The token "I didn't like Spider-man 2" thread (spoilers)
Phil7101
to come out of it smiling when it became apparent after half an hour that the
movie was going to be exactly the same as Superman 2 (hero gives up his
responsibility for love, discovers he's vulnerable, but becomes a superhero
again to fight the newly arrived supervillain(s)). I didn't really see how
Spidey "lost" his abilities here. So he decides he doesn't want to be
Spider-man, but why does this means he loses his strength, and can't even
shoulder-charge a door when he's trying to rescue the kid from the burning
building? At least in Superman 2 there was a Mcguffin device that removed his
powers.
Alfred Molina was ok, but he was no General Zod! (Since when was Dr.Octopus
a stooge of Harry Osborn anyway?) I appreciate that in Spider-man they're
trying to develop the villains as three dimensional characters, but sometimes
its just good to have someone who is totally one dimensional evil too. You just
need a good boo-hiss villain now and then. Having said that, James Franco was
pretty good, even if he appeared to be acting in his own private Shakespeare
drama.
And the whole thing was just WAAAY too corny for my tastes. I had to check
the end credits to make sure Steven Spielberg didn't direct it, because almost
every non-action scene appeared to be drenched in syrup. They just laid it on
way too thick, like the dream sequence with Uncle Ben, and Mary Jane seeing
Spidey unmasked at the end.
Oh yeah and I kept wanting Dylan Baker to start experimenting with some
lizard DNA and bust out as a surprise third act villain, but alas, he seemed to
be there just for fanboy purposes. Bruce Campbell was cool though.
So, I can't be the only one...chime in, please...
Morehits4u
>From: phil...@aol.comMI6 (Phil7101)
>Date: 7/2/04 10:04 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040702230446...@mb-m01.aol.com>
see the first one. A comic strip is a comic
strip. Last one I read...was Archie
and Veronica. I wonder what the average
age of the folks who are seeing the
movie. On second thought . it doesnt matter.
>
>
>
>
>
KalElFan
news:20040702230446...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> Yeah sorry to be the grouch, but it didn't work for me. I knew I wasn't going
> to come out of it smiling when it became apparent after half an hour that the
> movie was going to be exactly the same as Superman 2 (hero gives up his
> responsibility for love, discovers he's vulnerable, but becomes a superhero
> again to fight the newly arrived supervillain(s)). I didn't really see how
> Spidey "lost" his abilities here.
His meeting with that doctor suggested it was psychosomatic, which
fits with the Spider-Man and Marvel hero theme. IMO it's also better
than Superman willingly giving up his powers in Superman II, which
was a horrifically bad and selfish moral decision.
> At least in Superman 2 there was a Mcguffin device that removed his
> powers.
The problem, again, was that he voluntarily entered that "red sun"
chamber. But yes, it was exactly the same idea here, both in principle
and the way it ties in with the love story. They did the latter better
here as well, though, because they bypassed the various dogma that
led to that dreadful amnesia superkiss ending of Superman II.
> Alfred Molina was ok, but he was no General Zod!
Or three Kryptonian villains, I agree. But Doc Ock was a much better,
indeed spectacularly good villain, compared to what I expected when
they first announced that character. I can't imagine a better Spider-Man
villain... except maybe for his friend turned foe in the third one. :-) So
they're doing extremely well here too.
> (Since when was Dr.Octopus a stooge of Harry Osborn anyway?)
I've hardly read any Spider-Man comics and the ones I did read were
35 years ago, but Doc Ock was hardly a stooge here. He made the
deal to kill Spider-Man for the tritium, but that's it.
> And the whole thing was just WAAAY too corny for my tastes...
> They just laid it on way too thick, like the dream sequence with
> Uncle Ben...
You mean Pa Kent?
:-)
I didn't see a problem there at all. The movie had a good mix of
playing things straight, i.e., avoiding camp, then getting goofy like
the elevator scene and Raindrops one, then wearing its heart on
its sleeve with scenes like you mentioned. Here for example:
>... and Mary Jane seeing Spidey unmasked at the end.
I think that one was very appropriate, and again directly relevant
to the screw-up in Superman II. It also would have been a rehash
of the first Spider-Man ending if the romance hadn't progressed,
not to mention pretty stupid when all those train riders had seen
who he was in that great scene.
> So, I can't be the only one...chime in, please...
You're the only one. :-)
It's about as perfect a movie as they could make it. The biggest
problems with the thing have been off-screen, where the Tobey
Maguire problems just before production could have torpedoed
it, and now at the end here we've had Kirsten Dunst say in every
other interview that she's done after the third movie. As I said
in a post on another group yesterday:
"The first pre-requisite for the Lois Lane actress they hire for [that]
movie series should be "Can you say... "I'm signed for three, after
that we'll see"?" It's not difficult. You don't need to be an Oscar-
caliber actress. Especially when they're paying you seven figures."
On-screen, they aced this movie and IMO it's more deserving of
an Oscar than Return of the King was. I don't expect it to get one
though. I think there's a greater disdain for the comic book genre
(than there was for SF coming out of a literary tradition with LOTR),
and it's also a June rather than a December release, and there isn't
the same sense that the movie is owed it the way ROTK was after
the first two. It'll almost certainly be nominated for Best Picture
though, and if it were only facing first half of the year competition
I think it'd win. :-)
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalElFan [at] scifipi.com
http://moviescorecard.com
For Your Ice Only
news:2ko2n3F...@uni-berlin.de...
> His meeting with that doctor suggested it was psychosomatic, which
> fits with the Spider-Man and Marvel hero theme. IMO it's also better
> than Superman willingly giving up his powers in Superman II, which
> was a horrifically bad and selfish moral decision.
Superman II, as i'm sure you're aware, had a lot of problems, and sometimes
I wonder if i'm seeing footage Dick Donner shot or Richard Lester. I need a
score and several versions of the script in front of me to keep track of
whose work i'm actually viewing. However, I still love Superman II, if only
Terence Stamp and Sarah Douglas' stand out performances. So many great
lines.
But it seems to me that the third film in these series always seem to be the
one where things begin to go downhill i.e. Batman Forever, Superman III,
with the fourth entry confirming what the third entry merely foreshadowed.
In this case, with Spider-Man, it won't happen because Columbia cares for
their arachnid in a way Warner Brothers never has for Batman and Superman.
Columbia won't allow Spider-Man to be reduced to camp, or get bogged down in
stunt casting.
> The problem, again, was that he voluntarily entered that "red sun"
> chamber. But yes, it was exactly the same idea here, both in principle
> and the way it ties in with the love story. They did the latter better
> here as well, though, because they bypassed the various dogma that
> led to that dreadful amnesia superkiss ending of Superman II.
I saw the film when I was 10, and on the way home we were all complaining
about how it wasn't possible for him to be Superman again after his mother
told him there was no going back. It felt like the ending was a cop out.
Now, after having read about the problems between the Salkinds, Donner and
Warner Brothers, I understand why the films ending felt tacked on.
But Spider-Man was different. It didn't entirely follow the Superman II
formula. Parker didn't put the burden on Mary Jane of her being the one that
caused him to give up his secret identity, like Lois Lane was dumped with.
And it was entirely appropriate and fitting that Mary Jane ended up with
Peter in the end (I was worried that Raimi was going to reveal it to be a
dream sequence, but he seems entirely too honorable and noble to rip his
audience off like that.). I also liked her little speech at the end, telling
Peter that if he loves her and trusts her, he should allow her to decide
what risks she's willing to take (something that Lois Lane never got a
chance to say or do).
> Or three Kryptonian villains, I agree. But Doc Ock was a much better,
> indeed spectacularly good villain, compared to what I expected when
> they first announced that character. I can't imagine a better Spider-Man
> villain... except maybe for his friend turned foe in the third one. :-)
So
> they're doing extremely well here too.
I'd like to see The Vulture. I always thought veteran character actor Phil
Leeds (old dead guy in Ghost, Judge "Happy" on Ally McBeal) would've made a
good Vulture, but since he's dead now I suppose he's out of the casting
consideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ICEBREAKER
"You cannot give these sort of clothes to the poor! They have enough to
contend with darling, without the added humiliation of wearing last season!"
Tweek
shouting "I'm back!" Then his web fails, he falls and gets up groaning "my
back, my back!" Actual humor!
Phil7101
>His meeting with that doctor suggested it was psychosomatic, which
>fits with the Spider-Man and Marvel hero theme. IMO it's also better
>than Superman willingly giving up his powers in Superman II, which
>was a horrifically bad and selfish moral decision.
Yeah I got the psychosomatic bit, but I really felt that this was contradicted
in the scene where Peter saves the kid in the burning building. He needs his
powers then, so why can't he get them back, if he's literally struggling to get
out alive.
>> At least in Superman 2 there was a Mcguffin device that removed his
>> powers.
>The problem, again, was that he voluntarily entered that "red sun"
>chamber. But yes, it was exactly the same idea here, both in principle
>and the way it ties in with the love story. They did the latter better
>here as well, though, because they bypassed the various dogma that
>led to that dreadful amnesia superkiss ending of Superman II.
Well if you say so. Speaking of the Superman comparisons though, everything
about it was just so much more memorable. General Zod for example, what a
classic badass uber-villain. I still remember all his cool quotes some 25 years
later : "Kneel before Zod", "These humans are beginning to bore me", "I like
the globe that flashes red like our Krypton Sun. Make way", etc etc. Classic
stuff. Now where are Dr.Octopus' memorable lines? Honestly, less than 24 hours
after seeing the movie, I can't remember one solitary line of dialogue from
him. For all the talk of character development and three-dimensional roles, he
was still a generic Mad Scientist character. And this just occurred to me, but
where is the great Spider-Man theme/score? Remember the classic Superman theme?
Of course. But again, I don't remember any of the music from either of the two
Spider-man films. These might seem like minor criticisms for some, but
sometimes its the little things that turn a decent movie into a good one.
>> And the whole thing was just WAAAY too corny for my tastes...
>> They just laid it on way too thick, like the dream sequence with
>> Uncle Ben...
>
>You mean Pa Kent?
Sure, why not. And I didn't even mention the subway scene bit. "If you want to
get him, you'll have to go through me - And me! - And me!- Me too!- -I'm
Spartacus!", etc etc. Look, I've got several hundred Spidey comics lying around
somewhere. I know there is a good deal of cornball that's inherent to this
material. But, Sam Raimi, COME ON!!!!
>> So, I can't be the only one...chime in, please...
>
>You're the only one. :-)
Well I found at least one other (See Sig.)
---------------------
"Nothing jazzes up a superhero movie like depressing scenes of an old woman
trying to make her mortgage payments" - Jimmy Kimmel
Cernovog
(in message <20040702230446...@mb-m01.aol.com>):
> So, I can't be the only one...chime in, please...
No, you're alone in this one. This movie surpassed the original in every way
-- more action, more drama, more depth and complexity to the story, more
character development.
I'm sure there are people who don't like this kind of movie. They simply have
no interest in the genre. The question is, why the heck did you go see it?
What were you looking for?
Put your brain back on ice and go back to watching wrestling.
deer...@mindspring.com
Phil7101 wrote:
>
> >His meeting wit
>
> Well if you say so. Speaking of the Superman comparisons though, everything
> about it was just so much more memorable. General Zod for example, what a
> classic badass uber-villain. I still remember all his cool quotes some 25 years
> later : "Kneel before Zod", "These humans are beginning to bore me", "I like
> the globe that flashes red like our Krypton Sun. Make way", etc etc. Classic
> stuff. <
True. Terence Stamp (and Sarah Douglas) were inspired casting here.
("He cares about these humans." "Like pets?") _And_ you had Lex
Luther, who was arguably more entertaining (and villianous) as a Zod
foil than he was as a major villian in the first SUPERMAN. ("`Bow,
yield kneel.' That kinda stuff closes outta town." g!) This movie is
a model of how to handle the many-villian problem without bogging
down the story. Though, it if came down to a competition between
this and BATMAN RETURNS in terms of great villian performances and
number of good lines, that would be a tough call--:).
>
> Sure, why not. And I didn't even mention the subway scene bit. "If you want to
> get him, you'll have to go through me - And me! - And me!- Me too!- -I'm
> Spartacus!", etc etc. Look, I've got several hundred Spidey comics lying around
> somewhere. I know there is a good deal of cornball that's inherent to this
> material. But, Sam Raimi, COME ON!!!!
I forgot what recent graphic novel/comic series it was (I want to
say X-MEN, but I'm not sure), but they did the definitive take-down
of this kind of scene. Bad-Ass Supervillian about to start
devastating NYC gets confronted by Rebellious Human Guy (who
previously shot his mouth off before to BAS, but got spared) and a
batch of Average Valiant Citizens. RHG hollers that "If you want to
do whatever, you have to go through us." Villian shrugs; kills him
and the AVC, and moves on without missing a beat. And it's even
funnier because it's handled as a throwaway, "that's what you get
for pushing your luck with _no_ props, fool" moment--g!
C.
**
Morehits4u
>From: Cernovog cern...@mail.com
>Date: 7/3/04 6:04 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <01HW.BD0CB3BE0...@news.localnet.com>
Genre .. are wrestling fans ?? Uh just
what izzz the genre ? Comic Books on
the screen ? Wow what a genre.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dougie Roberts
"Tweek" <fuc...@spammers.com> wrote in message
news:XTCFc.31085$_V4....@read1.cgocable.net...
> I loved when he decided to be Spider Man again, was swinging and joyfully
> shouting "I'm back!" Then his web fails, he falls and gets up groaning "my
> back, my back!"
It is well known that Tobey MacGuire was reluctant to do the sequel because
of back problems. (Some have said this was just a negotiating tactic to get
more money... mmm, could be). Anyway, when the movie had the sequence where
Peter Parker was saying "My back! My back!", I couldn't help but wonder if
that was a bit of an inside joke.
DevilThorn
>On-screen, they aced this movie and IMO it's more deserving of
>an Oscar than Return of the King was.
you are absolutely nuts.
>It'll almost certainly be nominated for Best Picture
>though, and if it were only facing first half of the year competition
>I think it'd win. :-)
i'll be shocked if it's even nominated. it certainly doesn't deserve it, so
there better be an extremely weak field for it to even be considered.
"In Christianity, neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality
at any point." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Death Adder
> >be there just for fanboy purposes. Bruce Campbell was cool though.
> > So, I can't be the only one...chime in, please...
> >
> > You are not the only one....Hell I didnt
> see the first one. A comic strip is a comic
> strip. Last one I read...was Archie
> and Veronica. I wonder what the average
> age of the folks who are seeing the
> movie. On second thought . it doesnt matter.
For someone who writes like you do, you have no business criticizing
comic book fans. BTW, there is a difference between comic books and
comic strips. And if the last comic you read was Archie and Veronica,
you probably have no business commenting on anything comic-related
whatsoever. If I thought you were literate enough to appreciate them,
I'd recommend you go to a local comic shop and look up stuff by Alan
Moore or Neil Gaiman, but you probably wouldn't get it.
Phil7101
>No, you're alone in this one. This movie surpassed the original in every way
>-- more action, more drama, more depth and complexity to the story, more
>character development.
>
>I'm sure there are people who don't like this kind of movie. They simply have
>
>no interest in the genre. The question is, why the heck did you go see it?
>What were you looking for?
>
>Put your brain back on ice and go back to watching wrestling.
Ah, good old fanboys, always ready to fly off the handle whenever anybody comes
along to criticize their widdle movies. I myself am something of a former
fanboy though, I read 3 Spider-man comics every month for about a five year
period, plus God knows how many guest appearances, specials and back issues I
picked up, so I think I'm qualified to give an opinion on this movie, both as a
Spider-man fan and as a movie fan. I didn't like it.
Death Adder
>
> >No, you're alone in this one. This movie surpassed the original in every way
> >-- more action, more drama, more depth and complexity to the story, more
> >character development.
> >
> >I'm sure there are people who don't like this kind of movie. They simply have
> >
> >no interest in the genre. The question is, why the heck did you go see it?
> >What were you looking for?
> >
> >Put your brain back on ice and go back to watching wrestling.
>
> Ah, good old fanboys, always ready to fly off the handle whenever anybody comes
> along to criticize their widdle movies. I myself am something of a former
> fanboy though, I read 3 Spider-man comics every month for about a five year
> period, plus God knows how many guest appearances, specials and back issues I
> picked up, so I think I'm qualified to give an opinion on this movie, both as a
> Spider-man fan and as a movie fan. I didn't like it.
I thought the first film was way too hokey and I suspect from all I've
read that the current movie is going to be the same. Though I always
liked Marvel comics as a teenager (much more than DC), it always seemed
that Spider-Man was to Marvel what Superman was to DC, i.e. a touchstone
character intended to appeal to the widest possible audience, which
meant that the storylines tended to take less risks and be less
innovative than the less well-known titles (Dr. Strange, Silver Surfer,
etc.) My favorite Marvel comic may be the mid-1970s run of "Man-Thing,"
written by Steve Gerber (who also created Howard the Duck), and an
early-'90s period of "Dr. Strange" illustrated by Marshall Rogers.
Oswald
> So, I can't be the only one...chime in, please...
On 04 Jul 2004 01:39:17 GMT, phil...@aol.comMI6 (Phil7101) wrote:
> Ah, good old fanboys, always ready to fly off the handle whenever anybody comes
> along to criticize their widdle movies.
So, the gist of this thread: everyone who's with you in hating Spiderman 2
should speak up, anyone who happens to like it should piss off. Correct?
Me, I liked it a lot. I'm not sure I'd say it's as good a movie as some
people are saying, as usual, but I thought it was the best superhero movie I'd
seen (and want to see again) since the first Batman.
One (very minor) problem I had with it: I don't have a short attention span,
and I generally liked the drama as much as the action, but there was a point
about 1/3 through the movie (I think it was after Peter's birthday 'party',
not sure), when we came back to a scene with Doc Ock and I actually jumped in
surprise because I'd forgotten about the "other" thread of the movie.
Could've been intentional; after all, that's certainly one way to maximise the
bang for your supervillain buck: make the audience forget about him, then
throw him back on the screen in full-on evil mode fifteen minutes later.
Let's see, what didn't I like? Casting, to some degree. I'd take Lana Lang
[O'Toole] or Lois Lane [Kidder] over Mary Jane [Dunst] anyday; pretty as she
is, as good-looking when wet as she is, I'm afraid I couldn't help thinking
how smart MJ *didn't* look whenever she was onscreen. Then, the actor playing
Harry Osborn was perfectly capable of portraying a spoiled rich kid, but he
failed to generate any kind of menace or threat as far as I could see.
Lacking a crony to do his dirty work, he seemed like more of a threat to cry
hot, wet, angry tears than actually harm Peter or Spider-man.
Anyway, that's my two cents, and now I'll piss off. Back to the hating!
- O.
Oswald
wrote:
> [...] I thought it was the best superhero movie I'd seen (and want to see
> again) since the first Batman.
Um, slight correction, before someone calls me on it: I was talking about the
first "serious" Batman (1989). Nothing against Batman (1966), mind you, but
it's not quite the same kind of movie...
- O.
Phil7101
>
>On 04 Jul 2004 01:39:17 GMT, phil...@aol.comMI6 (Phil7101) wrote:
>
>> Ah, good old fanboys, always ready to fly off the handle whenever anybody
>comes
>> along to criticize their widdle movies.
>
>So, the gist of this thread: everyone who's with you in hating Spiderman 2
>should speak up, anyone who happens to like it should piss off. Correct?
Not at all. I'm interested in debating this kind of thing. Kal El Fan's post
for example was perfectly reasonable and I responded to it. I'm just not really
interested in those people who get weird and defensive and throw grade school
insults around over something as trivial as a movie.
Nick Macpherson
>On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:04:46 -0400, Phil7101 wrote
>(in message <20040702230446...@mb-m01.aol.com>):
>
>> So, I can't be the only one...chime in, please...
>No, you're alone in this one. This movie surpassed the original in every way
>-- more action, more drama, more depth and complexity to the story, more
>character development.
I was disappointed as well. The movie was predictable and lacking in tension.
There's nothing in Spider-Man 2 to hate. Raimi plays it too safe to risk any
Joel Schumacher-ish meltdown with the material. But I never cared about Peter
Parker's relationship with Mary Jane and thought Kirsten Dunst seemed too vague
and disinterested and her character too flighty and self-absorbed to carry the
weight of a movie. If I was Parker, I would've went for his landlord's
daughter. And wanting to create spontaneous fusion or whatever it was that Doc
Ock was up to didn't seem like much of a motivation for a supervillain. It was
a lot simpler back and made more sense when comic book villains only wanted to
rob banks.
The audience I saw it with didn't warm to it much either, but then after
Fahrenheit 9/11 with all the cheering and applause when Neil Young kicks into
the end credits, any response to Spider-Man 2 would seem anti-climactic.
>Put your brain back on ice and go back to watching wrestling.
If I want to watch wrestling I'll watch the first Spider-Man movie again and
there really ought to be a moratorium on people snidely attacking detractors of
a movie because they think anyone who doesn't like a movie they like has to be
a moron (usually it goes something like, "anyone who doesn't like movie such
and such should go back to watching Van Damme movies"). This is the X-Men all
over again. The first movie is wonderful but the fanboys and even critics are
so fired up and in awe of the talent involved that they automatically over-rate
the more routine sequel.
somedude
Don't forget the 1940s movie serial!
Ian Galbraith
:
:>His meeting with that doctor suggested it was psychosomatic, which
:>fits with the Spider-Man and Marvel hero theme. IMO it's also better
:>than Superman willingly giving up his powers in Superman II, which
:>was a horrifically bad and selfish moral decision.
:Yeah I got the psychosomatic bit, but I really felt that this was contradicted
:in the scene where Peter saves the kid in the burning building. He needs his
:powers then, so why can't he get them back, if he's literally struggling to get
:out alive.
IMHO he did have them for that moment when he just had to save the
child, but then he got shot down again with the news of the other guy
dying.
[snip]
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
:I thought the first film was way too hokey and I suspect from all I've
:read that the current movie is going to be the same. Though I always
:liked Marvel comics as a teenager (much more than DC), it always seemed
:that Spider-Man was to Marvel what Superman was to DC, i.e. a touchstone
:character intended to appeal to the widest possible audience, which
:meant that the storylines tended to take less risks
When Stan Lee was writing it it took plenty of risks, it was innovative
at the time because it dared to have a super hero with real problems.
[snip]
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
:One (very minor) problem I had with it: I don't have a short attention span,
:and I generally liked the drama as much as the action, but there was a point
:about 1/3 through the movie (I think it was after Peter's birthday 'party',
:not sure), when we came back to a scene with Doc Ock and I actually jumped in
:surprise because I'd forgotten about the "other" thread of the movie.
:Could've been intentional; after all, that's certainly one way to maximise the
:bang for your supervillain buck: make the audience forget about him, then
:throw him back on the screen in full-on evil mode fifteen minutes later.
I actually think that shows the strength of the film, that the non
spider-man sub plots were strong.
:Let's see, what didn't I like? Casting, to some degree. I'd take Lana Lang
:[O'Toole] or Lois Lane [Kidder] over Mary Jane [Dunst] anyday; pretty as she
Not Margot Kidder, who was the worst possible choice as Lois Lane.
:is, as good-looking when wet as she is, I'm afraid I couldn't help thinking
:how smart MJ *didn't* look whenever she was onscreen. Then, the actor playing
:Harry Osborn was perfectly capable of portraying a spoiled rich kid, but he
:failed to generate any kind of menace or threat as far as I could see.
:Lacking a crony to do his dirty work, he seemed like more of a threat to cry
:hot, wet, angry tears than actually harm Peter or Spider-man.
I thought Franco was pretty good actually, he's got a great screen
presence.
[snip]
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----
E Brown
wrote:
>When Stan Lee was writing it it took plenty of risks, it was innovative
>at the time because it dared to have a super hero with real problems.
When Stan Lee was writing it, Steve Ditko was writing it.
Emanuel
--
"All everybody wants is a normal life and a cool car...
most people settle for the car." Chris Titus
1983 Porsche 911/944/928
deer...@mindspring.com
Ian Galbraith wrote:
>
> :Let's see, what didn't I like? Casting, to some degree. I'd take Lana Lang
> :[O'Toole] or Lois Lane [Kidder] over Mary Jane [Dunst] anyday; pretty as she
>
> Not Margot Kidder, who was the worst possible choice as Lois Lane.
I've never been able to figure whether it was Kidder's performance
or the writing was at fault. Scripters still have a tough time
writing career women who aren't bitchy, and they were just having to
start doing so when this movie was done. However, Kidder was much
better in S II because more was at stake for her character and she
had to do more than snipe at Superman.
> :is, as good-looking when wet as she is, I'm afraid I couldn't help thinking
> :how smart MJ *didn't* look whenever she was onscreen. Then, the actor playing
> :Harry Osborn was perfectly capable of portraying a spoiled rich kid, but he
> :failed to generate any kind of menace or threat as far as I could see.
> :Lacking a crony to do his dirty work, he seemed like more of a threat to cry
> :hot, wet, angry tears than actually harm Peter or Spider-man.
>
> I thought Franco was pretty good actually, he's got a great screen
> presence.
He's terrific at playing petulance and general weasel-ness--g! The
trick will come when he has to curdle/expand that into full-fledged
hatred/evil.
C.
**
Ian Galbraith
:dOn Mon, 05 Jul 2004 03:05:09 GMT, Ian Galbraith <m...@privacy.net>
:wrote:
:>When Stan Lee was writing it it took plenty of risks, it was innovative
:>at the time because it dared to have a super hero with real problems.
: When Stan Lee was writing it, Steve Ditko was writing it.
Even after Ditko left?
Slink Dickens
that those who are critical of the film are those that really hoped
for this movie to be more than a movie based on a comic book. When
critiquing a movie like this, you have to consider the source
material.
So, Raimi tried to interject some real life conflict that people
without superhuman powers can relate to who. Just like Spidey's
abilities are to Peter Parker, Raimi's efforts are both his blessing
and his curse. On the one hand, it makes the movie more than a
teeny-bopper's fantasy. On the other hand, if you want to stay
somewhat close to the source material, you can't get to heavy. So, you
end up with romantic conflicts about as deep as heat between Slater
and Jessie on Saved by the Bell (okay, not that bad..)
I watched this movie not to long after seeing Farenheit 9/11. I think
Farenheit filled me with a need for some escapism and Spiderman filled
it. It was nice to see a movie with fake violence and some cheesy
moments. That's what comic books (and comic book movies) are for.
Oswald
>From: Oswald oswald_t...@hotmail.com
>>So, the gist of this thread: everyone who's with you in hating Spiderman 2
>>should speak up, anyone who happens to like it should piss off. Correct?
>
>Not at all. I'm interested in debating this kind of thing. Kal El Fan's post
>for example was perfectly reasonable and I responded to it. I'm just not really
>interested in those people who get weird and defensive and throw grade school
>insults around over something as trivial as a movie.
Despite your literate message and use of capitals and punctuation, I'm afraid
I mistook you for a certain "other" poster whose nickname (well, the name of
one of his many sock-puppets) superficially resembles yours.
My apologies, Phil; you didn't deserve that snide remark.
- O.
~consul
>>His meeting with that doctor suggested it was psychosomatic, which
>>fits with the Spider-Man and Marvel hero theme. IMO it's also better
>>than Superman willingly giving up his powers in Superman II, which
>>was a horrifically bad and selfish moral decision.
> Yeah I got the psychosomatic bit, but I really felt that this was contradicted
> in the scene where Peter saves the kid in the burning building. He needs his
> powers then, so why can't he get them back, if he's literally struggling to get
> out alive.
It's not in the movies, but why not meta it by saying the radiation from the Fusion
experiment messed him up for a bit?
> stuff. Now where are Dr.Octopus' memorable lines? Honestly, less than 24 hours
> after seeing the movie, I can't remember one solitary line of dialogue from
> him. For all the talk of character development and three-dimensional roles, he
> was still a generic Mad Scientist character.
"Parker ... brilliant, but Lazy." I liked it. :)
> And this just occurred to me, but
> where is the great Spider-Man theme/score? Remember the classic Superman theme?
> Of course. But again, I don't remember any of the music from either of the two
> Spider-man films. These might seem like minor criticisms for some, but
> sometimes its the little things that turn a decent movie into a good one.
They had that annoying asian women. :(
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
deer...@mindspring.com
Nick Macpherson wrote:
>
> I was disappointed as well. The movie was predictable and lacking in tension.
Huh? In what way? Peter's dilemma felt real and involving to me--a
classic case of no good intention/effort goes unpunished--g! Come
on--here's a guy who was regarded as a loser before he got his
powers; now with his powers, he's striking out even worse than
before--consistently disappointing people he cares about. He can't
seem to do the right thing no matter how hard he tries--and there's
a lot more at stake this time not only in terms of his personal
life, but for everyone he tries to protect. The suspense here wasn't
about grand heroics or stopping Doc Ock as much as how Peter can
come to terms with his responsibility (and guilt) before they wreck
his life.
> There's nothing in Spider-Man 2 to hate. Raimi plays it too safe to risk any
> Joel Schumacher-ish meltdown with the material. But I never cared about Peter
> Parker's relationship with Mary Jane and thought Kirsten Dunst seemed too vague
> and disinterested and her character too flighty and self-absorbed to carry the
> weight of a movie.
What exactly was her character supposed to do here? She's had to
settle for being a friend to someone she loves, and not only is she
having to still sruggle with that latter emotion, Peter isn't being
much of a friend. She's stuck with a second-best situation--and
she's not even getting second-best. And she knows down deep he's
keeping _something_ from her, and it hurts he doesn't trust her
enough to reveal what it is. Given that her character was used to
shutting down when she got grief (from her father), I thought Dunst
played MJ's hurt and defensive withdrawal perfectly.
> If I was Parker, I would've went for his landlord's
> daughter.
Typical guy reaction--g! When a relationship threatens your
boundaries, go for someone "easier" or who won't call you out on
your withdrawal. What would have been helped by Peter going after
another girl? The same problem he had with MJ would still be there.
> And wanting to create spontaneous fusion or whatever it was that Doc
> Ock was up to didn't seem like much of a motivation for a supervillain. It was
> a lot simpler back and made more sense when comic book villains only wanted to
> rob banks.
Yeah, that was a bit weak. The writing should have pointed up more
that Doc had lost so much over his experiement he was hellbent on
making it work--he couldn't deal with failure, and he had failed
big. But Molina's performance was good enough to overlook that.
C.
**
A.E. Jabbour
>
> I watched this movie not to long after seeing Farenheit 9/11. I think
> Farenheit filled me with a need for some escapism and Spiderman filled
> it. It was nice to see a movie with fake violence and some cheesy
> moments. That's what comic books (and comic book movies) are for.
I also saw this soon after seeing FARENHEIT 9/11, and I was really
impressed and excited by this sequel.
As I said in another thread, I did not like the first SPIDERMAN at
all. I thought it was dull and paper-thin. But this one had me from
the really cool title/credit sequence onwards.
I was actually somewhat amazed at just how much they managed to
pack into the film. It was funny, it was touching, it had big
heroic moments, it had small personal moments, all the characters
developed throughout the film, and the action sequences were, at
least to me, pretty damned fun. There was a ton of plot, too.
I never read the comic, and I only vaguely remember liking the
animated series as a kid. So, I had no preconceptions to be shot
down, which might have made me an easier "target" for the film.
But, honestly, I haven't had that much *fun* in a theatre for a
long time.
It's just plain and simple a good, well-made film.
--
A.E. Jabbour
"Dancer in the Dark" is one of the most sadistic
films I've ever seen, but it also raises the
possibility that sadism might be, in spite of itself,
a species of love." - A.O. Scott
KalElFan
> Superman II, as i'm sure you're aware, had a lot of problems, and sometimes
> I wonder if i'm seeing footage Dick Donner shot or Richard Lester. I need a
> score and several versions of the script in front of me to keep track of
> whose work i'm actually viewing. However, I still love Superman II, if only
> Terence Stamp and Sarah Douglas' stand out performances. So many great
> lines.
I still like Superman II a lot despite the flaws (to also answer Phil's
post -- sorry I'm a week late with the responses here). It seems
more and more people are also recognizing the similarities to Spider-
Man 2. I've seen a number of posts on it and the supermanhomepage
had a link to this MTV article the other day:
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1488827/07012004/story.jhtml
There was a post mentioning that Spider-Man 2 was based on issue
#50 from the mid-1960s or whatever, long before Superman II. But
there were also Superman comics before then where Superman may
have lost his powers and so on, and certainly the romance has always
been central to Superman and a key reason for its success. It seems
to me there's been a very conscious (and smart) decision since the
first Spider-Man movie to focus on the romance in the same way the
first two Superman movies did, including in a lot of the promotion,
but to not trip up the way Superman II did in a few areas.
That's what they followed through with here and so far so good, but
from this point they may have trouble. As you say...
> ... it seems to me that the third film in these series always seem to be the
> one where things begin to go downhill...
Although Superman III (and IV) did go downhill, it was very predictable
after the ending of Superman II, and then the announcement they were
relegating Kidder to a cameo in the third movie, and even worse trying
to shift to a Lana Lang story. They were sunk at that point, no matter
what else they did.
With Spider-Man, I don't think the romance has the same potential to keep
driving the series that it had/has in Superman. I think it's still their best option,
but given (i) the personal angst inherent in the Spider-Man story, and (ii) the
apparent casting problem with Dunst beyond the next movie, I could see
them going a different route with it and it might not torpedo the series.
.
> In this case, with Spider-Man, it won't happen because Columbia cares for
> their arachnid in a way Warner Brothers never has for Batman and Superman.
> Columbia won't allow Spider-Man to be reduced to camp, or get bogged
> down in stunt casting.
I agree that was a problem with both those franchises, though the degree of
Warner Bros. control was less than Sony has with Spider-Man (and less than
Warner Bros. has with both Batman and Superman this time around). Sony
still has a key decision to make though, on the Peter/Spidey and Mary Jane
romance in the third movie.
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalElFan [at] scifipi.com
http://moviescorecard.com
KalElFan
> ... I never cared about Peter Parker's relationship with Mary Jane and
> thought Kirsten Dunst seemed too vague and disinterested and her
> character too flighty and self-absorbed to carry the weight of a movie.
> If I was Parker, I would've went for his landlord's daughter.
On balance I think they did as well as they could with the romance and
got it exactly right in terms of the ending of the movie. But this is where
I expect the next movie could trip up badly. I think they probably saw
the problem at the beginning with the casting troubles and Dunst's
real-life boyfriend Jake Gyllenhaal being talked about as a possible
replacement for Maguire. The landlord's daughter struck me as the
writers planning a possible out if they have to let Dunst go (even for
the third movie). That look from Mary Jane in the final shot also said
"dissatisfaction/angst" and set the stage for various "Two years later..."
type scenarios that might work.
In the big picture I think they have two ways to go. One would be
to try to follow through with an Ultimate Romance type story a la
Superman. That might have to survive a casting change in either
or both roles after the third movie, which is tough but not impossible
to do if they cast well.
The other is just to manage a break-up by going for flat-out humor
with the Mary Jane character. She gets a big acting break a month
after the ending here, and immediately leaves Peter and takes up
with her co-star. "Two years later..." when we next rejoin the story
Mary Jane has become the J-Lo of the Spiderverse or whatever.
She's already off two quick divorces and bucking for a third. :-)
It's a tone in-between those two strategies that I think will sink them.
Spidey romance angst not played strictly for laughs, on the heels of
this second movie's ending, combined with the expectation that it
might be Maguire's and/or Dunst's last appearance, will act as both
a drag on the third movie and whatever follows.
The Last Temptation of Ice
news:2lb5fbF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Although Superman III (and IV) did go downhill, it was very predictable
> after the ending of Superman II, and then the announcement they were
> relegating Kidder to a cameo in the third movie, and even worse trying
> to shift to a Lana Lang story. They were sunk at that point, no matter
> what else they did.
Well, I thought Superman III went predicatably down hill, but not
necessarily for the reasons you are giving. For starters, apparently the
Salkinds didn't take too kindly to Margot Kidder's remarks to the press
about the way she felt she, Christopher and Marlon had been treated by Ilya
and Alexander. So the Salkinds gave her a walk-on role to punish her
candidness. We saw them do that with all of Brando's scenes in Superman II,
where they went back and had Marianna(?) Schell go in and film all the
dialogue and scenes that Brando had contracted to do for Superman II.
Ego destroyed the Superman series. The Salkinds weren't smart enough to
realize that the magic of the movie sprang from Dick Donner, not from
anything they did. They should've sat back and collected the money. Instead,
they butchered the series with a woefully pathetic Richard Pryor and what I
can only guess was an uncredited attempt at creating Bizarro (though they
never seem to say the other Superman was Bizarro). There were only two good
scenes in the film. The Salkinds took away everything that made the first
two work and they destroyed their own empire. I guess they didn't fully
realize how much they sucked until they foisted SuperGirl upon us and it
tanked. Then they decided to get out while the gettin' was still good.
Superman IV was even worse, but it was a noble attempt by Reeve, Kidder and
Hackman to recreate the magic. Unfortunately, Cannon studios got in the way
of that, slashed the budget by half, hired Israeli special effects teams to
do the flying sequences and other technical shots, and instead the film
regressed 10 years, actually looking more dated and cheaper than the first
Superman film.
And so far nothing that i've heard coming from the production of the new
Superman film gives me any belief that the new team in place has a clue as
to what to do with Superman, a character that this country sorely needs in
the kind of times we are living in. I guess that's one reason why Spider-Man
is also working so well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ICEBREAKER
"I'd like to make her look a little more attractive. How far can you pull
back?"
"How do you feel about Cleveland?"
Will Grzanich
> Yeah I got the psychosomatic bit, but I really felt that this was contradicted
> in the scene where Peter saves the kid in the burning building. He needs his
> powers then, so why can't he get them back, if he's literally struggling to get
> out alive.
That he *needed* his powers wasn't the issue; he arguably needed them
when they first failed as he was swinging above the city, too. His
decision to do something heroic by saving the child in the building
was not the same as the decision to Be Spider-Man, which was what was
necessary for him to regain his powers.
-Will
SpammersDie
"Will Grzanich" <sarian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:86b97053.04071...@posting.google.com...
The decision To Be Spider-Man didn't restore his powers either ("I'm
BAAAAACK!" AAAAAAAAAAH! SPLAT)
He didn't cross that final hump until MJ's life depended on Spider-Man
coming back. For all the talk about WGPCGR, it was still all about MJ in the
end.
KalElFan
in message news:10f10mj...@corp.supernews.com...
> "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote in message
> news:2lb5fbF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> > Although Superman III (and IV) did go downhill, it was very predictable
> > after the ending of Superman II, and then the announcement they were
> > relegating Kidder to a cameo in the third movie, and even worse trying
> > to shift to a Lana Lang story. They were sunk at that point, no matter
> > what else they did.
>
> Well, I thought Superman III went predicatably down hill, but not
> necessarily for the reasons you are giving. For starters, apparently the
> Salkinds didn't take too kindly to Margot Kidder's remarks to the press
> about the way she felt she, Christopher and Marlon had been treated
> by Ilya and Alexander...
I don't doubt that trouble between Kidder and the producers was the
off-screen reason, but it's the same as the director change where 95%+
of the people who watched it either didn't know or didn't care. They
just respond to what they see or don't see on screen, and the related
publicity and word of mouth and so on. No romance with Lois Lane
after that being so central to the appeal and success of the first two
movies, series kaput. It really was that simple for starters.
Of course III's script made the implosion even worse, but if they'd
started from the better premise of continuing the romance then the
whole approach to that script and the movie would probably have
been much improved. Basically, the abandoning of the romance
demonstrated a level of stupidity/ineptitude that made the other
nonsense just about inevitable.
Though it's not the ideal scenario, I think re-casting is the way to
go in situations like involving iconic characters. Studios/producers/
directors should do everything they reasonably can to accommodate
the star(s), but in some cases the right casting change might actually
help the project. Just as people will be interested to see ____ play
the next James Bond, it can be the same for not only Batman and
Superman and Spider-Man, but Lois Lane or Mary Jane. Again,
it's not the ideal because people are invested in the continuity of
the same actors especially if the on-screen relationship works.
But re-casting is far better than chucking decades of continuity
and, in the case of Superman, an Ultimate Romance element
that's central to the success of the story.