Skip

Spider-Man 3 Teaser Trailer Available
June 29, 2006 8:07 AM   Subscribe

Spider-Man 3 Teaser Trailer Available Just in case discussion of the elements in a trailer for a movie that will be marketed upon you relentlessly constitutes spoilers ... [more inside]
posted by clearlynuts (69 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
That's all fine and dandy, but it looks familiar. Evil Spidey? Where's Gus Gorman? Is there an evil supercomputer programmed in BASIC? Superman and Spider-Man gave us the origin. In Superman II, the hero spills his secret to his girlfriend and loses his superpowers; in Spider-Man 2, the hero loses his superpower and spills his secret to his girlfriend. Superman 3 had evil Superman dealing with his inner demons. It's a good teaser, and Spider-Man 3 almost certainly will be a better movie, but if Spider-Man 4 has the hero put all the WMD's in a spiderweb and fling them into outer space, I think we can say a pattern is emerging.
posted by clearlynuts at 8:08 AM on June 29, 2006


The movie doesn't come out for a year. Congrats on helping the tiny company who produced it get the word out!
posted by dobbs at 8:10 AM on June 29, 2006


OMG Spidey got pwned!
posted by pmbuko at 8:16 AM on June 29, 2006


Uh-oh. I feel a bout of Too Many Villainsuenza coming on!
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:17 AM on June 29, 2006


We splinter partially off from the Supes' theory for the fact that we have Evil Bad Guy Jr. Though, what with the "evil" Peter Parker, I guess we can be happy or sad that there wasn't a goatee involved.
posted by Atreides at 8:18 AM on June 29, 2006


Dobbs, we'd prefer if you stuck to references to "Pepsi Blue". Actual sarcasm is sometimes a challenge to parse.
posted by Plutor at 8:24 AM on June 29, 2006


Though, what with the "evil" Peter Parker, I guess we can be happy or sad that there wasn't a goatee involved.

I dunno, I bet there's some wicked five o'clock shadow going on under that black mask.
posted by Gator at 8:25 AM on June 29, 2006


It's been a long time since I read Spider-Man, but I don't recall Venom or Sandman collecting the spare pennies from computerized bank transactions. I don't see how radioactive-spider powers will help Parker make MJ forget his dual identity or spin the Earth backward if she gets hurt. And you can't really have a "Fortress of Solitude" if some little Russian girl is always knocking on your door to offer you cake.
posted by cribcage at 8:27 AM on June 29, 2006


For those who don't know, "evil" Spidey isn't actually evil, but his suit does become Venom. I imagine the origin is being changed for the film, however.
posted by Orange Goblin at 8:31 AM on June 29, 2006


will be marketed upon you relentlessly

Obviously it works because you mentioned it here. ;)
posted by jca at 8:38 AM on June 29, 2006


All of these superhero movies are the apogee of studio cowardice – at this point in time, EVERYBODY is so familiar with these mythos that it's a total no-brainer to fill seats with them – unless of course, the creators somehow manage to screw it up/get it wrong as much as Tim Burton was about to, with his translucent suit and non-flying Superman.

What I'd really like to see is some of these production companies leave the tried and true of the DC vs. Marvel and produce a more ambitious comic book movie – something like Straczynski's Supreme Power or Bendis' Powers.

Superman and Peter Parker are 70 and 40 years old, respectively. How about some NEW stories, with many shades of grey?

'Blade' was a good start as was 'A History of Violence'. 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' and everything else by Alan Moore are could-have-beens.

Damned PG-13 mall-rats and absentee parenting...

posted by vhsiv at 8:47 AM on June 29, 2006


Ah, thanks Orange Goblin. I'm familiar with Venom, just not his origins.
posted by Atreides at 8:49 AM on June 29, 2006


> I imagine the origin is being changed for the film, however.

Oh yeah. That and Gwen Stacy. The retcon on both those items might b worth the price of admission alone.

</bitter comic book geek filter off >
posted by vhsiv at 8:50 AM on June 29, 2006


The movie doesn't come out for a year. Congrats on helping the tiny company who produced it get the word out!

We all do what we can!
posted by clearlynuts at 8:52 AM on June 29, 2006


Okay, wait, I'm getting my days mixed up here... I thought Thursday was the day that we hated the MPAA, but I guess that's Tuesday, which moves the RIAA back to Monday, which I had set aside for the IP Lawyers, but that's kind of a personal holiday, while Saturday is Red State/Blue State Wacky Hat Day, leaving Friday split Mac/Windows and Not-Everyone-Has-Flash.

Sunday is Best Of The Web Sarcasm Day of course, unless it February, which is Wal-Mart Disappreciation Month because the month is 10% off, always.

Anyways, even though it's apparently the wrong day for this, I wish you Good Luck in your quest to give the MPAA more money to bribe our Congressmen with, so that they will outlaw the Internet and send us all back to Metafilter: The Monthly Newsletter.
posted by unixrat at 8:53 AM on June 29, 2006 [2 favorites]


Powers is too meta for a movie, particularly a big-budget movie involving superheroes. Too grim, too noir as well. As, say, a season or three on HBO, it could really rock, though.

Heck, most of the decent comicbooks coming out now are too deep for popcorn-fare. Premium cable all the way!
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:56 AM on June 29, 2006


All of these superhero movies are the apogee of studio cowardice – at this point in time, EVERYBODY is so familiar with these mythos that it's a total no-brainer to fill seats with them – unless of course, the creators somehow manage to screw it up/get it wrong as much as Tim Burton was about to, with his translucent suit and non-flying Superman.

What I'd really like to see is some of these production companies leave the tried and true of the DC vs. Marvel and produce a more ambitious comic book movie – something like Straczynski's Supreme Power or Bendis' Powers.


Y'know, there was a point when I thought this way, too. But I realized something: I really love comic books, but comic-book movies always leave me cold because they're not comics. The things I love about comics generally* don't transfer to film.

So now, I'm actually fine with dumbed-down movies that just strip-mine old stories; they're not for me, but other people enjoy them. I benefit, though, because the influx of money helps subsidize the production of the comics I like (and a whole shitload of them that I don't like, but, well, them's the breaks). As long as Marvel's got that Spider-money coming in, they can keep paying Ellis and Immomen to create Nextwave, and everybody wins (except Dirk Anger).

*The exception being Ghost World; somehow, Zwigoff managed to shoot the movie with the same feel that Clowes' art produced.
posted by COBRA! at 9:01 AM on June 29, 2006


And you can't really have a "Fortress of Solitude" if some little Russian girl is always knocking on your door to offer you cake.

That is so true.
posted by bshort at 9:02 AM on June 29, 2006


I walked out of Spider Man I. I doubt they've gotten any better.
posted by Sir BoBoMonkey Pooflinger Esquire III at 9:13 AM on June 29, 2006


Rats! Requires QT 7.

Any links to non-proprietary format trailers?
posted by sidereal at 9:27 AM on June 29, 2006


I wish you Good Luck in your quest to give the MPAA more money to bribe our Congressmen with
posted by unixrat at 8:53 AM PST


Its like I have a sock-puppet account. But with less bile
posted by rough ashlar at 9:44 AM on June 29, 2006


I second sideral; especially if it's a non apple.com link (blasted firewall....)
posted by inigo2 at 9:46 AM on June 29, 2006


I walked out of Spider Man I. I doubt they've gotten any better.

I was no fan of the first one either, but the second was a marked improvement.
posted by kittyprecious at 9:53 AM on June 29, 2006


I imagine the origin [of Venom] is being changed for the film, however.

Apparently the alien symbiote gets brought back by (astronaut and son of Daily Bugle editor Jonah Jameson) John Jameson. No sign of whether he becomes Man-Wolf in the movie, though.
posted by camcgee at 10:15 AM on June 29, 2006


Powers is too meta for a movie, particularly a big-budget movie involving superheroes.

I would say the same thing about Watchmen, but people have been trying to make that beast for years.
posted by camcgee at 10:18 AM on June 29, 2006


This is very late but clearlynuts is exactly right: Rami has stated various places that he thinks the Superman series is perfect and is using that as a model.

Here's hoping that Spider-Man 3 isnt as corny as Superman 3. Although that Superman game at the end with the rockets...that was what got me into graphic design.
posted by Brainy at 10:21 AM on June 29, 2006


As someone not wanting to load 80MB of quickgarbage on my computer, I second sidereal:

Any links to non-proprietary format trailers?
posted by noble_rot at 10:23 AM on June 29, 2006


But I realized something: I really love comic books, but comic-book movies always leave me cold because they're not comics. The things I love about comics generally* don't transfer to film.

I don't think it's comics that translate so poorly to the screen, it's superheroes. There are plenty of non-superhero comics that would make great movies, but filming superheroes is inherently difficult.

A major feature of the worlds inhabited by (the vast majority of) superheroes is that they operate on principles that are difficult to emulate in real life, whether it be the ridiculous physiques, the second-skin uniforms, or the physics-defying nature of most of their powers. In comics (or cartoons), these things are not only easy to accomplish, they are part of the aesthetic. In movies, though, these things are difficult to recreate.

The inverse law of realism of superheroes goes something like: the more realistic they are, the more ridiculous they seem.

The Hulk is a great example: in comics, he can do this. On film, he's either dumb-looking CGI or muscular guy painted green.
posted by camcgee at 10:29 AM on June 29, 2006


Mary Jane moves to Carroll Gardens as well, apparently.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 10:30 AM on June 29, 2006


I don't think it's comics that translate so poorly to the screen, it's superheroes.

I don think either is true beyond your own individual bias. Based on what objective criteria do you conclude that CGI Hulk was "dumb-looking"? Frankly, I thought he looked a hell of a lot cooler than many artists' depictions in the past 10 years.

I also liked what Ang Lee did with frames in Hulk. And as long as we're knocking the first Spider-Man movie without leveling actual criticism, how about the first battle scene where Green Goblin flies away screaming, "We'll meet again, Spider-Man!!" You wanted to see a comic book, right? It doesn't get any more comic-book than that.
posted by cribcage at 10:49 AM on June 29, 2006


Teaser trailers are always the biggest cock tease. They are almost always nothing more than computer generated text with only a fleeting glimpse of any actual footage from the movie.

That said; thanks for this particular cock tease.

I'm hanging out for this movie, especially after the disaster that was X3. Even though Spiderman 2 wasn't particuarly great as compared to the first, this one has some real potential.
posted by Effigy2000 at 11:01 AM on June 29, 2006


OMG - Venom!!!
posted by seanyboy at 11:14 AM on June 29, 2006


dobbs writes "The movie doesn't come out for a year. Congrats on helping the tiny company who produced it get the word out!"

Look on the bright side, for the next year we can use this to "double" any mention of the movie on the front page.
posted by Mitheral at 11:17 AM on June 29, 2006


For those complaining about Quicktime.
posted by Orange Goblin at 11:32 AM on June 29, 2006


I don't think it's comics that translate so poorly to the screen, it's superheroes. There are plenty of non-superhero comics that would make great movies, but filming superheroes is inherently difficult.

It depends... a lot of the more formalist non-superhero stuff is still so tied up with the fact that it's static, panelled art that it doesn't move well into live-action film (Hulk and maybe Sin City were at least interesting attempts to beat this). I guess that can be magnified for superheroes, but I think it's universal. Jeff Brown, Marjane Satrapi, and John Porcellino, to take two examples, would lose just about everything that makes them good if you swapped them into film.

"We'll meet again, Spider-Man!!" You wanted to see a comic book, right? It doesn't get any more comic-book than that.

I'd say "it doesn't get any more pre-1980s comic-book than that." Not necessarily a bad thing.
posted by COBRA! at 11:32 AM on June 29, 2006


Based on what objective criteria do you conclude that CGI Hulk was "dumb-looking"? Frankly, I thought he looked a hell of a lot cooler than many artists' depictions in the past 10 years.

Based on what objective criteria did you find that it looked "cool"? I was presenting my opinion, as well as representing the general tenor of the reviews that I read.

I was one of the few who liked the movie, but I never looked at the creature on the screen and saw anything other than a cartoon amongst men.
posted by camcgee at 11:43 AM on June 29, 2006


I've always found it fascinating whenever people argue about whether a particular live action movie adaption of a comic book hero is accurate or authentic or true to the form etc.

There is nothing more preposterous than any live action adaptation of a comic book, because they all rely on grown men running around in spandex costumes. I understand the need to keep one's identity a secret, but why wouldn't every superhero just wear black?

Call me when they adapt The Question for the big screen. At least his costume wouldn't look completely ridiculous on a real person.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:52 AM on June 29, 2006


It depends... a lot of the more formalist non-superhero stuff is still so tied up with the fact that it's static, panelled art that it doesn't move well into live-action film.

Yeah, there's difference between a story that happens to be told through sequential art and a story that really understand and makes use of the medium.

On the one hand you've got comics whose expression is dependent on the static images, Jimmy Corrigan being a primary example of something that's totally unfilmable as it exists on the page. On the other hand you've got things that just happen to exist on the page, where visualization very often is heavily influenced by the vocabulary of film (and often the panels function as basically still film images). I think of non-superhero entries like Hellblazer or Men in Black -- whatever you may think of the comics or the movies, it's hard to say that they suffered sheerly as a transfer of medium.

Personally, I find that trying generally to adapt the aesthetic of one medium to the other tends to produce unpleasant bastardizations.

Sin City, to me, was visually interesting as a comic and borderline unwatchable as a film in terms of its mise-en-scene. (The ridiculous, misogynistic revenge fantasy storylines, of course, are another matter entirely.)
posted by camcgee at 12:12 PM on June 29, 2006


Based on what objective criteria did you find that it looked "cool"?

Meh. You presented Hulk as supporting evidence for your premise that "filming superheroes is inherently difficult." If what you meant was, "My personal opinion is that CGI Hulk looked dumb"...well, OK, but that's some flimsy evidence.
posted by cribcage at 12:14 PM on June 29, 2006


Warren Beatty's film version of Dick Tracy is, I think, very successful at translating the aesthetic values of comic books into another medium.
posted by Prospero at 12:15 PM on June 29, 2006


The movie doesn't come out for a year. Congrats on helping the tiny company who produced it get the word out!

We all do what we can!
posted by clearlynuts at 10:52 AM CST on June 29 [+fave] [!]


Sometimes grassroots efforts really pay off!

*rolls eyes*

I'm with unixrat above, apparently the MPAA is the devil except when their members make a OMGCOOL!! Spiderman or Superman movie.

The first Spiderman movie sucked, well at least the 30 minutes I watched before I returned the DVD to Netflix did. There. I said it.

Warren Beatty's film version of Dick Tracy is, I think, very successful at translating the aesthetic values of comic books into another medium.
posted by Prospero at 2:15 PM CST on June 29


I agree, and I think that bolsters some of the superhero vs comic book to movie argument above.
posted by Ynoxas at 12:19 PM on June 29, 2006


Meh. You presented Hulk as supporting evidence for your premise that "filming superheroes is inherently difficult." If what you meant was, "My personal opinion is that CGI Hulk looked dumb"...well, OK, but that's some flimsy evidence.

Well, the whole theory of "filming superheroes = fundamentally difficult" is just my from-the-couch opinion, not some kind of truth about the order of the universe. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I was just contributing to the discussion because I like talking about superheroes.

Feel free to have contrary opinions, but calling for objective criteria in opinions about art (and art about guys in spandex costumes at that) seemed to be "bug up the ass" territory.
posted by camcgee at 12:25 PM on June 29, 2006


Feel free to have contrary opinions, but calling for objective criteria in opinions about art (and art about guys in spandex costumes at that) seemed to be "bug up the ass" territory.

This and your previous comment could've come straight out of my own head. I raise a bike bottle in your direction.
posted by COBRA! at 12:29 PM on June 29, 2006


Is it just me or does dark Peter Parker look a lil too much like moody musician Conner Oberst?
posted by Lizc at 12:34 PM on June 29, 2006


I am fairly excited about this movie, but i'm sad to say that they are messing up the green goblin AGAIN. Willem Dafoe's green goblin looked really dumb with his 3' tall head and this new green goblin is going to be even worse:


(enlarged screencap from the trailer)

What kind of disguise is that? Is he wearing a paintball mask?!
posted by untuckedshirts at 1:10 PM on June 29, 2006


I thought Peter Parker looks awfully emo for this movie. The longer in-the-face hair, the black outfit, pale girlfriend with blonde/white hair, etc.
posted by SirOmega at 1:13 PM on June 29, 2006


He's probably wearing the black outfit because the outfit IS the symbiot. If I recall correctly the symbiot doesn't want to be 'taken off' and is able to morph into normal clothes so that spiderman doesn't have to change.
posted by untuckedshirts at 1:16 PM on June 29, 2006


What I'd really like to see is some of these production companies leave the tried and true of the DC vs. Marvel and produce a more ambitious comic book movie – something like Straczynski's Supreme Power or Bendis' Powers.

I'd rather pay to watch Izzy stand on a chair, sweating profusely while hitting flies. Or Maggie tearing her pants for the unteemph time...
posted by Smart Dalek at 1:47 PM on June 29, 2006


Is Venom actually going to be in this movie? Or is it just about Peter Parker having to battle the symbiot that eventually becomes Venom aka Eddie Brock?
posted by dopamine at 2:22 PM on June 29, 2006


IMDB lists Topher Grace's character as Eddie Brock/Venom, so we're definitely going to see venom in the movie.
posted by camcgee at 2:49 PM on June 29, 2006


The current rumor is that while we do get to see Venom in this movie, it will only be within the last ten minutes of the film. Another villain will be the main superpowered baddy for most of the flick. Eddie Brock will be in 3 mostly to get is life fucked up due to Spider-man, thus setting him up as a being the main villain in four. Sort of what happened with Harry Osborn in 2.

Another rumor going around has Sandman and other Spidey villains popping up for quick action scene/fights, thus setting up the idea that at this point in movie Spider-man's superheroing career, fighting superpowered criminals has become almost a regular occurrence for him. Which is a cool idea if they can pull it off.

I liked the last two films and I thought Rami actually did a good job with them*, so for once I'm actually having fun reading all the different rumors and wondering which ones are true. (Bruce Campbell as Mysterio? Please be true!) This is a pretty novel experience for me when it comes to comic book movies, compared to the sinking feeling I got when I saw what they did to Fantastic Four and X-men 3. Not to mention the involuntary frothing that happens when someone mentions a Watchmen movie.


*Though I do have some objections over the casting. Tobey McEmopants Shop Dummy Maguire? He had his moments, but lacked the snarkiness that made love the character of Peter Parker in the first place. I think Topher Grace would have made a far better Spider-man. But I understand why he wasn't cast, since at the time the first movie was being made, he hadn't yet proven himself as a movie actor. Still, at least he's in the movies now.
posted by kosher_jenny at 4:22 PM on June 29, 2006


you can even see the scene of the Symbiote being forced off Peter by the sound of the ringing bells in a belfry.
posted by Megafly at 4:28 PM on June 29, 2006


The belltower bit is right out of the comics, as is the suit creeping up on Peter while he sleeps.

For the non-comic-geeks, here's the storyline:

Spidey acquires an alien suit, and is jazzed because it does things like repair itself and save him money on web fluid.

Later on he finds out the suit is actually a sentient critter. It tries to permanently "bond" with his body, he forces it off by going to a belltower. The alien is vunerable to sonics and fire, so the ringing bells weaken it to the point where he can get it off.

Eddie Brock visits the church and the suit finds him. Eddie hates Parker (reporter feud), the suit hates Peter, they get together and become a big monster named Venom. Venom bascially has all of spiderman's physical abilities (depending on the writer, he's usually stronger, but sometimes not as agile), he can generate his own webbing, blend in like a chameleon, and is invisible to spiderman's "spider sense." The suit can also extend tendrils off of his body; these tendrils also have super-strength, so he'll do things like wrap someone's head up and squish it.

There's also a newer 'version' of the spiderman storyline called Ultimate Spiderman, in which Peter Parker is 15 and just getting his powers. In that storyline, Venom isn't an alien but a suit made by his dead father and Curt Conners (it was supposed to be a cancer treatment).

In both storylines Sandman is a dude made out of sand who can basically kick Spiderman's ass at any given time, unless Spiderman hits him with water from a firehose, or something.

BTW, I have to say this is the best teaser trailer i've ever seen (most are just spinning CG logos with dates). But seriously. 2007? Do they just have one animator, or something?
posted by ®@ at 5:20 PM on June 29, 2006


btw, Venom looks like this:

/

Also, Gwen Stacy (the blond girl) was Spiderman's girlfriend in high school, who is killed by the Green Goblin. He meets Mary Jane later (this has obviously been changed for the film).
posted by ®@ at 5:31 PM on June 29, 2006


Topher? Like Gopher? That is a silly name for a huge, ripped dude to have. Because:

Height: 6 ft. 3 in.
Weight: 260 lbs.
Eyes: Blue
Hair: Redish Blond [sic]

Needs someone who's a cross between Dolph Lundgren (too small/slim) and Schwarzenegger (too broad). Not someone I could take in a fist-fight. (Have I mentioned that Topher is a really silly name yet?)

The MJ/streetcar (sky-tram?) dilemma in the first movie was originally how Gwen Stacy died, IIRC.
posted by Eideteker at 5:38 PM on June 29, 2006


2007? Do they just have one animator, or something?

I would imagine they want a May (or early summer) release. They're not going to bury it in February. They save that box-office graveyard for inevitable flops like Daredevil and Ghost Rider.

Besides, what's the hurry? You and I and everyone else are going to pay whether they release it now or next week or in 2009. They might as well plot it into optimal position. It takes time to plan and execute a media campaign, and 2007 leaves plenty of time to arrange some magazine covers and to book Maguire or Dunst on SNL just prior to the film's release.
posted by cribcage at 5:43 PM on June 29, 2006


The MJ/streetcar (sky-tram?) dilemma in the first movie was originally how Gwen Stacy died...

I used to have that comic. It's been many, many years since I read it, but I don't recall the streetcar. I thought the Goblin just threw her off the building; Spidey grabbed her in mid-air with a web stream before she landed, but the snap of being jerked mid-fall broke her neck. Or at least, that's how I remember it.
posted by cribcage at 5:47 PM on June 29, 2006


"Topher", as in "Christopher" Eideteker. :) No, I have no idea why he just doesn't go by Chris or something.

Anyway, just because the actor playing Brock isn't quite a body builder doesn't mean that Venom won't have a bigger build. Most likely it will all be done in cg for Venom in the fourth movie, with Grace doing voiceovers. (and hopefully doing the Andy Serkis thing by wearing a green screen suit and being cg'd over. I think actors act better with another actor there, rather than a tennis ball on a stick)

And since they have the cg for it now, I'd like to see them use somthing more similar to the Ultimate Spider-man universe's take on Venom, ie something monsterous with a constantly changing and fluid shape, rather than muscled guy with a freaky big mouth and tongue.
posted by kosher_jenny at 7:44 PM on June 29, 2006


One link fpp, about a trailer that just out.. Oh China, you used to be cool, what happened?
posted by lundman at 8:36 PM on June 29, 2006


As long as we get to see Kraven's last hunt in 5 or 6, I'd be happy.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:14 PM on June 29, 2006


Sorry, but Sam Raimi is a hack. The first Spiderman film started out promising when Peter was first discovering his new powers, but all too quickly fast-forwarded to him being a web-swining virtuoso overnight. Even though Kirsten Dunst is a joy to look at, there was waaay too much bland love story filling up time. And the CG just wasn't very good, IMHO. Had I been in charge, the #1 visual theme to the CG would've been that Spidey is battling against gravity. But the digital one just zipped around like he was weightless.

Obviously, I must've missed that voice mail from the studio.

The second was marginally better, but I doubt I'll even bother with the third. I will give Raimi this--he's captured the essence of a 60's aw-shucks kind of comics mentality, but it was too campy and simplistic for me, more of a children's movie than anything. I thought Batman Begins was the most brilliant comic book adaptation since the first Superman, even surpassing it. That captured Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" very well. It's a shame that everyone I've ever recommended that movie to hasn't seen it--they all think it's just more Burton/Shumacher Dayglo-Broadway-showtunes silliness.
posted by zardoz at 1:09 AM on June 30, 2006




kosher_jenny, whyfore are you never on MetaChat/IRC anymore?

For the record, I'm not a webhead myself, but I thought part of the point was that Brock was intimidating before he got the costume. And didn't he get to the point where he could press 700 lbs. (sans costume) because of his childhood trauma? It seems pretty fundamental to the character is all I'm saying.
posted by Eideteker at 3:35 AM on June 30, 2006


Because MOV files make me want to puke...

Really? I think I would like to see that. Just because the idea of someone vomiting because they are not particularly fond of a video codec IS SO AWESOMELY CHILDISH that it would be a shame to miss that.

Will you also blame Steve Jobs for your parents not letting you smoke pot in their basement?
posted by grubi at 5:52 AM on June 30, 2006


Sorry, but Sam Raimi is a hack.

There's no accounting for taste. I think Raimi is a genius. Except for the disturbing bodily fluid aspect, I loved the first and second Spidey movies and can't wait for this one. I think the best comic book adaptations to film have been the Spidey films.

I thought Batman Begins was terrible and undermined the character of Batman.

I also thought the X-Men movies were too simple, emotional shallow, had Chuck play the damsel in distress too much, and should've obviously been called Wolverine and Others.
posted by effwerd at 7:46 AM on June 30, 2006


Will you also blame Steve Jobs for your parents not letting you smoke pot in their basement?

it's a terrible video codec. what's so hard to understand about that?
posted by jimmy at 9:19 AM on June 30, 2006


it's a terrible video codec. what's so hard to understand about that?

Actually, it's not a "terrible" video codec. I have thousands of videos, ranging from movies to commercials, in all sorts of codecs, so I've seen a great number from which to sample. Quicktime, when done correctly, looks terrific.

And on top of that, even if you don't like it, is that any reason to resort to a retarded hyperbole involving vomit? Jesus, some people are such children.

There's no accounting for taste.

Goes for video codecs, too, it would seem.
posted by grubi at 10:59 AM on June 30, 2006


And on top of that, even if you don't like it, is that any reason to resort to a retarded hyperbole involving vomit? Jesus, some people are such children.

A retarded hyperbole? Is that like "differently-abled?" Or were you just guilty of using an overused cliche'?

You've already learned to recognize exaggeration. That's a good first step. That puts you at least a year or two ahead of most seventh-graders. Now, the next trick is to learn when to ignore them. Or if you're feeling particularly clever, try and suss out the underlying meaning. Come on. I know you can do it.

The Sorenson wrapper is terrible because it requires megabytes of Apple libraries on your system to decode it properly. It's also terrible because most people wouldn't bother with just installing the codec and then using a player like VLC or MPC, but instead would resort to using the bundled, crippled, annoy-ware designed by someone in the same grade as yourself (you know, brushed metal, shiny buttons...)

MPEG-2, when done correctly, looks terrific. That, poor child, is not the fucking point.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:38 PM on June 30, 2006


I consider Spider-Man's 1 & 2 a couple of the best movies ever made. I also consider Venom one of the weakest concepts in bad guys ever made. So I don't know what to think.

For some, Sam Raimi's approach to Stan Lee's original invention jumped the shark before it started. For others, they will love Spider-Man 3 and any other Raimi Spidey films that come after this. He simply can do no wrong. I used to be one of those people, but...

Raimi chose to introduce Mary Jane before Gwen. Why? Why make Kirsten Dunst a redhead? Isn't she naturally a dirty blonde? They coulda just made her Gwen, kill her off in the third film by the Green Goblin (thus staying truer to the source material) and introduce Mary Jane in the fourth film, played by someone else. Hollywood can't just leave well enough alone. They can't tell the story the way it was originally intended. Even Mark Twain's works have suffered from this. Tom Sawyer's tale has been put to film several times but they never diligently fit the source material. They try to capture the essence of the source while bringing to it something more. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

caution: spoilage may be ahead, but if you've read down this far hopefully, like me, you enjoy wallowing in spoilage. If you don't, I don't understand you.

There were a lot of villains who went up against Spidey, long before Venom showed up. Decades of tales to tell before we have to bring in an alien parasite. As I understand the spoilage of Spider-Man 3, we start the film with conventional Spidey going up against Sandman. Somewhere in the course of the film, Jameson Jr comes back to Earth with an alien parasite that finds Parker, and the suit at first appears helpful, like in the original source material, but by the end of the film Spidey conquers Sandman but also has to conquer the villain that's wrapped itself around him, this leads us to the inevitable battle reserved for Spider-Man four. That'll probably be all Venom, and may introduce Carnage. So Hollywood has taken forty years of awesome story telling and distilled it down into three or four movies. By Spider-Man five they'll wonder why the franchise is dying, and it'll be staring them in the face. They won't be able to see their own folly. That's Hollywood for ya.

So I'm really not looking forward to Spider-Man 3. I fear it's jumped the shark. Yet I hope and pray to be proven wrong.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:37 PM on June 30, 2006


« Older Mathematical imagery by Jos Leys.   |   She was a boozer, a user and a loser. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post