Viewing Thread:
"Spider-man: The Movie"

Just seen it in a preview screen at a cinema near me.

Great film. All the effects are really good and so is the story.
Some people say it's better than Star Wars but I have not seen that so I cannot say.

But the film is brill, if you haven't seen it already (cinemas near you might be previewing) I rocomend you see it, you won't be dissapointed.

Yeah, the CG planes in Pearl Harbour didn't look too good, but the ships did and most of the explosions did

I saw this film when I was in the states recently, it is preety good except for the continuity errors.

I thought the pearl harbour attack was just plain stupid. Mostly CGI, it didn't at once seem real to me, it made me feel like I watching star wars. Like the rest of the film, a big dissapointment.

Some of the stuntmen in Pearl Harbour were CG, and as you didn't see them up close, they looked believeable

Just saw a thing about Hollywood on BBC2, and they showed how in Gladiator, the actor Oliver Reed died before they'd finished filming his scenes. Now that I've seen that backgrounds/people etc were added digitally to his final scenes, I can see it's fake. It's like when you EXPECT something to be fake, ie you *know* they can't really have a person doing the things Spidey does, you spot it. However, when you don't even know it's CGI (like some of the stuff in Pearl Harbour) it seems real

Mouldy Cheese wrote:

> I seem to recall that Al Pacino is in a movie in development at the
> moment, in which one of the characters is entirely CG. That, based on
> your logic, should fail miserably.

It's called sim0ne. All actors in the film are real, its just one of them plays a CGI person. Basically al pachino makes an actress on his computer, and she becomes big and all that, anyway, I don't think there is any charecter in the film who is completely CGI animated.

Vottanator wrote:
Putting a CG man (not
> alien!) in the same shot as real men just doesn't work.

I seem to recall that Al Pacino is in a movie in development at the moment, in which one of the characters is entirely CG. That, based on your logic, should fail miserably.

Oh dear. Just come back from it.

It started so promisingly, the way mr.Parker developed into Spiderman was slightly comical but very well done. Then from then on it was just pure and utter cheese. It escalated into one big power rangers rip-off. The effects were average, what i come to expect nowadays, and the plot was terribly predictable.

Complete waste of time/money. The ending was poor "i am Spiderman" was the last words, exactly in place for a cheapskate sequel *shakes fist* im not impressed.

Devil-Bøy wrote:
I htink he's too shiny



That's what I hate about CGI. Everything is so shiny. Yoda in the original films looks far better than in the new films. Same with the ships. The Naboo Starfighters and Natalie Portman's ship are so shiny and don't look anywhere near as good as the X-Wings, Y-Wings and all other Wings from the original trilogy.

Also, Jaws looks better than those damn CG sharks in Deep Blue Sea.

Spiderman looked alright in some parts of the film.

And Yoda in Star Wars, he looks good, but fake like you say, I htink he's too shiny

:D

Exactly. Remember a few years ago, CGI fooled EVERYONE, and I think that's made companies think they can get away with any old tripe. Yoda in Ep 2 looked so fake, especially when he started jumping around with his 'sabre

As for whether the film is good or not, there's no excuse for bad effects, the CG Spidey SHOULD have looked good

Maybe in a few more years they can do it better