I just saw Spiderman 2 last night, and was blown away. Fantastic movie that will keep you hanging on.

Anyways, as I was watching the credits, something occured to me... Sony owns the Spiderman franchise. Sony also owns Vegas Video, having bought it from Sonic Foundry last year.

My question is.... Would they edit Spiderman using Vegas?

That is highly unlikely since almost all film editors use Avid or
physically cut with the film. It would've been a nice publicity
stund though! In theory it would be possible with low resolution
proxies and an EDL export.

It would really have been too funny, if they had cut it with Premiere :)

Has anything professional ever been edited with Premiere? I don't mean television either...I mean theatrical film.

I switched to Mac and bought FCP because it's the cheapest way to edit with a "Pro" system. I saw "Cold Mountain" in the theater and was TOTALLY sold on FCP after that...and I already owned it. The film just made it solidified in my mind...great film and great editing.

Murph

not to mention that Cold Mountain was actually pieced together on a group of powerbooks.. according to that article...

<<<-- Originally posted by Christopher C. Murphy :
I switched to Mac and bought FCP because it's the cheapest way to edit with a "Pro" system. I saw "Cold Mountain" in the theater and was TOTALLY sold on FCP after that...and I already owned it. The film just made it solidified in my mind...great film and great editing.
-->>>

Sorry Murph, I've got to bust yer tomata on this one...

What does FCP have to do with the great editing of the film?

>>My question is.... Would they edit Spiderman using Vegas?<<

With their budget…probably not. And if they did, you would be seeing “Vegas Video edits Spider Man 2” ads all over the place. Much like Apple did with Cold Mountain.

As for the film...The movie was way too melodramatic for me. I didn’t care about Peter Parker’s love interest, nor did I care that he was torn between revealing himself to his loved ones, or keeping his identity a secret. The story dragged big time. And a lot of the CGI looked like it belonged in a Toy Story. Dr. Octopus was cool though, that was about all I enjoyed from the film. It’s baffling to me why so many people are crazy about this cliched and melodramatic movie. I guess I’m just not a Spider Man fan. I enjoyed Hell Boy and X-Men 2 far more then this movie.

I couldn't disagree more. Even on a technical aspect I thought this movie went along at a very fast clip, every scene had a mark. No moment was really wasted. I guess if you aren't hit by the emotional aspect of Peter Parker's story, you might be bored by the romance and by Parker's dilemma. I thought it was all good.

Glen- The whole story is ripped straight from the pages of Spiderman comics. The fact that his life is always in turmoil is what makes him more human.

Of course, being a fan of the comics in my youth, I was a little dissapointed with some of the changes they made. But, I got over most of them. And having been a fan, I spent a lot of time looking at the soon to be villains in Parker's life, trying to figure out which would be in the next movie. Nice teasing on their part.

My question is.... Would they edit Spiderman using Vegas?It might be unlikely, but I wouldn't be surprised if they used it somewhere. They usually don't promote what tools they used on a movie.

Douglas Spotted Eagle has done tons of projects (http://www.spottedeagle.com/credits.htm) and I'm sure Vegas and Acid got used in there somewhere, but I've never seen them advertise it. During the free Sony seminar, DSE mentioned that he'd used Acid for the Finding Nemo soundtrack.

Dylan, haven't you seen the "Edit my movie into something really cool" button in FCP?

Seriously though, the fact that they did cut it on FCP meant it's up for the job. I don't get the feeling Vegas would be.

Aaron

I think you have to understand what is meant by the term "edit". It would be possible to "edit" a feature film on vegas or adobe for that matter... in offline resolution. Then you would have to conform it. Neither of these tools is especially adept at that. Some films that are edited on FCP are then "finished" on a high end Avid.

<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Koolen : Dylan, haven't you seen the "Edit my movie into something really cool" button in FCP?

Seriously though, the fact that they did cut it on FCP meant it's up for the job. I don't get the feeling Vegas would be.

Aaron -->>>

Darn, I should have bought a Mac...

My point is just that if it was a terrible movie, no one would care if it was edited on FCP. It had great editing because it was done by an experienced professional, not because it was done on FCP. The tool is irrelevant to the results. No one cares what brand of paintbrush Picasso painted with, except for the people that think buying a better paintbrush will make them better painters, while what they really need is skill.

Back to the regularly scheduled topic... Spiderham!

Agreed with Dylan.

I can see the cartoon now. Some kid walks up to Walter Murch and demands to know how he could have edited "Apocalypse Now" without FCP.

anyone notice a little evil dead in spiderman?
im not kidding.... in the operating room, one of the surgeons
and the chainsaw?
I agree this one was alittle slow moving...
anyone thinking its about time for the simbiote?
didnt the john jameson character bring it back from space?

Ok... I'll let you non-fans in on the villain teases. John Jameson did bring the Venom symbiot back from space, but that was after he turned into a werewolf from his first moon mission.

Eddie Brock, a reporter from the first movie, eventually becomes Venom, AFTER Peter Parker rejects the symbiot.

Parker's teacher Dr. Connors, becomes the Lizard in a search to regenerate his lost arm.

And, at the end of the second movie, Harry Osborne discovers his father's Green Goblin lair. He will eventually become the Hobgoblin.

I'm sure that there were more teases, but I missed them. It's not like I'm a full-fledged geek or anything ;)

What happens when a TRUE comic geek watches Spidey 2? They nit pick it to death!
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film3843

Someone needs a life... or a girlfriend!

Page overloaded :O

Did anyone else except me love the editing? I thought it had a very rich vocabulary. The editor (Bob Murawski) has not cut anything really famous before: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0613657/

I was very pleased with all aspects of the film, and would have changed very little. I thought the editing was pretty tight.

What's the problem of editing a movie with anything you want???
The usual methods of offline/online are meant for that.
Anyway you always end with large sequences of frames pasted together.
Not Avid nor FCP will give you a quality advantage.
Or anyone here thinks that a 4k movie is directly edited at full resolution into an Avid system?? :)

I thought it was fair at best.

Kirsten Dunst looked awful. The lighting was a little too obvious. There were some confusing parts, like why his threads weren't coming out.

Yes, I knew why but there was no way to know for sure. The drama was unsurprising and expected. I could hardly wait for the whole thing to end.

My 14-year old liked it. My 17-year old thought it was just OK.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : I thought it was fair at best.

Kirsten Dunst looked awful. The lighting was a little too obvious. There were some confusing parts, like why his threads weren't coming out.
-->>>

Or how could an old 70-something year old woman hold herself up sixty stories in the air...with a cane! I can't even do that lol.

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I actually loved the movie.

The main reason was that for the first time in a long time, I saw
a big budget summer 'blockbuster' that actually felt as though
it was made by an individual.

I did not enjoy Spiderman 1 much at all, thought it was just 'okay.'
Because, like most big budget movies, it felt as though it was spit
out of a machine. Whereas, for me, Spiderman 2 definitely had
a lot of life to it, it reminded me of so many of the things that made
me like Sam Raimi to begin with.

It was obvious that an individual with a point of view made it.
That alone made it better than the first.

Yes, it was melodramatic, and that is not for everyone.
The movie definitely followed the comic book, and it really felt
like a comic book on screen to me. But that is not a defense of the
movie.

It had all the strengths and all the weaknesses of a comic.
Comics and movies are different, and much like most great movies
would never make great comic books, the same could be said for
going the other direction. Spiderman 2 is a movie, and should be
judged as a movie. Saying 'yeah, but that's how it is in the comic'
isn't really a valid defense of things that might be wrong with it.

I can understand why a lot of people didn't seem to like it.
It was light fun, it was melodrama, and it was kind of cheesy.
But, I thought Raimi handled it very well. I definitely wasn't
let down at all. In fact, I may go see it again.

By the way:
"Did anyone else except me love the editing? I thought it had a very rich vocabulary"

What exactly does 'rich vocabulary' mean?

I thought it was well cut. But I don't really know what you mean
by 'vocabulary.'

-Luis

I think by vocabulary he means range and tasteful choice.

Yes, that is what I meant.

I saw the movie, and it seemed like a 150 million dollar chick flic.

Nothing wrong with that, but I would have preferred Doc Octopus' wife stay alive a little longer and have them explore that dynamic. I realize the guilt over his wifes death had much to do with his going crazy, but the chemistry between them was there and was for the most part wasted as nothing more than a plot deivice.
They have plenty of sequels left to explore Peter and Mary Jane.

Still, I thought the script was much better than the first one.

Plus, answering the question (who is spider man) and getting it out of the way was a very smart move by the producers to preserve the franchise.