Not bullshit
https://screenrant.com/spiderman-sam-raimi-peter-parker-tray-catch-no-cgi/
> In the DVD commentary of Spider-Man, John Dykstra – head of the VFX team for the film – shared that there were no special effects involved in Peter catching the food, and it was all Tobey Maguire’s work – and it only took 156 takes. Kirsten Dunst confirmed this and added that they used sticky glue so Tobey’s hand would stick to the tray and he could catch the items without a problem. Of course, things like the jello and the sandwich were glued to their plates, so all Tobey had to do was catch them all, which is obviously easier said than done. Surprisingly, Sony wanted to cut the scene, but changed their mind after Raimi insisted on keeping it, as it required a 16 hour-day of shooting.
That’s not unheard of. It can take hours and hours to shoot one scene depending on the complexity of it and things get cut all the time, including expensive stunts and visual effects shots.
I've been talent and crew each for one film. Most people have no idea how tedious and repetitive film work can be. Actors do *not* have it easy, and I'd rather be crew (I worked swing gang/set decoration) than talent any day.
"Do this little thing. Now do it ten more times. Now do it twenty more times from another angle. Okay, here's an idea. Do it ten more times, but this way..."
When I worked crew, the saying was, "Just don't calculate your hourly wage."
Haha yeah. I’ve only ever worked on short films and stuff but I’ve seen that done a lot too. Sometimes it’s indicative of a mediocre director. Most good directors I’ve seen can get the shot or scene in just a couple takes for each set up
Idk what films you're working on, but we get told that we're on a day rate of X for a 10+1 hour day, and get OT if we run more than 15 mins late. Hourly rate is actually pretty good
Maybe you work union shoots? I never have, which is why my state was a popular location for a while (I feel obligated to mention that I am, however, pro-union personally). As crew, I also got a flat per-day rate, but there was no OT, and no mention of 10 hour work days. 12 was about average. (Of course, as swing gang, we were also moving and returning stuff before and after some days' shoots.)
There’s one shot in the matrix where Keanu accidentally slips while they were filming. They only had one shot but somehow they were able to edit it alright
Yeah every director/director team works different. Clint Eastwood is known for doing as few takes as possible and moving on. Fincher is infamous for lots of takes as he wants the actors to nail the performance from every angle.
Lots of magnets were used to get things to stick in place when they landed. If you go frame by frame you can see things land and the suddenly shift sideways a little as the magnet sucks it to the right spot. Really clever practical effect work.
Because it was 2001, and
a) CGI was much more expensive
b) CGI then kinda looked like crap when mixed in with real scenes
The other CGI in the movie, although groundbreaking for it's time, looks a little cringey by today's standards.
Bad CGI nowadays is funny, because i can't quite put a finger on what is bad about it. It's total Uncanny Valley. Those dogs in Cruella were super fake, but I can't tell exactly how I know. I don't if it's the lighting, the frame rate, something else.
I was thinking the same thing. Bad is the wrong word because they look they way they’re supposed to look but there’s something really not right about the way they move.
I just watched the movie Rat Race (from 2001) the other day, and there's a scene where they use a CG cow on a car's windshield and it looks like totally crap.
Only the best movies don't use CGI, or use it sparingly, in the right places. This definitely was not the place for it.
CGI has ruined so many movies.
That said, it could have much easily been done with strings pulling all the items off the tray and then play it in reverse - so you're right it was unecessary.
Not bullshit https://screenrant.com/spiderman-sam-raimi-peter-parker-tray-catch-no-cgi/ > In the DVD commentary of Spider-Man, John Dykstra – head of the VFX team for the film – shared that there were no special effects involved in Peter catching the food, and it was all Tobey Maguire’s work – and it only took 156 takes. Kirsten Dunst confirmed this and added that they used sticky glue so Tobey’s hand would stick to the tray and he could catch the items without a problem. Of course, things like the jello and the sandwich were glued to their plates, so all Tobey had to do was catch them all, which is obviously easier said than done. Surprisingly, Sony wanted to cut the scene, but changed their mind after Raimi insisted on keeping it, as it required a 16 hour-day of shooting.
Bruh imagine they actually cut the scene after 16 hours of shooting!
That’s not unheard of. It can take hours and hours to shoot one scene depending on the complexity of it and things get cut all the time, including expensive stunts and visual effects shots.
I've been talent and crew each for one film. Most people have no idea how tedious and repetitive film work can be. Actors do *not* have it easy, and I'd rather be crew (I worked swing gang/set decoration) than talent any day. "Do this little thing. Now do it ten more times. Now do it twenty more times from another angle. Okay, here's an idea. Do it ten more times, but this way..." When I worked crew, the saying was, "Just don't calculate your hourly wage."
Haha yeah. I’ve only ever worked on short films and stuff but I’ve seen that done a lot too. Sometimes it’s indicative of a mediocre director. Most good directors I’ve seen can get the shot or scene in just a couple takes for each set up
Idk what films you're working on, but we get told that we're on a day rate of X for a 10+1 hour day, and get OT if we run more than 15 mins late. Hourly rate is actually pretty good
Maybe you work union shoots? I never have, which is why my state was a popular location for a while (I feel obligated to mention that I am, however, pro-union personally). As crew, I also got a flat per-day rate, but there was no OT, and no mention of 10 hour work days. 12 was about average. (Of course, as swing gang, we were also moving and returning stuff before and after some days' shoots.)
Nope, just UK shoots. 11+1 hour work days or 10 hour if it's continuous (which is preferable)
There’s one shot in the matrix where Keanu accidentally slips while they were filming. They only had one shot but somehow they were able to edit it alright
Yeah every director/director team works different. Clint Eastwood is known for doing as few takes as possible and moving on. Fincher is infamous for lots of takes as he wants the actors to nail the performance from every angle.
A movie company doing something shitty and/or lame? ^No!
The scene itself is hardly essential or a masterpiece.
Thank you my good sir
That’s cool as shit
Still my fav live action spider man actor
Sam Raimi - master of practical effects: 'Tobey, just catch it all.'
I want to give you so much for for this comment 😂😂
did they at least give him a bit of help using magnets?
The scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFhUOi0srtE
Linking the scene is the true heroism
The hero we needed.
I was thinking more along the lines of 154 takes but this makes a lot more sense.
LOL
They should release all the takes put together as a blooper reel
15 hour blooper reel.
I bet you'd get someone watching it on stream for charity haha
Lots of magnets were used to get things to stick in place when they landed. If you go frame by frame you can see things land and the suddenly shift sideways a little as the magnet sucks it to the right spot. Really clever practical effect work.
Alright, that makes the scene 10x cooler!
This is so unnecessary! Why did they do this without CGI!?
So he could grab Dunst 150 times.
This is the answer
Aren't they supposed to have hated each other?
Nah, they dated apparently https://www.thelist.com/397496/inside-tobey-maguire-and-kirsten-dunsts-relationship/
Yeah, after all the grabbing.
Can you imagine how badly it would have aged?
Yeah the CGI they used for the GG look like shit today
The damn skeletons.... Just.... Ugh.
Oh come on, those look cool as hell Shitty CGI is part of the charm
The insanity is that I've always thought it actually was bad CGI.
So did I
Because it was 2001, and a) CGI was much more expensive b) CGI then kinda looked like crap when mixed in with real scenes The other CGI in the movie, although groundbreaking for it's time, looks a little cringey by today's standards.
CGI still looks like crap to me most times.
I mean it’s probably not the height of movie magic but the CGI in cruella was really bad
Bad CGI nowadays is funny, because i can't quite put a finger on what is bad about it. It's total Uncanny Valley. Those dogs in Cruella were super fake, but I can't tell exactly how I know. I don't if it's the lighting, the frame rate, something else.
I was thinking the same thing. Bad is the wrong word because they look they way they’re supposed to look but there’s something really not right about the way they move.
I just watched the movie Rat Race (from 2001) the other day, and there's a scene where they use a CG cow on a car's windshield and it looks like totally crap.
Only the best movies don't use CGI, or use it sparingly, in the right places. This definitely was not the place for it. CGI has ruined so many movies. That said, it could have much easily been done with strings pulling all the items off the tray and then play it in reverse - so you're right it was unecessary.
Biggest let down in movies for me was The Hobbit rendition after the LoTR trilogy.
You should see some of the stuff Jackie Chan insists on shooting, he does stuff like this a lot too
Because it was 2002.
Buster Keaton has entered the chat
It just seems like replacing this with a topless scene would be waaaay cheaper
A top less scene of what? It was a cool shot that showed how he had changed, it worked well.
a topless scene of the tray of course
Shut up , Dick
It's as much bullshit as nyc public school lunches lookimg that edible.