SpiderMan-2

Tenolian Bell · July 19, 2004

I'm always cautious about heaping praise on work like this. The guy had infinite money, what d'you expect?

I can agree with you in spirit Phil.

But their are some DP's who've had large budgets, access to the latest toys, and the resulting work is far less than stellar even mediocre.

There is one particual DP who pretty constistantly works on large summer films and I'm really not a fan of thier work at all. I wonder why they continue to keep getting hired for this type of film when their are others who are so much better.

There was another comic book movie from earlier in the summer in which the photography was so uninspired and downright boring, I was simply shocked. Considering the budget and the resources the look was quite banal.

Looking at it in this respect I think Bill Pope is really talented, and his talent shines along with teh budgets and resources he is able to work with.

David Mullen ASC · July 20, 2004

No budget is infinite. Even on the biggest of budgets, there is cost-cutting: you may calculate you need 20 Dino's to light that soundstage to an f/4 but you only get enough to light to an F/2.8, and then suddenly you find yourself shooting slow-motion at T/2.0 - - then every film student goes to the theater, sees the movie, and says "gee, that DP didn't know enough to shoot at a decent f-stop!"

The schedules and budgets may be huge, but the types of shots being done are also more complicated than normal. I even heard on the commentary track for "Armageddon" that Michael Bay does about 40 set-ups a day, which is higher than my average. You'd think they'd be shooting two shots before lunch and three after...

When I see some of the complex remote camera moves done on big-budget films these days, I'd be hard-pressed to light some of those. Of course, they have time in prep to figure that stuff out and work with the art director. But still, it's amazing that the lighting isn't even more compromised when you see so much of the set in one move.

Yes, a lot of cinematography on big-budget films is a little bland and safe, but no doubt that is not due to a lack of imagination on the DP's side but due to pressure to please the studio. It takes a strong director with some studio muscle to free the DP up to be more cutting-edge. Otherwise, as soon as the first note comes from Michael Eisner saying he thought the scene was a little dark, and you're toast creatively.

Tenolian Bell · July 20, 2004

Yeah I've heard of some of these same problems.

But I'm sure that studio heads know there are different looks for different stories, that flat lighting is fine for romantic comedy. But something a little more intersting is required to induce fear and foreboding in an audience.

I read somewhere that Sam Raimi really wanted Bill Pope for the first Spiderman, but Bill was busy with the Matrix when it came time to shoot Spiderman. Sam was a little less than satisfied with the look of the first Spiderman and inisted on having Bill come in for the second and retain him for the third.

painfulcrash · July 20, 2004

i dont know whats wrong with some people.

its simply beatifully shot movie.

is it jelousy ? or too much music video ? or something else,

i dont know. but it seems like people here, didnt like the image.

bill pope is who is, (a great hollywood cinematographer)

and people who complain here are who they are. (trying to squize their ignorant vision in hollywood , but not quite succesful) i dont want to come across harsh , but you'll rott in your seat trying to cut your teeth with infomercials.

by the way .. the last scene : go them them tiger.

to me the source was the painted windows, type of thing. even if it wasnt, you really dont need to explain the source..

Max Jacoby · July 20, 2004

i dont want to come across harsh , but you'll rott in your seat trying to cut your teeth with infomercials.

Gee, you are really very tolerant of people who don't share your opinion. You know, it is very useful to every once in a while listen to people who don't have the same taste as you do, it might actually help you to expand your horizon...

Max Jacoby · July 20, 2004

There is one particual DP who pretty constistantly works on large summer films and I'm really not a fan of thier work at all. I wonder why they continue to keep getting hired for this type of film when their are others who are so much better.

Care to tell us who that is? :D

harryprayiv · July 21, 2004

i dont want to come across harsh , but you'll rott in your seat trying to cut your teeth with infomercials.

Gee, you are really very tolerant of people who don't share your opinion. You know, it is very useful to every once in a while listen to people who don't have the same taste as you do, it might actually help you to expand your horizon...

I second that.

Rob Belics · July 21, 2004

I saw it this afternoon. It seemed the outdoor scenes were rather flat but, yes, others were tack sharp with good contrast. However, did anyone else think the lighting was rather 'obvious'?

On a happier note, I've complained here, and other places, about the large theatre chain in my area letting their projection systems go to hell. This time someone at least changed the bulb. The print was gorgeous and brightly lit. I could actually study lighting while watching it!

John Pytlak RIP · July 21, 2004

I hope you let the theatre know you saw the improvement and were pleased! The chief projectionist often has to convince the "pencil pushers" that spending money on proper maintenance (like replacing xenon lamps before they get too dark or flickery) is worth it.

Write the theatre manager and the VP of Engineering for the theatre circuit a letter of praise. B)

Tenolian Bell · July 21, 2004

Care to tell us who that is? :D

I don't like to spread bad energy, karma and all.

Christian Appelt · July 21, 2004

I saw SPIDERMAN 2 yesterday, and while I think it's much better than the first one both in storytelling and in terms of cinematography, I don't get thatexcited about it.

Positive

1. That 4K postproduction certainly is a great improvement, the visual effects blend better with the liveaction.

2. The framing and composition have an almost classic look, the director was not afraid of showing long stretches of dialogue without "keeping it alive" through small dolly movements or zooms. The audience appreciated that and did not seem to get bored watching those long speeches.

3.The anamorphic 2.39 release format suits the action much better than 1.85, what I hated about the first film was the lack of space around Spiderman when he did his net swinging.

Negative:

1. Closeup and medium shots were sharp and fine, but I missed fine detail in almost any long shot. Maybe the Super-35 is to blame for it, not the digital work, but I detest long shots without adequate detail. Will check another print in another theatre to make sure it wasn't the projection!

2. Someone mentioned a "plastic look" regarding faces, and I feel the same. It's not necessarily bad, it may have something to do with grain management in digital post and grading, I don't know. To be fair, maybe this was the look they preferred.

3. Some visual effects shots are absolutely amateur stuff, really to be ashamed of. Especially Spiderman holding up the wall at the end and, as mentioned before, the terrible helicopter shot that ends the movie.

4. Kirsten Dunst looks splendid only in the b&w still during the credits, either she was ill during shooting or they didn't care about making her look good. She looks much older than Tobey to begin with, that unflattering photography could make her pass as his mother or at least big sister easily. This is not a standard beauty queen face, and it takes care to underline her attractiveness.

To sum it, solid cinematography and mostly okay effects, but to me the movie faded away ten minutes after I left the theatre. I always liked Spiderman, and I believe a James Cameron version would have captured the darkness of Marvel's universe much better. Well, no use complaining, Raimi had another vision and the public likes it, but IMHO Tobey M. as Spiderman is the worst casting since Harpo Marx as Sir Isaac Newton (THE STORY OF MANKIND, 1957) and John Wayne as Genghis Khan (THE CONQUEROR, 1956)... :rolleyes:

Brad Grimmett · July 22, 2004

4. Kirsten Dunst looks splendid only in the b&w still during the credits

Agreed. Those stills were beautiful. Anybody know what they were shot with? 35mm? Possibly digital?

Phil Rhodes · July 22, 2004

Hi,

Yes I did wonder why they decided to make her look so... bad.

Phil

Spider · July 22, 2004

I believe the kicker in the final scene isn't orange but amber and I love it.

Michael Most · July 31, 2004

That 4K postproduction certainly is a great improvement, the visual effects blend better with the liveaction.

The picture was NOT post produced in 4K. While it's true that the work at Efilm for the DI was done using 4K scans and was recorded at 2K, the fact is that nearly 60% of the film is visual effects shots - which were all done at 2K, NOT 4k. The pipeline was scanning at 4K, down-rezzing to 2K, all visual effects work (CG and compositing) at 2K, and upconverted to 4K again at Efilm. This is hardly "4K postproduction," and I really wish that those who claim it is would be more forthcoming.