How's the 3D in 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2'?

Background

The fifth Spider-Man film in 15 years, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is also Spidey’s second 3D film. We were reasonably underwhelmed by the 'original' The Amazing Spider-Man, despite it being shot in native 3D. How does the most recent sequel fare in comparison? Read on for all the details on the film’s post-converted 3D, its depth, effects and whether or not we should save the 2D or 3D versions for archival purposes.

Post-Converted 3D

Unlike its immediate predecessor, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was largely shot on film, and post-converted to 3D. This task fell to Legend 3D, and Stereo Supervisor Ed W. Marsh. The company has a mixed record with its stereo conversions. Some of their earlier work left much to be desired (eg: Alice In Wonderland and Green Hornet). Like much of the conversion industry, they've upped their game in recent years (eg: Top Gun, Man Of Steel). The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is another  massive step forward for them; average viewers won't realise this film was post-converted 3D.

A film, made on film!

That's a misleading sentence though, because much of the film is not 'post-converted' in the truest sense. Due to the web-slinging nature of the film, large sequences of the film feature hundreds of composite effects shots, most of which would have been digitally rendered directly to stereo by the effects studio in charge. Consequently, most of the action scenes you see in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are 'rendered 3D', and are therefore as 'native' as the computer generated character they feature.

The movie is a warm looking one, perhaps afforded a softer image by filming on film. Of course, even in 2D you can tell the difference between a digitally shot image and one filmed on celluloid. We mention the film's warmth here primarily because it makes for a nice change, amongst many of its contemporaries. The scenes with Peter & Gwen are radiant, in a way that is as much about the leads' performances as the technical goings-on behind the camera.

 How's the depth of the 3D?

The Amazing Spider-Man from a few years ago had a depth problem. The action scenes were vibrant, but the dialogue scenes were not. Its sequel has learned a few things from this. Half of the dialogue scenes are just as boring as they were last time around, but the other half are staged in locations that emphasize depth. For example, Peter Parker catches up with a - rich - old school friend, and they spend a few minutes talking in a room, separated by an oppressively large stairwell. They then go to a river's side to continue their discussion, which is staged fairly traditionally. But the boys then begin a stone-throwing competition. Each stone thrown goes further and further, and eventually Peter's powers let rip and his stone is seen skipping across a hundred foot of water. These are slights of the hand, allowing for an engaging image while also getting through truckloads of exposition nad 'character development'.

Then, of course, there's the action scenes. When 'Spidey Sense' is triggered, the viewer is allowed to see the world as Spider-Man sees it; the camera can roam in and out of space and time to focus on what's important. As time slows down, and the camera speeds up, the action takes on a balletic quality. This is the most nimble and agile Spider-Man we've seen on screen yet, and his contortionist nature is all the more miraculous in 'bullet-time'. These scenes frequently use focus, color and camera movements to convey geography and choreography. For example (this requires bullet-points to communicate the progression, sorry):

• Spider-Man might begin a shot in mid-air in the foreground,
• the camera then whips over to a falling pedestrian, 
• the camera zooms in on something that endangers that pedestrian (eg: an electrified handrail),
• the focus then is pulled again and we see Spider-Man, now in the background, engineer his web slinging perfectly,
• his web then reaches out and prevents a death in the foreground.

This type of sequence repeats itself in key moments throughout the film. Each iteration shows more and more variety of depth, building towards a pivotal showdown between the hero and his adversaries. The showdown, high above the ground, uses stereo-emphasised depth to communicate the peril our hero faces. When a web misses its target, we feel as pained as the hero does. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 uses the bullet-time technique to make for a more engaging 3D image, while enhancing the narrative too. The slow motion allows our eyes to take a rest from camera blur and post-converted characters, and when 'real time' comes back the shock of reality is sometimes made intentionally jarring. Its an overtly manipulative technique, and it works well in 3D.

Does the 3D 'pop'?

The 3D in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is largely in keeping with the modern stereo aesthetic; aggressive negative parallax is used sparingly. This seems like a missed opportunity. Electro's sparks could certainly have flown into the audience, and Spider-Man could have swung over our heads a few times. That gimmick was essentially what made people pay to see Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark and it would work well in this series too. It's not fashionable to have this opinion, but in 3Defence's view, this series has a 'dork' of a main character, and it'd be in keeping with his nature to make a visual joke or two using negative parallax.

Did it make sense to add 3D to The Amazing Spider-Man 2?

It absolutely made sense to distribute The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in 3D. The primary villain is bright blue neon coloured, and he fights with startling blue blasts of electricity that illuminate any night time scene. The primary hero is primary coloured himself, and - when he's not battling Electro - is often shot in daylight, in broad and open exteriors. When he's web slinging, there's a deliberately vertigo inducing quality, as we focus on our hero in the foreground while a busy background of skyscrapers rapidly pass behind him. This is the most '3D appropriate' entry in the series so far.

The film itself

The Amazing Spider-Man 2's tagline was "his greatest battle begins". The issue 3Defence has with this film is that "his greatest battle" should have been split into more movies. There's so much going on in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - much of it interesting and of worth - that the film feels rushed and chaotic. Perhaps if an extra half hour were added to its running time, it would have allowed things to settle. Perhaps rogue story elements like Peter Parker's parents' research could have been eliminated to free up more character development. In any case, the film is highly engaging, it just feels like a second draft; bloated with great ideas and poorly cut down for coherency. The "greatest" thing we could say for the film is that it is the closest we've come since Sam Raimi's own Spider-Man 2 to perfect web-slinging action. If you've ever read a Spidey comic, you owe it to yourself to check the film out, just for that alone.

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 2D or the 3D?

The 3D version of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the definitive version to archive. Unlike its predecessor, the film-makers made great decisions here, and designed an engaging 3D experience that you'll remember long after you leave the theatre. The depth of field afforded, and emphasised, by stereo gives the audience a reason to watch the film with glasses on. Legend3D should be proud of their work.

How's the 3D in 'Man Of Steel'?

Background:

To date, despite owning DC Comics' entire catalogue of superheroes, Warner Brothers have taken a small-scale - or at least self-contained - approach to their big-screen adaptations. Certainly their DC films have not been as far-reaching or synergistic as anything from Disney's Marvel-verse. Warners, seeing Marvel's successes - and perhaps fearing a time when The Hobbit can't be split into any further films - promptly commissioned another blockbuster series from Christopher Nolan and his Dark Knight team. Taking on the Man Of Steel himself is no small challenge. The brief Warners likely gave was that the film needed to broadly introduce aliens to Earth, show Superman punching bad guys, and earn big Dark Knight-sized blockbuster grosses. Some challenge! Nolan promptly recruited 300 and Watchmen "visionary" director Zack Snyder to helm the mayhem. The resulting film was released yesterday and 3Defence was there in a packed auditorium on opening night. How'd they do? How was Man Of Steel's 3D? Should you see it in 3D or 2D? Read on for the answer!

Post-Converted 3D:

Here's the thing with a tent-pole superhero film these days; unless it's directed by the 3D-averse Christopher Nolan, you'd best believe it will be released in 3D somehow. That's one cinematic trend you can literally bank on for the next few years, especially after the 3D-grosses were tallied up for The Avengers. Why then is Man Of Steel - from Nolan himself - being released with a post-converted 3D option? If they had to release the film in 3D at all, you'd think the picky creative team would've preferred to go 'all in' with a native-3D shoot, right?

In fact, they originally wanted to do just that. In an interview with Collider Snyder said, "we spent quite a while talking about shooting the movie in [native] 3D and we tested a bunch of rigs.  I said, 'Look, the movie’s handheld.  If you guys can give me a handheld grade that I think is viable, I’m happy to talk about it.' No one could find me a rig." Essentially, the shoot could take much longer than planned, or Snyder would have to film on a tripod; a total change of the visual language he needed for this fast-paced film. It's an interesting conundrum, that we've not heard articulated by other A-list directors yet. So, Man Of Steel is post-converted into 3D because native-3D rigs weren't ready yet to accommodate this particular director's pace. Adding to the intrigue, Snyder eventually shot on film - remember 35mm?

Does the 3D pop?

If anything comes beyond the confides of the screen in Man Of Steel, it's a few 'noise' elements; stuff like debris, sparks, steam and flames. Interestingly, we didn't notice the effect's absence while watching the film. Historically, we've criticised some superhero films (looking at you The Amazing Spider-Man) for being too timid with their usage of 3D's most outrageous effect. Man Of Steel though is no ordinary superhero film; it's borderline apocalyptic in tone. With the fate of multiple worlds at stake, and villains who can move at supersonic speeds, we're actually appreciative there's a clearly defined boundary between 'the film' and 'the audience'. The action on offer is laden with such an overwhelming surplus of visual information too much immersion would have been a bad thing!

How's the depth of the 3D?

Stunning. The depth effects used on Man Of Steel work on two levels (pun intended). On the one hand, the depth of the background adds visual clarity to the viewer. Because of the way the parallax effects are used, we're able to see how insanely fast Superman is moving, and how that might contrast to the speed of his adversaries. On the other hand, and in open contradiction to our earlier point, the depth employed adds a ton of chaos to the action. This chaos is consistent with the film's plot though and, we would argue, assists the audience's comprehension of the ridiculously high-stakes at play throughout the movie. You'll see vistas stretch into the distant horizon, and then be blasted to the limits of that horizon  in seconds, before being catapulted into space, and then back down into a suburban diner and then back into the skies again. This is easily the fastest-paced superhero film we've ever seen, and the depth added by the 3D here left us, entirely appropriately, reeling.

Did it make sense to add 3D to Man Of Steel?

Superman, brightly-coloured boy scout that he is, is a natural hero to cast in a 3D film. He's certainly not the brooding and nocturnal type that Batman is. So, on the surface, Man Of Steel's a dictionary-definition of a "3D appropriate" movie. However... 3Defence had a concern: all that motion-blur, and that aforementioned handheld camera. 3D films have yet to overcome the historic associations with nausea and headaches that were often caused by an unsteady stereoscopic image. Seemingly aware of this, the post-conversion team dial back the 3D effects frequently, to give your eyes a 'breather' in the more unruly scenes. There are broad stretches where you could take your glasses off without missing anything. This is one of the most focused and sensitive conversions we've ever seen, precisely because the handheld camera work was not an issue at all. The team involved has proven 3D projection is ready for any visual challenge.

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 3D or the 2D?

From our perspective, Man Of Steel's 3D version is the definitive version. It's refreshing to say that too, because we've favoured the 2D version in several recent 3D films (so don't be accusing of bias, yo). Man Of Steel is a ground-breaking step forward for the movie business, seemingly decades ahead of 2005's staid and plodding Superman Returns. The flight scenes, with Superman soaring over Africa and the Arctic, are superbly executed and are light-years beyond anything offered from Marvel's stable. The fact the post-conversion team handled the handheld camera work so well is a giant evolutionary step forward for the 3D effects industry, and this arguably makes the film a landmark work in its own right. If you watch Man Of Steel in 2D, you're missing out on a chance to see history in the making.

The film itself

There's a funny critical reaction to this movie. The sort of reaction that is common when two generations are divided. If you grew up reading Silver Age Superman comics, or if your only memory of the hero is the Christopher Reeve movies, then you're going to be surprised by the angry Man Of Steel offered here. If you read the comics from the 80s onwards though, you know Supes is capable of being a Big-Brother-esque government lackie, or a vengeful God ready to wreak havoc if it suits his dogmatic needs. Hell, he even surrendered his American citizenship recently; he's not exactly the jingoistic patriot he once was. Man Of Steel embraces this newer, more nuanced, version of DC Comics' flagship character. 

This isn't a mid-20th Century version of a superhero film. This is a film that fully embraces the genre's Roman and Greek roots: when Gods and Earth mix, the results can be disastrous. The collateral damage is enormous. We at 3Defence have clamoured for years to see the full extent of Superman's powers on-screen and, for better or worse, Zack Snyder has delivered that with Man Of Steel. This is a case where fans should be careful what they wish for though, because the resulting film is essentially a chaotically paced and very long fight scene. There's not much room for character development. So, if you're pining for a world-leading Christopher Reeve-styled Superman, you'll be bitterly disappointed by the worldly and weary version Snyder has cooked up for you. Even if that's your take on the film though, you might forgive Man Of Steel's flaws, given its absurdly gigantic scope and ambition.

Looked at as a late-comer to the big-screen comic-book adaptation game, Man Of Steel could be described as a mash-up. It combines Batman Begins' franchise foundations, Iron Man's handheld effects and Thor's intergalactic derring-do. Cynics might go further, saying Man Of Steel feels like the dregs of those films, swilled together in a putrid and overblown mess. Our opinion though? Man Of Steel wildly exceeds the type of fight-scenes any child has ever dreamed up while clutching a Superman figurine. The film treats its modern comic-book fans with respect, and forces a different era of Superman fans to come to terms with a God who is capable of vast collateral damage if you get in his way. Man Of Steel delivers a full-on bombast unlike any other film ever made and, given the titular character's super-sized abilities, that seems entirely appropriate.

The Amazing Spider-Man: How Good Is Its 3D?

We at 3Defence have decided that film critics aren't giving audiences enough information about the usage of 3D in modern-day cinema. As such, we've been working on an ongoing series that can help you decide whether to fork out a few extra dollars or not to see the latest and greatest blockbuster while wearing glasses. Today we're looking at The Amazing Spider-Man, the fourth webslinger film, and the first to get the stereoscopic treatment being heavily pushed by Sony. You'll notice the article below is separated by sections; we've standardised these sections, to help regular readers compare one film's usage of the 3D technique to another. Let us know if you think of anything else that'd be useful in the comments section!

Native 3D:

Like Prometheus, The Amazing Spider-Man was filmed using Red Epic cameras, in 'native' 3D. In 2012, we've seen a string of high-quality post-production conversions, and we were hoping that Spidey webslinging in three-dimensions would blow them all out of the water. Much was made in the lead-up to the film's release of how much real-world filming was completed (see the photo nearby as an example of leaked images from the film's shoot), so in theory we were due to see the most vivid superhero scenes yet seen in 3D. Indeed, whenever Spider-Man has his suit on, the shots are busy, shot from interesting angles and broad in their scope. Bizarrely though, if Peter Parker's at school or home, the 3D footage is some of the most boring we've ever seen. Considering how much Peter Parker features in this film, we were left wondering why they filmed in native 3D at all.

Does the 3D 'pop'?

Incredibly rarely. The odd holographic image in the Oscorp Labs reaches beyond the screen, and every once in a while Spidey's legs break the artificial 'wall' of the theatre's screen, but these are the exceptions to the rule. In comparison to, say, Men In Black 3's 3D, which felt like there was no plane of depth left unexplored, The Amazing Spider-Man's action takes place well beyond your seat. Until the last shot, you're not going to see webs fly out at the audience, or Lizard tails flaying about over the front row's seats. Check out the image nearby as a wasted example, where a key scene involves the Lizard... behind a shuttered door. If it were us making the film, we'd have had the Lizard stalking his prey in a way where you were terrified his head would jump out at you without warning. Instead, in this scene, he was overtly restricted from doing so! Boring.

How's the depth of the 3D?

As mentioned above, when Spider-Man's swinging like a pendulum over the New York city skyline, the depth is fantastic. It's the most vivid depiction of Manhattan we've ever seen on the screen. Much of the action is shot at night-time though, so it's hard to visualise the gaps between individual skyscrapers. Instead, we see the differences of city blocks, or long avenues that culminate in a gigantic building like Oscorp's tower. Mostly though, the film is set in a fairly bland looking suburbia, and the frame is focused on the foreground and midground, with an out of focus background. This means that depth is restricted to the first couple of metres, with a universal background of blurriness that lacks any sort of visual interest (or reason to have glasses on). In comparison to the deep-focus of Avatar, or the intensely layered shots of Hugo, Spider-Man's interior scenes utterly failed to justify the extra admission fees that 3D cost. Check out the image nearby as an example of a wasted shot composition: two characters in the foreground and a blurred background.

Did it make sense to add 3D to this film?

Sure. On paper, it sounds like a done deal. Spider-Man is the 'daylight hero', wearing bright blue and red colours, framed against brownstone buildings, hundreds of feet in the air above the world's most dynamic city. For some bizarre reason though, the studio (I'm loathe to blame the film's director) set the majority of the film at night-time, darkened the suit, and adjusted the physics to be so realistic that Spider-Man needs the assistance of the city's engineer-folk to swing a few metres at a time. So, if brightness and depth are the priorities, they compromised both in favour of a "more realistic" Spider-Man that feels untrue to the comic's roots.

If we had to archive one version, should we save the 2D or the 3D?

The 2D. Without a doubt. Bear in mind that we here at 3Defence are massive fans of the Spider-Man books, the 3D technique, native 3D films, director Marc Webb, and many of the key creatives who made The Amazing Spider-Man. So when we say the 2D version of this film is the only one to keep, we mean it, and it hurts to say it. Bummer!