I'd have liked this a lot more if not for the moaning about the soullessness of the computer graphics. I thought the shots of Spidey swinging among the towers of New York were fabulous, a believable realization of something that I never quite believed in the comics. (Though the director does seem to swallowed the nonsense claim that New Yorkers never look up.)

It's a commonplace that computer art is soulless and inanimate, looking as if human beings had nothing to do with its origin, but I wonder if any of the people making this claim have ever tried making computer art themselves? The TiBook and copy of Photoshop I sometimes use to turn out web graphics are just as much human inventions, just as much artistic tools capable of conveying style and creativity, as the brushes and paints I was mucking around with an hour ago.

Great find- I'm going to link to it right now!

I wouldn't say the CG in Spider-man was soulless, but I did find it sub-par, as did many of my friends who do it for a living.

Seeing CG films with them is always interesting:

"Did you see the fur? Wow!"

"How about the way that thing walked?"

I'll say, "What about the story?"

"Story?"

I wouldn't call it sub-par. It's not at the cutting edge, but that edge advances so very quickly nowadays....

The problem I had was it was always glaringly obvious to me whether I was looking at a man in a costume or a CG model. I don't want to say what caused that, and possibly ruin the film for those who don't want to notice. But if your interested you can mail me.

"a secret feminization of the man-of-steel tradition"

Oh, puh-leeze. I would say it *humanized* the man-of-steel (what it would be like to BE a superhero) rather than *feminized* it. What an odd attempt at association with feminization. Wouldn't feminization be more along the lines of what was done with Wonder Woman or the She-hulk? Meaning it's a woman's viewpoint/approach rather than a flawed/limited/human approach (ala. Spider-man).

I agree that the CGI in Spiderman was sub-par-- the web-swinging scenes looked really cartoonish to me. My guess is that it may have been done that way on purpose, though. It is a movie made from a comic book, after all, so cartoonish visuals aren't necessarily a Bad Thing. If nothing else, you can spin this as a tribute to the comic-book origins of the character.

Have there been any movies that used CGI to the extent Spider-man did where you haven't been able to tell when you were looking at a real person and when you were looking at CGI?

In my experience, the most convincing uses of CGI-generated characters have been for non-humans (Yoda in Attack of the Clones [who managed to have more screen presence, more charisma and gravitas, than many of the human actors], just about everybody in Monsters Inc.) or very cartoon-like humans (the kids in Monsters Inc., the human characters in the Toy Story movies).

I think the key point to be noted here is that the NYRB has used the word "intergalactic" in a context where it is, at least sometimes, actually correct. This may be a first.

If they should follow this with an analysis of print comics that does not contain sound effects (e.g., "Zap!") we could be wobbling on the brink of a Colloidal Golden Age.

Avram, Fellowship of the Ring. Sure they weren't swinging from buildings, but my problem with Spidey was the way they chose to render him. It's a technical detail. (I wasn't fond of the animation, but that's personal taste and I don't count that against the film.)

I'm not saying Spider-Man isn't a good film, I enjoyed it very much. I think we agree that the review was far to pretentious in its criticism of the CG. Yes, all CG in film has flaws, but there were some basic flubs here (possibly due to time constrants).

"Pretentious"? To what was the reviewer pretending?

It's probably not what you're thinking of when you say "comics", but Brad Leithauser's article on Walt Kelly's "Pogo" didn't contain a single sound effect.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15286

Yes, Lord of the Rings did an astonishing job with the hobbits and dwarves. I don't know enough about the details to judge whether that's a different task from rendering in entirely non-existent people. (It might even be more difficult.)

I also don't remember my reactions to the cave troll well enough to recall how real it seemed; though again, that's a non-human creature.

The aspect of Spidey's appearance that clued me in to his being CGI wasn't how he was rendered (if I'm understanding what you mean by that word), but how he moved. There's a particular quality of movement there, something I can't put a name to, that looks artificial to me. I saw the same thing in the Harry Potter movie, when Harry was flopping around on top of the troll's head.

What sound effect did the NYROB Spider-Man piece have? I've just skimmed it twice, and can't find so much as a "pow!".

Like Patrick, I'm just stunned at the matter-of-fact tone of the article's praise, and understanding, of Lee and Ditko. A NYROB writer who understands Bullpen Bulletins? Wowser.

"Mint!"