good, even after all these years.
--BenD
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> No, I loved the Hulk. Because they went for the whole comic book thing.
> I also loved Spawn and the Mask for the same reasons.
>
> But in Spiderman, those scenes were created to be photorealistic. And
> they fell short. And the state of the art at the time showed that knees
> could be handled easily. And the swinging errors were just laziness,
> IMHO. Physics is important in fantasy and science ficiton (and comics).
>
> I agree the rest of the film was great. That's why I even mentioned the
> things that bothered me. I hope they keep the feel, but nail the little
> details in the new one.
>
> Do you remember Dragonheart? The dragon was cgi, mixed in with live
> action. The lighting on the dragon was completely different thatn the
> lighting on the live action characters. And the direction of lighting in
> some scenes was wrong. But I could forgive that, since they were
> completely pushing the envelope on that one. A completely cgi character.
> With Sean Connery's voice. Awesome.
>
> Jerry Johnson
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/15/03 03:12PM >>>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Jerry Johnson
> >> To: CF-Community
> >> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:56 PM
> >> Subject: Re: I'm so happy, I could cry...
> >>
> >> Yuck!
> >>
> >> Did everyone see the last Spiderman movie?
> >>
> >> For the most part I liked the movie, but there were some bad cgi scenes
> that completely ruined the moment for me.
> >>
> >> Was anyone else bothered by the bad cgi where he is climbing the
> buildings (the rounded, rubbery knees for example, and flat >> lighting)
> >> What about the street swinging scenes where his motion does not follow
> physics (he starts his next turn before he shoots the >> next web)
> >>
> >> Nitpicky I know, but those kinds of errors really pull me out of the
> scene.
> >>
> >> Jerry Johnson
>
> Sorry Jerry, but you sound like a guy who was complaining in a forum that
> the movements looked (and I quote) "too comic-booky". We all know that they
> used CGI (they weren't able to cast a real guy who could shoot webs from his
> wrists and swing around Manhattan)...so one really needed to walk into the
> movie ready to suspend their disbelief.
>
> I thought they dead-on nailed the whole thing. The way Peter made his own
> costume...fighting Bonesaw...learning how to swing on the webs (and not
> doing a great job of it at first)...it all worked for me.
>
> But getting back to the suspension of disbelief thing...I didn't even mind
> the Hulk (the character in the movie...not the movie itself...which
> was...bad). I knew going in it was going to be CGI, and knew it wouldn't be
> perfect. Why set myself up for a disappointment by expecting too much?
>
> These are representations of comic book characters. They should serve as an
> escape from the real world, where the laws of physics don't necessarily have
> to apply. In the real world, we fall down and go boom. I don't need to
> spend $9.00 to see that real world represented in what should be some
> light-hearted escapist fantasy.
>
> But that's just my opinion :)
>
> Charlie
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
