The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Spiderman trailer leaked
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6753		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Jhorra [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Spiderman trailer leaked
http://www.bigshinyrobot.com/reviews/archives/30331

Catch it while you can
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
Okay, I'm in love with the first person webslinging sequence.
Author:  Raltar [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
It seems kinda dark. I know Spiderman could get pretty dark, but he was generally really light hearted. Which is kinda where the original Spiderman movies failed in a major way. I hope they don't make the same mistake here. Otherwise(costume issues aside), it looks pretty good.
Author:  FarSky [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Cue people ***** about shakeycam and it making them sick. :roll:

Honestly, I'm excited. I don't mind reboots, particularly when I don't feel the original versions are the best versions that could be done. Tobey Maguire was not a good Spider-Man. Will Andrew Garfield be a good one? Who knows? I'm interested to see, however.

I'd love an X-Men reboot, for instance. I'm still not clear on whether or not First Class was a reboot or just Fox not giving two shits about continuity (which they already proved with XMO: Wolverine). Superman reboot? Go for it...the originals weren't very good. Fantastic 4? Please, God.

Per standard geek caveat, I'd love to see Marvel be able to bring in everyone under their own banner (Fox has X-Men, Daredevil, and Fantastic 4; Sony has Spider-Man and Ghost Rider, Warner Bros. has Blade, etc.), but that's not going to happen. Reboots are the next best thing.
Author:  Darkroland [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Okay, I'm in love with the first person webslinging sequence.


Sweet, they made Mirrors Edge, Spiderman version!

Still, does seem to be a bit early to be retelling the origin. If it's done well I suppose it won't matter.
Author:  Müs [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
In 3d, that webslinging sequence is gonna make people ill.

I didn't see any shakeycamness, just a first person Mirror's Edge sequence ;)

Personally, I think first person is a bad idea for that for any length of time. Maybe for 30 seconds to establish the wall crawling and such, but once it goes to webslinging, pan that **** back and make it epic.
Author:  Müs [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
FarSky wrote:
Cue people ***** about shakeycam and it making them sick. :roll:


Being a filmmaker yourself, you don't think that the shakeycam phenomenon is one of the worst abominations to ever come to action films in recent history? That extreme closeup, handheld camera effect just confuses people, and makes it difficult to actually tell what is going on on screen. There's no need for a camera to be THISCLOSE to an action scene. Like I said, track that **** back and show your audience the cool **** that's happening. I can't tell if your hero is a badass martial artist because all I see is his face, a foot, a chest, a foot, his face, then the guy he's fighting is down on the ground.

That's just not cool.
Author:  FarSky [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's not that I necessarily disagree (though I think judiciously placed, it's a useful tool, particularly for low-budget filmmaking where you can't afford stunt people, a fight coordinator, or very good actors), it's that the volume and strength of shakeycam complaints are well out of proportion to the actual aesthetic offense it provides.
Author:  Wwen [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
I guess it's subjective. Makes me think of Mirrors Edge, but with web slinging.
Author:  Müs [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
FarSky wrote:
It's not that I necessarily disagree (though I think judiciously placed, it's a useful tool, particularly for low-budget filmmaking where you can't afford stunt people, a fight coordinator, or very good actors), it's that the volume and strength of shakeycam complaints are well out of proportion to the actual aesthetic offense it provides.



Fair enough. I understand its purpose, and use in certain films. Horror where you don't want the audience to *see* the monster, etc.

However, if you have a huge budget, good actors, and stunt people etc... there's no excuse for the Bourne Shakeycam. Too much of it can absolutely ruin a film.
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Müs wrote:
Personally, I think first person is a bad idea for that for any length of time. Maybe for 30 seconds to establish the wall crawling and such, but once it goes to webslinging, pan that **** back and make it epic.

I'd watch a 10 minute web-slinging/wallcrawling/building-leaping chase scene shot like that in a heartbeat. It *is* epic. It's epic because the perspective is putting you in Spider-Man's shoes! Why do you not want to BE Spider-Man!?!?!? That's un-American, or some ****.

But no, seriously. It's a very cool way to demonstrate the speed and reflexes he uses, and how much **** he's juggling and thinking about. Every time he slings a web, the camera whips around as he has to spot and aim, etc. I wouldn't want an entire movie shot like that, because, yeah, you would lose out on some acting, and you wouldn't get quite the right impression on how acrobatic Spidey is, and there'd be no opportunity to showcase the classic, touchstone Spider-Man slinging poses from recognizable angles. But, like I said, a chase scene through the urban jungle of New York would be incredibly exciting.


Wwen wrote:
I guess it's subjective. Makes me think of Mirrors Edge, but with web slinging.

And I would totally play that video game.
Author:  Shelgeyr [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
FarSky wrote:
... the volume and strength of shakeycam complaints are well out of proportion to the actual aesthetic offense it provides.
That's a tough argument to make. I'd argue that most people complain about a thing pretty much in proportion to how much that thing bothers them, but it sounds like what you're essentially saying is that the amount of complaining done by other people is out of proportion to the amount of offense the shakycam gives you. Take Blair Witch - I watched that movie in the theater, and ended up vomiting twice. Would you say that I'm out of line for complaining about the shakycam making me ill?
Author:  FarSky [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
I would say the volume of people who have the same physical ills from shakeycam would be about the same volume as the complaints about video games from people for whom they trigger seizures. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that the vast majority of people who see shakeycam films have any kind of physical reaction, let alone a serious one, and are simply criticizing the aesthetic. Maybe I'm wrong.
Author:  Midgen [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm on the 'i hate shaky cam' bus, and I reserve the right to proclaim my hatred as loud and obnioxiously as necessary until these dolts stop using it.

In this particular trailer though, I never noticed the shaky cam, because the picture strobing in and out cause a seizure before I could get pissed about the shaky cam!!
Author:  Shelgeyr [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't think one has to get physically ill to be irritated by it, I was just pointing out that in that particular movie (which is admittedly the worst offender), I personally was made ill. I still stand by my belief that the volume of complaining is proportional to the number of those who are offended.

In this trailer, however, I don't believe what we're seeing is shakycam. I think it looks shaky because it was shot by someone holding up a video camera in a theater. I'm with Midgen on the strobing, though. That effect does nothing good for me.
Author:  Talya [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
I despise use of shakeycam in higher budget movies (Bourne, Quantum of Solace, for examples.) This doesn't feel like shakeycam. It feels like something else entirely. Something I'm not sure I like, nonetheless. I don't want to be Spiderman. I want to watch him. Still, the purpose of it is obvious, and I'll reserve judgement. So long as they don't use that too much, I'm okay. Might be difficult for anyone who gets motionsick. I know a lot of people who can't watch a 3d video game or the movie-theater intro scenes without beginning to feel motion sick.
Author:  Numbuk [ Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Spiderman trailer leaked
I just hope they gave this kid a buttload of quips and zingers. One of Spider-man's most powerful weapons is not his strength, speed or spider-sense. It's his ability to stay in an upbeat, fun-mode while infuriating his villains (and thus causing them to make mistakes).
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
So, some nutcase cosplayer ran up to the stage and stole the mic at the beginning of the Amazing Spider-Man panel at Comic Con.
Author:  FarSky [ Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
That. is. awesome.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/