|
|
Post by janntosh on Jun 21, 2020 18:32:36 GMT
shows that sometimes special effects don't date, they were just always bad
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2020 18:34:43 GMT
shows that sometimes special effects don't date, they were just always bad The effects in Spider-Man (2002) are inconsistent, but many of them are quite good imo. Sam Raimi even makes the mediocre cgi work to the movie's advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Jun 21, 2020 18:39:56 GMT
I agree with his dislike of CGI. I still like the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Jun 21, 2020 18:44:32 GMT
I agree and hate that cartoony CGI is filling most modern blockbusters still. The last honest movie reviewer was Roger Ebert, we'll never see another like him.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 21, 2020 18:45:03 GMT
shows that sometimes special effects don't date, they were just always bad The effects in Spider-Man (2002) are inconsistent, but many of them are quite good imo. Sam Raimi even makes the mediocre cgi work to the movie's advantage. Eh. I like the movie, but the special effects are pretty bad. Even when I was a kid, I thought something was off about some of the effects. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2020 18:53:17 GMT
The effects in Spider-Man (2002) are inconsistent, but many of them are quite good imo. Sam Raimi even makes the mediocre cgi work to the movie's advantage. Eh. I like the movie, but the special effects are pretty bad. Even when I was a kid, I thought something was off about some of the effects. I stand by my opinion. I have watched the movie many times. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 21, 2020 18:55:09 GMT
The effects in Spider-Man (2002) are inconsistent, but many of them are quite good imo. Sam Raimi even makes the mediocre cgi work to the movie's advantage. Eh. I like the movie, but the special effects are pretty bad. Even when I was a kid, I thought something was off about some of the effects. It may had been typical quality for the era. It’s eerily similar to the broom scene in the first Harry Potter movie. Then again, I rewatched the Two Towers and Gollum still looks amazing. Evidently someone listened to Ebert since the second film won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 21, 2020 18:57:47 GMT
The Spider-man effects were bad, but I still think the worst thing in the movie was the awful Green Goblin costume, he looked like a Power Rangers villain,
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2020 19:01:39 GMT
The Spider-man effects were bad, but I still think the worst thing in the movie was the awful Green Goblin costume, he looked like a Power Rangers villain, That I agree with. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2020 19:04:43 GMT
Eh. I like the movie, but the special effects are pretty bad. Even when I was a kid, I thought something was off about some of the effects. It may had been typical quality for the era. It’s eerily similar to the broom scene in the first Harry Potter movie. Then again, I rewatched the Two Towers and Gollum still looks amazing. Evidently someone listened to Ebert since the second film won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Spider-Man cgi isn't much worse than a lot of the cgi at the time imo. As you said, Harry Potter cgi isn't much better. Comparing it to a movie with cgi that was ahead of it's time is something different. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jun 21, 2020 19:09:24 GMT
They're flawed, but not awful. We've seen worse I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jun 21, 2020 19:35:46 GMT
He actually did have a point about the lack of weight when Spider-Man is swinging around New York. I think Sam Raimi amended this problem in Spider-Man 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2020 19:40:47 GMT
He actually did have a point about the lack of weight when Spider-Man is swinging around New York. I think Sam Raimi amended this problem in Spider-Man 2. Yes, he did have a point. I am not bothered by the physics in a movie as cheesy as Spider-Man (2002). The sequel is better in almost every way, but I do like the first movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Jun 21, 2020 21:30:06 GMT
Leonard Maltin also trashed the special effects in his movie review guide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 21, 2020 22:26:13 GMT
They were bad.
The rooftop jumping and the scene with him climbing the wall going after the burglar.
The last shot was the best.
Waste of money.
They could have done most of them with someone on a rope in front of a big greenscreen for cheap.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jun 21, 2020 22:55:02 GMT
I thought they were fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 21, 2020 23:50:44 GMT
Cheesy and dated? Of course, but that’s the charm of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 22, 2020 0:20:46 GMT
What kind of CGI technique did they use? If they didn't use mocap, that would explain why Spider-man looked so unnatural.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Jun 22, 2020 5:14:57 GMT
It's a good film, but I agree with him that the CGI effects are pretty bad. It's naturally more noticeable today. The effects in the sequel were a vast improvement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2020 11:01:11 GMT
I can overlook special effects if the acting and story are great because it's suspension of belief.
However, that being said... They could have done better, even in (2002) look at Gladiator in (2000).
Spider-Man 2 is the best Spider-Man film to this date. I even think it's the best movie based on a Marvel character to this date still
|
|
