The Amazing Spider-Man 3D Critique

[Clyde DeSouza]

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

[Joseph Hutson]

Some was awesome, but a lot of other stuff was indeed flat. Absolutely no 3D a couple times that I checked.

I love 3D and wish I could have seen it more prevalent.

[Kemalettin Sert]

i have seen this movie tonight and still wondering why they shot this 3D.

[Robino_J]

Your poll is missing a question: "I could not enjoy it because there was a blue filter in front of my eyes."

3D was fine but until they figure out how to "compensate" for colors I will not watch another 3D movie. For me 3D REALLY sucks.

[Paul Ellington]

Pretty incredible the job that was done, with the plate, the 3-D, composition, movement. It's amazing and incredible. Filming is not easy, you try to go shoot a film like that, maybe you can but top-notch work.

- Paul

[Tehben Dean]

I haven't seen it, but when I saw Prometheus in a digital IMAX 3D theatre they played the Spiderman trailer.... I don't know if it was an par with the whole film but I have to admit I thought the 3D was pretty bad. Like looking through binoculars, everything was really compressed and cardboardy. Also with fast, close, tight cut action I find 3D ads one more layer to something that's already hard enough to follow.

What worked in Prometheus was all the wide shots and lengthy cuts which is where I feel 3D shines and instead of distracting from the immersion can add to it.

I'm still not convinced 3D is an improvement or as good as 2D for narrative film.

[Miltos Pilalitos]

The Amazing Spiderman was the first stereoscopic blockbuster I chose to see on 2D.

For the last 2 years I forced myself to watch all major 3D productions (especially those shot on RED) on 3D but in all cases I enjoyed the films more when I saw their 2D versions. I didn't like the idea of a Spiderman reboot so soon after the last ones but I wanted to see how the Epic performed so I went to see it. The footage was great but I don't feel like I lost anything by not watching the 3D version.

I know this reply contributes 0% to the poll but I wanted to share another opinion. :D

[Bobby Farokhzad]

I saw this film twice in both 3D and 2D and although this was one of the better 3D films I've seen, the honest truth is that I enjoyed the 2D version much more. Like many other people on this forum I am also of the opinion that once there is a way to watch 3D WITHOUT the glasses then and only then will the experience be completely worthwhile. For the record, I thought Schwartzman really made the Epic shine in this film.

[Sergio Perez]

Have seen it and actually thought it was one of the easiest in the eyes 3D movies I've seen. It was bright, colorful and the glasses didn't "darken" or made the film look washed out like in many other 3D films. For me, the current 3D benchmark is still Hugo. In the red camp Prometheus is the one that impressed me the most in overall "immersion", but Spider-man is probably the one that made me feel more "confortable" watching. i wasn't particularly "wowed" by the depth and the mise-en-scene like I was in both Hugo and Prometheus, but didn't felt the 3D too intrusive like in certain moments in certain 3D films. Was it worth the 3D experience? It all ends up on one key factor, for me: What does the 3D add to the story, or to the way the story is told in this film? I honestly think not much. In Hugo, the 3D was part of the whole concept of the film, not as a gimmick, but a key aspect of the storytelling device. That was the first time I saw, beyond the technical marvel of, say, Avatar, that 3D in the right hands can indeed "add" something extra to a film. I do think, however, this trend of going everything 3D (because of bigger profit margins and Box Office) is sad. Hopefully Nolan can show with the Dark Knight that films can be marketable and appealing even without the 3D hook on it, specially when it isn't needed!

[Peter Lyons Collister, ASC]

Obviously I am biased... but the thought was to be very subtle in much of the narrative portions and go a little bigge rwith the action. I think it was done well. I thought Prometheus was amazing and also Hugo was wonderful.....

The fear for directors and DPs doing a 3D film is that whether it is originated in 3D or converted if the 3D isn't BIG then the studio fears the backlash from 3D fanboys about the higher ticket prices if the 3D doesn't shine...