When comparing Venom's CGI from SM 3 and the 2018 movie I think the old one looks so much better. It's so rich in texture details and feels real, while the new one looks too smooth and clearly CGI
@@CGWHY Having worked in the industry since 1995, including Sony twice since then, i would agree with this point. Though 2007 was starting to be the point where many major studios started to go the other direction wage wise. Including letting go staff that had been there long enough to have raise by raise put themselves out of a job, as studios started to let go people with the highest salaries, and rehire 2 new hunger artists just out of film school, now that there were many film schools and smaller tv fx houses churning out talent so the big houses no longer had to steal talent from each other to grow... It's too bad that wages have actually gone down in the industry. And things like writers strikes really don't help. As it may help the writers, but vfx artist will be feeling the crunch already, and many studios have already let people go because of the anticipation of work drying up... People were just asked to take huge salary cuts during covid, and so to have another period so soon after is hard for many of the film support industries, I feel for the writers, but i also feel for the artist i see being let go who had families, etc.. Here's to hoping they resolve it soon...
@@obiwanswanson1635Gwen's fine and I'm not simping for Bryce even though she's really hot in the movie, it's the symbiote subplot that really eats up the other subplots rather than Gwen's, although both could have been solved if the movie was longer (e.g: the symbiote came from JJJ's son's failed space mission who is an astronaut which would factor to how stupid and ignorant Peter would act with MJ and make over with Gwen to hurt her feelings because of the symbiote's effects).
When I watch it on dvd for the first time (bc I was 3 when it came out in theaters ) I was 8 and I was so confused bc I thought the movie broke during the birth of the sandman scene bc there was no dialogue lol
it felt like being a parent and watching someone grow before your eyes, the way he could barely grasp at anything and then willed himself to grasp the locket
Back then, CGI was used when needed, and people put more effort into it, because it was harder to get away with, and less films relied on it as an excuse.
My favorite example of a character created entirely in a computer that still has a wide range of emotions is Davy Jones from the Pirates of the Caribbean series. He’s designed to be a horrifying marine abomination of your worst nightmares, introduced as this terrifying and imposing figure of death, but through the course of the films, he is revealed to be a sad and broken shell of a man. Being able to switch between this horrifying monster, to a moment of sadness, then snapping back to being a monster. There really was something magical about 2000’s VFX. Fantastic video, as per usual 😎👍
Yea absolutely, he might be the most outstanding CG character of all time. I'll might make a video on him at some point 😅 - Just once i figure out exactly what gave him his edge 🤔 Thank you for watching!
Bill Nighy’s absolutely incredible performance is also a massive reason why he’s so effective. Every bit of his mannerisms and on-set movement shines through the CGI. It was a perfect blend. And he genuinely looks photoreal to this day. My favorite CG character ever
@@Luke101 Bill is, of course, one of the great "performers" of the acting world. He takes the same bombastic approach when playing an aging rock star (Still Crazy) or a nuisance father-in-law (Shawn of the Dead.) So of course, his unique flair would come through the filter of a CGI character. That said, we have to remember that a CGI character is a duel performance between the actor and the effects artists. They're bringing just as much magic. To forget them is like looking a a gorgeous painting and crediting only the model.
Gollum and King Kong spring to mind from this era, though there were a couple janky spots in Kong. The two that come to mind are the Dino collision which is art anyway, and Kong on the building shaking his maracas
I was the anim director on Spidey 3 and the reason this holds up is Sam Raimi's direction. Every time I reviewed a shot with him he always talked about it from an emotional persepctive. The tech is important but the poses and movement had to convey emotion.
@@fernandodavid9495I think it's a difference in the texture they were going for since in Spiderman 3 venom was more web like while in Venom he's more like a liquid
I feel like comparing what Raimi did with Sandman vs what modern Marvel films do with CGI illustrates the core problem in the modern process. Marvel did very well initially by setting a dedicated CGI team on all their projects. It allowed for every film to have consistency. Iron Man felt the same from film to film, even as his costume changed. Then they started doing this with their entire action sequence department. It made sense, since there was a level of quality they wanted to maintain for their action. The problem was, the more weight they put on those departments, the more that quality slipped. They were using the same tools and tricks in movie after movie, and it started to all feel the same. Plus, the shortcuts to save time really started showing. There's something magical that happens when the effects people and the director come together to create something no one was seen before. That act of creation comes across. Having come from the low budget world, Raimi is a master of solving impossible problems, because just making a movie on such a low budget is in itself an impossible problem. When Raimi wanted the Shining-style steady-cam shot in Evil Dead 2, he couldn't afford a steady-cam. So he just had two cameramen carry a 2x4 with a camera mounted in the middle. The effect wasn't steady-cam, it was its own beautiful thing. That's how Raimi learned to make films, not by throwing money or man-power at a problem, but by figuring out a creative solution. We come to movies to see creativity. What we get all too often is an expensive spectacle we've seen a million times before. The simple truth is, money can't replace the creative process. It's in the creative process that the magic happens. And it's the magic we come to see, not the generic spectacle.
as you described raimi's background as a film maker, the movie that poped to my head was city of god. that movie is also e display for briliant creativity born from trying to solve impossible tasks, one of my favorites of the movie being the scene where they tell lil ze backstory as a criminal.
Part of why so much care was put into Sandman was because he was originally planned to be the only villain, with the story focusing even more on his tragedy. The higher ups forced them to include "Venom" and Gwen Stacy
Not entirely true, Harry's Green Goblin was always intended to be in the film to complete the characters' arc from hating Spider-Man (and then Peter) for killing Norman, to realizing who is dad was and taking up his legacy, to realizing his misplaced anger and hatred toward Peter and striving to use what he had to help him. It's great and would've been much better had Red been able to drag his dumbass son Eric home for being such a doped up idiot.
Really hope this makes more people appreciate and respect CGI as a art form. And not just point at the slop produced by major studios today and say it’s all low effort
But that is the thing. It is low effort nowadays because it can be so rushed. Yes, it’s a lot of work, but it’s rushed and therefore it looks so bad. Back then, animators got much more time to create their art.
I feel like too many people don't remember the time before CGI, when films were full of really awful looking practical FX. Not having the time / budget for a shot is going to make it look bad regardless of the medium. And then, if everything is done right, modern CG should be indistinguishable from real life, except for really humans up close, so the only time audience know it's a computer effect is if the budget didn't give VFX enough to pay 3D artists and the end result suffers from being understaffed / rushing work. Just cause most of the low budget FX go for CG, most of the blame for bad FX does as well.
@@jadesisk1852there are plenty of good films with good practical effects. I do think a lot of those very obviously look dated now because we are so used to seeing CGI.
@@jadesisk1852practical effects always look better than badly made cgi. Because you can see they're practical effects, so you enjoy the movie and immerse better than a wannabe real effect that obviously looks so fake. That's why bad cgi feels soooo much worse than practical effects
@@TheLifeLaVita My friend, you need to watch more pre-CGI era movies than just _Star Wars._ There's PLENTY of movies from this era with comically bad practical effects that ruin immersion. Even blockbusters like _Robocop_ has them, ED-209 moves without any of the weight, impact and inertia that a giant robot should have, the exact same criticism that's usually leveled at CGI as proof that CGI always looks fake. CGI or practical, bad effects are bad effects. It's as simple as that. Trying to suggest that practical effects, even bad ones, always look better than CGI is nothing but wannabe film-buff posturing.
We also can not forget about Thomas Haden Church, without him the character of Sandman would not be as impactful, he gave a great performance in both Spider-Man 3 and Spider-Man 3 (In voice).
@@mottom2657And he was right. Eddie Brock is 6’3 and 260 pounds. Now I’m not saying he has to be that tall but at least make him 6 feet tall so he’s taller than the actor playing Spidey. And give him blonde hair. I always thought Alan Ritchson would be a good Eddie.
What's interesting is that the Birth of the Sandman sequence used the uncanny valley to it's advantage. It was him literally trying to build himself back up, so he didn't need to look fully human until the end of the sequence.
Sandman is such a great character. He really carried the movie. Should have been the only villain. Or maybe one of two. Cared more about him than Spidey in the third movie lmao
Thomas Hayden Church as Sandman is one of my favorite on-screen villains in any Marvel film. So much depth and heart to the character. Brilliant performance!
Back then you couldn't use CGI in every shot, it just wasn't possible due to the limits of computing power, so you'd have to work smarter and find practical ways to achieve shots. This blend of practical and CGI is what sells the effects really well, also with less CGI shots the vfx artists were allowed enough time to really perfect the shot. These days a lot of studios *cough* marvel *cough* will have CGI in every scene in the movie, literally like a guy sitting in a chair just so they have to possibility to change it in post. The compositing also sucks when you don't have any idea what the lighting in the scene will be so you just front light the actor in front of the green screen, then it turns out they're in a scene where they should be backlit (eg that horrible black widow scene)
@@XxKingGreatx i didn't say anything about cg but you HAD to say something to make yourself feel better by showing that you know more than someone and appear more intelligent and dominant by winning an imaginary argument in your imaginary world?
The most tragic thing they didn't put in the movie was the idea that Sandman's daughter dies, because he didn't get the money he needed to save her and Spiderman would have to realize what his actions caused, but we got Venom as filler at the end of the movie.
Actually the Mummy and the Mummy Returns was ahead of their time. The has humanoid sand work before Sandman came into Spider-Man 3. But yes the CG for sand from 1999 to 2001 to 2007 to 2021 has definitely held up and is ahead of it's time.
I really wish Raimi was able to see his work fully through n not get screwed by the studio. SM3 would’ve been much better off with just Sandman (like Raimi wanted) n Sams spider man 4 might have ended up actually being made 😭
i've always loved the detail that his face when he's in the middle of forming it isn't exactly a skull but more akin to a traditional/stereotypical theater mask
I never hated spiderman 3, I knew it felt convoluted and chaotic but I still felt the effort they put in and genuinely liked the effects and fights. And I always thought they did a tremendous job with the sand effects.
We had these amazing cgi shoots almost 20 years ago and dreamed about how amazing cgi would be in the future only to get rushed projects like quantumania, shehulk, and so on :(
I love the "birth of the sandman" scene it sjust awesome not only from a visual perspektive but also from a narative point of view. It shows once again that you can tell a story, even a short one without saying a single word
gotta hand it to Christopher Young for the score too, Birth of Sandman remains one of my favourite movie scores of all time, it sounds tragic, but also full of will and strength to push through and fight, i feel like sandman's iconic scene wouldn't have quite had the same impact without such an incredible score.
Y’know, a movie I never hear brought up with its VFX and SFX blending is the 1999 Inspector Gadget. It’s got like two rough shots, but everything else is still really solid today. Especially the scene of him running with his extended legs. There’s a real weight to it that is surprisingly good for 1999. Would love to see you check the films VFX out!
@@CGWHY It's a very... interesting film to say the least. Reshoots and studio notes mean some things don't scratch up too well (they did a digital face morph in the final film on one of the shots, but the trailer has the original one and it just makes the final version look atrocious). If you do ever find there's enough to make a video on, I've got some production material's with behind the scenes images showing things like Matthew Broderick on stilts for the running legs. Quite fascinating.
I love how Raimi managed to make two iconic "birth of the villain" scenes (Sandman and Doc Ock) but for completely different reasons: tragedy and horror.
I work in Houdini, the same app the used for all the sims. and oh boy, I am taking my hat off to the amount of effort they put into making all the FX work cuz back then grain toolset wasn't as robust as now and PCs had just a fraction of the power we have these days. massive talent and dedication to craft.
@@jumperjunior804 the sources I've found back from 2007 state that first iterations were done with some custom software and they later moved their work to Houdini.
The problem is that the actor couldn't be on set to film so his character was just in Sandman form the whole time with his voice acting. Same thing with Connors.
This video's incredible! I'm glad more people are recognizing this, I remember being completely awestruck by the Sandman effects when I first watched Spidey 3. Even Doug Walker praised the origin sequence. People hate on or laugh at the silliness of the movie's memes, but this scene is complete artistry and storytelling at its finest in the realm of vfx.
Sandman in No Way Home looked so much worse.. it's like the main thing I remember from that movie. Simulations and all that were nice, overall it just could not compare with how well, even today, Spiderman 3 Sandman looks. NWH looked more like from older games, ah.
The cgi in this film still really holds up, even to this day. There's a couple shots that look bad on Sandman and Venom, but for the most part, they look fantastic. The birth of Sandman scene and the symbiote as a whole are absolutely beautiful. I genuinely like how the symbiote was portrayed as nore monstrous from the beginning, making these hands that grasp onto their host, even when Peter is removing the suit. And just how realistic the sand looks not onky when forming Sandman for the first time, but also showing his facial expressions when he doesn't have much of a face to show. I think 2007 was a great year for CGI because of how creative the teams behind them were. Davy Jones, Sandman, and the Transformers all looked incredible and still hold up today.
I don't think its the material an artist works with, but the artist themselves that drives the quality. Its a more than sum of the parts, pocket dimensions in the person's head, that represent experience and emotion, and potentiates on the work that makes the art. The artists leaves their mark on the material. When the artist knows how their materials and tools work, their inspiration will guide the rest.
The actor playing Sandman was a really great actor and they combined his facial expressions with CGI in a meaningful way.Spiderman 3 had the worst screenplay from the rest of that trilogy but it still is a pretty good film I think.The second one was by far the best
Imagine being one of the VFX workers that stressed out & worked on Sandman back in 2007 then 14 years later you get a call from your boss & he says "Hey we gotta do Sandman again" You the VFX artist: *PTSD INTENSIFIES*
Spiderman 3 catches a lot of flack since Venom was a bit underwhelming and Peter went through this weird emo/douche phase, but it seems like most have forgotten how wonderfully written/executed the Sandman character was in this film. Thanks for reminding us. 👍
Gotta also mention the soundtrack composed by Danny Elfman was just the cherry on top, without the music this scene wouldn't be as good. Not to to dismiss the vfx work or anything, but as a vfx artist myself, this scene was always my favorite! Thank you for sharing this video with us!
I'm 45 years in the business. We older artists and filmmakers came in from the analog days. A lot used digital tools from day one, but we all started out in this craft building real stuff, filming things with real light and cameras. A lot of us are also had prior classical art training or did things like painting and photography on the side. In other words; we looked at nature / reality and understood how to mimic it. We also gave ourselves more time to achieve our goals.
The fact that within what 9 years since The Mummy came out, you could make a comparison of Imhotep's sand cloud from cat scene vs SM3 and realize how far we came.
Even though I didn't like Spider-Man 3 (For MULTIPLE Reasons), I did enjoy what they did with Sandman. Now if they didn't botch the story with fake Venom, it probably would have had a part 4 in the series...
A full movie just with him as a prime antagonist, and maybe just maybe harry since we were setting him up since the previous movie would have been better than what we got.
When I was in art school, I read that they made proprietary software specifically for sandman that got used for a bunch of other stuff before getting absorbed into another piece of software.
Despite all the work done and all the time and money put towards it, the one thing this has that other movies don't is that the people who worked on the VFX and CGI actually cared
Sucks that so many new movies rush things out instead of taking time to make them artistically beautiful. Makes sense for low budget films, but not for those expensive AAA movies.
glad to see the trilogy's cgi getting some love, a lot of people praise TASM's cgi (and deservedly so, the CGI in those films are incredible) but i think the cgi from the Raimi movies aged really well! one of my favorite scenes is when Spidey is web-swinging through the city a little before losing his powers and falling down, it's so realistic ans beautiful
this is such an information-dense video. i kept checking the time stamp assuming that 10 or 15 minutes had passed and it was only like 2 minutes- not because it’s boring but because it’s almost too interesting. very well paced. great work!
I never understood and never will understand people who say that CGI takes away from the movies and is bad. It makes movies much better because it allows to make literally anything. To me the puppets look very bad and take away from the movies because all I see is toys with no depth or feeling. And I like purely puppet things like Dark Crystal or Laika movies. Yet the sequels puppet Yoda and Grogu are atrocious to me, prequel Yoda is a million times better and realistic in my eyes.
@@CGWHY well to each his own, but I vividly remember watching TPM a bit later when CGI Yoda was added and thinking puppet Yoda must've been my imagination or a bad dream XD Those bulging eyes and nomnoming mouth D: If you check it out and compare them I'd love to see your impressions =)
The amount of criticism that well done CGI gets for just existing is insane. Most practical stuff seems much less believable than CGI replacements but people are too overtaken by nostalgia to notice. Also, films nowadays are NOT churning out mid quality CGI. Films back in 2007 had less VFX shots. Films nowadays have more. The quality of CGI has increased drastically and the price has decreased. The reason people think CGI has gotten worse is because there is so much more of it that they never remember the good CGI.
People hating on CGI have no clue what they’re talking about. Bad CGI takes you out of the immersion, true, but good CGI you don’t even notice. A few examples, the T-1000 sliding through the grille. Or bullet time in Matrix, or Gollum in LOTR, the Thestrals in Harry Potter, there’s so many, and sometimes timeless CGI, that we not really notice as such, because it looks „real“. Some of it looks so good (T2 for example) that it doesn’t seem like its 30+ years old.
The studio really shat on a but in a wonderful film that Rami made. I don't even have a problem with Topher Grace as Venom, but being in the film at all just undercut sandman and spidermans screen time
In almost six years apart, spiderman went from roof hoping cgi that makes you cringe a bit in the first film, to cgi sand that makes people even today wow in awe. You love to see it.
The CGI on this movie was amazing, and i dare to say that the "bad chroma key" enhances the experience because it makes the movie look like a comic book, with the characters very highlighted against the background.
For a long time i was ashamed of myself for loving this scene, because "hey men, it's just soulless CGI, nothing special". Thank you for giving me a reason to accept my feelings.
Seriously big eff you to Sony for shoving venom into this movie. Not only took away from the sandman character but also didn’t give a chance for venom to be introduced properly
If bleeding your heart out in front of a computer waiting endlessly for things to render, offering a portion of your soul and making sure everything is perfect and until it sits right with you isn’t passion then nothing is. This is one way to achieve greatness, but we should only do these things sparingly, and it becomes remembered. For these people in their industry it’s just work, and so change needs to happen and that’s why vfx artists want to unionize. I remembered when I was young, and I was watching Wall E and Avatar and just wondering how it could get better. What I am sad to know is that for the time being, it’s the best it will ever be.
When it comes to if sandman should have been the only villain then I don't think so because if he was I don't think they would have been able to story wise let him turn more to the good side like he does at the end of the movie
Part of it because 2000~2010 was the era that cgi related movies pop up quickly with massive amount, all productions want to gain reputation. Another part of it is people love the Sandman story arc, and not really pay attention on details of how his cgi going on
this is random but I just remembered this video, and they def have to consider some of the things talked about in here for doing Crocodile for the one piece live action
The problem with modern day cgi is instead of being this last resort thing that you have to put a lot of effort into and avoid using it as much as possible is now it's just seemingly cheaper to use and it is used CONSTANTLY even on things where it isn't even necessary. Many movies before avoided the use of cgi and only used it when they HAD to. Modern movies just use it because it's easier than getting a real prop nowadays.
I think most of these tricks wouldn't work or would like a cheap out if that first birth scene wasn't there. It told the viewer how it looks like, how a sand man actually looks like and what he is made up of in what way the sand reacts etc. so later when they obscure a part or just show a glimpse our brain uses the prior learned information and fills the gaps. pretty smart tbh. outsourcing vfx computing to the human brain :P
I love your vids , one notices the effort you put in your vids . But therefore the quality you are putting out is spot on . If you keep this up your channel will grow so much more . I wish you good luck on your journey. If anything you remind me a bit of Ahoy and his documentary styled vids . His production quality is incredible to say the least.
I'd love to see a video like this on Spider-Man's 3 Venom vfx, I think it looks just as good as Sandman and better than current versions of Venom, the way the suit kinda separates into fibers and tendrills each with their own elasticity, plus the way the black goo itself looks and how it transitions into a solid practical suit.
Sandman's CGI in Spider-Man 3 is so much better than the "samey" CGI we get from most post-Endgame MCU films nowadays. It is impressive and really holds up well today.
If the Spider-Man 3 only focused on Sandman and maybe Harry, it would have been an amazing movie. Too bad they had to push in Venom. But still, even though it's the weakest movie from the trilogy, I like it 10 times better than anything Marvel put out past Endgame.
the visual effects of spider man 2 and especially 3 hold up. They were carried not just by quality. Other movies had cleaner CGI. But they had so much life in their animation. The fight choreography. The way the characters would interact with their environments. That is what made those old spider man films great. They seemed much more weighty in movement, but especially so palpable. You could feel them being real. Which is entirely different from a lot of cgi now which is essentially energy blasts. CGI characters being hit in front of a green screen environment. And best of all, the script really gave these spider man characters moments to shine. They weren't just show like the latest avatar movie. They also had plenty of meat to em. It was more than quips for humor
There is *so* much I dislike about Spider-Man 3, but the scene of Sandman first pulling himself together is such a masterpiece that it alone vindicates the entire film for me.
This character and cgi was so beautiful. I really loved sandmans character arc. How his entire character revolved around being a criminal who just wanted to help his daughter was such a sweet and tender detail. It honestly makes me want to hug him.
I genuinely do think Spider-Man 3's CG holds up well even now. Sandman's birth & the Venom cgi were amazing.
Yea I've been looking at this footage for weeks to edit it and i'm constantly blown away by how good it looks!
When comparing Venom's CGI from SM 3 and the 2018 movie I think the old one looks so much better. It's so rich in texture details and feels real, while the new one looks too smooth and clearly CGI
And it's from 2007🙃😂😂
Having watched it with my son recently i actually wholy agree. Too bad the story fell so short lol
Helps when you have a $300 million plus budget for a Spider Man sequel as well.
Man, 2007 was such a special year for CGI. Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Spiderman 3, Zodiac, and Transformers all hold up and still look incredible.
zodiac?
@@JoRoBoYo Zodiac has a bunch of CGI, most Fincher films do. They basically recreated period San Francisco.
They look better than most recent movies!😆
@@jeffreynunya4716true. And all the blood. Fincher never uses practical blood effects
yep definitely was . And i grew with spider man 3 and transformers and they still look good to this day
Most of the VFX artist were not underpaid on Spider-man 3. Imageworks was actually known to pay pretty well back in the day.
Wow, kinda crazy that this is rare/surprising thing 😂
But good to know!
@@CGWHY Having worked in the industry since 1995, including Sony twice since then, i would agree with this point. Though 2007 was starting to be the point where many major studios started to go the other direction wage wise. Including letting go staff that had been there long enough to have raise by raise put themselves out of a job, as studios started to let go people with the highest salaries, and rehire 2 new hunger artists just out of film school, now that there were many film schools and smaller tv fx houses churning out talent so the big houses no longer had to steal talent from each other to grow...
It's too bad that wages have actually gone down in the industry. And things like writers strikes really don't help. As it may help the writers, but vfx artist will be feeling the crunch already, and many studios have already let people go because of the anticipation of work drying up... People were just asked to take huge salary cuts during covid, and so to have another period so soon after is hard for many of the film support industries, I feel for the writers, but i also feel for the artist i see being let go who had families, etc.. Here's to hoping they resolve it soon...
So, your telling me that Half-Life’s Stalkers _didn’t_ animate on Spider-Man 3?
@@alex.g7317 nope
@@Mehdi69420 dear god...
Say what you want about Spider-Man 3, but Sandman was definitely the highlight
I just love the contrast of 2 scenes in the same movie. Sandman's birth being tragic and amazing, then there's Peter's walk
@@teneesh3376 2 of the greatest scenes in movie history... for completely opposite reasons
If the producers hadn't forced Sam to add Venom and Gwen, I think it could have been as good as SM1 and maybe even SM2.
@@obiwanswanson1635Gwen's fine and I'm not simping for Bryce even though she's really hot in the movie, it's the symbiote subplot that really eats up the other subplots rather than Gwen's, although both could have been solved if the movie was longer (e.g: the symbiote came from JJJ's son's failed space mission who is an astronaut which would factor to how stupid and ignorant Peter would act with MJ and make over with Gwen to hurt her feelings because of the symbiote's effects).
That face on the speeding train fight scene still has me cringing in pain…now that’s effective CGI…
The birth of Sandman is one of my favourite scenes, just so good
Yea - Its such a gem in the middle of this movie!
and the music
tf is your username bruh 💀💀
same, it's so well done
Even as 7 year old, the "birth of sandman" scene was really impressive and emotional for me , the animators and vfx artists really did an amazing job!
Let me just add that the scene also needed that fantastic piece of music to have that emotional impact. :)
When I watch it on dvd for the first time (bc I was 3 when it came out in theaters ) I was 8 and I was so confused bc I thought the movie broke during the birth of the sandman scene bc there was no dialogue lol
it felt like being a parent and watching someone grow before your eyes, the way he could barely grasp at anything and then willed himself to grasp the locket
I remember watching it in my grandma room and just being amazed. Spiderman 3 is still my fav Spiderman movie.
I loved that scene when i was 9
still do
Back then, CGI was used when needed, and people put more effort into it, because it was harder to get away with, and less films relied on it as an excuse.
People still would like to put effort into it, they’re just not given enough time 😢
fewer
This wasn't the mid 90's bud. The whole overuse of CGI had been going on since at least Phantom Menace back in 99.
"back then"
lol shut the hell up kid it's not the 60's.
@@lodewijk.And money... And the opportunity.
My favorite example of a character created entirely in a computer that still has a wide range of emotions is Davy Jones from the Pirates of the Caribbean series. He’s designed to be a horrifying marine abomination of your worst nightmares, introduced as this terrifying and imposing figure of death, but through the course of the films, he is revealed to be a sad and broken shell of a man. Being able to switch between this horrifying monster, to a moment of sadness, then snapping back to being a monster. There really was something magical about 2000’s VFX.
Fantastic video, as per usual 😎👍
Yea absolutely, he might be the most outstanding CG character of all time. I'll might make a video on him at some point 😅 - Just once i figure out exactly what gave him his edge 🤔
Thank you for watching!
Bill Nighy’s absolutely incredible performance is also a massive reason why he’s so effective. Every bit of his mannerisms and on-set movement shines through the CGI. It was a perfect blend. And he genuinely looks photoreal to this day. My favorite CG character ever
@@Luke101 Bill is, of course, one of the great "performers" of the acting world. He takes the same bombastic approach when playing an aging rock star (Still Crazy) or a nuisance father-in-law (Shawn of the Dead.) So of course, his unique flair would come through the filter of a CGI character.
That said, we have to remember that a CGI character is a duel performance between the actor and the effects artists. They're bringing just as much magic. To forget them is like looking a a gorgeous painting and crediting only the model.
Gollum and King Kong spring to mind from this era, though there were a couple janky spots in Kong. The two that come to mind are the Dino collision which is art anyway, and Kong on the building shaking his maracas
You can also forgive some kookiness in the cgi from The Mask, given the whole premise of it's powers.
I was the anim director on Spidey 3 and the reason this holds up is Sam Raimi's direction. Every time I reviewed a shot with him he always talked about it from an emotional persepctive. The tech is important but the poses and movement had to convey emotion.
The symbiote CG also holds up incredibly well. I honestly think it looks better than in Venom
Venom 1 looks better, but SM3 still looks better than in the second one
yeah i think the new venom looks a little too shiny
@@fernandodavid9495yeah i agree
I mean it’s not a deal breaker for the movie
Just something that would’ve looked amazing
@@fernandodavid9495I think it's a difference in the texture they were going for since in Spiderman 3 venom was more web like while in Venom he's more like a liquid
@@nehemiahsomers4141you’re smoking something venom 1 looked like shit
I feel like comparing what Raimi did with Sandman vs what modern Marvel films do with CGI illustrates the core problem in the modern process. Marvel did very well initially by setting a dedicated CGI team on all their projects. It allowed for every film to have consistency. Iron Man felt the same from film to film, even as his costume changed. Then they started doing this with their entire action sequence department. It made sense, since there was a level of quality they wanted to maintain for their action. The problem was, the more weight they put on those departments, the more that quality slipped. They were using the same tools and tricks in movie after movie, and it started to all feel the same. Plus, the shortcuts to save time really started showing.
There's something magical that happens when the effects people and the director come together to create something no one was seen before. That act of creation comes across. Having come from the low budget world, Raimi is a master of solving impossible problems, because just making a movie on such a low budget is in itself an impossible problem. When Raimi wanted the Shining-style steady-cam shot in Evil Dead 2, he couldn't afford a steady-cam. So he just had two cameramen carry a 2x4 with a camera mounted in the middle. The effect wasn't steady-cam, it was its own beautiful thing. That's how Raimi learned to make films, not by throwing money or man-power at a problem, but by figuring out a creative solution.
We come to movies to see creativity. What we get all too often is an expensive spectacle we've seen a million times before. The simple truth is, money can't replace the creative process. It's in the creative process that the magic happens. And it's the magic we come to see, not the generic spectacle.
as you described raimi's background as a film maker, the movie that poped to my head was city of god. that movie is also e display for briliant creativity born from trying to solve impossible tasks, one of my favorites of the movie being the scene where they tell lil ze backstory as a criminal.
Part of why so much care was put into Sandman was because he was originally planned to be the only villain, with the story focusing even more on his tragedy. The higher ups forced them to include "Venom" and Gwen Stacy
Not entirely true, Harry's Green Goblin was always intended to be in the film to complete the characters' arc from hating Spider-Man (and then Peter) for killing Norman, to realizing who is dad was and taking up his legacy, to realizing his misplaced anger and hatred toward Peter and striving to use what he had to help him. It's great and would've been much better had Red been able to drag his dumbass son Eric home for being such a doped up idiot.
@@gamemaker1802What relation have that with Venom and Gwen?
@@zerogyoro4521 This relates to the part where the original commenter said that sandman was planned to be the only villain
Really hope this makes more people appreciate and respect CGI as a art form. And not just point at the slop produced by major studios today and say it’s all low effort
But that is the thing. It is low effort nowadays because it can be so rushed. Yes, it’s a lot of work, but it’s rushed and therefore it looks so bad. Back then, animators got much more time to create their art.
I feel like too many people don't remember the time before CGI, when films were full of really awful looking practical FX. Not having the time / budget for a shot is going to make it look bad regardless of the medium. And then, if everything is done right, modern CG should be indistinguishable from real life, except for really humans up close, so the only time audience know it's a computer effect is if the budget didn't give VFX enough to pay 3D artists and the end result suffers from being understaffed / rushing work. Just cause most of the low budget FX go for CG, most of the blame for bad FX does as well.
@@jadesisk1852there are plenty of good films with good practical effects. I do think a lot of those very obviously look dated now because we are so used to seeing CGI.
@@jadesisk1852practical effects always look better than badly made cgi. Because you can see they're practical effects, so you enjoy the movie and immerse better than a wannabe real effect that obviously looks so fake. That's why bad cgi feels soooo much worse than practical effects
@@TheLifeLaVita My friend, you need to watch more pre-CGI era movies than just _Star Wars._ There's PLENTY of movies from this era with comically bad practical effects that ruin immersion. Even blockbusters like _Robocop_ has them, ED-209 moves without any of the weight, impact and inertia that a giant robot should have, the exact same criticism that's usually leveled at CGI as proof that CGI always looks fake. CGI or practical, bad effects are bad effects. It's as simple as that. Trying to suggest that practical effects, even bad ones, always look better than CGI is nothing but wannabe film-buff posturing.
We also can not forget about Thomas Haden Church, without him the character of Sandman would not be as impactful, he gave a great performance in both Spider-Man 3 and Spider-Man 3 (In voice).
He also gained a lot of muscle compared to his previous roles. If only Thoper would've done the same for Venom...
@@Ricxtov Topher was in disbelief to be cast for Venom. He read the McFarlane run, and even he thought that Venom needed to be bigger.
Lowell Mather leaves Nantucket and just look what happens!
@@mottom2657And he was right. Eddie Brock is 6’3 and 260 pounds. Now I’m not saying he has to be that tall but at least make him 6 feet tall so he’s taller than the actor playing Spidey. And give him blonde hair.
I always thought Alan Ritchson would be a good Eddie.
@@Szubak Alan does look a lot like comic Eddie. We now have Tom Hardy, at least he's a more correct choice than Topher.
What's interesting is that the Birth of the Sandman sequence used the uncanny valley to it's advantage. It was him literally trying to build himself back up, so he didn't need to look fully human until the end of the sequence.
Sandman is such a great character. He really carried the movie. Should have been the only villain. Or maybe one of two. Cared more about him than Spidey in the third movie lmao
A prime example of the poison of Execute Meddling
Thomas Hayden Church as Sandman is one of my favorite on-screen villains in any Marvel film. So much depth and heart to the character. Brilliant performance!
I agree, there's nuance to his character and that's what makes him so fantastic
Back then you couldn't use CGI in every shot, it just wasn't possible due to the limits of computing power, so you'd have to work smarter and find practical ways to achieve shots. This blend of practical and CGI is what sells the effects really well, also with less CGI shots the vfx artists were allowed enough time to really perfect the shot. These days a lot of studios *cough* marvel *cough* will have CGI in every scene in the movie, literally like a guy sitting in a chair just so they have to possibility to change it in post. The compositing also sucks when you don't have any idea what the lighting in the scene will be so you just front light the actor in front of the green screen, then it turns out they're in a scene where they should be backlit (eg that horrible black widow scene)
That's why animation is doing better now eg: spider-verse movies
@@rjk537 not the same thing its cg but not live action and has loads of hand drawn animation in it too , blood sweat and tears into them films
@@XxKingGreatx i didn't say anything about cg but you HAD to say something to make yourself feel better by showing that you know more than someone and appear more intelligent and dominant by winning an imaginary argument in your imaginary world?
@@rjk537 chill we on the same side bro 🤣I don't wanna dominate you
@@rjk537my god that whiplash from the conversation might as well have broken my neck
In the sandman scene where he's pulling himself back together you can feel how much work and care was put into it
so true
Flint Marco/ sandman: “ i’m not a bad person, just bad luck.”
That line hits hard 😢
@@elgeneee I know
they were tasked not only with Sandman but also Venom's liquid physics. Quite impressive.
Bro that one armed boxer fact is absolutely crazy trivia
The most tragic thing they didn't put in the movie was the idea that Sandman's daughter dies, because he didn't get the money he needed to save her and Spiderman would have to realize what his actions caused, but we got Venom as filler at the end of the movie.
Oh god...
Least we got bully maguire as compensation
I always thought back then that Sandman’s CGI was something special. I am impressed again and again.
Thanks for the video.
Actually the Mummy and the Mummy Returns was ahead of their time. The has humanoid sand work before Sandman came into Spider-Man 3. But yes the CG for sand from 1999 to 2001 to 2007 to 2021 has definitely held up and is ahead of it's time.
I really wish Raimi was able to see his work fully through n not get screwed by the studio. SM3 would’ve been much better off with just Sandman (like Raimi wanted) n Sams spider man 4 might have ended up actually being made 😭
i've always loved the detail that his face when he's in the middle of forming it isn't exactly a skull but more akin to a traditional/stereotypical theater mask
going to say that 👏👏👏
I never hated spiderman 3, I knew it felt convoluted and chaotic but I still felt the effort they put in and genuinely liked the effects and fights. And I always thought they did a tremendous job with the sand effects.
Sandman should've been the only antagonist in Spiderman 3, the addition of Venom and Goblin Jr really diluted the whole 3rd act.
I love how Sam Raimi really didn't want to do this film, but ended up revolutionising VFX - Bring back emo Spiderman!
We had these amazing cgi shoots almost 20 years ago and dreamed about how amazing cgi would be in the future only to get rushed projects like quantumania, shehulk, and so on :(
CGI has improved a lot since 2007 but since every can excess it it's hard to find some1 who's experienced enough to push those limits.
If Nolan made Spiderman 3: No CGI here, we actually threw a street thug into an atomic collider and turned him into sand.
I love the "birth of the sandman" scene it sjust awesome not only from a visual perspektive but also from a narative point of view.
It shows once again that you can tell a story, even a short one without saying a single word
gotta hand it to Christopher Young for the score too, Birth of Sandman remains one of my favourite movie scores of all time,
it sounds tragic, but also full of will and strength to push through and fight,
i feel like sandman's iconic scene wouldn't have quite had the same impact without such an incredible score.
Y’know, a movie I never hear brought up with its VFX and SFX blending is the 1999 Inspector Gadget. It’s got like two rough shots, but everything else is still really solid today. Especially the scene of him running with his extended legs. There’s a real weight to it that is surprisingly good for 1999. Would love to see you check the films VFX out!
Really? Okay I haven't seen that film in a veeeery long time. But i'l for sure check it out and see if there's a video in there :D! Thanks!
@@CGWHY It's a very... interesting film to say the least. Reshoots and studio notes mean some things don't scratch up too well (they did a digital face morph in the final film on one of the shots, but the trailer has the original one and it just makes the final version look atrocious). If you do ever find there's enough to make a video on, I've got some production material's with behind the scenes images showing things like Matthew Broderick on stilts for the running legs. Quite fascinating.
I love how Raimi managed to make two iconic "birth of the villain" scenes (Sandman and Doc Ock) but for completely different reasons: tragedy and horror.
as a VFX/ 3D artist, I can verify that trying to make a simulation do what you want is, in fact, a nightmare 💀
Chaos and order basically
I work in Houdini, the same app the used for all the sims. and oh boy, I am taking my hat off to the amount of effort they put into making all the FX work cuz back then grain toolset wasn't as robust as now and PCs had just a fraction of the power we have these days. massive talent and dedication to craft.
It was done in 3D studio max, not Houdini at all
@@jumperjunior804 the sources I've found back from 2007 state that first iterations were done with some custom software and they later moved their work to Houdini.
It’s wild that the Spider-Man 3 cgi for sandman is better than No Way Home sandman
Cap, they look about the same
The problem is that the actor couldn't be on set to film so his character was just in Sandman form the whole time with his voice acting. Same thing with Connors.
This video's incredible! I'm glad more people are recognizing this, I remember being completely awestruck by the Sandman effects when I first watched Spidey 3. Even Doug Walker praised the origin sequence. People hate on or laugh at the silliness of the movie's memes, but this scene is complete artistry and storytelling at its finest in the realm of vfx.
facts
You could render the sandman scene today on a single high end but consumer-grade graphics card. Artistry is another thing entirely.
Sandman in No Way Home looked so much worse.. it's like the main thing I remember from that movie. Simulations and all that were nice, overall it just could not compare with how well, even today, Spiderman 3 Sandman looks. NWH looked more like from older games, ah.
Are You here just to make a troll?
@@fredvoid5976 whz would I. I like this channel and I added mz impressions of Sandman from NWH. Whats troll about that
It was difficult for the filmmakers to find an actor who could transform into sand, but they did it.
Remember watching the birth of the sandman scene as a kid and being absolutely gobsmacked
I hate people that say that 2018's Venom looked better than 2007's, he was just skinnier, but the whole symbiote and costume looked much better
The cgi in this film still really holds up, even to this day. There's a couple shots that look bad on Sandman and Venom, but for the most part, they look fantastic. The birth of Sandman scene and the symbiote as a whole are absolutely beautiful. I genuinely like how the symbiote was portrayed as nore monstrous from the beginning, making these hands that grasp onto their host, even when Peter is removing the suit. And just how realistic the sand looks not onky when forming Sandman for the first time, but also showing his facial expressions when he doesn't have much of a face to show.
I think 2007 was a great year for CGI because of how creative the teams behind them were. Davy Jones, Sandman, and the Transformers all looked incredible and still hold up today.
I don't think its the material an artist works with, but the artist themselves that drives the quality. Its a more than sum of the parts, pocket dimensions in the person's head, that represent experience and emotion, and potentiates on the work that makes the art. The artists leaves their mark on the material. When the artist knows how their materials and tools work, their inspiration will guide the rest.
The actor playing Sandman was a really great actor and they combined his facial expressions with CGI in a meaningful way.Spiderman 3 had the worst screenplay from the rest of that trilogy but it still is a pretty good film I think.The second one was by far the best
Imagine being one of the VFX workers that stressed out & worked on Sandman back in 2007 then 14 years later you get a call from your boss & he says "Hey we gotta do Sandman again"
You the VFX artist: *PTSD INTENSIFIES*
Spiderman 3 catches a lot of flack since Venom was a bit underwhelming and Peter went through this weird emo/douche phase, but it seems like most have forgotten how wonderfully written/executed the Sandman character was in this film. Thanks for reminding us. 👍
Gotta also mention the soundtrack composed by Danny Elfman was just the cherry on top, without the music this scene wouldn't be as good. Not to to dismiss the vfx work or anything, but as a vfx artist myself, this scene was always my favorite!
Thank you for sharing this video with us!
That scene where he finds out he has transformed into Sandman was heartbreaking.
I'm 45 years in the business. We older artists and filmmakers came in from the analog days. A lot used digital tools from day one, but we all started out in this craft building real stuff, filming things with real light and cameras. A lot of us are also had prior classical art training or did things like painting and photography on the side. In other words; we looked at nature / reality and understood how to mimic it. We also gave ourselves more time to achieve our goals.
The fact that within what 9 years since The Mummy came out, you could make a comparison of Imhotep's sand cloud from cat scene vs SM3 and realize how far we came.
Even though I didn't like Spider-Man 3 (For MULTIPLE Reasons), I did enjoy what they did with Sandman.
Now if they didn't botch the story with fake Venom, it probably would have had a part 4 in the series...
A full movie just with him as a prime antagonist, and maybe just maybe harry since we were setting him up since the previous movie would have been better than what we got.
When I was in art school, I read that they made proprietary software specifically for sandman that got used for a bunch of other stuff before getting absorbed into another piece of software.
Every complaint about CG can often be fixed by just treating your VFX artists well and ethically and paying them accordingly
Despite all the work done and all the time and money put towards it, the one thing this has that other movies don't is that the people who worked on the VFX and CGI actually cared
That scene is arguably the best scene in the movie, they did an amazing job
I think so too
Sucks that so many new movies rush things out instead of taking time to make them artistically beautiful. Makes sense for low budget films, but not for those expensive AAA movies.
glad to see the trilogy's cgi getting some love, a lot of people praise TASM's cgi (and deservedly so, the CGI in those films are incredible) but i think the cgi from the Raimi movies aged really well! one of my favorite scenes is when Spidey is web-swinging through the city a little before losing his powers and falling down, it's so realistic ans beautiful
CGI with a soul is a concept that breaks the laws of physics
this is such an information-dense video. i kept checking the time stamp assuming that 10 or 15 minutes had passed and it was only like 2 minutes- not because it’s boring but because it’s almost too interesting. very well paced. great work!
I never understood and never will understand people who say that CGI takes away from the movies and is bad. It makes movies much better because it allows to make literally anything.
To me the puppets look very bad and take away from the movies because all I see is toys with no depth or feeling.
And I like purely puppet things like Dark Crystal or Laika movies. Yet the sequels puppet Yoda and Grogu are atrocious to me, prequel Yoda is a million times better and realistic in my eyes.
Mmm good point, but what about the puppet yoda in the original Phantom Menace vs the CG one?
@@CGWHY TPM? Why is it even a question, do people really prefer a puppet in that movie? Even as a kid I thought it looked very bad and out of place.
Ahaha - I'm not sure 😅, I don't think I've actually seen TPM with the new Yoda all the way through. I'll have to check it out!
@@CGWHY well to each his own, but I vividly remember watching TPM a bit later when CGI Yoda was added and thinking puppet Yoda must've been my imagination or a bad dream XD
Those bulging eyes and nomnoming mouth D:
If you check it out and compare them I'd love to see your impressions =)
The amount of criticism that well done CGI gets for just existing is insane. Most practical stuff seems much less believable than CGI replacements but people are too overtaken by nostalgia to notice.
Also, films nowadays are NOT churning out mid quality CGI. Films back in 2007 had less VFX shots. Films nowadays have more. The quality of CGI has increased drastically and the price has decreased. The reason people think CGI has gotten worse is because there is so much more of it that they never remember the good CGI.
People hating on CGI have no clue what they’re talking about.
Bad CGI takes you out of the immersion, true, but good CGI you don’t even notice.
A few examples, the T-1000 sliding through the grille. Or bullet time in Matrix, or Gollum in LOTR, the Thestrals in Harry Potter, there’s so many, and sometimes timeless CGI, that we not really notice as such, because it looks „real“. Some of it looks so good (T2 for example) that it doesn’t seem like its 30+ years old.
For some reason I could never find a lot of discussion about the Birth of Sandman scene. The fact it didn’t get an Academy VFX nomination is wild.
The studio really shat on a but in a wonderful film that Rami made. I don't even have a problem with Topher Grace as Venom, but being in the film at all just undercut sandman and spidermans screen time
In almost six years apart, spiderman went from roof hoping cgi that makes you cringe a bit in the first film, to cgi sand that makes people even today wow in awe. You love to see it.
I still have soundtrack from this scene in my playlist because the whole moment is amazing
The CGI on this movie was amazing, and i dare to say that the "bad chroma key" enhances the experience because it makes the movie look like a comic book, with the characters very highlighted against the background.
I kinda liked spiderman 3, although 3 villains is a lot I thought they pulled it off and made it watchable.
For a long time i was ashamed of myself for loving this scene, because "hey men, it's just soulless CGI, nothing special". Thank you for giving me a reason to accept my feelings.
The Sandman effects are so good, even Anakin Skywalker would love them
Christopher Nolan knows how cgi should be used, Disney doesn’t.
Seriously big eff you to Sony for shoving venom into this movie. Not only took away from the sandman character but also didn’t give a chance for venom to be introduced properly
tbh the vfx in Spider-Man 2 and 3 really hold up surprisingly well especially compared to some of todays.
If bleeding your heart out in front of a computer waiting endlessly for things to render, offering a portion of your soul and making sure everything is perfect and until it sits right with you isn’t passion then nothing is. This is one way to achieve greatness, but we should only do these things sparingly, and it becomes remembered. For these people in their industry it’s just work, and so change needs to happen and that’s why vfx artists want to unionize.
I remembered when I was young, and I was watching Wall E and Avatar and just wondering how it could get better. What I am sad to know is that for the time being, it’s the best it will ever be.
The music in that scene makes it even better somehow
When it comes to if sandman should have been the only villain then I don't think so because if he was I don't think they would have been able to story wise let him turn more to the good side like he does at the end of the movie
Part of it because 2000~2010 was the era that cgi related movies pop up quickly with massive amount, all productions want to gain reputation. Another part of it is people love the Sandman story arc, and not really pay attention on details of how his cgi going on
this is random but I just remembered this video, and they def have to consider some of the things talked about in here for doing Crocodile for the one piece live action
The problem with modern day cgi is instead of being this last resort thing that you have to put a lot of effort into and avoid using it as much as possible is now it's just seemingly cheaper to use and it is used CONSTANTLY even on things where it isn't even necessary. Many movies before avoided the use of cgi and only used it when they HAD to. Modern movies just use it because it's easier than getting a real prop nowadays.
I think most of these tricks wouldn't work or would like a cheap out if that first birth scene wasn't there.
It told the viewer how it looks like, how a sand man actually looks like and what he is made up of in what way the sand reacts etc.
so later when they obscure a part or just show a glimpse our brain uses the prior learned information and fills the gaps.
pretty smart tbh. outsourcing vfx computing to the human brain :P
take a shot every time he says sand
Literally dead by the end of it :D
They basically used video game methods by using a less detailed version of sandman from far and higher quality renderings for the up close shots?
I love your vids , one notices the effort you put in your vids . But therefore the quality you are putting out is spot on . If you keep this up your channel will grow so much more . I wish you good luck on your journey. If anything you remind me a bit of Ahoy and his documentary styled vids . His production quality is incredible to say the least.
Wow thank you so much! Thats really nice of you to say! I really appreciate the feedback :D
Anakin would love to treat the vfx team the same way he treated to those younglings
Mister Sandman, man me a sand
Within a three year development plan
Give him a team of VFX artists
To code the particles with photo real physics
Its so happy that no way home was basicly the last good mcu film. Closed it out with some strong beautiful sandman action
I'd love to see a video like this on Spider-Man's 3 Venom vfx, I think it looks just as good as Sandman and better than current versions of Venom, the way the suit kinda separates into fibers and tendrills each with their own elasticity, plus the way the black goo itself looks and how it transitions into a solid practical suit.
Sandmans VFX was absolutely STUNNING!
This scene in Spider-man 3 had so much emotion and they conveyed it so well and it holds up
This scene coupled with the music used to make me tear up. NEXT LEVEL effects with emotional impact.
Sandman's CGI in Spider-Man 3 is so much better than the "samey" CGI we get from most post-Endgame MCU films nowadays. It is impressive and really holds up well today.
If the Spider-Man 3 only focused on Sandman and maybe Harry, it would have been an amazing movie. Too bad they had to push in Venom. But still, even though it's the weakest movie from the trilogy, I like it 10 times better than anything Marvel put out past Endgame.
the visual effects of spider man 2 and especially 3 hold up. They were carried not just by quality. Other movies had cleaner CGI. But they had so much life in their animation. The fight choreography. The way the characters would interact with their environments. That is what made those old spider man films great. They seemed much more weighty in movement, but especially so palpable. You could feel them being real. Which is entirely different from a lot of cgi now which is essentially energy blasts. CGI characters being hit in front of a green screen environment. And best of all, the script really gave these spider man characters moments to shine. They weren't just show like the latest avatar movie. They also had plenty of meat to em. It was more than quips for humor
There is *so* much I dislike about Spider-Man 3, but the scene of Sandman first pulling himself together is such a masterpiece that it alone vindicates the entire film for me.
This character and cgi was so beautiful. I really loved sandmans character arc. How his entire character revolved around being a criminal who just wanted to help his daughter was such a sweet and tender detail. It honestly makes me want to hug him.