Question:
...for the first time on dvd. I first saw it at the cinema last year, and thought it was amazing.
But watching again tonight, I thought there was a lot wrong with it:
The special effects are really, really , poor at times. The scene at the bridge was an example. And when he first jumps from roof top to roof top. Crap.
I watched BTTF yesterday. No CGI and much better effects. Did film makers put more effort in the old days??
Willem DeFoe puts no effort what so ever into the role and is quite rubbish. His Green Goblin, is just the Joker on a hoverboard. He had no depth whatsoever as either Osborn or the Goblin.
The action has all been seen over and over before. Guy becomes hero, beats up usual mugger, robber.
The Spidey - Goblin fights are a little dull.
Danny Elfmans score was below par. (But a lot of his are unimpressive)
The "pick on one of us, you pick on us all" speach from the New Yorker was the most cringe-worthy piece of dialogue in history. Lucas would be ashamed to go that far.
And the whole film had a feel like the director who didn't know what he wanted and some times made the film look cheap.
The best parts were the scenes between Maguire and Dunst. Both nailed their roles perfectly. Maguire especially was perfect as Parker.
JK Simmons as J.Jonah Jameson was also very good.
I dont think Spidey 2 will be any better with the same director (Can't you find a decent role for Campbell?????) and Alfred Mongolia :rolleyes: as the boring Doctor Octopus.
Im almost afraid to view more of my unwatched-since-cinema dvds, just in case!
Answer:

Originally posted by Soprano
I watched BTTF yesterday. No CGI and much better effects. Did film makers put more effort in the old days??

Undoubtedly IMO. I've just watched Star Wars episode 1 and 2 on dvd (for the first time since the cinema), and while the 2 films have their moments, are rather average as a whole. The whole overload of CGI just doesn't do it for me. It cannot compensate for the poor plot, acting, dialogue etc. etc. I could happily sit through the original trilogy again and again, but I can't say the same for episode 1 and 2.
As for Spiderman, I went to the cinema twice to see it, and loved it both times. I only watched the dvd last week, but still think its a great movie, despite losing a little of the magic on a lower scale set-up.
Answer:

How can you critize Spider-man and not mention the Horrible hospital scene.....I found that worse than the ''pick on him pick on all of us '' scene:gag: :gag:
Answer:

And I thought I was the only one!
There were a few good points, but the worse part of the film for me was every time he put on the Spider-Man suit. There just did not appear to be any excitement there for me (as stated above the Spider-man v Green Goblin bits were all a bit flat & dull).
In fact on the super-hero front I enjoyed both X-Men, & Tim Burtons 2 Batman films a lot more (come to think of it Dare Devil was a better film!), & the first two Superman films are still the bench mark that others have (yet?) to match.
I was also not impressed with the CGI Spider-Man, and was amazed by how all the spidy fans laughed & took the pee out Episode 2’s CGI, where it was even worse in Spider-Man! Even now people are saying the CGI Hulk looks bad, well to me it looks better, moves better (Im talking about the CGI here & not the film) than CGI Spider-Man!
Answer:

Saw it at the flicks and thought it was poor. So poor, I'm not going to watch it on DVD. :eek:
Answer:

Totally agree with new, although I thought the final fight between the 2 was very good.
Superman - BEST FILM EVER :D
Answer:

Like many others I still believe the original Superman is the best superhero film ever made (so far at least).
The sense of majesty (that John Williams score!) and the real sense that the film makers took the material seriously made a film, made in 1978 better than all the CGI overloaded blockbusters made today.
That said though, the 2 Burton Batmans and Byran Singers 2 X-Men films are the best produced in this new wave of superhero action on the big screen.
I enjoyed Spider-man alot, although the film does have its problems as mentioned above. The best thing about SM was the sense that you cared for the main characters, something that is sorely lacking in many films these days! But the CGI was poor (as mentioned in another thread, I am fastly getting annoyed at the over-use of CGI), quite liked Daredevil and will buy the DVD to give it a second chance for me to change my mind.
Answer:

have to agree - I said at the time Tobey Maguire was excellent...but the films effects were woeful....a definite case of the emporors new clothes...it is only now people are starting to speak out and say "Hey I have an opinion...and that film wasnt as good as the critics made out..."
apologies ot anyone who thought it was great ;O)
Answer:

I always thought it pretty dreadful. Great first 45 minutes or so, then just lost it's way totally.
Answer:

Superman is rubbish, it must be a nostalgia thing.
Answer:

The best SFX in Spider-man come during the end sequences ...also my favourite part of the score as well.
Answer:

i used to love it but see myself more and more beginning to hate it. Its boring, and has some of the worst lines in history especially "mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" or womething like that and "You're gonna light up broadway" Super cheese!!!
Answer:

What are you guys on. Spiderman is one the better Superhero movies around. And is everyone trying to be a critic in the style of Barry Norman.
I have watched it many times and the CGI is no where near as bad you guys are making out and one of the few flicks I can watch again and again without getting board. I am going to put on my flame proofed suite now.
Answer:

Watched it 3 times now and it gets better every time..its an excellent super hero film IMHO. Raimi did good. :thumbs:
Answer:

Wheres Bruce Campbell in it?
Answer:

Originally posted by Building better worlds
Wheres Bruce Campbell in it?
He is the ring anouncer that comes up with the name Spider-man just before the wreastling match with Bonsaw :dork:
Answer:

Honestly there is no pleasing anyone is there? Spiderman, in my opinion was yes flawed, but name a 'perfect superhero movie'...it is the best of the bunch, narrowly out-doing Superman. The FX were not the best ever seen, but certainly new-generation FX nonetheless. I'd give Spiderman a fair 8/10, but for me the big superhero dissapointment was X2, I just thought it was no in-different that XMen, where was the war we were promised from Part I? And for a movie that cost well over $100m, Singer's direction is awfully un-captivating, no huge money shots or even a glimpse as to why the movie cost so damn much...Still enjoyed it though, but 7/10 is a fair score, same as the first one.
Just one thing to add about Spidey, I gave it a 9/10 at the movies, but after several DVD viewings I have lowered the score to its final 8/10...I think thats fair.
Answer:

Originally posted by Tob
Superman is rubbish, it must be a nostalgia thing.
Agreed. Apart from Christopher Reeves performance the film's an embarrasment.
Answer:

Well, I love Spider-Man for it's slightly simple storytelling. IMO so many people these days expect something funky and postmodern, and when they watch something as simple and irony-free as Spider-Man (or the new Star Wars for that matter) it kinda throws them. And the CGI is just another means to an end, even in Star Wars, but it's not over-used in Spider-Man which helps. As for other comic book greats, Superman I love because it was the first great comic book movie, and to many is still unmatched. Tim Burton's Batman efforts run it close, but not quite. I watched X2 again just yesterday and I enjoyed it much more than the first time - I realised how good the movie actually is, although it still can't out-do the first X-Men. Daredevil, IMO, is a big pile of poo, and I wish I'd never put down the money to see such a terrible movie. But I can't wait to see Hulk!
Answer:

Originally posted by Mandrill
He is the ring anouncer that comes up with the name Spider-man just before the wreastling match with Bonsaw :dork: Bonesaw you mean;).
Answer:

Originally posted by Tob
Superman is rubbish, it must be a nostalgia thing.
I love SUPERMAN, no nostalgia here! Anyway, this is a Spider-man thread.
I love the film, but there are a few problems with it:
a) Bad f/x, thanks to the one of the first f/x houses in the business - SONY IMAGEWORKS!!!!!!!! :mad:
b) No build-up to Spider-man first big outing in the movie
c) No depth to Green Goblin
d) AWFUL photography, very dull and no manipulation of the image!
e) Score is boring and no theme!!!!!!! Elfman AGAIN! :oh-hum:
Answer:

Originally posted by Panavision
b) No build-up to Spider-man first big outing in the movie Eh? I could see your point, although I disagree with some of them, but you've just lost me here.
Answer:

What I mean is that when you see Clark change into Superman for the first time, there's a big build-up. In Spider-man, there's no cresendo to the first time we see Spider-man in the suit!
Answer:

Indeed, Spider-Man is a great film. A lot of fun. However, it's far from a film that improves with every viewing (its flaws have a nasty tendency to become ever more glariing) and it is not, it must be said, even in the same ballpark as Superman.
Answer:

I think its easily as good as Superman regardless of effects etc. The story is better I think and the performance of Maguire is spot on, easily as good as Reeves performance of Clark.
Yes the CGI is a bit dodgy in parts but not in most of it! The last fight is also fantastic and the build up to him becoming Spider-Man is great. Kirsten provides the :norty: whilst Dafoe is there to hate :mad:
The only beef I have with Spidey is that damn New Yorkers scene, really drags it down. :oh-hum:
Answer:

Whereas previous Marvel super-hero films have been sanatised to appeal to a broader audience by relieing less on the super powers and having the Hulk and Spiderman fight ordinary gangsters as if they were detective shows, the latest Spiderman is loyal to the comic from storyline to garish FX. I consider Spiderman to be a first rate superhero action film starring a charector different in power and origin than Batman and the style of Superman comics. The first 3 Batman films and first 2 Superman films were very good and true to their comic origin as is Spiderman but from a differnt style of comic.
Whatever, I don't think anyone into superhero films would wish Spiderman to have not been made or can seriously say it's not entertaining.
Answer:

Well, here's my worthless oppinion!! :);
I thought it was distinctly average!! no better no worse
6/10 material. which most films these days are! (of course not always the case)
Answer:

Originally posted by Panavision
e) Score is boring and no theme!!!!!!! Elfman AGAIN! :oh-hum:
Oh come on, Spidey's theme is right there with the opening titles.
Answer:

I loved Spider-man and feel it is a perfect match of Director, lead actor and material.
I mean if you are a fan of the Spider-man comics you cant help but love it, it has the magic of spider-man, you get what you always imagined it would be,
But,
If you are not a fan I can see why it would not appeal to you.
Answer:

I thought it was great, wouldn't mind seeing a longer version though. Didn't blow me away but was enjoyable and not *bad*. II've always been a spidey fan
As for the CGI, I thought this was possibly the best use and example of being well done in any film.
Answer:

Originally posted by The Karate Kid
As for the CGI, I thought this was possibly the best use and example of being well done in any film.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah right, it was sooo much better than what they did with Gollum in the Two Towers:eek:
Spider-Mans cgi ranks right down there with Die Another Days, & The Mummy Returns.
The fact you can so obviously tell its a cgi Spider-Man in most of the film speaks for its self:oh-hum:
Answer:

I hate CGI.
I think people are just starting to accept it and forget the fact that it is cartoony and completely unrealistic.
Look at the effects in Close Encounters or Blade Runner - they look 'real', because there is actually something there.
I couldn't believe the crapness of CGI when I first saw it, but now like everyone else, my brain has been trained to try and accept it.
I watched Escape from LA the other day and thought - I remember the effects being worse than this. If that's not a bad sign, I don't know what is.
Any film which relies so heavily on CGI (Ep I, Two Towers, Spiderming) will have an incredibly short shelf life as far as effects are concerned.
I thing George Lucas will have to be updating his films every 10 years.
Answer:

Originally posted by new
Spider-Mans cgi ranks right down there with Die Another Days, & The Mummy Returns.
The fact you can so obviously tell its a cgi Spider-Man in most of the film speaks for its self:oh-hum:
Could you please enlighten us as to which effects shots you disapprove of?
Answer:

The photography was excellent. A real comic book come to life.
Answer:

Oh and anyone who thinks Superman sucks, sucks.
Answer:

Originally posted by new
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah right, it was sooo much better than what they did with Gollum in the Two Towers:eek:
Spider-Mans cgi ranks right down there with Die Another Days, & The Mummy Returns.
The fact you can so obviously tell its a cgi Spider-Man in most of the film speaks for its self:oh-hum:
I suppose I'm more of a regular punter, rather than your CGI obsessed film geek etc.
I just enjoyed the film, whilst I was aware of what might have been CGI due to human improbablility, I was too busy watching the film to notice to be honest. :wave:
keep on geeking:D
Answer:

Why o why did they put Macy Gray in the film. I am a huge Spiderman fan but detest Macy Gray, she has a voice like Donald Duck! Ruined it for me.
Answer:

Loved the film in the cinema, still find it very enjoyable now. But it is a film of two halves - the origin is handled brilliantly, the second half is not so compelling. Special effects? Yes, some of it is ropey, some of it is astoundingly good - the slow motion effect of Spider-Man in the burning building avoiding the Goblin's razor bats is frankly amazing - right down to the shifting body fat, the tone of his muscles. Some of it is not so good - in particular when he swings onto the top of the balloon in the Times Square battle.
The movie was applauded at the time for its characterisation moreso than its special effects, and I notice that none of the criticisms on here (bar a throwaway Defoe comment) centre on that.
As for the build-up to him becoming Spider-Man... you're kidding right? Parker has just come back from graduating still plagued with guilt about letting down Uncle Ben and utterly morose that he wasn't there that day - because of him. The build-up to him being Spider-Man is Aunt May's chat with him, and his decision to dust off his old costume drawings and Do The Right Thing with his life. I thought that part of the movie was brilliant.
Answer:

agree about putting macy gray in, a few years from now people will watch the film and wonder who the hell she is. and her spot in the film is so short that i can't understand why they bothered. a crazy moment of self indulgence.
Answer:

It's patently obvious that Superman was bluescreen or rear/front projection for large amounts of the time, it's not as if all special effects were 100% convincing before CGI came along.
Answer:

Originally posted by Mr Nice
It's patently obvious that Superman was bluescreen or rear/front projection for large amounts of the time, it's not as if all special effects were 100% convincing before CGI came along.
Are you joking? The 'Can you read my mind' sequence is flawless. The model shots near the end are fantastic. The Batwing in Batman looks like a real batwing, and the model city beats CGI hands down. The stop-motion 'dog' in Ghostbusters is like the real thing, and The Terminator Hunter-Killers couldn't be more realistic. Flash Gordon boasts fantastic use of blue screen too! Time after Time has incredible time travel effects, loads of blue flashing. Ben-Hur boasts fantastic realistic looking ships at sea "Ramming Speed!" and the yellow brick road in The Wizard of OZ stretches for miles. the car in Chitty Chitty Bang bang flew like a bird as did the elevator in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory..flawless FX!
Answer:

Was the scene right at the end of Spidey swinging through New York fully CGI? That scene looks amazing and completley captured what I always thought Spiderman would look like in real life.
I think the SFX are fine for the most part, except for the parts with Peter running on the rooftops and also when chasing Uncle Ben's killer.
Answer:

Originally posted by KAC
Could you please enlighten us as to which effects shots you disapprove of?
Im not sure what film you are on about here, & surprised that they need pointing out in any of them, but:
Spider-man:
1) When he goes after his Uncles killer.
2) When we see him doing various crimefighting deeds, about half way into the film.
(They just don’t seam to get the movement right.)
Die Another Day:
That surfing in the ice bit. (Although I have to admit they did do a good job with the water here, but Bond :gag: )
Mummy Returns
The Scorpion King bit at the end.
Answer:

And tons of CGI has been virtually flawless Dan Druff, you can't construct a crusade by only pitting the bad CGI against the good work done by other methods(oh, and shrinking water in a minature is a virtual impossiblity, hence why end of Superman isn't convincing, and stop motion always looks like stop motion, the animatronic terminator was good, the long shot of the limping terminator(stop motion) not so good).
Naming one of the more convincing flight scenes in Superman is a strawmans argument.
Missing my point entirely anyway that if flawless special effects were vital to a making a film "good" then there would be precious few good films with effects in them;).
Answer:

Its usually the other way around is the point I'm making..the argument..compare Blade Runner fantastic FX to The Mummy Returns CGI is also lopsided argument etc. :suspect:
Answer:

Enjoy the film for what it is. Ask the average joe on the street and he will tell you the FX were fantastic, and it made a ridiculous amount of money when it opened.
Some of you guys are way to critical, I watch movies to enjoy myself not to pick them apart otherwise I would have said that the Fugative was crap beacuse one FX shot ruined the whole film.
Answer:

Originally posted by Grandmaster
the slow motion effect of Spider-Man in the burning building avoiding the Goblin's razor bats is frankly amazing - right down to the shifting body fat, the tone of his muscles. That was CGI? I assumed it was wirework&slowmo.
Answer:

Originally posted by Mr Nice
That was CGI? I assumed it was wirework&slowmo.
No that was full CGI as was the end scene where he swings through New York. Absolutely incredible, Gollum eat your heart out. :p
Answer:

Originally posted by kaine106
No that was full CGI as was the end scene where he swings through New York. Absolutely incredible, Gollum eat your heart out. :p Well I knew the end was(well, the completely stylalised flag as he swung round it gave the game away even if you weren't sure by that point;). Still though, that(the dodge scene) was a matter of seconds, Gollum was on screen for minutes at a time.
Answer:

Originally posted by new
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah right, it was sooo much better than what they did with Gollum in the Two Towers:eek:
Damn right!
Gollum is the most over-hyped piece of CGI ever to mar a cinema screen. Sure, he looks very impressive, but he doesn't look real.
Answer:

Gollum was great CGI but gets overpraised by LOTR fanboys Spidermans was just as good in parts (fight in burning building, The end) Poor in others (Chasing after uncles killer, Running accross rooftops)
Overall I thought it was definetley one of the better comic book movies of recent years
Answer:

Originally posted by Dan Druff
The Batwing in Batman looks like a real batwing, and the model city beats CGI hands down.
:lol: :lol: Have you seen the movie recently??? the part where the Batwing crashes into the city is very obviously a model..
IMO CGI gets a rough ride sure it can look bad but in the movies with a bigger budget the CGI for the most part is fine.
Also you know the movie is uterlizing CGI you see a guy climb a wall then swing from building to building and land on a car,it's pretty easy to say ''oh look thats CGI ''
If they don't use CGI how can they make a Spider-man movie and have him move like he does in the comics ????
Answer:

Originally posted by Mr Nice
That was CGI? I assumed it was wirework&slowmo.
Nope, the sequence of Spidey in the burning building dodging the razor bats is 100% CGI, as was the "swinging through the city" bit at the end.
EDIT: I really should read replies before I post :D