The Amazing Spider-Man 3D Critique

[Paul Ellington]

All I say is look at what kind of "behinds in seats" AKA $ they did... Mr. Collister that's all that needs to be said -- people love this film. Those critiquing ... When did you shoot your last film for a studio repping The Epic... Show work of equal or better quality.

[Michael Millichamp]

All I say is look at what kind of "behinds in seats" AKA $ they did... Mr. Collister that's all that needs to be said -- people love this film. Those critiquing ... When did you shoot your last film for a studio repping The Epic... Show work of equal or better quality.

I don't think you have to show your work to critique a movie or how a movie was made.

[Jim Kelley]

All I say is look at what kind of "behinds in seats" AKA $ they did... Mr. Collister that's all that needs to be said -- people love this film. Those critiquing ... When did you shoot your last film for a studio repping The Epic... Show work of equal or better quality.

What does the camera have to do with it when I can make this with $500 of equipment, fueled solely by my personal enjoyment of the format?

[Jason Goodman]

I will agree that showing your work is not necessary to critique a film, but seeing the film most certainly is. If your post includes "I haven't seen the film, but I hate 3D" you need to find something better to do with your time. Entering a 3D forum to tell people you hate 3D is like joining a church group to tell people you hate religion. Only a miserable person would do it.

[Michael Millichamp]

I will agree that showing your work is not necessary to critique a film, but seeing the film most certainly is. If your post includes "I haven't seen the film, but I hate 3D" you need to find something better to do with your time. Entering a 3D forum to tell people you hate 3D is like joining a church group to tell people you hate religion. Only a miserable person would do it.

Well if this forum was all about praising 3D, then you would be right, but I think its an open forum open to opinions. So therefore you can express exactly how you feel about it.

It would probably be best if you have seen the movie or the 3D material before speaking your mind, but it's not a necessity.

[Jason Goodman]

You are right, this is not a forum dedicated to solely praising 3D. An intelligent debate addressing the shortcomings of the 3D approach taken in the Amazing Spider-man seems sensible, a broad stroke "I hate 3D and wish it would go away" is a useless comment.

[Michael Millichamp]

I haven't seen this comment you are speaking of.

I see someone wondering why the shot it in 3D. That's it.

[Mark Pavy]

Michael, I'm actually interested in the phenomenon you described earlier, the 3D being no good for 15mins then later you forgot it was 3D. When I'm showing 3D I always warm the viewer up with some narrow IO stuff for 5mins before showing the actual clip I actually want the viewer to see. The fact that you forget it's 3D also is a concern, maybe you get into the story so much and the movie is filmed in such a fashion that you are directed where to focus your attention which comes from 2D film making, I find the big panoramic scenes where the viewer has a chance to explore the scene in z space and experience the eyes adjusting for depth focus give the viewer a much better 3D experience. If the movie is cut traditionally where the viewers attention is specifically targeted using close ups, shallow DOF, different camera angles etc the viewer doesn't get that chance to let their eyes wander in the scene, which I believe is paramount to the success of 3D- think those big slow scenes in Avatar.

[Ramachandra Babu]

Dear Clyde ,
I saw the film recently and also read your review. You are absolutely correct as most of the indoor sequences looked flat as the backdrops were out of focus, I watched the scene with out glasses and it all looked the same. The original Spiderman in 2D was for better when compared to this 3D as there was nothing much "Amazing" about the film.

Thought I'd post here, as the film was shot on RED gear. It's interesting to note that even with the best of equipment, 3D is still a subjective art form, with a platform based on science.
The review is a stereoscopic critique of the film and a bit of philosophical musings in the beginning on the role of stereographers and their influence on the film set hierarchy.

The review contains my opinion only (and reading the comments section will show that quite a few stereographer agree) that the narrative scenes were less that spectacular.
Subtle 3D is being confused with outright Flat 3D (again imho) and that's the point i'm trying to drive home despite the argument that the 3D look was "intentional" on those scenes. I absolutely loved the live action and CGI rendered stereo on the action scenes toward the finale with it's creative use of the stereo volume.

I'd love to hear comments from professionals here.

The review: Stereomatography: A review of Spider-man 3D

[Keegan O'Brien]

I saw the film in Digital IMAX 3D. Several times I took off my glasses to give my eyes a breather, and noticed that a good chunk of the dialogue scenes weren't shot in 3D. I didn't have much of a problem with it, since I'll never see the film in 3D again, but it felt cheap to me that the films dialogue was seemingly shot sparatically in 3D, instead of consistently. Oh well.