babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Spider-Man 2

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Spider-Man 2
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 03 July 2004 12:33 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Emotionally manipulative but fun. Superior to the first movie. Doc Ock is a better villain, well played. The denouement is Hollywood, but it's not so disgustingly overblown that it betrays the essential comic book quality.

There's also an extremely obvious setup for round three.

The only thing is, I wish it weren't Tobey Maguire playing Spidey, he's a little TOO angst-ridden. It grates on me slightly.

Did anyone else find the Chinese busker woman to be a bit of a racist stereotype?


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 July 2004 12:51 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Haven't seen it. I wish there was a movie theater with subtitles. I'll probably hit it on cheap seat Tuesday or Matinee weekend.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 July 2004 12:56 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Excellent movie. This is proof that you can actually make a blockbuster with heart. Alfred Mollina played the most sympathetic super Villian I have ever seen on the big screen. I didn't like Dafoe's performance as the green Goblin and I'm not exactly sure how a pretty boy like James Franco can be trusted to play gobbie properly.
TM is perfect for the role of Peter Parker and I will booke no argument.

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 03 July 2004 01:01 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is he perfect for the role of Spider-Man, though?

DrC, can you not follow a movie even with the hearing aid? I didn't realize that. Is it because it's actually so loud? Are DVD's/the home environment better?


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 July 2004 01:19 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can mostly follow movies, but if the characters' voices are really quiet, or if they're shouting amid a lot of other noise, it can be a tad tough.

DVDs are a godsend, because a lot of them have the subtitles.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 03 July 2004 01:21 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Damn, I love these movies! The first one was flawed in a great many ways, but the entertainment value of just seeing Spidey be Spidey is beyond compare in my little universe. This one is an improvement in every way on the original (script-wise, it hardly could have been worse). Better acting, better story, better suspense and drama and a much cooler villain.

But even if it stank, it still would have been worth my money to watch the web-slinging. Where's my virtual reality, already? I want to BE Spidey!

One quibble and one major complaint, though. The first, when Spidey and Doc Ock are fighting, it makes no sense for Spidey to be hitting Octopus as much as he does. Octavius is just a normal human behind the arms (well, maybe not normal, but you know what I mean) and Spidey can punch through a brick wall. One wallop from him and it should be good-night, gracie. Probably I shouldn't let it bother me, as the movie is using comic-book logic throughout, but I found it distracting. Ruined my suspension of disbelief for a second.

The second complaint is unforgivable, especially the second time around. No wise-cracking from the web-slinger!?! I counted one, just one, quip from Spidey when he was fighting Ock and all the rest of the time he was deadly serious. Why, oh why, did they not correct this? The first movie, I excused it, since the script was crappy all around, but now?

This is an integral part of who Spider-man is. Not only does it demonstrate Peter's intelligence to be making jokes while fighting for his life, but it also is how he throws off his opponents, making them angry and stupid. Even more importantly, it shows what being Spider-man gives to Peter Parker. The meek, polite unassuming nice guy can put on his mask and become a cool, hot-shot, smart-aleck. It frees his personality in a way that he can't do in his other life. Instead, he seems just as repressed and inhibited as Spidey as he does as Peter.

This one simple thing could have made the movie perfect, but for some reason, they keep choosing not to go in that direction. Well, it was still excellent. I already can't wait to see it again.

Spidey still rocks!


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baldfresh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5864

posted 03 July 2004 02:07 AM      Profile for Baldfresh   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Much better than the first; as a matter o' fact, I'd declare it the 2nd best superhero movie of all time . . . which isn't saying too much, of course (Batman is #1, natch)

JJJ stole the show again, but a fairly solid job from all involved.


From: to here knows when | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 03 July 2004 02:26 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree about Spiderman's wisecracking. After all, he is a New Yorker! Mary Jane, too! Let's see some wit and sass!
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 03 July 2004 03:08 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Loved it. I just wish I could've brought my 8-year-old self forward in a time machine to watch it. He/I would've thought it was SO COOL.

Though I too missed the wisecracking; on the other hand, I think that sort of thing might get annoying more quickly on film than in a comic book.

I can see where DrC is coming from; the sound volume was nearly unbearable. I made the mistake of sitting too close to the wall, and came out with one ear literally ringing. Next time I'll bring some cotton to stuff in there.

Oh, and one other thing: I know it was Canada Day, and patriotism rules and all, but if you're going to see a movie, it might be an idea to take off that goddamned foot-high maple-leaf hat in consideration for your fellow viewers.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 03 July 2004 03:51 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally, MJ was all sass. A sassy seventies sister. The movies, unfortunately, have her being nothing but woeful looks and emotional angst (oh, besides all that screaming and being in danger, that is).

They've just used Mary Jane's name, but the relationship we see is more like that of Peter and Gwen Stacey, who was more of a angsty wallflower.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 03 July 2004 02:56 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For the next one they should use a cardboard cutout of Kirsten Dunst to play MJ. It would have greater emotional range.

The dialog in this movie was horrible. The speech by Aunt May was even worse than the pedantic crap Samwise spouts in the LOTR movies.

What was the point of the hot blonde neighbour subplot? It went nowhere, and only served to show how stupid the Parker character was. He feels his life is terrible, because all he has is three gorgeous women who are warm for his form, a whole whack of superpowers, and superior intellectual skills. We're supposed to feel sorry for this guy?


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 July 2004 04:59 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is he perfect for the role of Spider-Man, though?

Of course. It doesn't really matter who is in the suit. It's the script that's the problem

[ 03 July 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 03 July 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 03 July 2004 08:16 PM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm going to see it tomorrow. As much as I try to kill the fanboy in me with literary graphic novels, he always sneaks back out for things like this.

Obviously, Spider-Man needs the wise-cracking. It's not just that he's a New Yorker, but that's what Spider-Man is all about.

I just hope we get a movie appearance from the black costume before the franchise runs its course.


From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baldfresh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5864

posted 04 July 2004 01:27 AM      Profile for Baldfresh   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mr. Ben:
I just hope we get a movie appearance from the black costume before the franchise runs its course.

They introduced John Jameson in this one, so we could end up seeing Venom at some point (For those that don't know, Spidey had a black costume at one point in the comics . . . a parasitic living black costume that turned out to be a bad alien from another planet . .. well, from a big baddass villain name Galactus' spaceship actually . . . . he ate planets, y'see . . . . but I digress. Venom is like Spidey's evil twin, his arch enemy. They couldn't feasably introduce him in the first movie however, as he didn't enter the spidey mythos untill years after the comics started (decades, even, but he's still most people's pick as Spidey's #1 foe) Hmm. Don't guess many Babblers have ever followed the exploits of the webbed wonder as much as me . . .)

Yeah, Venom would kickass, but we won't see him untill the 4th I'm guessing. Oh, and someone mentioned about the blond girl next door in the film: they could be setting her up to become the Black Cat (I doubt they'll introduce Gwen Stacey at all)

Speaking of Cats, Halle Berry looks mighty fine in the leather/S&M whip thing she's rocking in the preview I saw for Catwoman. I'm skeptical about the movie, but I guess we'll just have to hope for pleasant surprises.


From: to here knows when | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
HellofaSandwich
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5681

posted 04 July 2004 02:36 AM      Profile for HellofaSandwich   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought it was fantastic! The train fight was obviously shot on the CTA in Chicago, though, but that was just an observation.

All around though, a very tight, well-told story. Hell, I even liked the Dashboard Confessional song that played in the end credits.


From: Edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 July 2004 12:56 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well. Got done watching Spider-Man 2, and even though I couldn't follow some of the dialog, I liked it for the most part. I think it was just a smidgen worse than the first movie, although one thing I noticed was that movie #2 had less of a sixties feel to it than movie #1, which probably colors my reactions to it, though.

The fight scenes were just marvellous, though. Just marvellous. And nowhere near as corny as the Batman-type BIFF! SOCK! POW! fights.

[ 05 July 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 05 July 2004 01:10 AM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I loathed the first one, but actually quite liked the second installment. The script (which was abhorrent in the first), was greatly improved, despite deteriorating near the end.

The effects were very cool, and the acting was much better than in the first. I do agree though, that I still don't like the choice of TM to play Spiderman. I just don't like him in general.

Sadly it looks as though they are going to bring back the craptacular villian The Green Goblin for the third Spiderman, which is disapointing, even if it will be a different actor playing him.


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 05 July 2004 01:40 AM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I certainly don't like how they made the Green Goblin into Mecha-Goblin in the movies. I guess the original costume would seem kind of silly on the screen in live action, but the same could be said of the concept of a robotic supersuit that is still patterned to be a goblin that throws pumpkin bombs.

Of course, the thing that makes the Goblin a good villain is the behind the mask stuff. Best friends against one another. Harry is slipping into addiction (in the comics, drugs, but apparently it will be alcohol in the movies) and insanity, and Peter wants to help him, but he can't get near him because Harry hates him now and is trying to kill him in his alter ego. And yet they still have to act normal around everyone else when interacting in plainclothes.

Still ... black costume!

I just hope they never go the Spider Slayers route, though. I could never believe that, as much as JJ hates Spider-Man, he would ever bankroll killer robots to attack him. I guess they'd have to change the Scorpion's origin to avoid that problem, too, though, wouldn't they?

PS: Hush with all this Tobey hating! He's the perfect actor for the job. Seriously.

[ 05 July 2004: Message edited by: Dr. Mr. Ben ]


From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297

posted 05 July 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for Rand McNally     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jacob Two-Two, that is too funny. I guess we spend to much time together as kids (and young adults) talking about comic book physics. On the way home from the movie last night I was telling my wife how spiderman should have killed doc oct my punching him like that.

Great minds think alike.


From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 July 2004 01:55 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Disclaimer: I haven't seen either of the two Spidey movies yet.

That said, I collected comics for years when I was a kid, and two of my favourite titles were Amazing Spiderman, and the spinoff Peter Parker, Spectacular Spiderman. For my money, I was delighted when McGuire was cast as Parker. First off, he's NOT Matt Damon, Ben Affleck or Vin Diesel. 'Nuff said. Second, the comics made it clear that Parker was a bookish nerd, albeit with some extra strength and a Spidey-sense, but definitely not of the wider-than-they-are-high school of superhero body types. Somehow, McGuire seemed to fit the bill, physically.

Just out of curiousity, of those who disapprove of McGuire: who would have been the better choice?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 July 2004 05:04 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, the casting definitely could have been worse. Before the first movie came out I read somewhere that Peter Parker was going to be played by Jude Law.*shudder*
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 05 July 2004 05:16 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If Maguire wasn't playing Peter Parker, it would be very difficult for me to identify with him. Almost all the big-name stars are to pretty for words. They are larger than life. Toby's Parker represents every geek I knew in high school, and come to think of it, he represents me to. An ordinary man struggling with everyday concerns. Matt Damon couldn't have pulled it off.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 05 July 2004 06:41 PM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I got to thinking, if they make it past number 3 and still want to do more, what villains will be used? Spider-Man has a lot of great villains, but a lot of them wouldn't work in a movie. When these guys are deployed across x number of comic books, it's fine, but if your only exposure to Spider-Man is the movies it gets a little more complicated.

Guys like Shocker and the Rhino just aren't interesting enough to build a whole movie around. Scorpion is cool, but I think non-comics audiences would look at him attacking with his mechanical tail and say, "Didn't I see this already with Doc Ock? And that was 4 times better." They introduces Dr. Connors, but the relationship between Spidey and the Lizard would be too similar to what they did with Dr. Octopus. Similarly, I think the Vulture would seem a little too much like the Green Goblin in terms of his background and so forth. Chameleon wouldn't make for a good action flick. Apparently, the rights to Venom are sewn up by another studio.

I'm calling Kraven the Hunter in Spider-Man 4.


From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baldfresh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5864

posted 05 July 2004 08:34 PM      Profile for Baldfresh   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mr. Ben:
IGuys like Shocker and the Rhino just aren't interesting enough to build a whole movie around. Scorpion is cool, but I think non-comics audiences would look at him attacking with his mechanical tail and say, "Didn't I see this already with Doc Ock? And that was 4 times better." They introduces Dr. Connors, but the relationship between Spidey and the Lizard would be too similar to what they did with Dr. Octopus. Similarly, I think the Vulture would seem a little too much like the Green Goblin in terms of his background and so forth. Chameleon wouldn't make for a good action flick. Apparently, the rights to Venom are sewn up by another studio.

I'm calling Kraven the Hunter in Spider-Man 4.


You'd see Electro before you see the Shocker, non? I can see a movie being based around him (or the Rhino) alone . . . if they did it right. But then I'm a (former . . ish) fanboy who would like nothing more than a near perfect retelling of the spidey canon right from ish #1. I can see GG2 and the Lizard showing up in the next one, actually, unless they've introduced Conners for nothing.

The Vulture I can't really see carrying a film for some reason tho, all he does is fly (well, more or less) The Rhino could really smash the crap out of some buildings, Electro would be a bit trickier. I agree totally with your call on Scorp, which is too bad because he was a top 10 villain of pete's for sure. Maybe a couple of films of villain combos? Rhino/Electro, then Kraven/Vulture?

My personal pick would be the Sandman! He'd kick ass if done right. If only they could do enough films to have all the original sinister 6 . . . then a big battle royale!

But seriously, the rights to Venom are tied up? Crap.

[ 05 July 2004: Message edited by: Baldfresh ]


From: to here knows when | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 05 July 2004 09:09 PM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You'd see Electro before you see the Shocker, non?

Man, how did I forget Electro? I assume they would redesign his headgear, though. I also forgot the other classic villain who seriously needs a new get-up: Mysterio. Oh, and what about Morbius? I never really liked him.

quote:
I can see GG2 and the Lizard showing up in the next one, actually, unless they've introduced Conners for nothing.

I could see Connors having being introduced just as a nod to the nerds. They needed Peter at school and they needed a professor, so ... It's just, again, that it would be almost exactly the character arc that they did with Doc Ock.

The thing that separates the good villains from the great villains is the relationships outside of the costume. That's why Green Goblin and Venom are tops -- they know Spidey's identity and there's a personal connection that takes their conflict beyond just two guys in tights slugging it out. Even the Chameleon is better on this front, given that he is responsible for Peters' parents being dead (right?). The rest? A little blah.

quote:
But seriously, the rights to Venom are tied up? Crap.

That's what I hear. Marvel, of course, makes the lion's share of its money from movie deals these days, so they've sold the rights to everything they can (there's even an Iron Fist movie in the works. Iron Fist!). Since Venom had his own book for a while and was really popular in the early '90s, I guess htey figured he could headline a movie, even though he makes no sense whatsoever outside of the Spider-Man context (and we're seeing what's happening to Catwoman without the Batman mythos behind the character ...)

For me, ideally, you would have Kraven in Spider-Man 4. During this movie, there would also be the introduction of the black costume. To make it fit into the logic of the movie series, you would probably have to tweak the origin. I don't know, make it a synthesis of an alien protein with nanotechnology or something. This would allow them to have him fighting Kraven in the always classic technology/science versus nature/mysticism conlict. You'd set up Eddie Brock in this one, and then have Peter drive the costume away toward the end. This leads into Spider-Man 5 with Venom as the villain.

Man, why'd they have to get stupid greedy and sell the rights?


From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984

posted 05 July 2004 09:10 PM      Profile for 1st Person        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just saw it...definitely better than the 1st one. I agree with everyone that Dock Ock was a better villain than the Green Goblin. For one thing, we could see his face. But I was surprised that he tried to kill Aunt May - in some of the comics, Dock Ock & Aunt May had a bit of a romance thing going.

Interesting that they introduced Jameson's son. I was wondering if they'd show him become "Man-wolf". Anyone else remember that comic from the late 70's or early 80's? I only had one issue of it, and I don't know if he ever fought Spiderman...but it was Jameson's son.

And I agree that Hale Barry does look awesome as Catwoman in the preview...brrrrrrrrr! I think she's going to be in the new Batman movie for next year.


From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 05 July 2004 09:35 PM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 1st Person:
I was wondering if they'd show him become "Man-wolf". Anyone else remember that comic from the late 70's or early 80's? I only had one issue of it, and I don't know if he ever fought Spiderman...but it was Jameson's son.

Yeah, I remember Man-Wolf. Not to be confused with Werewolf By Night.


From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baldfresh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5864

posted 06 July 2004 01:33 AM      Profile for Baldfresh   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mr. Ben:
Man, how did I forget Electro? I assume they would redesign his headgear, though. I also forgot the other classic villain who seriously needs a new get-up: Mysterio. Oh, and what about Morbius? I never really liked him.

Hehe; Electro's headgear is awful, but Mysterio wears a freaking fishbowl. I wonder how many Babblers have any idea what we're on about, and how many gave this thread up for dead/to us comicgeeks posts ago

Morbius should show up in a Blade film, he had a decent run with Ghost Rider and other dark themed characters before "the arse fell out of er'"


quote:
I could see Connors having being introduced just as a nod to the nerds.

Good point; but they fail to understand the geek psyche: having Connors show up and NOT become the lizard is an even greater insult

quote:

Even the Chameleon is better on this front, given that he is responsible for Peters' parents being dead (right?).

Yes'm; they came back at some point, I never did get the full storyline however, they could have been clones, or dopplegangers, or clones of dopplegangers . . . they were doing strange stuff to poor Spidey last I checked . . .

quote:
For me, ideally, you would have Kraven in Spider-Man 4. During this movie, there would also be the introduction of the black costume. To make it fit into the logic of the movie series, you would probably have to tweak the origin.

Yeah, I don't know how well Galactus would translate to the big screen Kraven is a kickass villain; "Kraven's Last Hunt" is one of the best Spidey Saga's ever (hallucinogenic at times; Krav burys spidey alive if I remember correctly, and he starts having, well, hallucinations.) I'd still like to see Sandman.

quote:
Man, why'd they have to get stupid greedy and sell the rights?

Well, they pretty much went broke . . . because they were so greedy in the comics end of it and the bottom fell out in the 90's. A common analogy used is the Dutch Tulip fiasco.

Oh yeah, Iron Fist!! But no Power Man?? Hehe. I've heard a FF movie is in the works as well. Actually, I've heard the Iron Fist and FF movie talk for years; any offical info on production that you're aware of?

Finally, you all catch a certain Mr. Lee's cameo in the 2nd film?

edited to fix loads of typos.

[ 06 July 2004: Message edited by: Baldfresh ]


From: to here knows when | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 06 July 2004 02:18 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, this thread has turned into quite the geek-fest (not that I'm complaining )

There was actually a good book written on how a bunch of corporate bone-heads ran Marvel into the ground, but the name eludes me. I'll look it up at the library.

Sorry, but I think Kraven would be a silly villain. He always was (the excellent "Last Hunt" notwithstanding). It was one of those things where the writers were desperate to make a problem out of nothing. Why should Spidey have trouble with wild animals, or a guy who hunts them? It should be thwip, thwip, thwip, and it's all over.

Venom is the obvious choice for no.4. I was never a fan, but it makes sense to confront Spidey with the Anti-Spidey, and the battles would be good fun. They'll get the rights back, I daresay. Lord knows the films are making enough money (God forbid they use Carnage instead). But there would be no time to get into the black costume/alien parasite stuff. They'd have to think of something simpler.

I assumed the Lizard would be making an appearance when Connors was mentioned in the first movie, but now that I think about it, does anyone remember if he was missing an arm? It doesn't seem that way in my memory, and that's kind of important. If he wasn't the main villain, then I think he'd work well. In fact, I half expect him in the next movie.

I can't really think of any other Spidey villains who have the appeal to carry a film, so I expect (and would prefer) that after Harry gets his Goblin on (Hobgoblin possibly?) and a Venom movie, that Doc Ock will just come back again. After all, we didn't see nearly enough of him. This time, he'll be crazier and more cunning, and probably have some henchmen, sinister six style.

quote:
Jacob Two-Two, that is too funny. I guess we spend to much time together as kids (and young adults) talking about comic book physics. On the way home from the movie last night I was telling my wife how spiderman should have killed doc oct my punching him like that.

Great minds think alike.


As always


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 06 July 2004 09:43 AM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baldfresh:
Well, they pretty much went broke . . . because they were so greedy in the comics end of it and the bottom fell out in the 90's. A common analogy used is the Dutch Tulip fiasco.

Oh yeah, Iron Fist!! But no Power Man?? Hehe. I've heard a FF movie is in the works as well. Actually, I've heard the Iron Fist and FF movie talk for years; any offical info on production that you're aware of?


You're absolutely right about the crashing of the comics end of the business. They're out of debt now, but since much of the revenue is from the movie deals that some people are still skeptical about their health. After all, they're sort of running out of the big name, movie-headlining characters who are likely to be successful.

I know they are currently making an Elektra spin-off. And I believe they're in the middle of casting the FF film.

After that you've got, what? Cap. Iron Man. Thor. Doctor Strange, maybe. An Avengers movie would be cool except for not being able to use any of the characters that they've already sold separate rights to (sort of like the apocryphal JLA tv show pilot).

I think we can expect a lot less Spider-Mans in the future and a lot more Daredevils.

quote:
I assumed the Lizard would be making an appearance when Connors was mentioned in the first movie, but now that I think about it, does anyone remember if he was missing an arm?

His right sleeve was rolled up and pinned.


From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 06 July 2004 10:53 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I realize that they used him in Daredevil, but Kingpin was always a major thorn in Spidey's side. Could he be the headline villian in a real film?
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baldfresh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5864

posted 06 July 2004 02:36 PM      Profile for Baldfresh   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarcasmobri:
I realize that they used him in Daredevil, but Kingpin was always a major thorn in Spidey's side. Could he be the headline villian in a real film?

Hmm; hard to say. I'm still getting over the treatment he got in Daredevil, for that matter. Other than the fact that he's white in the comics and black in the movie . .. there's the much bigger issue of his SIZE. Jesus, the real kingpin would kick the guy from the Green Mile's ass.

Then again, I'm not sure where they'd find a human quite as large in real life as Kingpin was in the comics . . ..

Oh, and its interesting now that we've mentioned KP crossing over from DD to Spidey: he would also have to be about the #1 pick as Frank Castle's enemy too, no? Kingpin just offically became the baddest mofo in the Marvel Universe. Well, not really, but to count those 3 heros as serious enemies is quite the accomplishment.

Speaking of Frank, what did you all think of the recent Punisher? Sequel-worthy? How'd it do at the box office?


From: to here knows when | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 06 July 2004 03:13 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought the casting of Kingpin was pretty good. They found the biggest, most physically imposing actor who could deliver the lines, and dressed him up as a crime boss. Daredevil failed because the story was weak and the director failed to keep the lead egos in check. My opinion only, of course.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 06 July 2004 03:19 PM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Kingpin in Spider-Man could also mean Hammerhead and Tombstone. The Tombstone/Robbie subplot would be great because they could actually use Bill Nunn for something besides cradling empty masks and arranging paste-up copy.

The only thing that annoyed me about the switch in race for Kingpin was that I read that Cuba Gooding, Jr., who I think would have been better than Affleck, tried to arrange a try-out for the role of Daredevil and was told they weren't looking for a black actor. So, it's okay to change a villain to be a visible minority but not a hero? And besides, Daredevil's pappy was a boxer, right? Maybe that was credible in the '60s, but when was the last time there was a good white boxer?


From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 06 July 2004 05:53 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The music in Dare Devil rocked.

How about that Hydro guy as the main villian for a Spiderman movie, you the guy that turned into water. So could Carnage if Vemon is taken.

I'd love to see a She-Hulk movie.

The promblem is, is that Marvel is one big universe with all these characters, Spiderman, X-men, Avengers, The Hulk, Dare Devil, etc... all interacting at times.

What they should come out with is a Marvel tv show encompassing the entire Marvel universe.

I here they were also planning to come out with a silver surfer movie a while back.

PS just because one studio has the lience to use Venom, doesn't mean marvel can lience him to another company too, as long as the contract doesn't specify that the arrangement is to be exclusive.


From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984

posted 06 July 2004 06:40 PM      Profile for 1st Person        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to IMDB, comic book movies that are tentativiley in the works (with release dates around 2005) include Iron Man, The Fantastic Four, Iron Fist (with Ray Parks - Darth Maul in Phantom Menace & Toad in "X-Men"), and Ghost Rider with Nicholas Cage as Johny Blaze.
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 July 2004 07:00 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Marvel is planning to make six spidey flicks. There will be room for all the villians mentioned in this thread.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 06 July 2004 07:06 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Six? Jeez, I've heard Sam Raimi and Kirsten Dunst may leave after the third one. If they leave I don't think there would be much point in continuing.
From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 06 July 2004 09:56 PM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rev. Phoenix:
I'd love to see a She-Hulk movie.

They should totally do a tv show based on the current She-Hulk series, in which Jen is working as a lawyer for a firm that specializes in cases involving metahumans. Except ... this would only really work if you could use the whole Marvel universe in it, too. Dang.


From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 07 July 2004 03:10 AM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I agree about Spiderman's wisecracking. After all, he is a New Yorker! Mary Jane, too! Let's see some wit and sass!

There was the great scene in the elevator where Spidey complains about the suit riding up in the crotch area...just the whole awkwardness in that scene was totally hilarious. Every scene with J. Jonah Jameson was laugh-out loud funny also, I love that actor!

Overall, a really great movie, much better than the first. Maguire really makes it the story of Peter as opposed to a typical superhero epic. I like the theme of conflicting responsibilities and meeting your own needs while trying to make the world a better place. That rings true to me

And major kudos to Sam Raimi for getting a terrific performance from Kirsten Dunst (deeper and more complex than the first movie, she is the heart of SM 2) and...getting her wet again for the big finale. The geeks of the world thank you, Sam!!


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Baldfresh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5864

posted 07 July 2004 03:50 AM      Profile for Baldfresh   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:
There was the great scene in the elevator where Spidey complains about the suit riding up in the crotch area...just the whole awkwardness in that scene was totally hilarious. Every scene with J. Jonah Jameson was laugh-out loud funny also, I love that actor!

Yeah . . . but we all wanna see Spidey crack-wise to Doc Ock while nearly getting his arms ripped off, not make self-depreceating (sp? yes.) jokes to some random civilian. But I agree 100% on the JJJ analysis: most accurate comic book transfer for sure.

quote:

And major kudos to Sam Raimi for getting a terrific performance from Kirsten Dunst (deeper and more complex than the first movie, she is the heart of SM 2) and...getting her wet again for the big finale. The geeks of the world thank you, Sam!!

Kirsten Dunst in a wet tshirt? The men of the world thank you, Mr. Raimi.


From: to here knows when | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 07 July 2004 04:40 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mysterio wears a freaking fishbowl

was mysterio portaging through algonquin park when suddenly a bolt of lightening welded the fishbowl to his head?

re: DC characters: i would have thought that by now you'd have had a green lantern film. "kingdom come" might work as an epic movie too. batman in "kingdom come" looks like brando, circa 1973.


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 07 July 2004 10:38 AM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
i would have thought that by now you'd have had a green lantern film.

But which GL? I'm hoping for G'Nort, myself.


From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baldfresh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5864

posted 07 July 2004 12:32 PM      Profile for Baldfresh   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mr. Ben:

But which GL? I'm hoping for G'Nort, myself.


HAhahahahahaha

hehehe

Usually when I say "lol" online, it means "smiled a little at the somewhat funny remark"

But that was truly a laugh out loud moment.

Thanks! A great start to my day . . .


From: to here knows when | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 07 July 2004 01:12 PM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're welcome. But, hey, I'd settle for Ch'p or even the Puffball Collective. Just as long as it isn't Guy Gardner.
From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 08 July 2004 01:09 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just saw it - liked it. - especially the Bert Bacharach interval. Dunno what to make of the Chinese singer - is singing off key a Chinese stereotype? Or is it just uncomfortable becauise it's a "dumb immigrant" (same with the Slavic landlord and his daughter) or are they just trying to give it a "New York City" feel by having a few immigrants here and there.

I think Toby McGuire is great in the role though I agree I'd like to hear him say more when he's in costume (though having him scream with delight while he's swinging is a nice human touch).

And Doc Ock was a great villain. Only problem with the film was that Spidey in full costume swinging around just looked too much like a computer animation than a real person - enhanced with superpowers - in a costume. Oddly enough the 1960s cartoon was a bit more believable that way despite the stilted animation.

Ah and J. Jonah - hard to believe it's the same guy who played Schillinger in Oz, eh?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 08 July 2004 03:39 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've only seen it 5 times so I'll get back to y'all when I form an opinion.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baldfresh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5864

posted 08 July 2004 01:01 PM      Profile for Baldfresh   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft:
Ah and J. Jonah - hard to believe it's the same guy who played Schillinger in Oz, eh?


Wow, didn't know that. I think I asked already, but did anyone else happen to catch Stan Lee's cameo?


From: to here knows when | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 08 July 2004 01:26 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And major kudos to Sam Raimi for getting a terrific performance from Kirsten Dunst...

Why all the Dunst-love? She's moderately attractive, but her performance in SP2 was nearly as bad as Halle Barre's in the Xmen flicks. MJ is supposed to be an independant woman, strong enough to deal with the idiotic men in her life, yet Dunst plays her as a weepy parasite. Were we supposed to cheer when she left young Jameson at the altar? Is that supposed to be romantic? Came across as selfish and moronic to me.


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 08 July 2004 01:50 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Love makes weepy parasites of us all, cynic. Despite Peter's being the love of her life, MJ moves on when he won't come through and finds someone new, a good guy, another hero even (an astronaut). When she left the astronaut, I cheered, internally. She was willing to risk being killed/kidnapped etc. by all the bad guys Peter/Spidey would attract. And he lived in a dump. Sure, an old-fashioned role, but I dug it, being a weepy parasite myself.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 08 July 2004 03:29 PM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bittersweet:
Love makes weepy parasites of us all, cynic. Despite Peter's being the love of her life, MJ moves on when he won't come through and finds someone new, a good guy, another hero even (an astronaut). When she left the astronaut, I cheered, internally. She was willing to risk being killed/kidnapped etc. by all the bad guys Peter/Spidey would attract. And he lived in a dump. Sure, an old-fashioned role, but I dug it, being a weepy parasite myself.

So she ruins a guy's life, publicly, because she isn't bright enough to figure it out BEFORE putting on her wedding dress. No wonder I'm a cynic.


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 08 July 2004 03:42 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mark and I saw it last night. I really really liked it. When TM put on his nerdly glasses, I got swoony.

I kept wishing Spider Man would spend out "Some Pig" or somthing like that, though, in a big web.


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 08 July 2004 04:50 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Holy cow, cynic: Figure out what before putting on her wedding dress? That she loves Parker? She knows she loves him, but he's refused her. You'd rather she sentence both herself and the astronaut to an unhappy marriage for the sake of sparing his feelings at the alter? Now that's cynical. Besides, this is a superhero drama--leave 'em at the alter, not the breakfast table!

First you complain about the character's lack of independent will--oh, and her moderately good looks, as if that's relevent to anything but hypocritical cynicism--then when she's shown to be willful, you grasp at her supposed lack of intelligence and sensitivity. Well, nice day if it doesn't rain...or with luck, flood.


From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 08 July 2004 06:06 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
MJ is supposed to be an independant woman, strong enough to deal with the idiotic men in her life, yet Dunst plays her as a weepy parasite. Were we supposed to cheer when she left young Jameson at the altar? Is that supposed to be romantic?

It's the script dude. She's just doing what she's told. I would have preferred a stronger MJ myself, but the fellow who wrote the script just didn't provide us with one. There aren't very many young actresses in Hollywood who could play the woman you describe.

[ 08 July 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 08 July 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697

posted 11 July 2004 10:32 PM      Profile for West Coast Lefty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why all the Dunst-love? She's moderately attractive, but her performance in SP2 was nearly as bad as Halle Barre's in the Xmen flicks. MJ is supposed to be an independant woman, strong enough to deal with the idiotic men in her life, yet Dunst plays her as a weepy parasite.

Kirsten only moderately attractive? I vigorously disagree Halle is also a total goddess, no matter how many dumb action movies she makes (I was disappointed in Halle's performance in the James Bond movie as well, haven't seen the X-Men flicks).

Back on topic - MJ is the total opposite of the "weepy parasite." She knows her true love is Peter, and does all she can to get him to open up to her. When he lets her down, she doesn't stay at home weeping - she moves on. But she's also strong enough to resist all of the societal pressure to marry JJJ's son when she realizes that he's not right for her. Finally, she stands up to Peter/SM who tells her it's too dangerous for them to be together - she just shows up at Peter's door and says: "I'm willing to take that risk."

Throughout the movie, MJ drives every major development in the PP/MJ relationship - if it was up to PP alone, they'd still be staring at each other yearningly over the back yard fence


From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Socrates
sock-puppet
Babbler # 6376

posted 15 July 2004 02:03 AM      Profile for Socrates   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I apologize in advance because I know you're all going to hate me for this but FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GO SEE A REAL MOVIE!!!!!!!!

Here we are in Canada where local movies can't even get into the cinemas, where we are over-run on a daily basis with the insidious parasite of American culture to the point where people forget that there is such a thing as Canadian Culture and you guys are droning on ad naseum about Spidey?

I know it was a cool comic book, I liked it too but this kind of Hollywood schlock (and yes, it is schlock, entertaining schlock maybe, but still schlock) is intricately connected to all the activist battles we're waging, be it against pollution of the mental environment, the WTO, ad creep, etc....

You guys are going out there and voting with your dollars for american monoculture. Go see a Canadian Movie, or an art house movie - and if they aren't playing then question why not. Write a letter to Famous, or Odeon, or AMC or whatever.

And I know I'm being kind of antagonistic here but it really does pain me to see an activist chat room set up by Judy Rebick being used to build buzz for this sort of thing.

I mean

ARE THERE STUDIO TROLLS HERE?

Is somebody on the company nickel, I mean what gives? Don't you guys notice the contradiction?

Awriight, there's my two cents, I'm sure you won't agree but please think about it.

BTW - people on other theads have been making fun of you guys mercilessly for days now, just thought you'd want to know.


From: Viva Sandinismo! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 15 July 2004 02:21 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Look here, lecture-face. Don't fucking judge people you know nothing about, based on your own ignorant stereotypes and assumptions.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 15 July 2004 02:40 AM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Chill out everyone. It's just a movie.
From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Socrates
sock-puppet
Babbler # 6376

posted 15 July 2004 02:55 AM      Profile for Socrates   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry i pissed you off raven, nobody's perfect and I'm not trying to say I never go see shlock movies.

It's just that I didn't see a single post on here debating the issues of American cultural imperialism in relation to this movie and I wanted to bring it up.

It's all about choices and being aware of them, it's like walking past the 24 hr McD at 2am when that big mac sure looks tempting. We all give in to the urge to go to Wal-mart, or McD or Burger King or whatever sometimes but be aware of the choice you're making.

The last thing I want to be is one of those harpies who won't shut up because someone just bought a burger but it's important to be constantly critical.

It was the total lack of any critical perspective on the issue that got to me. My apologies if I am being bigotted but as i said that's my two cents.


From: Viva Sandinismo! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 15 July 2004 03:17 AM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm sorry i pissed you off raven, nobody's perfect and I'm not trying to say I never go see shlock movies.

Raven's not the only person you pissed off with your amazingly uncharitable post.

quote:
It's just that I didn't see a single post on here debating the issues of American cultural imperialism in relation to this movie and I wanted to bring it up.

Then instead of lecturing people, you could have written such a post. I am sure it would have contributed something very interesting and worthwhile to the conversation.

quote:

It's all about choices and being aware of them, it's like walking past the 24 hr McD at 2am when that big mac sure looks tempting. We all give in to the urge to go to Wal-mart, or McD or Burger King or whatever sometimes but be aware of the choice you're making.

Then why didn't you say that in the first place? A thoughtful, respectfully worded and well-supported post on 'choices' would have been welcomed. What you wrote was NOT.

quote:
The last thing I want to be is one of those harpies who won't shut up because someone just bought a burger...

Too late. You are.

quote:
...but it's important to be constantly critical.

Well, you've proven you can do that. Now can you prove that you can present a logical argument that doesn't insult, generalise and assume?


quote:
It was the total lack of any critical perspective on the issue that got to me. My apologies if I am being bigotted but as i said that's my two cents.

Adding *your* take on maintaining critical perspective would have added something to this conversation. Lecturing and chastising us like children did not.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 July 2004 03:19 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Socrates: Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me for occasionally being human and liking Tobey Maguire's angsty-cuteness.

[ 15 July 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Socrates
sock-puppet
Babbler # 6376

posted 15 July 2004 03:52 AM      Profile for Socrates   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Aha!

We meet again my old nemesis Dr Conway, or should I say.......

Doc Ock!

I'll be sure to add angsty-cuteness to my dictionary, it's a good one.

Alright, all kidding aside sorry for being unconstructive, you have a point Anchoress.

This thread was being dissed elsewhere and I came over here and it sounded like the chat page from the fan site rather than what I would expect from Babble. So, I ran my mouth off, sorry folks.

I guess I'll just take my granola back to the woods and commune with the birds and the bees about monoculture.....


From: Viva Sandinismo! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 15 July 2004 12:03 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Socrates, I recommend a wonderful old comedy by the late great Preston Sturges called Sullivan's Travels. In that movie, an A-list director wants to quit making wildly profitable frothy entertainments like Ants In Your Pants and go out and "find trouble." It's the depression, and he wants to tell the story of the common man and his suffering. His comedies feel meaningless to him. How can he be making these ridiculous pictures in the middle of the depression?

Well, he defies the studio and eventually finds all the trouble and strife he can handle (and Veronica Lake), has his identity stripped, and ends up on a chain gang run by a vicious boss. One night the chain gang is invited to watch a movie by the local black preacher and his congregation. The men hobble into the church, heads bowed, beaten, hopeless, full of the most extreme trouble and strife imaginable. The movie is a Disney cartoon: Goofy and Donald Duck. Goofy's antics throw the chain gang into hysterics. The director, who was at first cynical about the frothy cartoon, turns to look back at the men's grimy faces in the reflected light, and observes their reactions, "unguarded" for the first time. No longer inhibited, they're laughing to beat the band, grabbing one another, tears rolling down their cheeks. Sullivan's realization is that the common man does not want to watch movies purely about trouble and strife, because he's up to his neck in it already. He manages to make it back to Hollywood, ready to make the pictures he was born to helm.

Sturges brilliantly shows us trouble and strife, orchestrates a serious theme, even gives a little insight into the job of screenwriting, all the while managing to entertain. Sure, Disney turned out to be an awful man. And sure, cartoons and frothy entertainments are opiates. But are they always just opiates? I don't think so. We need to be educated, but we also need the froth. Things get way out of balance, for certain, but it’s a fact that people will never choose to confront trouble and strife alone as a pastime. If any filmmaker—art house or studio—fails to entertain, then hardly anyone will take notice. A typical problem is the prevalence of so-called "gritty reality" films. Those who don't mind having it shoved in their faces are inevitably not the subjects of these pictures. As one critic has said, and I agree with him, "Gritty reality is the last refuge of the artistic scoundrel." Independent, or "art-house" films are not inherently superior. Even The Corporation was a good entertainment. Michael Moore understands this better than most.

Spiderman 2 was written by a 73 year-old, whose record includes far more serious (and Oscar-winning) fare. Family dysfunction, teen suicide, etc. That’s why this version of Spidey has some depth. Watch it, and you’ll see. If you choose to go back to the woods, that's terrific, but you can't then expect to commune with much more than the birds and the bees.


From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2279

posted 15 July 2004 12:43 PM      Profile for Alix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's also bloody insulting that you think that if someone goes to see Spider-Man, they would never see Canadian or indie films. Since Spider-Man has opened, I've gone to see that, Fahrenheit 9/11, Harry Potter (with my mother), and Coffee and Cigarettes. Next week, we'll go see Zatoichi the Blind Swordsman.

So instead of immediately jumping down our throats, you might want to try to start a discussion about your points. While there is a Spider-Man thread, there's also a thread going on right now about weird movies right now that shows how many obscure films babblers have seen as well.

I hate people who try to tell me that because a movie is popular, I automatically shouldn't like it. It might be good. In the case of Spider-Man it is.


From: Kingston | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 15 July 2004 02:38 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
God, I actually looked at the tail end of this thread. I think it might be a good idea to get a different thread started about the concept of mass culture and alienation. I agree that the initial post by socrates came across as nasty and judgemental, but it does raise important questions.

I don't watch Hollywood films, period. Sure, I know some may actually be good, but there are so many other good films produced by so many cultures that I prefer to simply boycott the cultural behemoth.

I found the parable about escapism in the dirty thirties to be, ultimately, an apology for the existing order and its ideological component. Actually, at the time, some films (even produced in Hollywood) were subversive in some ways - not just a balm on the wounds of capitalism in crisis, racism, etc.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474

posted 15 July 2004 03:04 PM      Profile for bittersweet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't watch Hollywood films, period.
That's fine, so long as you don't offer opinions on what you haven't seen. Your contribution to the thread you suggest could only be theory and guesswork, since your actual experience of movies is as intentionally limited as those who choose to restrict their experience to Hollywood. The argument is for balance, not Good vs. Bad.

From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca