Re: Amazing Spider-Man news thread

[webhead2006]

oh i forgot to add the other day, found out from an article on SHH that these photos were not meant to get out to the public. It was more for advertising/marketing promotional stuff, and not a true representive of the film or the final film costume. here is link to the story:
http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/168233-two-new-official-spider-man-images

[Apologist Puncher]

Ok, why would the Spider-Man costume needs cleats for promotional photographs? Is he going to be catching passes or something?

[webhead2006]

Rhys ifans talks the lizard:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Rhys-Ifans-Talks-Wearing-A-Green-CGI-Suit-And-Cardboard-Head-On-The-Amazing-Spider-Man-Set-26719.html

Rhys Ifans Talks Wearing A Green CGI Suit And Cardboard Head On The Amazing Spider-Man Set2 Comments published: 2011-09-12 14:23:02 Author: Katey Rich

When I talked to Rhys Ifans yesterday about his impressive star turn in the new drama Anonymous, I swear I wasn't going to bring up Spider-Man. Yes, the British actor is playing the villainous Lizard in next year's The Amazing Spider-Man, and yes, no matter how well Anonymous does, it's likely to be seen by but a fraction of the global audience who turns out for Spidey. I know it's what the people want to hear about, but you have to try and stay on topic when talking to someone who is both currently promoting a different movie and can't talk much about his heavily secret superhero movie anyway.

But then we got to talking about the costumes in Anonymous, how the 16th century cloaks and swords he wears as the Earl of Oxford-- a man who many believe was the true author of Shakespeare's plays-- helped him define the character. It seemed a perfect moment to ask about the CGI motion-capture suit he wore for some scenes as The Lizard, when Dr. Curt Connors transforms into the nine-foot high beast. And to my surprise, Ifans was actually glad to talk about the experience of wearing the suit, of insisting on standing in for the CGI Lizard on set, and how his own facial expressions will translate into the character. Take a look below.

The majority of the time I'm me, I'm a human, not a Lizard. That's hard enough. I did have the CGi suit for certain scenes. The Lizard is 9 feet tall. There was one day that I went on set and they had a double, a big big guy, playing me, as the Lizard. I looked at it and I went "No." Following that Marc [Webb, the director] let me know all the physicality, all the physicality you'll see in the Lizard is my own.

I had a green suit on, and then this cardboard head, and these big claws. It was the most fucking insane… Each and every time you see the Lizard, the technology is so advanced now that when the Lizard's eyes move, they're my eyes. If I frown or show any emotion, they're my emotions. That's how spectacularly advanced technology is.

I love the mental image of Ifans on the set of this $200 million production, wearing cardboard on his head and a skintight green suit. Of course that's not what we'll see on the screen, but when the astonishing CGI Lizard arrives onscreen in The Amazing Spider-Man next summer, I hope the silly side of it pops into your head just a little.

I'll have much more from my great interview with Ifans when Anonymous gets closer to its October 28 release. In the meantime, you can catch up on everything else I've been up to at the Toronto Film Festival here.

[webhead2006]

Well this bit of news sucks a bit(For RealD 3D screens):
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sony-refusing-pay-3d-glasses-240837

Sony to Stop Paying for 3D Glasses in May 2012 (Exclusive)
2:46 PM PDT 9/27/2011 by Pamela McClintock

Columbia Pictures
"The Amazing Spider-Man"Sony has sent a letter to theater owners saying it will stop footing the bill for the RealD glasses, which can cost studios $5 million to $10 million per blockbuster release.
Sony Pictures Entertainment has notified theater owners in a letter that it will no longer pay for 3D glasses, beginning in May 2012, marking a major policy shift that many other studios are likely considering.

our editor recommends
Imax Hires Marc de Grandpre to Oversee 3D Home Viewing MarketingThere’s no word yet as to the reaction of exhibitors, but many theater owners feel like they’ve already coughed up enough money in converting their screens to 3D, and that they shouldn’t have to incur the cost of supplying glasses too.

PHOTOS: New Generation of Superheroes

"This is an issue that has to be resolved between us and our exhibition partners. We are trying to give them a very lengthy lead time in regards to the change in policy," Sony worldwide president of distribution Rory Bruer said.

The price tag for 3D glasses is no laughing matter — studios can spend $5 million to $10 million worldwide for a tentpole, but most of the cost is incurred in the North American marketplace (studios pay after the fact, based on how many glasses were actually used). Sony has two high-profile 3D tentpoles headed to theaters next summer — Men in Black III and The Amazing Spider-Man.

PHOTOS: Movie Report Card: 10 Biggest Flops of 2011 (So Far)

Glasses for smaller films can cost $1.5 million to $2 million.

Sony, along with other studios, is in favor of moving toward an ownership model, requiring moviegoers to buy their 3D glasses at the theater (the studios argue that it could be a new revenue stream for exhibitors).

Such a system is already in place in a number of foreign territories, including the U.K., Australia, Italy and Spain. However, American consumers are now used to getting the glasses for free when they pay a 3D surcharge (usually 3 or 4 dollars), and the habit could be hard to break.

PHOTOS: Toy Wars: Battle of the Blockbuster Summer

The majority of 3D glasses are provided through RealD, which controls the majority of the 3D market domestically through its 3D projection systems. Other 3D systems such as the one offered by Dolby employ a model where the theater owns the glasses, which are returned, cleaned and reused following a screening.

In the U.S., RealD theaters often have recyling containers for the glasses outside the auitorium, but moviegoers may also keep them, meaning new glasses are still needed on a mass basis.

Several years ago, when digital 3D was first emerging, it was unclear who would pay for the glasses. In an effort to encourage movie theaters to convert their screens to the emerging format, Disney told theaters it would cover the cost.

Soon, other studios started following suit, but top executives say it was never their intention to make it an indefinite policy. And at least one studio, Fox, tried to stop paying for the 3D glasses, but was met with stiff resistance from exhibitors.

Carolyn Giardina contributed to this report.

Email: Pamela.McClintock@thr.com

[thecolorsblend]

Yet another reason to avoid 3D releases like the plague. As if the tickets don't cost enough already.

[non_amos]

Yet another reason to avoid 3D releases like the plague. As if the tickets don't cost enough already.

Wanna know the best way to watch 3-D economically? What I do is go on www.fandango.com & then look for local listings in my area. There's one theater in particular that has a 'last chance' matinee around 5 PM. For example, their earlier matinees are like $9.25 or $9.50 but their 'last chance' showing in the 4-5 PM area is only 8 bucks! And you can buy the tickets at the door too. That's how I do it when I go. But their full price at night is obviously full price. I can't really say if there's theaters in your area that do this but the theater chain in question is CARMIKE CINEMAS so it's at least a possibility. However, I also understand some people like to go at night because it's 'date night' & all of that but when you've been married a while, you do what you have to do.

[webhead2006]

Ya this is bull crap. One reason I rather stick to imax 3d where I know I will get glasses for price of ticket.

[thecolorsblend]

Yet another reason to avoid 3D releases like the plague. As if the tickets don't cost enough already.

Wanna know the best way to watch 3-D economically? What I do is go on www.fandango.com & then look for local listings in my area. There's one theater in particular that has a 'last chance' matinee around 5 PM. For example, their earlier matinees are like $9.25 or $9.50 but their 'last chance' showing in the 4-5 PM area is only 8 bucks! And you can buy the tickets at the door too. That's how I do it when I go. But their full price at night is obviously full price. I can't really say if there's theaters in your area that do this but the theater chain in question is CARMIKE CINEMAS so it's at least a possibility. However, I also understand some people like to go at night because it's 'date night' & all of that but when you've been married a while, you do what you have to do.

Ah, but that's only part of the issue. The other thing is that I wear glasses already. I'm unspeakably near-sighted so wearing those thrice-cursed 3D glasses on top of my regular glasses is the only option. Another non-starter is getting contacts. I've got a thing about digging around in my eye and shit. So apart from looking like a douchebag with glasses on top of my glasses, I have to pay the stupid ticket price.

And something else?

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM? Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are “intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination.” Then the glasses themselves absorb light. The vast majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts (fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs. The original IMAX format threw 22fLs at the screen. If you don’t know what a foot-lambert is, join the crowd. (In short: it’s the level of light thrown on the screen from a projector with no film in it.)

URL- http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

I've seen some dim projections. They say this can be chalked up either to (A) the "projectionist" (ie, some punk teenage kid earning minimum wage) not knowing wtf he's doing or (B) a cheapo movie theater owner thinking he can save money on bulbs in burning them at a lower intensity to extend the bulb's life (the effectiveness of which is in dispute AT BEST but, either way, falls under the category of "the cost of doing business, you asshole!").

There's hard data to be found indicating that mass audiences are abandoning 3D too. 2D showings of films tend to outgross the 3D versions. Now, part of that could be due to sheer availability (which I'm willing to consider) but even accounting for that, the numbers aren't good.

Basically, parts of the entertainment/media industry have interfered with other parts. To put it another way, ironically Sony Electronics is ass-fucking Sony movie studios. For example, we've got such high end players, TV's and audio equipment for home use that some people are facing the same choice that 1950's moviegoers did... why keep going to the theater? I mean, you've got some cheese dick playing with his cell phone, the house lights turned up for some reason, some welfare queen's crotch fruit crying his head off, etc. None of that shit is on the table at home and, oh yeah, YOU HAVE A FUCKING PAUSE BUTTON!

So TPTB need something to draw people back and they've locked in on 3D as a quick gimmick to scare up extra cash. That's just about the only technical "advantage" that theaters can offer that (for now anyway) home media can't consistently reproduce.

But apart from all that, try though you might, you will never convince everyone's subconscious that they're viewing a truly 3D presentation. You may have "3D effects" in your movie but your mind will never be completely fooled that it's seeing something in 3D. It's a lot of money, a lot of effort and a lot of hype about a product that isn't very good, even when it's projected properly (which seems a 50/50 proposition at best).

I just see this as a losing strategy all around. To me, the real answer here is to figure a way to produce movies more cheaply so that the studios have a bigger margin of return on their investments and thus aren't forced to chase huge box office numbers and gimmicky 3D bullshit to recover their costs. Used to be that a movie's box office did that. Then home video kicked in. Now, it seems like a real struggle for any average tentpole to really be a strong performer (thus, I suppose, the preponderance of remakes, sequels and the like).

[Apologist Puncher]

http://comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=48171





I guess Scut Farkus grew out of his bullying ways to become Spider-Man??


"Scut Farkus! What a rotten name! We were trapped. There he stood, between us and the alley. Scut Farkus staring out at us with his yellow eyes. He had yellow eyes! So, help me, God! Yellow eyes!"

[webhead2006]

Some cool images there.

[Apologist Puncher]

Some cool images there.

Not really.

I see my "yellow eyes" joke went over your head a 'lil bit....

[webhead2006]

i get the yellow eyes thing i know folks been complaining about that. Though that detail could easily be edited for the film to white or what not.

[Apologist Puncher]

i get the yellow eyes thing i know folks been complaining about that. Though that detail could easily be edited for the film to white or what not.

Does it look like that's the case?

[webhead2006]

Tie in game teaser trailer:
http://m.kotaku.com/5850162/

[webhead2006]

Diamond Select "The Amazing Spider-Man" 7inch Figure images:

[webhead2006]

More Tie in game information:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=35060

Next, at the panel in order to show off footage of "The Amazing Spider-Man" tie-in game, were Gerard Lehiany, Creative Director of Beenox, and Doug Heder, a producer at Activision. The two told the crowd that Activision has already spent over a year working on the game before world-premiering a gameplay trailer.

The trailer featured a third-person view of Spider-Man in Andrew Garfield's new costume, swinging around an open-world New York City. This is the first time the costume had been shown this clearly when in motion, and the visuals looked almost life-like. The streamlined costume, with it's throwbacks to Dan Jurgen's 90s Spider-Man redesign, creates a visual fluidity that the original costume lacks as Spider-Man was shown spinning, flipping and swinging in full view for about a minute. The only villain he faced in the trailer was a giant robot that emerges from beneath the city at the end of the footage.

Frazier then opened the floor up to questions from the audience with Dan Slott, long time and current writer of the comic book version of "The Amazing Spider-Man," the first fan up to the mic. Slott wanted to know if we would get a chance to use alternate suits in "The Amazing Spider-Man," only to be told that this had not been decided on at this point.

Heder revealed that, while he couldn't name any specific villains, "[The 'A,mazing Spider-Man' game is] not retelling the movie story, we are actually expanding it. [The game] takes place after the events of the movie."

[Apologist Puncher]

So.... Spider-Man is wearing BJ Routh's muscle suit?

[webhead2006]

Some new set photos from the NYC Reshoots going on:
http://twitter.com/#!/RIMBreaks





http://www.boweryboogie.com/2011/11/spiderman-4-filmed-beneath-williamsburg-bridge-last-night/

[Apologist Puncher]

A whole 'lotta nothin' goin' on......

[webhead2006]

A couple more photos from NYC Reshoots:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2063730/Andrew-Garfield-spotted-tissue-nose-filming-Spider-Man-scenes.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[Comicbookfan-V2]

WTF???

[webhead2006]

From what links say he has a bloody nose in that scene. So he probably gets in a fight and photographer just got a shot of him with tissue in his nose lol.

One more of dr. Conners:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2063730/Andrew-Garfield-spotted-tissue-nose-filming-Spider-Man-scenes.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[webhead2006]

Some more additional set photos:
http://www.newscom.com/nc/clearOpenSearch.action?dispOutput=grid&eaCurrentPageNum=1&search1String=the%20amazing%20spider-man&search2String=a&searchtype=newsearch&bylinesearch=&locationsearch=&sourcesearch=&actionsearch=&postersearch=&attrsearch=&capwrisea

[webhead2006]

Possiible early look for lizard in pez form:
http://m.superherohype.com/news/articles/168929-the-lizard-and-spidey-in-pez-dispenser-form

Looks like they are going early dikto look for Lizard.

[thecolorsblend]

Possiible early look for lizard in pez form:
http://m.superherohype.com/news/articles/168929-the-lizard-and-spidey-in-pez-dispenser-form

Looks like they are going early dikto look for Lizard.

Bah. I like the more monstrous version of the Lizard. I'm sure other artists did it but remember the way McFarlane drew the Lizard? That really looked like a human/snake hybrid. But whatever, at least they're finally doing it. I'll never understand Raimi's malfunction over this character.

[Sponsored content]