Zivouhr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amazing_Spider-Man_2

The Amazing Spider-Man 2, directed again by Marc Webb, who this time opted for a 3D conversion versus the filmed, mild 3D most times of the first film. The conversion of the 3D, based on the trailers, looks impressive, and possibly in the strong medium to strong 3D range for the 3D layers.

The movie is 142 minutes. That's a pretty epic length. In theaters April 16 nationally, and May 2 in the US.

Heard good things about the 3D and will check it out this weekend. Because of the 3D and the trailers, I'm actually looking forward to seeing this after the slight disappointment of the first one's mostly mild 3D aside from the stronger 3D of the action scenes. Part 2 looks a lot more consistent, since the trailer showed dialog scenes that were not mild 3D, but better.

I'd welcome it if the original trilogy with Tobe Macguire was converted into strong 3D.
There are two more Amazing Spider-Man films being planned after this one.

Jay Ellis

Well said. I'll be seeing this one on Tuesday and will be posting my impressions as well. The 3d looks fantastic based upon the trailers coupled with lots of really cool action scenes. We're in for a treat.

levcore

This opened in the UK two weeks ago and i saw it last weekend. Frankly i thought it was fantastic fun. Let's start with the important stuff, the 3D! The 3D was absolutely amazing, especially during the action scenes. the action in this one tops the previous movie in literally every way and the 3D follows suit. The way some of the shots have been designed makes the maximum use of 3D and director Mark Webb and his team of CG artists really nail the exhilerating FX. The Times Square sequence and the power station sequence are the two best in the movie and are worth seeing the film just for these two bits. I cannot wait to watch this again on 3D blu, it was a great time and it's a real belter in terms of visual FX, action and 3D. Some of the shots where he's jumping off buildings or swinging around, your heart is in your mouth!

As for the rest of the movie...

Geoff D

I was so underwhelmed by the 3D of TAS1 that I skipped the 3D completely second time around, but I'll definitely be getting the 3D Blu-ray of TAS2 just to see what it's like.

levcore

Don't let the 3D presentation of the first movie put you off. The second one has cracking 3D!

KillerJuan77

I saw this on 3D two weeks ago and it's not only a much better film than the first one but it looks hundreds of times better.

It's weird, after watching part one in 3D I felt confused, between the horrendous action scenes, the fantastic dramatic parts, the amazing chemistry of the cast and the utterly flat 3D experience I got little to nothing from it. This one has great action, great drama and it's much more entertaining.

This one was converted and it's quite shocking how much better it looks. There's strong depth throughout, actors have genuine dimension and the pop-outs are great. I still think shooting in 3D is and improvement over a conversion but at the same time it can also suffer from nearly the exact same problems as a conversion. A bad conversion is unwatachable but a poorly shot 3D film also feels like a rip-off (I'm looking at you Tron Legacy, Harakiri and The Amazing Spiderman). This fortunately was a fantastic conversion and it's definetely worth watching.

Zivouhr

I agree that the 3D was really nicely done and does show how conversions can often look just as good or better than certain filmed 3D movies, I'd say medium to strong 3D throughout. Anytime I flipped up my 3D glasses, the double image separation onscreen was pretty strong, even if at times the film looked medium in the 3D layering. But yeah, the action scenes is where the 3D comes to life. The nice thing this time around, even the dialog scenes have good 3D compared to part 1's mild 3D during much of the dialog.

KillerJuan,
How did you like the animation of Spider-Man? I kept looking for any instances where it might look a bit clumsy like the last one or the prior trilogy at times, but it looks like they may have had a motion capture actor this time, as for a super human, it was convincing for the first time in my book for a Spider-Man movie.


-------------Movie:
Also enjoyed this movie more compared to part 1, though it also helps to think of Spider Man as one thinks about the actor playing 007 James Bond. There will always be a favorite actor who portrays the role, but it doesn't mean we can't enjoy the story and action. That helped me going in to see this one, Tobe Macguire still being my favorite version of Spider-Man.

Electro by Jamie Fox was cool and my favorite character villain thanks to his electrical power and his portrayal of Electro;
The rhythm playing when Electro was in Times Square was unique, like a song going on in his head. The actor playing Harry did a nice job also with a good range of anger and calmness, though the design of the original Green Goblin by Willem DaFoe is tough to top. Peter Parker played by A. Garfield did a nice job especially in the final act. Emma Stone was good also as Gwen. I was hoping Rhino had a bigger role, but there were already two main foes in this one.

Nice 3D movie to start the summer.

Bluray3d4life

Couldn't agree more....this 3d blows the first movie away! Somebody was listening! Great action the entire movie. So many 3d scenes that stood out....the last one reminded me of Dredd!

dogofwar

Went and saw this and I totally agree, the 3D was very well done and a vast improvement over the first one. The movie itself was ok, I enjoyed it.

The thing that bothered me a bit about Electro, who is my favorite Spiderman villain was that they ripped off Dr Manhattan from The Watchman. They took great liberties with this character. Electro didn't do the kind of stuff they had him doing.

But the 3D really stood out in a lot of scenes. They did a terrific job with it. Well worth the price of admission.

Brian81

The real vs fake argument is still valid IMO. The first film was shot stereoscopic. This one was shot with only one "eye" of vision. If the 3D is more effective here, which I'll take your word for it, the reason is because they wanted to do it that way. They could make the 3D as mild or severe as they want to. However the intent of 3D was here, if they tried the same with 3D cameras the end result would likely be better.So I'd say that it's not that the conversions are just as good - it's just that the filmmakers' took a different approach for 3D versus the prior film that emphasizes the 3D effect more.

BusterC417

Just got back from seeing this in Imax 3D, and it was fantastic! It was my first movie experience in Imax, and I thought the depth of the entire film was excellent, as well as the pop. For the movie, I could have done without some of the longer love scenes, but overall I would give the film a 8/10.

Pfreddy

I saw it yesterday in ReelD 3D and it was excellent 3D! I was thinking Legend of Hercules was the best of the year for quality, immersive 3D but now its almost a tie with this.

I'm starting to think post converted films are now the way to go too! I agree if the Director knows how to shoot in 3D, then native works great (HUGO, HERCULES) but if not, then let the experts who do conversions handle it and they will get the depth and pop correct for every scene!

jbloggs

Well with the $92 million for first weekend take, I'm sure the third movie is already on the way.

Zivouhr

Yeah, I thought of Dr. Manhattan also during those scenes, though Dr. Manhattan didn't use electricity the same way, but had a lot of the same abilities that likely inspired Electro's design. Even so, it was a cool villain, even though he could electrically warp himself to new locations, fully clothed unlike Dr. Manhattan (Electro somehow able to make the clothing reappear is hard to believe, but it's all make believe so no big deal and I prefer he be wearing clothes anyway, so good enough.)

With a 3D camera rig, great, strong 3D is easily within reach as you suggest, provided that is the goal of the stereographer, and if they have the knowledge to make it happen for most shots in the film. But yeah, filmed 3D would be great for all 3D films, but not always practical or possible depending on the situation and size of the 3D cameras.
Pacific Rim is a great example of a strong 3D conversion that unless someone told most people, would be tough to tell if it was converted or filmed in 3D for the live action shots.
The first ASM, they were trying to tell a story with the 3D, making it stronger during the action scenes and mild during dialog, non event scenes. Not a good strategy for pleasing 3D fans for the first film. 2nd one, much better job, even if it was a converted/hybrid 3D!

Good to hear.

Pacific Rim being another awesome example of strong 2D to 3D converted, hybrid CGI 3D.


I loved the intro scene with Spider Man flying down towards the city, the camera right behind him, and him swinging first person through the city. Awesome execution and 3D!

BleedOrange11

I had a lot of fun watching this movie, but it would have been more cohesive and dramatic if they didn't interject so many needless characters and subplots. All three super villains felt too forced (and too cheesy). Gwen + Peter, the cinematography, and the dazzling CGI action are the saving graces.

The 3D depth strength definitely looked more consistent than the first movie, and like the previous, they have a lot of 3D fun during the Spider-Man swinging. I won't critique the conversion because I tried out a new theater and didn't realize that they lacked stadium seating until redeeming my ticket (from The Spectacular Spider-Man Blu-ray--sooo good ) and stepping in the room. 3D from below is not a good look.

StatenMan18

I saw this movie in IMAX 3D yesterday and I loved it. Like a few people have mentioned, the free falling intro looks amazing. I don't own a 3D tv but I still plan on getting that edition, one day ill be able to get one

mredman

can't wai to see this one. Is there many cool pop out moments in it ?

Zivouhr

Not a whole lot of pop outs but there were a few times the screen 3D had me flinch back, so really good for those few moments it does happen. Usually when stuff breaks apart in the air, tiny particles.

Bleed Orange, I'm surprised a new theater would go for a flat floor these days, but they must have been on a budget. Stadium or descending seating is unbeatable, compared to years ago when a good view could quickly be spoiled by someone sitting in front of your seat; which would also affect the stereo 3D, part of the view affected by someone's skull blocking the view. Plus you're right, in that looking up at the screen can result in more ghosting being at an odd angle.


-------
This movie had 2 hours and 20 minutes of nice 3D. I wonder if the cut footage would be in 3D? Unlikely, but awhile back in an interview, Jaime Fox suggested he had an Electro scene where he said something like what Willem Dafoe said from Spider Man 1, "The itsy bitsy spider" rhyme; but it didn't appear in the movie and may have been cut. Unless he was kidding around.

mredman

thanks. that does sound like cool 3D. Gonna be an awesome 3D blu ray release for sure

morphinapg

Webb just used bad technique in ASM1. He assumed the cameras should be approximately the same distance from each other as human eyes. That's only really true if you're filming really close up shots, meaning the camera is really close to the subject. If you're filming wider shots or zoomed in closeups, the cameras need to be further apart. The separation needs to be exaggerated even more for shots emphasizing the skyline of the city, as a subject that far away is difficult to appear 3D unless the cameras are separated pretty decently. I'm disappointed they went with a conversion instead of improving their technique, but at least they did a damn good job with the conversion.