Why the film is a travesty
kuei...@-remove-hotmail.com
angrier I get.
Take a work of genius, one that has had a cultish following for
decades, and deservedly so for its qualities, and then make a film
that precisely strips out those qualities.
Take situations and plotting that were intricately developed in the
orginal and either remove them or so distort them as to make them
unrecognizable.
Take characters and then cast either unknowns or eccentric choices to
portray them.
Take a work of of substance and try to render it into a movie
managable length.
Take a work where the sequence of events is so well known and then
rework them simply to fit into the constraints of a film's pacing.
It is a disservice to the work's creator and to the many fan, over the
generations.
I doubt that I will see it and I urge everyone to boycott it.
Finally, and the crowning insult, he know has the capacity to shoot
webs from his wrists rather than a device? Blasphemy!
If Stan Lee is not dead, this will put him in his grave and have him
spinning in it.
J M
<kueikutzu@-remove-hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cd7c99a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
John Brock
Heeheehee....! You caught me totally by surprise. Very nice!
Actually though I always thought the web shooter detracted from
the basic theme. If Peter Parker was smart enough to invent
something like that he should have been rich and powerful long
before that spider thing! (Think of the volume of webbing contained
in those tiny little devices!). I think it makes a lot more sense
just to include the webbing along with the whole "spider power"
package.
(BTW, don't you just *hate* it when you misspell a word right when
you are delivering your punch line?).
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
Xaonon
@yahoo.com> teithant i thiw hin:
Well, let me be the first:
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
"Saruman the White does not stand for this treatment. Showed Gandalf my
Wizard Wrestling Federation moves. Have delivered smackdown. Go me."
Russ
kueikutzu@-remove-hotmail.com writes:
LOL! You had me going there.
Russ
Xaonon
<jbr...@panix.com> teithant i thiw hin:
> In article <3cd7c99a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <kueikutzu@_remove_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This may be old news to some, but the more I continue to read, the
> > angrier I get.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Finally, and the crowning insult, he know has the capacity to shoot
> > webs from his wrists rather than a device? Blasphemy!
> >
> > If Stan Lee is not dead, this will put him in his grave and have him
> > spinning in it.
>
> Heeheehee....! You caught me totally by surprise. Very nice!
>
> Actually though I always thought the web shooter detracted from
> the basic theme. If Peter Parker was smart enough to invent
> something like that he should have been rich and powerful long
> before that spider thing! (Think of the volume of webbing contained
> in those tiny little devices!). I think it makes a lot more sense
> just to include the webbing along with the whole "spider power"
> package.
Yeah, but then there's no possibility of a convenient malfunction at an
important plot point.
Pradera
Użytkownik Xaonon <xao...@hotpop.com> w wiadomości do grup dyskusyjnych
napisał:Xns92069DAD...@128.113.100.15...
> Ned i bach <news:ab6kv1$o8i$1...@panix1.panix.com>, John Brock
> <jbr...@panix.com> teithant i thiw hin:
>
> > In article <3cd7c99a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> > <kueikutzu@_remove_hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > Actually though I always thought the web shooter detracted from
> > the basic theme. If Peter Parker was smart enough to invent
> > something like that he should have been rich and powerful long
> > before that spider thing! (Think of the volume of webbing contained
> > in those tiny little devices!). I think it makes a lot more sense
> > just to include the webbing along with the whole "spider power"
> > package.
>
> Yeah, but then there's no possibility of a convenient malfunction at an
> important plot point.
Nah, could be easily dealt with.
'Oh, I feel...my web force is weak today...must be weather...wonder if I
meet any big dangerous boss tonight. I hope not.'
--
Pradera
' I am known under many names... Pradera to some...
JK to others... in 1997, they called me Dorxter....
so yes, you can call me Pradera.'
Chris Applegate
> If Stan Lee is not dead, this will put him in his grave and have him
> spinning in it.
He's not dead. But he *is* working for DC.
CDA
John Brock
Pradera <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote:
>
>Użytkownik Xaonon <xao...@hotpop.com> w wiadomości do grup dyskusyjnych
>napisał:Xns92069DAD...@128.113.100.15...
>> Ned i bach <news:ab6kv1$o8i$1...@panix1.panix.com>, John Brock
>> <jbr...@panix.com> teithant i thiw hin:
>> > Actually though I always thought the web shooter detracted from
>> > the basic theme. If Peter Parker was smart enough to invent
>> > something like that he should have been rich and powerful long
>> > before that spider thing! (Think of the volume of webbing contained
>> > in those tiny little devices!). I think it makes a lot more sense
>> > just to include the webbing along with the whole "spider power"
>> > package.
>> Yeah, but then there's no possibility of a convenient malfunction at an
>> important plot point.
>Nah, could be easily dealt with.
>'Oh, I feel...my web force is weak today...must be weather...wonder if I
>meet any big dangerous boss tonight. I hope not.'
You don't even need that. Even real spiders will run out of silk
if they try to use too much too fast. But maybe Lee just thought
the idea of giving Parker spider glands in his wrists was a little
bit gross. (Maybe he was right!)
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
kuei...@-remove-hotmail.com
>
>Well, let me be the first:
>
>YHBT. YHL. HAND.
The number of twits who mistake satire or sarcasm or irony for
trolling certainly seems to have increased of late.
using the "s" for sarcasm or satire tag may become necessary. For
others it appears I will have write in REALLY BIG LETTERS AND
S*L*O*W*L*Y
Or type in crayon.
remove "-remove-" from address to make valid
Michael O'Neill
<snip>
Parker's a clone anyways, isn't he?
And what with Marvel's penchant for rewriting futures and pasts [X-men,
Avengers, Warlock {original series}], who'll notice if the sequencing is
a little remodelled?
*mheh*
M.
"Bring Back Gwen Stacey!"
Jette Goldie
"Pradera" <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote in message
news:ab6lqp$19lr$1...@pingwin.acn.pl...
>
> Użytkownik Xaonon <xao...@hotpop.com> w wiadomości do grup dyskusyjnych
> napisał:Xns92069DAD...@128.113.100.15...
> > Ned i bach <news:ab6kv1$o8i$1...@panix1.panix.com>, John Brock
> > <jbr...@panix.com> teithant i thiw hin:
> >
> > > In article <3cd7c99a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > <kueikutzu@_remove_hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Actually though I always thought the web shooter detracted from
> > > the basic theme. If Peter Parker was smart enough to invent
> > > something like that he should have been rich and powerful long
> > > before that spider thing! (Think of the volume of webbing contained
> > > in those tiny little devices!). I think it makes a lot more sense
> > > just to include the webbing along with the whole "spider power"
> > > package.
> >
> > Yeah, but then there's no possibility of a convenient malfunction at an
> > important plot point.
>
> Nah, could be easily dealt with.
> 'Oh, I feel...my web force is weak today...must be weather...wonder if I
> meet any big dangerous boss tonight. I hope not.'
hey, even the best spiders don't have unlimited supplies of webbing
at any one time!
--
Jette
(aka Vinyaduriel)
"Work for Peace and remain fiercely loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://bosslady.tripod.com/fanfic.html
Jette Goldie
<kueikutzu@-remove-hotmail.com> wrote
> Finally, and the crowning insult, he know has the capacity to shoot
> webs from his wrists rather than a device? Blasphemy!
Originally the intention of the =comic= was that the webs
were organic, part of his mutation, but it was felt (in the
climate of the times) that this was "unrealistic" <g> hence
the web-shooting devices.
the softrat
>Huh? Are you talking about Spiderman? This is just ridiculous.
>
ROTFLMAO!!!
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five.
David Flood
news:3CD6F1B9...@indigo.ie...
Let's just say that it's... complicated.
> And what with Marvel's penchant for rewriting futures and pasts [X-men,
> Avengers, Warlock {original series}], who'll notice if the sequencing is
> a little remodelled?
I wouldn't imagine Hollywood greatly cares.
D.
Alex Brands
> In article <ab6lqp$19lr$1...@pingwin.acn.pl>,
> Pradera <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote:
> >
> >napisa³:Xns92069DAD...@128.113.100.15...
> >> Ned i bach <news:ab6kv1$o8i$1...@panix1.panix.com>, John Brock
> >> <jbr...@panix.com> teithant i thiw hin:
>
> >> > Actually though I always thought the web shooter detracted from
> >> > the basic theme. If Peter Parker was smart enough to invent
> >> > something like that he should have been rich and powerful long
> >> > before that spider thing! (Think of the volume of webbing contained
> >> > in those tiny little devices!). I think it makes a lot more sense
> >> > just to include the webbing along with the whole "spider power"
> >> > package.
>
> >> Yeah, but then there's no possibility of a convenient malfunction at an
> >> important plot point.
>
> >Nah, could be easily dealt with.
> >'Oh, I feel...my web force is weak today...must be weather...wonder if I
> >meet any big dangerous boss tonight. I hope not.'
>
> You don't even need that. Even real spiders will run out of silk
> if they try to use too much too fast. But maybe Lee just thought
> the idea of giving Parker spider glands in his wrists was a little
> bit gross. (Maybe he was right!)
Or, more logically, he thought shooting webs out his backside was gross.
Alex Brands
>
> If Stan Lee is not dead, this will put him in his grave and have him
> spinning in it.
He's not dead, he's even in the movie.
kbrors
> Originally the intention of the =comic= was that the webs
> were organic, part of his mutation, but it was felt (in the
> climate of the times) that this was "unrealistic" <g> hence
> the web-shooting devices.
>
realistic in this one area???
Kirsten
Donald Shepherd
remove-hotmail.com (kueikutzu@-remove-hotmail.com) says...
> On 6 May 2002 19:19:12 GMT, Xaonon <xao...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Well, let me be the first:
> >
> >YHBT. YHL. HAND.
>
> The number of twits who mistake satire or sarcasm or irony for
> trolling certainly seems to have increased of late.
>
> using the "s" for sarcasm or satire tag may become necessary. For
> others it appears I will have write in REALLY BIG LETTERS AND
> S*L*O*W*L*Y
>
> Or type in crayon.
Sarcasm is a bit hard to pick up on in a text-only medium. Tags might
have to do, or smacking the user over the back of the head every time
they don't pick it up.
However, not picking up satire... well, that should be a hangable
offence.
--
*Dlanod*, *the* *Sparkly* *Nazgul*
Pimp of Morgoth, Worshipper of Arwen Lune, Rider of Ducks
"If Tolkien had meant for us to have a sense of humor, he would have told
us so." - Mark Reichart
Brian
Ummm.... get a clue? Stan was in the movie and thought it was a faithful
adaptation of his character. I would tend to think that his opinion does
carry some weight.
D.G. Porter
Yes, he plays Goodgulf.
D.G. Porter
Well, having read the first Spiderman comic wayyyyy back...
Basically he had these amazing augmenteed powers, such as the ability to
climb walls and crush metal pipes. But he didn't have spider-web
qualities. So he invented the device. He was a genius and a geek. His
happiest moment was when his grandparents gave him that microscope.
And he was a showman first, not a crimefighter. If he had stopped that
guy in the hallway his grandfather wouldn't have been killed. Realizing
that is what made him what he became.
D.G. Porter
>
> This may be old news to some, but the more I continue to read, the
> angrier I get.
>
> Take a work of genius, one that has had a cultish following for
> decades, and deservedly so for its qualities, and then make a film
> that precisely strips out those qualities.
>
> Take situations and plotting that were intricately developed in the
> orginal and either remove them or so distort them as to make them
> unrecognizable.
>
> Take characters and then cast either unknowns or eccentric choices to
> portray them.
>
> Take a work of of substance and try to render it into a movie
> managable length.
>
> Take a work where the sequence of events is so well known and then
> rework them simply to fit into the constraints of a film's pacing.
>
> It is a disservice to the work's creator and to the many fan, over the
> generations.
>
> I doubt that I will see it and I urge everyone to boycott it.
<sputter!> "Damn you, Louis Epstein, damn you all to hell!"
> Finally, and the crowning insult, he know has the capacity to shoot
> webs from his wrists rather than a device? Blasphemy!
Yeah, but how about if he shoots them from his butt?
> If Stan Lee is not dead, this will put him in his grave and have him
> spinning in it.
LOL!
the softrat
<donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>However, not picking up satire... well, that should be a hangable
>offence.
>
else.
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Can I speak to someone higher up the food-chain please?
the softrat
wrote:
>
>Ummm.... get a clue? Stan was in the movie and thought it was a faithful
>adaptation of his character. I would tend to think that his opinion does
>carry some weight.
>
It's not like he is Scott Adams or Gary Larsen!
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
If someone annoys you, it takes 42 muscles to frown, but it only
takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and whack them in the head.
kuei...@-remove-hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Mon, 6 May 2002 15:01:20 -0400, "J M" <joel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Huh? Are you talking about Spiderman? This is just ridiculous.
>>
>ROTFLMAO!!!
>
>the softrat "He who rubs owls"
>mailto:sof...@pobox.com
Thankee, thankee. I aim to please. Which made me rather dangerous on
the firing range.
--
Sindamor Pandaturion
[remove -remove- to reply]
geoffrey kimbrough
> <kueikutzu@-remove-hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > If Stan Lee is not dead, this will put him in his grave and have him
> > spinning in it.
>
> Ummm.... get a clue?
A call for Brian on the Cluephone: Kutzu was joking.
Donald Shepherd
(sof...@pobox.com) says...
> On Tue, 7 May 2002 09:58:12 +1000, Donald Shepherd
> <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >However, not picking up satire... well, that should be a hangable
> >offence.
> >
> I tried to pick up satire, but she turned me down, just like everyone
> else.
I tried to pick her up as well, but strained my back.
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_...@hotmail.com>
The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they'll be when you
kill them.
kuei...@-remove-hotmail.com
<donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <66aedugl23sk7g8g4...@4ax.com>, the softrat
>(sof...@pobox.com) says...
>> On Tue, 7 May 2002 09:58:12 +1000, Donald Shepherd
>> <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >However, not picking up satire... well, that should be a hangable
>> >offence.
>> >
>> I tried to pick up satire, but she turned me down, just like everyone
>> else.
>
>I tried to pick her up as well, but strained my back.
Well, I picked up satire, but she turned out to be her evil twin,
Irony, and then she turned in AMBROSE BIERCE!!!!!!!!
Then I woke up.
That's why they call me Buddha.
<j/k>
kuei...@-remove-hotmail.com
Is he the one with Moxie?
Xaonon
remove-hotmail.com> teithant i thiw hin:
> On Tue, 7 May 2002 14:01:08 +1000, Donald Shepherd
> <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <66aedugl23sk7g8g4...@4ax.com>, the softrat
> >(sof...@pobox.com) says...
> >
> > > On Tue, 7 May 2002 09:58:12 +1000, Donald Shepherd
> > > <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > However, not picking up satire... well, that should be a hangable
> > > > offence.
> > >
> > > I tried to pick up satire, but she turned me down, just like everyone
> > > else.
> >
> > I tried to pick her up as well, but strained my back.
>
> Well, I picked up satire, but she turned out to be her evil twin,
> Irony, and then she turned in AMBROSE BIERCE!!!!!!!!
Satire? But I hardly know 'er!
Troels Forchhammer
news:unvddusrupd4bkb2l...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 May 2002 15:01:20 -0400, "J M" <joel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Huh? Are you talking about Spiderman? This is just ridiculous.
> >
> ROTFLMAO!!!
Ditto (hee hee).
> A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five.
I'm not five - but some (with an evilly twisted mind ;-) would claim
that my sense of humour is reminiscent of that age ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to t.f...@mail.dk
A- "What're quantum mechanics?"
- "I don't know. People who repair quantums, I suppose."
-- (Terry Pratchett, Eric)
John Savard
in part:
>Huh? Are you talking about Spiderman?
Well, you see, the post is a joke. We are to think he is talking about
LotR until the surprise ending.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Celaeno
>hey, even the best spiders don't have unlimited supplies of webbing
>at any one time!
Spiders don't even *have* webbing supplies. What they have is liquid,
and if they didn't spin it out with their legs as they squirt it out,
they wouldn't even get proper strands to weave with (spiders really
did invent weaving - I once read people learned to make cloth by
looking at cobwebs)..
Considering the time an average spider spends making its net, I bet
they'd be too glad to use the Spiderman(tm) wrist method and get all
their work done in a split second.
Oh, and has anyone ever seen webs made by spiders on drugs?
Cel
the sound of three hands clapping
Jay Random
Celaeno wrote:
>
> (spiders really
> did invent weaving - I once read people learned to make cloth by
> looking at cobwebs)..
DBEYR. There is zero evidence of how people actually learnt to make
cloth, as it was invented long before the invention of written records
-- so long ago that not even oral traditions on that subject have
survived. Yes, it's a plausible hypothesis, but a completely unsupported
one.
Jim Webster
Bev Brandt
> Oh, and has anyone ever seen webs made by spiders on drugs?
>
>
> Cel
> the sound of three hands clapping
Yanno...Usenet and the internet are wonderful tools. Daily, I am
amazed and the information I can glean from a few clicks of the mouse.
I meander about aft and other newsgroups - sometimes posting, most
times lurking and always, ALWAYS learning.
So. I put "webs made by spiders on drugs" into Google.
First hit: http://www.cannabis.net/weblife.html
For the record, caffeine is my drug of choice and quite probably my
only chemical vice. I've been thinking about quitting the coffee and
tea for various reasons...
But then, I'm not a spider and web-spinning isn't vital to my family's
food supply.
Wow.
Bev
Celaeno
>
>
>Celaeno wrote:
>
>> (spiders really did invent weaving - I once read people learned to
>> make cloth by looking at cobwebs)..
>
>
>DBEYR.
Unacronymize, please.
>There is zero evidence of how people actually learnt to make
>cloth, as it was invented long before the invention of written records
>-- so long ago that not even oral traditions on that subject have
>survived. Yes, it's a plausible hypothesis, but a completely unsupported
>one.
True, but you can't deny that spiders invented weaving before humans
did :)
I'm somewhat intrigued by this Spiderman movie. I think I'll see it
sometime.
Jay Random
Celaeno wrote:
> You will not evade me, Jay Random <jra...@bondwine.ca>:
>>
>>DBEYR.
>>
>
> Unacronymize, please.
Don't Believe Everything You Read.
Joy
> So. I put "webs made by spiders on drugs" into Google.
>
> First hit: http://www.cannabis.net/weblife.html
>
> For the record, caffeine is my drug of choice and quite probably my
> only chemical vice. I've been thinking about quitting the coffee and
> tea for various reasons...
Hmm, verrry interesting... but I always thought different types of
spiders made different types of webs - did these people who are
drugging up spiders make sure they were all the same species? Coz
those caffeinated-webs - although different from the rest, don't look
any different from those found in my garden, or anything out of the
ordinary, really. Hmmm, gonna do more research.
This NG is SO distracting.
Lizard
>Huh? Are you talking about Spiderman? This is just ridiculous.
>
>
Actually, I think his point is rather well made...
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Emilie Karr
>
> bbran...@hotmail.com (Bev Brandt) wrote:
> > So. I put "webs made by spiders on drugs" into Google.
> >
> > First hit: http://www.cannabis.net/weblife.html
> >
> spiders made different types of webs - did these people who are
> drugging up spiders make sure they were all the same species? Coz
> those caffeinated-webs - although different from the rest, don't look
> any different from those found in my garden, or anything out of the
> ordinary, really. Hmmm, gonna do more research.
>
http://www.pacsci.org/education/sow/brainpower/spider_caffeine.html
with this ref:
Spider web images originally appeared in A Spider's Web by Peter N.
Witt, Charles F. Reed and David B. Peakall. Copyright 1968 by
Springer-Verla
The book's real, though not at my library (apparently it doesn't
question the legality of spiders on drugs...the school does own a couple
copies, perhaps I'll go exploring on my lunchbreak) It was a scientific
experiment so I imagine they used the same spider species. It seems
that they're most sensitive to caffeine of all the drugs they tried, but
considering a spider's anatomy is rather different from a human's -
especially given that other drugs that affect humans more affected the
spiders less - I'm not sure if this means anything.
Except that Spiderman probably should forgo that cappuchino...
emilie
LeftyStL
"J M" <joel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uddko1o...@news.supernews.com...
> Huh? Are you talking about Spiderman? This is just ridiculous.
>
I think you missed the point. You see, you were supposed to think it was
about... oh never mind.
Bill Runge
Celaeno
S'ok. I don't, or I would have written "people learned to weave from
spiders" instead of "I read somewhere that..." :)
Bev Brandt
> Did a little more looking, found this page:
> http://www.pacsci.org/education/sow/brainpower/spider_caffeine.html
> with this ref:
> Spider web images originally appeared in A Spider's Web by Peter N.
> Witt, Charles F. Reed and David B. Peakall. Copyright 1968 by
> Springer-Verla
>
> The book's real, though not at my library (apparently it doesn't
> question the legality of spiders on drugs...the school does own a couple
> copies, perhaps I'll go exploring on my lunchbreak) It was a scientific
> experiment so I imagine they used the same spider species. It seems
> that they're most sensitive to caffeine of all the drugs they tried, but
> considering a spider's anatomy is rather different from a human's -
> especially given that other drugs that affect humans more affected the
> spiders less - I'm not sure if this means anything.
>
> Except that Spiderman probably should forgo that cappuchino...
>
> emilie
One of the web sites I read on this said that when the spiders were
given a sleeping pill, they nodded off before they even started a web.
All of this could've been helpful information for poor Sam, too.
Bev