DVDizzy Forum

The teaser trailer, the theatrical trailer, and the teaser poster have been released.


Source: https://www.facebook.com/SpiderVerseMov ... 088320291/


The movie looks really good! The only thing I don't like is them using chromatic aberration instead of a traditional camera effect to simulate background blur. It creates a result similar to what a 3-D movie looks like without glasses.

Sotiris wrote:The only thing I don't like is them using chromatic aberration instead of a traditional camera effect to simulate background blur. It creates a result similar to what a 3-D movie looks like without glasses.

So that was intentional? When I saw the trailer some weeks ago, I thought I had clicked on the 3D version of the trailer . I don't like that effect either, but I agree, the movie looks good.

Late reply. I am very much looking forward to this and I hope it restores Sony Pictures Animation's image with the general public (going by YouTube and Facebook comments it seems Sony became a laughingstock on releasing The Emoji Movie.) Also, I think the film's production designers and art directors as well as the crew at Sony Pictures ImageWorks - where the film is actually animated - deserve a huge thumbs up for the ballsy move of having a mainstream, big-budget animated film look stylistically distinct from every other CG film out there. Animation fans have been moaning for this year in year out.

As we know there were similar experiments being done at WDAS during their last dark age, but they were torpedoed before they could be applied to the finished films (i.e. Keane's original visual language for Tangled) or seemingly abandoned (i.e. Meander.)

Off-topic, but I often wonder what would have happened to WDAS had the Pixar purchase never happened. Would they have recovered from their slump by now (on their own), or could the situation have gotten so bad that the studio would have closed its doors?

The theatrical poster and another trailer have been released.


Source: https://www.facebook.com/SpiderVerseMov ... 318044500/


The movie looks like fun! I like the personality of adult Peter Parker and the homages to Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy. It would have been so cool had they gotten Tobey Maguire to voice him. I also like how the relationship between Miles and his dad is portrayed. It's refreshing seeing a Black father defying gender norms and being emotionally available and not afraid or embarrassed to show affection to his teenage son. One thing I didn't like was the approach they went with for Peni Parker. Making her an anime character is too silly and meta and her design looks generic and underdefined like she came from one those poorly-drawn "how to draw manga" books. I'm more accepting of Spider-Ham since he's the obligatory sidekick used for comic-relief, though I could do without. He's basically Porky Pig in a spider-suit.

An international trailer, a TV spot, a UK banner and a French poster have been released. The lyric video for the song "Sunflower" featured in the movie has been released as well.


Source: https://twitter.com/SonyPicturesUK/stat ... 6633327622


Source: https://twitter.com/SonyPicturesFr/stat ... 3913550848

That would have been so cool! Talk about a missed opportunity.

Tobey Maguire Was Considered for Spider-Verse's Peter Parker
http://screencrush.com/tobey-maguire-in ... der-verse/

As a Spider-Man fan, I feel this is the right movie we need for the franchise. Let's leave already this crap of "Peter Parker must be a teen" and start expanding the idea of him being an adult already, facing his adult responsibilities. Focusing on the other Spider-Men can also help widen the world and attract more audiences.

Also, even if she's in a cameo, Mary Jane being rightfully portrayed beats out no MJ or her being turned into a rude Daria rip-off (MCU, I'm looking at you).

EDIT: Oscar Isaac is in this? Cool, the guy's talented and handsome, but I feel he's better as an actor than a voice actor.

thedisneyspirit wrote:As a Spider-Man fan, I feel this is the right movie we need for the franchise. Let's leave already this crap of "Peter Parker must be a teen" and start expanding the idea of him being an adult already, facing his adult responsibilities.

I couldn't agree more. I'm also tired of a teenage Spider-Man. With him being an adult you can tell more interesting stories and explore a more profound and nuanced aspect of the character. I never understood why most Marvel fans prefer him as a teenager.

thedisneyspirit wrote:Also, even if she's in a cameo, Mary Jane being rightfully portrayed beats out no MJ or her being turned into a rude Daria rip-off (MCU, I'm looking at you).

She's not even named Mary Jane, anymore. She's Michelle Jones. What they did with the character was horrible. The "my friends call me MJ" twist was so cringe-worthy. Marvel backtracked in the press after the backlash saying Zendaya's character isn't supposed to be MJ but we all know what they were trying to do. Regardless whether she's technically Mary Jane or not, she's still functioning as a Mary Jane surrogate and I believe this is going to be even more obvious in Far From Home.

This looks amazing. We need more mainstream CGI films that really experiment stylistically like this.

That's because MCU fanboys absolutely refuse to ever talk about any flaws the movies might make, and they go out of their way to excuse every dumb decision the movies make. I figure they don't even read the comics, but they just google on wikipedia basic things and fawn whatever decision Kevin Beige makes because "omg they're funny" "RDJ is the best", and other shallow reasons. Disney just has a way of amassing people who never question their decisions.

Whitewashing characters? They excuse that. Iron Man making rape jokes? They excuse that. Massively changing everything that was appealing about Spider-man? They excuse that.

Mary Jane is actually a fascinating and complex character in the comics, so I don't get why adaptations never portray her well. I figure so many people don't comment on how shitty a character Michelle is because of fear of being called "racist", but I reckon if she had been played by a white brunette actress EVERYBODY would've complained about the movie misrepresenting Mary Jane so much. If she ends up being Peter's love interest, ok, but keep her as she is. I think it'll be so dumb if they try to retcon her into being MJ and giving her dyed red hair. It'd just be embarrassing. It's hilarious, in a way. Mary Jane is the one seen as "outdated" and "needs to be changed", but flawless Gwen Stacy must always be a genius scientist, white and blonde, and of course, Peter's "true love" and the female "main lead" of Spider-Man.

thedisneyspirit wrote:If she ends up being Peter's love interest, ok, but keep her as she is. I think it'll be so dumb if they try to retcon her into being MJ and giving her dyed red hair. It'd just be embarrassing.

It has already been confirmed she's Peter's love interest in Far From Home. I honestly don't get why they bothered coming up with a new character instead of using the well-known and well-beloved Mary Jane. They still could have racebended her if they were dead set on casting Zendaya.

Zoe Kravitz would've been a better live-action MJ all things considered over Zendaya, anyhow. At least she has charisma.

Saw this tonight, and it was an absolute delight.

This is definitely my favorite Spider-Man film to date. It was just super fun, with lots of humorous moments, nods, and winks, but I appreciated that it knew when to play it straight, giving proper emotional weight where it was due. It was a classic origin story that we've seen time and time again, yet it still felt fresh.

And the visuals.... Just amazing. Pure eye candy from start to finish, and it really showcases the range that a CGI film can achieve. Hopefully more of the big studios start experimenting with the medium like this film did.

I can totally see why this is sweeping a lot of the awards so far. I think this might beat out Isle of Dogs, Incredibles 2, and Mirai as animated film of the year for me as well.

How can you guys take the poor frame-rate?

I saw this movie a few days ago with my friend. I was in full support just because I wanted to help new animation styles thrive and you know, in the Christmas movie season this movie could use all the love it could get.

Luckily the story is just as great as the animation. I really want this film to win all the awards because while it's not a revolutionary story, it is making significant strides to present a different angle to the Spider-Man universe (Peter is actually an adult here for once!) while mixing with the unique animation style. Sony/Marvel, if they really wanted to, could have just made another Peter Parker in highschool animated movie, and it would have been successful I'm sure. But here, all the staff and filmmakers wanted to innovate, and I am glad they did.

It really is Miles's coming of age story and how he proves himself to be a worthy superhero. He's very likable in how he wants to right in the world, but he's still just a kid. (Is he in middle school actually? The school in the movie is a bit confusing because they have dorms but apparently it said Middle?) He likes art too, and I'm always interested in characters with creative flairs.

My only real gripe is that the villain could have been better fleshed out. I did understand where he was coming from, I just wasn't too emotionally attached because he didn't really have personal connections to Miles. He's just (let's be honest here) an evil buffoon who wants things his way and doesn't have the foresight to realize things won't work out well. I think another character had much better rapport with Miles so when something bad happened it meant much more.

Disney Duster wrote:How can you guys take the poor frame-rate?

So admittedly I did feel that some animation sequences in the film act/look like a claymation film. I remember an online review or two mentioned the same. I assume that the low frame rate was intentional, but maybe not?

Regardless, I don't think it took away from the film's presentation. If anything, I feel having the "stilted" animation allowed the colors and intense designs stand out more. For instance, some scenes "blur" the background, kinda like seeing a 3D movie without glasses. But it doesn't hurt the eyes, it's more of a visual cue to look at the clear objects, i.e. the characters and their emotions.

Unsurprisingly, a sequel is in the works.

Joaquim Dos Santos, known for his work on cartoon series Avatar: The Last Airbender and, more recently, Netflix’s Voltron series, has been tapped to direct the sequel. David Callaham, who penned The Expendables and worked on Wonder Woman 1984 as well as Zombieland 2, is writing.

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat- ... ny-1164210

The producer revealed that Sony’s upcoming Into the Spider-Verse sequel, directed by Joaquim Dos Santos (Avatar: The Last Airbender, Voltron) and written by David Callaham (Wonder Woman 1984, Zombieland 2), will be focused on Miles Morales and Gwen Stacy—and will explore a romance between the two, a thread from Lord’s original script that ultimately didn’t fit in Into the Spider-Verse.

Source: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20 ... -interview

Ah. Well Warm Regards thank you for your opinion on the frame-rate. I feel like it would always bother me, but I haven't actually watched the film, so maybe you are right that it really isn't bad.

The thing I'm most excited about learning in this thread is there will be a Zombieland 2, lol!

Also just saw it. I normally don't like watching good movies just after they came out since I can get easily carried away by the hype, but yes, the movie is really really good. It's probably crazy to imagine the movie with the Spider-Pig and the story of dimension hopping is the best Spider-Man movie in like 15 years, but there it is.

Like I'm a big fan of Spider-Man in general, but I always sorta cringe when they do adaptations of the stories since they never adapt well the important aspects of the characters or just completely change what is engaging about him and his world (the importance is in the details). They don't stay close to any one particular story here, but there is stuff here and there that is reminiscent of the comics and they get the essence of what makes Spider-man so appealing and relatable to everyone, regardless of origin. (And hence why I'll never like that Disney's "definitive" Spider-Man is nothing but a spoiled Iron Man fanboy; so we can have "definitive" Iron Mans, Captain Americas, and other morons, but Marvel's flagship character can't have an accurate interpretion true to the comics? ). And funny, I feared due to how complicated this story is in the comics that they would butcher it up and just make it a mess for non-comic readers to understand with all the references, but at least in my showing lots of people were giggling and gasping at many scenes. They liked a lot Noir and Porker, which I thought would be the hardest characters to sell for mainstream fans...

I'd love for the sequel to go forward and maybe at this point the movie get awards and recognition or something. I feel due to the animation and the content it's just a film that I could never in a million years see Disney / MCU giving the green light on ("the animation doesn't lead to dolls that sell" "the animation's too ugly, better let's keep making the same old Play-doh big-head doll amidst a realistic background animation for another five years" "the story's too complicated audiences won't understand" "Tom Holland is the DEFINITIVE Peter Parker in what world are you suggesting for Peter to be a flawed adult!?").

It's really bizarre, seeing how Sony has a history of making horrible animated films, bad Spider-man films, the MCU fanboys being overzealous with their Teenage Iron Boy, and the story already sounding pretty complicated for a mainstream audience, I figured this film could easily flop hard. It's kinda of a miracle it's been showered with praise everywhere, but it's deserved.

Also, I want more Oscar Isaac Spider-Man. Now that's a movie I'D be fully invested in.

Great post, thedisneyspirit, I agree wholeheartedly. Yes, the movie is crazy good. Amazing (no pun intended) actually. It's not only the best Spider-Man movie in 15 years, it's arguably the best superhero film I've seen in years. It just gets that comic book feel down to a T, without ever dumbing it down for the audiences or using silly jokes to break tension. Who could have imagined Sony Animation would be the studio behind something so beautiful, touching and entertaining?

I kinda wonder what will Disney / Marvel's reaction will be upon seeing this film being successful. Either they'll ignore it or try to mimic it in some way, but do it rather badly. I just feel they're gonna rush in with Miles' introduction to get on that sweet cash, so I'm kinda glad this movie came first with their own Miles, so if the MCU fucks him up people will call them out more strongly. But knowing the type of sycophants that the MCU attracts...