beyond it.
And the CGI is incredibly overused.
And the CGI is incredibly overused.
How is CGI overused? The majority of what happens in Spiderman's world is simply not something that a regular human being could do. Wires or no wires. This is the same thing that happened with the Matrix sequels. People complaining about the amount of CGI used, when the amount of things that Neo did that simply were not possible to do with human actors increased a great deal since the first film. I think the way that they used CGI for Spiderman's web-slinging was skillfully done, and looked extremely realistic. The same goes for most of the CGI in that movie. It worked, did its job, and reduced the chances of someone being hurt in a terribly dangerous stunt. It's not like they were using it to make Peter smile or something, just for the sake of using CG.
#27
Posted 25 June 2004 - 06:00 AM
I didn't have any problem with the CG. I didn't even notice it, just sat back and enjoyed the ride. And to me, thats the definition of good use of CG.
The Green Knight, SimeSublime the Puffinesque, liker of chips and hunter of gnomes.
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
#29
Posted 26 June 2004 - 12:24 AM
QUOTE (Just your average movie goer @ Jun 25 2004, 12:34 AM)
They could have had Toby jumping on gym mats in front of a blue screen - it would just make the on-screen Spiderman appear a little more tangible, that's all.
The problem being that Toby MacGuire is not a gymnast, and Spiderman's movements are far beyond most regular people's flexibility. I'm not saying you're dead wrong, but there are just some things that are impossible for regular actors to do. And with the way Raimi had the cameras moving through those sequences, filming Toby would have been a monumental challenge. You may remember that Raimi actually had to invent a camera system for those shots...