There is an ernest and quite correct arguement to be made that the third and fourth installments of the Lethal Weapon series are pale, sickly follow-ups to two excellent movies. (I believe LW4 bombed terribly and was lambasted by critics)

I'd agree to some point about the declining quality of these sequels but I'd still rather watch LW4 three times in a row than ever revisit Terminator 3.

Sorry for adding to off-topic but I LOVED LW4, Rock and Pesci together was hillarious =]

With all the stereotypes going on in LW4, I couldn't enjoy the flick on any level whatsoever. As for Terminator, I like to think that it ended then and there at T2.

In other news, Spidey 3 is a GO at IMAX. ;-)

http://superherohype.com/news/spider...ws.php?id=4564

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8...1611388mf2.jpg
Wow.

I saw that poster on IMDB. I'm somewhat in disbelief that it's either legit (though I'm also too damned lazy to check on the offical Spider-Man site) or anything from the movie it's, given that I've seen blind plumbers create better photoshop effects than that.

That awful, crappy "Superman" pose that was supposedly a Spider-Man 3 poster only enforces this idea. I'll chalk it up as an overenthusiastic fanboy with a complete lack of artistic talent.

And in other news - Zatoichi is fucking awesome, Worm.

That's from a wallpaper on the official site. It's legit, despite the terrible photoshopping. The tendrils look like they're in a different dimension than the face.

I pulled that from the Film Force section at IGN (or whatever it is). There's another of Emo Peter pulling his jacket to unveil the Venom suit. Did the Symbiote ever have a green tint to it? That throws me off, because in the animated series it had a purple tint to it. I'm glad other people recognize Zatoichi besides myself. Now that you guys are talking Photoshop, I must admit the blending of the tendrils to the face is total ass.

Yeah, thats the poster I was refering to with "that awful, crappy "Superman" pose".

I think thats simply a matter of artistic preference. Erik Larson didn't draw Venom exactly like Todd McFarlane, nor did Mark Bagley draw him like either of them.

I've only seen The Blind Swordsman's Revenge on IFC, which was fantastic. I want to see the "new" Zatoichi movie - it came out two years ago?

Zatoichi is 2003

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363226/

And this has to do with Spider-man how?

What's all this talk of a "crappy" photoshop job. I'd challenge anybody here to do better. Make a pic of yoruself with the Venom suit oozing over yourself and try to do a better job. Also, that entire pic has a cool green color over it. The green could just be a result of the lighting. In the first teaser trailer the suit looks pretty black and slimy as it jumps onto Pete's hand. Or they could be taking some artistic liscense and giving Venom a dark green tint. As I recall, the suit is kinda "what you make of it," a jagged reflection of your inner self.

Don't troll.

http://www.frazettaartgallery.com/
http://www.davedorman.com/
http://www.drewstruzan.com/

Thank you. You'd figure with the budget that Spider-man 3 has, they'd do a better job with the photoshops.

Well Raimi said himself they were unsure to show this stuff cause it is UNFINISHED, they still have some work to do with venom and some other scenes shown at comic-con '06

Why photoshop? Not that I need ANOTHER Alex Ross poster, but theres so much better talent out there than yet another 20 something on a Mac.

This argument has been anally raped by the Internet so many times that it's become meaningless. You could throw a cereal box in there.

It's criticism. Criticism does not require capability. You don't ask Roger Ebert to make the best film ever to make his criticism of movies valid.

None of those guys use PS to create photorealistic images. They're all traditional painters. So you're saying you want Alex Ross to do the movie posters in traditional media? From what I remember, all of the Spidey posters have had a photorealistic style to them. They're just keeping the same style.

Interrobang, yeah yeah, whatever. Everybody's allowed to be a critic whether they have any skills at all or know what the hell they're talking about. I'm just trying to get the point across that making something like that in PS is not just 20mins of work that can be pulled off by a no talent hack. It's not like the guy took a stock photo of Topher Grace and hit it with the "symbiote brush."

1.) You said you challenged anyone to do better - but not using what medium.

2.) I can EASILY argue that Frazetta is more photorealistic than anything you can dish up. His material is at the height of movement - all you're looking for are cheap CG gimicks and lens flair.

my bad then, I should've specified PS.

What do you mean "all i'm looking for are cheap CG gimick and lens flair?" Where did I give that impression at all? I'm just saying stick with the established style. There's no denying that Frazetta is a badass at what he does, but his style doesn't match what's already been established.

And as far as not being able to find anything more photorealistic than Frazetta's work.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...iratesword.jpg
all digital.

and of course, http://www.dylancolestudio.com/index2.html, his matte paintings are way more photorealistic than anything Frazetta ever did.

By the way, it's lens flare, not flair... since I know you're a stickler about stuff like that.

Double Post:
http://ic3.deviantart.com/fs4/p/2005...d366dd06bd.jpg One more example of photorealism better than Frazetta.

http://www.biggrnyu.com/frank_frazet...stroyerbmp.jpg

All by hand

Yes, some effort went into this shit, but it doesn't change the fact that it's shit. The symboite doesn't look like it's in the same layer as Topher, especially around the face area. It lacks depth and I think the different lighting throws me off.

That painting is badass.

LeHah, maybe we should just make a thread devoted to the most badass movie posters.

Too bad John Singer Sargent isn't around to blow everybody's mind making the most badass movie poster character portraits ever.

Back to Spidey though... have they wrapped shooting and moved to post production?

according to IMDB as of the 5th, they're in post-production.

I'll have to agree with everyone about the bad quality of the official Venom poster. Funny thing is I had never even paid attention to the bad overlapping job prior to reading the posts on here.

Thanks for opening my eyes...I think.

I saw over at the superherohype forums, that they were discussing how in that picture, you can faintly make out the emblem on Venom's chest. One of the guys there brightened the pic to make it easier to spot:

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/923...1611388zw4.jpg

Certainly couldn't notice that on my dark-ass monitor, so it's interesting to see. I wonder if it's just going to stay as that shade of silver, or if they'll go with the traditional white for the emblem. I couldn't make out if they showed the emblem during the Comic-Con footage, so please correct me if it is white after all.

And just for kicks, here's an equally bad PS job of Carnage. Ugly, but certainly no better than the amateur quality from the poster :)

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e1...geSymbiote.gif

Has anyone been reading on any of the plot spoilers about Sandman?