Spider-Man 3 :: Production Focus

[lazzhar]

Good article.
Guys at Imageworks seem very proud of what they have done :) Congratulations.

[rezado]

Well, in my opinion the quality of CGI here is not very surprising here . Every day its getting easier to make scenes that were maybe impossible to make in the past with the same realism. The important thing is the idea beyond every film. I can assure you if they decide to make Spider man 4 its going to be even more realistic with more dynamic camera movements and so on… it’s the same process that happened in Aliens, Terminators, Star Wars etc. but is CGI really helps the idea or the idea becomes a slave in the hand of budget and technology. Is that really makes Spiderman 3 better than the first 2 is that makes the Alien 4 or Alien Vs Predator better than Ridley Scot’s Alien? Or is Spielberg’s War of The Worlds is really stronger than Jaws?



In my opinion we are loosing the basic values of Cinema, here the original ideas and creativity is fading and technology and commercialism taking their places.

Thanks
Reza Do

[Bonedaddy]

This isn't a forum dedicated to critiquing the cinematic quality of movies. Effects guys have no say in the story.

Furthermore, just because people expect that it'll be good doesn't make it any less hard. There's a phenomenal amount of effort that goes into movies like this, and dismissing it so cavalierly is pretty shortsighted.

The work they put together looks great. Gets my brain going to read about how they did a lot of that stuff. Makes me want to go out and read more SIGGRAPH papers. Congrats to all the folks who made it come together -- it looked great.

[stunnerprince]

VFX wise the movie is awesome.but the rest all sucks.

the first scenes of sandman was kickass...

[MartyMcFly]

[QUOTE=Bonedaddy]This isn't a forum dedicated to critiquing the cinematic quality of movies. Effects guys have no say in the story.

No, effects guys don't. BUT, effects do keep me in the movie, OR they take me out.
In case of Spider Man 3, it was the latter (the story wasn't helping).

I thought the comment posted by Rezado were valid. My personal opinion is that Spider Man 3 should have spent more money on coming up with an actual good story, vs Special Effects. I just don't believe special effects can hold a movie together(Pirates 3 being a good example). I'm sure everybody worked very hard on the film, but just because there is a "phenomenal amount of effort that goes into movies like this" doesn't automatically make it a good movie.

But hey,...to each his own.

[okazaky]

Thanks for the interesting article! For me the vfx are absolutely awesome (like the whole movie ;))
I'm really looking forward for Spider-Man 4 :thumbsup:

[Bonedaddy]

I'm not saying it was a good movie. Hell, my college major was in film criticism -- I can pretty much guarantee I hate a majority of movies with a greater passion than you do.

But the matter of the fact is, this forum is dedicated to discussing computer graphics. It's fine and dandy to have your opinion about how good the movie was. That isn't the topic, though. There's a thread for Spider-Man 3 reviews in General Discussions. This thread's about production techniques.

[pimeto]

i realy enjoyed the CG in that movie!
but after leaving the cinema i was mad that i give my money on this stupid movie!
never again!
but the CG was amazing. thought nothing new...

[yeoj3d]

well i gotta agree with the majority of people who have seen the movie.

EFFECTS: great! this film was loaded with cool CGI, hats off to the great artists at Sony Imageworks. Awesome digital environments, compositing, animation, particles, etc......'nuff said

EVERYTHING ELSE: horrible! *spoilers warning*
All my friends & coworkers told me not to see this movie because of the terrible story, acting, ending, etc. Well even watching it with low expectations, i was still dissapointed. C'mon Spiderman turns Emo, WTF? I thought halfway through the movie they replaced Toby Maguire with the lead singer of Fallout Boy, or the lead singer of any of those cheesy trendy Emo bands. Then to top that, he starts doing the John Travolta Saturday Night Fever Dance for a good 15 minutes of the movie??!! Also, the love story was almost as boring as the acting. I don't know why they decided to have 14 different villians in this film, too many main characters. I've never read a spiderman comic, so i don't know if spiderman becomes friends with sandman & green goblin Jr. in the comics, but regardless it was a complete waste of an ending. I hope for the good of human civilization they don't make a spiderman 4.

[loocas]

The VFX was 90% of the time great, 10% was average, or I even dare to say below-average. I mean, some of the shots looked very cheap and very fake in comparison to others. Can't name any right now, but I remember it was mostly the flying spidey shots (the lighting, shading and rendering all mad it look very fake). Which is strange especially because all the shots were done by Sony, no other vfx studio was involved in the making of the key shots, afaik.

Other than that the film itself was so freakin' bad, I can't believe I wasted 2+ hours on something like Spiderman 3 :banghead:

If you're in for the effects like me, I still wouldn't recommend going to see this movie, it's dead boring, stupid and idiotic.

I really regret going to seeing the movie to the cinema. :rolleyes:

[rezado]

CGI Simulation of reality is not Art, otherwise we shouldn’t have any type of painting except realism. Camera is constantly moving and that’s not just because of the need of the story, because it’s cheaper and easier than the past, So why they shouldn’t use it when they are not capable of making a strong story line or an unpredictable ending.

I hope you all seen Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil (1958) the movie is still famous for its 4 minutes camera tracking through the streets. 50 years and still we can talk about that. I am sure all the visual effects of this movie will be faded in lest than a 1 year, and It simply because the next few movies will have even more attractive CGI. CGI is a tool and it should be use for the need of the story. That’s when you can measure the wisdom of the Director. Movies such as Children of The Men, Fight Club, Saving Private Ryan 28 Days Later …are the best example of smart use of special effect.

I understand that this website is dedicated to CGI. I don’t really know about other artists in this forum but I believe CGI can not be define as a art unless it carry a idea .

[sunshine85]

Personally I think you guys should all grow up. If you didnt like the movie then ok, But complaining is not going to do anything about it. If think you wasted you rtime with the movie there are alot more things you could waste your time and life doing besides this. I bet half of you guys probably went in and came out thinking the same thing. why didnt they stick to the comic? Honestly those poeple shouldnt have gone and seen the movie in the first place. How many movies from comics have followed the series. not many. The movie still broke box office records and more. The movie standalone to me was great. slow here and there but alot of movies are and until you pay for the movies the director will do it how he wants and so many poeple wont like it, mainly becuase we all dont see eye to eye. so overall effects were pretty awesome. also to whomever said(I understand that this website is dedicated to CGI. I don’t really know about other artists in this forum but I believe CGI can not be define as a art unless it carry a idea .) should not be allowed here. cgi is as much an artform as photographing. plus you rgoing to say the famouse greeks and romans that sculpted werent artists either? Well i hope you dont call yourself and artist because of what you said. enough ranting those are my two centsin.

[PhuongDPh]

Hi there,
I don't think I even have to say anything, except ... :thumbsup:. Click the image and feel free to comment.


that's what I need.
Thanks very much !

[elnady]

Fantastic work!
And thanks for the article :)

[rezado]

(http://forums.cgsociety.org/member.php?u=255477)First you need to learn how to approach the argument. I don’t try to imply my opinion to anyone, just saying it. I never talked about ancient Greek, I never said their realistic works are not art, calling something realistic is not enough to define it as a art… I think you basically didn’t get A word of my post.

I’m sorry.:D

[Bonedaddy]

This thread's getting pretty off-topic, so if anyone wants to continue the argume-I mean, discussion, please do so in a thread I created for it over here (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=4416102#post4416102).

[webhead]

Nice article on the VFX of the movie. I really liked the little quicktime movies that broke down all the elements used in the shots.

[EJ]

Informative article.

Time to learn Houdini :argh:

[lovisx]

I assume Houdini was used primarily for effects, and maya used for rigging?

[arctor]

Maya, Houdini, and custom Sony stuff...
there is a thread here - http://forums.odforce.net/index.php?showtopic=5302
including some of the people who worked on S3

[lovisx]

one day I will meet you in person arctor. Thanks for the link

[adonihs]

this movie was a complete disaster, and I don't know why the CG was commended so much. They're still having the rubber looking CGI humans, in half of the shots. My friends girlfriend worked on the film, and explained why because: they DON'T USE MOTION CAPTURE. Everyone wants to "key frame" it, and it doesn't look that great. Sandman looked great in his introduction, but other than that..movie fell flat.

ILM and WETA on the other hand...

[webhead]

They're still having the rubber looking CGI humans, in half of the shots. My friends girlfriend worked on the film, and explained why because: they DON'T USE MOTION CAPTURE. Everyone wants to "key frame" it, and it doesn't look that great...
Though, there were some good effects in the movie, I agree with you that the character animation still looks cartoony - even for a comicbook adaption. Part of the problem for me is that, often, during the fight sequences, the characters seem to be moving in fast motion which comes off looking cartoony, and almost comical.

[MartinRomero]

The scene of the sandman, when rising up from the sand for me, was one of the most beautiful cg scenes of all time. I was so amazed to see this sand creature coming to life. I think that the CG guys worked really hard get those scenes to look right.

[Apoclypse]

CGI Simulation of reality is not Art, otherwise we shouldn’t have any type of painting except realism. Camera is constantly moving and that’s not just because of the need of the story, because it’s cheaper and easier than the past, So why they shouldn’t use it when they are not capable of making a strong story line or an unpredictable ending.

I hope you all seen Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil (1958) the movie is still famous for its 4 minutes camera tracking through the streets. 50 years and still we can talk about that. I am sure all the visual effects of this movie will be faded in lest than a 1 year, and It simply because the next few movies will have even more attractive CGI. CGI is a tool and it should be use for the need of the story. That’s when you can measure the wisdom of the Director. Movies such as Children of The Men, Fight Club, Saving Private Ryan 28 Days Later …are the best example of smart use of special effect.

I understand that this website is dedicated to CGI. I don’t really know about other artists in this forum but I believe CGI can not be define as a art unless it carry a idea .

In a year? Try 2 weeks later. Pirates came out and basicaly blew this one out of the water, so to speak. I really don't see them getting the oscar this year. Pirates is gonna be th front runner, imo. Not to say that the cg wasn't great in Spiderman 3, it just wasn't incredible.

[rblitz7]

In a year? Try 2 weeks later. Pirates came out and basicaly blew this one out of the water, so to speak. I really don't see them getting the oscar this year. Pirates is gonna be th front runner, imo. Not to say that the cg wasn't great in Spiderman 3, it just wasn't incredible.
besides Davy Jones, there was nothing that groundbreaking IMO. I was much more impressed with the fights scenes in SM3.

[Bigalpimp]

Thanks for the article...the movies was a lil too lovey dovey and long for my taste but the CG effects were worth the price of admission alone

[adonihs]

besides Davy Jones, there was nothing that groundbreaking IMO. I was much more impressed with the fights scenes in SM3.

I'm sorry, but I have to take this down a notch. Personal opinion is totally accepted, but SM3 was leagues behind POTC. Pirates 3 had some eh-shots in it; the green screen on Jack's doubles, the floating pot with Calypso, and..Calypso. BUT, Davey Jones and his crew, the whirl-pool, the boat-graveyard town, the ice land shots, and more were far more superior to SM3's (as said) quick moving, rubber looking, humans. And trust me, I'm a HUGE SPIDER-MAN FAN, it's proved in my gallery, but I still felt this movie's story was crap, and visual effects were pretty low. I'd rather take one brilliant CG character, over a handful of fight scenes that take me out of the film. Especially for $ 350 million (as for those who don't believe me, look it up.)

You look at Bay's Transformers for 150, and Pirates for 200, and they just blew SM3 out of the water, no pun intended.

All in all, I don't think either films are groundbreaking, even Transformers, but you look at a film like LOTR and (soon to be) Avatar, and you wonder where these guys really put the money in SM3.


but to each his own.

[adonihs]

Movies such as Children of The Men, Fight Club, Saving Private Ryan 28 Days Later …are the best example of smart use of special effect.

Bingo. To end my part, this is exactly what we need more of. Visual effects should only be used to enhance or tell the story, not shove it down your throat.

[GoldenCamel]

neither of these films had any awesome effects, we've seen'em all before in differnt shapes and forms and there was nothing new.

I remember back when Terminator 2 came out, now THAT was a huge breakthrough in visual effects, I mean, nobody's ever never seen anything like that. How did they do it?!

I think with today's cheap visual effects in every home made video, it's gonna take a long time for the next groundbreaking film as influencial as T2 to come along.

but what do I know!

[GoldenCamel]

Bingo. Visual effects should only be used to enhance or tell the story, not shove it down your throat.

300 was a very good use of not-shoving-down-the-throat-effects to tell a story, I mean, seriously, the effects were so invisible you couldn't even tell wether they used any computer imagery or not.

Man, I wish they'd done the same with Blood diamond and The Last samurai. those films had EFFECTS all over them.

oh well, great film makers are hard to find these days.

[animalunae]

Nice CG, too bad, though, that so much money is spent on such horrible movies... On a good movie, I'd have liked it better

[cooperunionstud]

i think talking about the CG in relation to the story of the movie is quiet relevant and important. I think many of the posters from above are quiet accurate in their assesements of the movie, in that it lacked a strong story compared to all the efforts spent on all the fancy CG effects. We should all realize that introduction of new technology is not why most people goto theathers. CG is a tool that helps to tell the story, and interest stories are really what inspires people to create better CG. Often people equate good CG with good movie, while that use to be true in many cases during the mid ninities, CGs are such common practice now days that its no longer an industry secret. Movies are becoming harder and harder to sell based with just regular effects and therefore studios are always trying to find bigger and bigger effects shots to fill the story. The result is the need for better effects is driving alot of movies over budget and studios are counting on the effects to draw the people to watch movies. Studio's are creating situations where directors are often putting out horrible movie with beautfully done CG parts that still seems ridiculous in the end. As long as people are going to the theater based on effects laden trailers we will keeping getting spider man sequels llike our last spider man.

[azraelthe7th]

First, I'd like to give my :thumbsup: for the link provided here, since I actually enjoyed both the CG in the movie and (unfortunately to a lesser extent) the story. It could've used an extra half hour, but that's not the point of this thread.

Also, I'd like to point out the fact that there aren't many people who can really go arond, swinging on webs, clinging to walls and moving at greater speeds than the average human. In fact, I'm willing to bet that there are no sand humans walking the earth, nor is there a symbiotic alien goo that boosts your anger roaming the known universe (so far, at least).

So, until we can find one or all the above, movies that require much larger than life characters will need to rely on CGI to help make the stories told within at the very least more believable.

Don't believe me? Just look at the 70's live action Spider-Man and Hulk shows. While the Hulk was certanly entertaining, it simply didn't translate the proper character through the use of slow-motion to express "power".

Get my drift? ;)

[kmest]

ok how many of you realy knows how the hell they made the sandman creation sequence??
or harry and larry flying and fighting???

if you dont like the movie and you didnt see anything NEW (by what some recall),it doesnt mean that there isnt something happening(not every film has to have a bullet time)....cg spiderman was used in may shots which looked 100% real and no amazing camera shots at all....and i my book,sandman was totaly new..and yes davy jones was totaly new and all the transformers is Freaking new for me.....

yet there are amazing directores out there like spielberg or ridley scott making awesome movies full of CG you can never notice.if you want movies like that,then dont watch action packed VFX based movies like spiderman or pirates.ointless argues are becoming something regular these days
like what i belive and said in another thread today,you may never see a Revolution like Jurrasic park.as you may never see like the first colored movie and spoken film..tey were all new....we just have to wait to see what james cameron is doing....but i dont think it'll be something out of the box

[yashsingh]

Totally agree with sunshine ... great movie /////////

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.