Spider-Man 3 Thread

I can't stop thinking about this...but..
Is it me or did the Landlords Daughter's mole get less noticable?
 
Got to see this today. Overall I liked it (though apparently George Lucas thought it sucked). Only real problem I had was with the handheld, especially cops around the sand truck. Paraphrasing Dov Simens, handheld is fine for TV but does not work on the big screen.
 
Cryogenic Filmworks said:
(though apparently George Lucas thought it sucked)
Click to expand...

After reading that I had to google for the quote. Here it is:

"It's silly. It's a silly movie," he said. "There just isn't much there. Once you take it all apart, there's not much story, is there?"
Click to expand...

Now ... you all know what I'm thinking, so I'm not even going to continue this post.

Wow. Just ... wow.
 
Cryogenic Filmworks said:
Paraphrasing Dov Simens, handheld is fine for TV but does not work on the big screen.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I think 3 LOTR films with abundant use of hand-held camera work nullifies that argument, as well as the career of James Cameron. Hand-held is like any cinematic tool. Done poorly and it sucks. Done well and it adds to the mood of the film. The key to making it work is just making sure the shot always has a center of focus. I know which shot you're talking about, and that was just a bad shot.
 
I believe that there is some ruth to that argument. Things do look different on a big screen. I had what I thought was a rock solid dolly shot last summer on a feature I was shooting. It looked great on my editing system and on my 32"TV. But when it showed on a big screen in a theatre, it looked jumpy. You could see every little bump. I'm not saying that hand-held shouldn't be used in theatrical films, but you need to consider the venue when you are shooting. Shaky movement is exacerbated on a bigger screen.
 
I still think it comes down to how well it's done and integrated into the film. I think Dov Simen's concern, being that he comes from the world of no budget filmmaking, is that bad camcorder handheld photography will make your movie look amateur. However, when used by trained pro's with good lenses and heavier cameras (which helps dampen exessive movement), it can be a powerful tool. I do hate it when stuff is made to look intentionally shaky. It should appear as though a camera is operator trying his best to stay steady in a chaotic scene. Editing also plays a big part in making hand held work. Going back to the LOTR films, I felt the hand held was over done in the Battle at Helm's Deep because of the way it was cut, with one frenetic hand held shot after another. You need to break them up to give people's eyeballs a rest and give them something to lock onto. Return of the King used a different editor and I felt the action sequences were paced better, and the hand held work came off better as a result.
 
Im usually really analytical of movies but when spiderman first came out i made an exception and just enjoyed watching my hero swing across NY. Then spiderman 2 came out and I just sat back and turned off my head...
But this time I was taken so far out of the experience that i couldnt help and be discusted at this movie. Seriously, I love Sam Raimi and Spiderman more than anyone but this was the most infuriating movie of the year (keeping in mind i dont go to see obvious garbage like "the condemned" or "The Land of Women"...even if i had the time). I honestly couldn't believe that i was actually seeing some of the things on the screen. So many scenes were unjustifiably idiotic. I'm starting to think either Sam Raimi is losing his touch (okay so he lost it a long time ago, but I still have faith) or he's brilliant.....after all, he just scammed the world out of a lot of money and gave them trash in return. This man is notorious for making low budget movies look pro....but he just took an enormous budget and made the most amateur film in his career.
 
Haven't seen it - didn't even consider it. I saw bits and pieces of the first one and I have played far too many high rez PC games to ever be convinced by a movie like this. Action special effects died after T2.
 
I just saw it... I'm mad about a lot of things right now.

For now, I will simply pose this question- why the hell does anyone have a mask if you're going to take it off so many damn times!?
 
Jeremy Ordan said:
Well my experience was different. I saw it in IMAX friday for my first IMAX experience (for a movie at least, not a docu IMAX thing).

First, IMAX sucked! where I was sitting I couldn't see the whole screen and had to keep panning my head with the action.

Beyond that, this movie just bored me and was kinda lame. I liked the first two but sat there bored and wanting this to end... then again, my neck also hurt from that stupid curved roof.

Either way, I wasn't a fan of it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't help that that particular IMAX is an OmnIMAX.
 
David- What is the difference between Imax and OmniImax?

As for the 3rd installment, I still haven't seen it yet. I have my doubts about it, and most of you have echoed my fears... too many story plots for one movie. I for one don't blame Raimi, he did do a wonderful job on the last two. I blame Sony and Ari Avid. Avid is the one who decided what that fans were screaming for. Unfortunately, I think Ari has a problem understanding English, because nobody wanted an overblown crapfest.

Yes, I wanted to see Venom's storyline, but not crowded in with two other villains. Venom was a story the deserved it's own trilogy, not as an after thought.
 
An OmnImax theater has a big domed screen, instead of a big flat one. Makes things immersive, but hard to watch.
 
Capt Quirk said:
David- What is the difference between Imax and OmniImax?

As for the 3rd installment, I still haven't seen it yet. I have my doubts about it, and most of you have echoed my fears... too many story plots for one movie. I for one don't blame Raimi, he did do a wonderful job on the last two. I blame Sony and Ari Avid. Avid is the one who decided what that fans were screaming for. Unfortunately, I think Ari has a problem understanding English, because nobody wanted an overblown crapfest.

Yes, I wanted to see Venom's storyline, but not crowded in with two other villains. Venom was a story the deserved it's own trilogy, not as an after thought.
Click to expand...

"Overblown Crapfest." Couldn't have said it better myself.

I loved Spidey1 and Spidey2, but this just seriously sucked. While watching it I kept asking myself "is it me, or does this flick totally bite a$$?" but when part of the audience mock clapped at the end, i knew it wasn't just me.

Thinking the movie sucked. Not biting a$$.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top