Slashdot Mirror
11 Things About Spider-Man
An Anonymous Coward writes: "This has got to be the most inane, greedy thing I have heard of yet! The owners of the billboards on Times Square are suing Sony and those involved with the production of Spider-Man 'for digitally superimposing advertisements for other companies over their billboard space in the film.' Their argument: '[the ads] do not depict the area accurately.' Oh, and a guy in spider costume swinging from the buildings does? Give me a break!" That's one thing; read below for the other 10, if you can handle some movie spoilage. Update: 04/14 21:04 GMT by T : Oh, and a 12th thing: as reader marcsiry points out, that's "Spider-Man," not "Spiderman."
CheeseburgerBlue writes with his space-saving, 10-thought mini-review.
- "Worst opening titles sequence ever. Probably recycled out of un-used material from 'The Last Starfighter.' Truly IntelliVision-level graphics here.
- Peter hacks himself an awesome wannabe costume at first. This is good, because nobody is so well-rounded as to be ass-kickingly fierce, unswerving moral, academically gifted *and* a knock-down seamtress to boot. (It's unheard of, aside from that mama's boy show-off Clark Kent.)
- There is actually some credible character development. (Smacks own agape jaw in disbelief.) So much for the frickin' Batman franchise.
- We are treated to several exciting shots of M.J.'s heaving bosom through clinging wet fabric, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
- J. Jonas Jamieson: beautiful! This character absolutely could not have been done better. It's like a really angry Perry White mixed with Lou Grant, drunk.
- Nice casting. Not only is Peter's pal Harry the spitting image of his screen father (Dafoe), but he also makes a passable Anakin Skywalker. (I can't wait to see what kind of a Darth sombitch Harry turns into in the sequels.)
- Many agree that the animated Spidey flying around looks like crap in the TV spots. Luckily, in context, it works. I found that what the C.G. webslinger lacks in verisimilitude is made up for in choreography -- the sequences of Spidey swinging through Manhattan and thrilling and fun.
- I've always counted on Spiderman to deliver some quality wise-cracks, in stark contrast to Superman's squarejawed mumbling about truth and justice. I also expect Peter Parker to have a dark side that is less cheese-gothic than Batman's silhouetted form baying at the moon. This movie delivers -- Spidey's character is perfectly true to form.
- Great pacing. It's more than half-way through the movie before Peter really becomes Spiderman. His gradual transition to superherohood is convincing, and helps sell Peter as a real guy along the way.
- Despite the fact the Green Goblin essentially kicks his own ass in this movie, he does duke it out pretty cool with Spidey a few times first. (The best part is when the angry New Yorkers pelt him with trash for messin' with their friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.)"
"M.J." "clingy" "wet" "shirts"
...
Anyone else have a sudden renewed interest in seeing this film now
Is it ? If these companies have paid for advertising space in Times Sq., they must be factoring in the fact that Times Sq. is a well known location, and likely to feature in films/TV etc. Consequently a percentage of the ad cost would reflect this ?
Remember the TV series 'Spiderman and his Amazing Friends'? It had three sidekicks for Spiderman IIRC: Ice-Man (ice), Fire-Start (fire) and one other I can't remember. I thought it was great at the time, but I don't think it's considered to be canon. Anyone know more about this?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
They're also digitally removing the WTC. Lots of editing going on in Spider Man.
I found the pulled WTC trailer on this morning, and have no idea why they pulled it. It shows the Towers in all their glory, and also waits until at least 3/4 of the way through before you even know what movie its for. Should have left it on the market.
If the suit goes forward, a judge will likely decide whether makers of a movie about a fictional character have the right to place him in fictional surroundings as well.
Holy common sense, batman! Did we just actually see news.com engaging in *stating the obvious*?
That's a nice shift, usually these people are so terrified of seeming to include editorializing that an ironic, clippy comment like that would be cut right out..
Oh well.
Ads have been edited into movies for a while now but in this case the real question is, "Will movies have to pay for every piece of private property put on film?" Could I be possibly sued of taking a picture of a city, applying filters to it and putting it on the web? Sounds ridiculous!
it makes up in verisimilitude.
Right on, man!
The Digital Billboard Copyright Act?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I know the guy who was the production manager for most of the NY production crew, he had told me (after I asked what kind of a pain in the ass shooting in TS is) that most of the TS stuff was shot on a set in LA. Most of what wasn't on the set was done digitally. So if the TS that we see in the movie isn't the real TS, then what claim do advertisers have to claims of authenticity?
From the UK's Guardian: A lawsuit filed in Manhattan accuses Columbia Pictures, producers of the new Spiderman movie, of digitally manipulating shots of Times Square to block out an advert for Samsung, arch-rivals of Sony, which owns Columbia. So, this seems more like Columbia censoring daddy's rivals than just removing an ad because the director didn't like it's artistic qualities. Now the question of whether the removal is warranted or ethical I will leave to the philosopher and lawyers; I'm just an engineer.
We really need some good nuisance lawsuit laws so that defendants don't have their money wasted and the courts don't have their time wasted...this kind of thing is a joke...people are too quick to sue on another anymore, and all they have is visions of dollar signs dancing in their eyes...there needs to be sticter penalties, if perhaps the judge decides that the plaintiff is guilty of a nuisance lawsuits...it would make people think twice before bringing idiotic things like this to the courts...
also, i can't wait to see Kirsten Dunst in the wet t-shirt either...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
You forgot the ring on his left hand.
...And I quote:
1. Worst. Opening title sequence. Ever.
It's "Spider-Man."
Spider-dash-Capital M-Man.
I used to be an assistant editor at Marvel Comics, and if you let "Spiderman" get into print, you would fear for your job. Something about diluting the trademark...
Marc Siry || interactive media professional, motorcycle enthusiast ||
What ads would they have to place there?
A photograph or film has a longer lifetime than an advertisment
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The humor is why I always read Spider Man comics as a kid. Spidey always had the best wisecracks, especially about himself. I wasn't going to see the movie if these were not in there. The Superman/Batman movies are so bad because they attempt to make guys in goofy costumes so serious.
So what? The advertisers can hope for whatever they want but it's a public space and they have absolutely no expectation of control of their image.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I was about to complain about this being a sexist comment, but then I remembered half the movie will feature a buff Tobey Maguire in a skin-tight uniform, or at least a buff stunt man.
:P
I think the female of the species are definitely getting the better deal here
First we have Rio De Jenero say that a Simpson's episode doesn't accurately portray the city (It's not a jungle infested with rats and monkeys and that protrayal hurt Rio's feelings), Now it's happening in the US. Has anyone heard of fiction? Huh, huh?
what would've been established is that the author of a creative work wouldn't have the right to depict a person/place/thing that's somewhat like a something in the real world (note all those disclaimers at the end of the credits of every movie "blah blah blah this work doesn't depict any person blah blah blah").
so, if this suit holds, a movie maker won't be able to depict any site without permission, and, likely, won't be able to get permission without some serious licensing fees.
won't happen. the consequences are untenable for any creative activity...
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
I'm not a marketing expert, im just a lowly UNIX sys admin, but I know for a fact that film makers generate revenue by placing ads in their movies. Honda will pay for a director to feature a Honda in a fast getaway, Pepsi will pay for the star to walk around with a can of Pepsi. Conversely, I remember John Waters being interviewed and saying that several companies said they would SUE him if he didn't remove shots of their products out of his controversial movies. The point is, the artist gets to decide who and what he or she supports and endorses. There is NO interetance propery for advertising space.
Maybe I've been watching too much Heath Ledger/Julia Stiles, but I misread that title the first time through...
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
Micheal Jordon?
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
By going to see this movie, you are helping to line my pockets with sweet, sweet cash. My army of lobbyists really appreciates it!
Sincerely,
Jack Valenti and the MPAA
not_cub
q='echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"';s=\';b=\\;echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"
I agree with the review on top, I saw it yesterday as well. The uncle and aunt stuff was sort of retarded though, and Kirsten Dunst just kind of sits around and doesn't do much interesting. Willem DeFoe is an evil looking mofo, although as comic book-to-film villians go he's not as good as Gene Hackman or Jack Nicholson. Most of the controversy around Tobey Maguire is unwarranted, he's ok, although he doesn't really ever say much in the movie. His transition to Spidey is gradual, but you never feel that you got to know him at all since he's a reactive character. But I disagree on the CG, it's actually far cheesier than it should be. There are some scenes that look flat out awful, even the image stars looking grainy due to overprocessing. Of course, Bruce Campbell and Ted Raimi make cameos, along with (prodcut placement hell) Macy Gray. Still, it's a great popcorn movie flick!
...exactly why Anonymous Coward has a valid email address?
Jouster
...makers of movies with uinrealistically low M-pole-ratios.
"This is supposed to be "News for Nerds"? What's so Nerdy about this? Other than the fact that Shiela Villalobos hasn't paid me back my $310... This aint news... I want 5 mins of my life back!"
/. community is interested in seeing this movie, finding out if it's good or not is worth the time. The $5 I saved by not seeing Resident Evil is going to a subscription here.
:)
Seeing as how a good portion of the
Nice attempt at Karma Whoring, though.
Psst btw it is news, if Samsung wins this case, it could affect our digital rights. You could get sued for stuff like making the WTC look like it's flipping off the Middle East.
"Derp de derp."
If the suit goes forward, a judge will likely decide whether makers of a movie about a fictional character have the right to place him in fictional surroundings as well.
I sure hope so. I'm not sure Lord of The Rings: The Return of the King: Sauron takes Manhattan. would have the same impact.
I think the opposite lawsuit would stand just as good a chance of winning. If they didn't change the billboards, and Samsung or NBC decided they didn't want to be associated with a guy in spider suit (or, let's say this wasn't something innocuous like Spiderman, but E.G. a porn movie) then they could just as easily sue over having their ads in the movie. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Of course, if they hadn't changed the ads but simply removed the billboards, this might never have come up. But who could imagine a movie without advertising? It's ludicrous!
The questions about replacing bilboards in movies is sorta silly, but how do you all feel about this sort of thing happening in, say, a news cast. Or maybe a live broadcast. Apparently this has already happened in live broadcasts and I wouldn't be surprised if newspeople are doing it also. Anything packaged as "real" shouldn't be allowed to do this. I'm not even totally sure why this is wrong, but something very basic to me is very uncomfortable with it. Buy one of those books of old photos of your city/state/neighborhood and you'll see why it's important for them to be unmolested.
e x p e c t d e l a y . c o m
Maybe it's about expectations. I was hoping to get blown away and I was slightly disappointed. Don't get me wrong-- you should see this movie, but temper your expectations and you'll have a better time.
Oh, and remember-- with great power comes great responsibility.
...so if you have a fear, you avoid it like a frightened turtle hoping it will go away?
:p
Dear christ, why not just overcome your fear and deal with it?
People are so bloody emotional in today's society of 'poor me' victimization.
Force yourself to face your fears and GET OVER IT. It happened, yes, but that doesn't mean we should remove articles of history just because some assholes flew planes into them.
Besides, wouldn't it be nice to see a good guy kicking ass on a site where we royally fucked up? Think about it.
As for being on topic, I think spiderman scaling the world trade center would have been very cool.
"Irving J. Spiderman" (pronounced "SPIdermin")
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
From drudge:
"DRUDGE: Sony keeps shot of NYC Twin Towers in upcoming 'SPIDER-MAN' film.... World Trade buildings shown in reflection of Spider-Man's eyes, studio sources reveal.... Developing... "
link
These are the results of the capitalistic system
in the USA. Money talks. Corporations at their finest. In a few years you will have to pay money to take pictures of the statue of liberty. The
DMCA will only get stronger because it suits the corporations. Is that the best reason they could come up with to sui sony? What a fucked up country. America at its finest. Why do we forget the right of sony to shoot anything they want in their movie? They do have that right, yes? Oh well, not that i care anymore but it's just sad to see these kind of things happening.
Too bad really.
Getting your billboard on TV and in the movies is known as being an "incidental beneficiary". It means that you benefit from something even though the [something] wasn't designed or intended to benefit you. Of course, entire business models are built being an incidental beneficiary (just count the restaraunts and gas stations near interstate exits), but it doesn't give you a right to the benefit (just ask the restaraunts in Christiansburg, VA where the interstate exits were redesigned). Incidental benefits are an old source of political and legal battle, so I wouldn't be surpised if there's a lot of political fallout from this, but I still think they'll lose the court case.
Miko O'Sullivan
Until the media firms stop trying to outlaw general purpose computer hardware and software, Slashdot readers should boycott all movies and merchandised music. See a play or listen to a live local band instead -- it's a richer experience anyway.
SONY should be allowed to disagree with content portrayed on their property. Its their property and the message presented on it reflects upon them. Think of parallels.
My made-up example?
What about a Julia Roberts, tear jerking movie that pits her as a courageous pro-choice activist against an evil cabal of extreme right-wing, slack jawed, anti-choice, church going, white men. As a part of the movie, Roberts attends a church of open minded, pro-choice parishioners...most likely Lutherans. Since the civil rights crusading producer wants to really stick it to the closed minded, white men and their abused, subservient wives in our society and make a real deep, societal impact on the minds of uniformed Americans, he CGIs the church sign of a real, mean, anti-choice, anti-gay, born-again Christian church in Mississippi, to be this warm, fuzzy, cuddly, pro-choice, Julia Roberts kind of church with a feminine Reverend. So all establishment shots of the Julia Roberts kind of church in the movie feature this real anti-choice church but with the Hollywood magic sign. The church was filmed on the road legally. It is a landmark in the town as most churches are. Most of the viewers of the film would never know what was on the sign before seeing the movie as they do not live near the sign, but the audience local to the landmark would. The sign is nothing more than the advertising of religious faith -- a somewhat commercial activity, as money is exchanged between parishioner and church and visa-versa from time to time.
Think the church would have a right to complain by having their sign's content in the blockbuster Julia Roberts film being altered to reflect a message with which they disagree? I would think so. And you are more likely to know about the advertising in Times Square than would you this church in Mississippi. Hate to stick up for a multinational corporation but they do have a right to have messages on their property correctly reflect their desires. It is not up to you and I to decide for SONY what their message is.
Offtopic: Anyone hear that Standard Oil of New York conspiracy before?
Disclaimer: I live in NYC and I don't like Julia Roberts tear jerking movies but I am forced to watch them. I will back any legislation on Digital Rights Management that contains a rider that will make Oxygen, Lifetime, and Women's Entertainment (We) illegal to broadcast within the United States.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
isn't that suppose to be "goo goo g'joo"
Here is the WTC spiderman trailer, which fucking rules.
This is especially funny because of the totally unreal Spiderman character. Kinda like the churchies getting up in arms about kids learning evil sorcery from Harry Potter. Let's see, to become an evil wizard you just need to follow the Harry Potter formula -- oh, yeah, I will go kill a unicorn now.
Click here or here.
Check the copyrights people... sony made the film and owns 100% of the copyright. The ads that goes in the film are those that sony will like to place there!
The film isn't a documentary of todays time square so... eat the bullet and cut the crap!
is that people can close their eyes during that part of the movie if they are so bothered by it; don't ruin a well-done part of the movie for everyone else just because you're an emotional basketcase (for whatever reason).
An analogy that my professor used was if a municipality is paving an off-ramp from a highway, and somebody decides to build a restaurant at the end of it. If, for some reason, the off-ramp is canceled, the restaurant owner can't win any damages.
On a more Spider-Man related note, I've been collecting these comics since I was about 12 years old. At first, I wasn't sure that Tobey Maguire would be able to pull off a convincing Peter Parker. Anyone see the movie and have an opinion on this?
If I create a digital version of Times Square in a modeler, am I required to include the billboards?
... after all, if there were laws against blatant displays of stupidity, we wouldn't have enough courtrooms to enforce them. If the billboard company wants to sue Sony over a work of fiction not accurately depicting a fictional representation of a billboard like theirs, I just treat it as welfare for lawyers on the part of the billboard company.
HOWEVER... if this nonsense should be successful in the courts -- whether or not Sony bothered to pay for a credible defense (after all, the judge has some responsibilities) -- then it would have my blood pressure and cynicism up a notch or three.
IRS
When they're on you the swarm you
Thanks for the blackout perl script, retards.
Who are you to tell me what I should and should not do? Besides, a downturn in sales will just be blamed on piracy, which will invite even worse laws. The best thing we can do to keep our computers free is to buy as many CDs and DVDs as we can afford.
-Jack
academically gifted *and* a knock-down seamtress to boot
Shouldn't that be 'taylor' or something? I mean, 'seamstress' isn't really a term you'd use for a guy.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You meet this really good looking girl(guy), and you take them up to your apartment in Times Square. Things begin to get a little steamy with the red Coca-Cola billboard in the background. Just when things are about to get started, they say...
THIS IS AN UNAUTHORIZED DREAM SEQUENCE WITH UNAUTHORIZED ADVERTISING CHANGES. YOU WILL NOW BE INTESTINATED.
AAAAIIIIGGHH!!!!!
Seriously, when companies begin to try to control your imagination for marketing purposes, you know something is messed up. They didn't give any money to help with the production of the film, so they really don't deserve jack sh*t.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
Likelihood of confusion, anyone? (Pretty much the basis for traditional trademark law.) If they're putting other companies' ads on identifiable property in such a way as to imply that there's a non-fictional relationship between the companies (which I'd probably make if I didn't live in NYC, the shot was supposed to be of Times Square, and there was no in-story reason why the ads should be different), you might run into trouble.
And knock it off with the slippery-slope legal arguments, people; they only make you look like idiots.
The company suing Sony has no right. Sony is no saint, but that kind of law suit is a waste of time and money. Judges should throw that junk out immediately.
I still expect to hear religious outrage at the use of the word "Superman" in a Marvel movie.
Jesus saves....And takes 1/2 damage.
There are several ways you can look at this whole debate.
First, you can look at it as a challenge to creative freedom, which the cnet author and several posters have done.
Second, you can look at it as a case of property owners in a highly recognizable situation wanting to protect their unique identity.
Third, you can look at it as advertisers paying for high-profile space, just to see it snared away in a big-budget promotion by direct competition.
I look at it as a combination of the last two. The owners of the property in question were paid a lot of money by the advertisers to slather thier ad crap all over the buildings. They were able to charge all this money precisely because the area is photographed by individuals and film crews so often. The talk about this being a case against the freedom of filmmakers to use a fictional setting is just bunk, it might as well be asking if Microsoft has the freedom to innovate. Why? Because if the movie wanted to use a fictional setting they could have used something other than times square.
And if Microsoft wanted to innovate, they could stop stealing ideas from Apple and everyone else under the sun first. Same damn deal.
Now, what do I think about this case? I don't know. Don't care too much, either. They're only ads. I just can't stand the annoying rhetoric.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
... too bad.
It'll be thrown out.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
first post!
Measure once, cut twice
CP = Counsel for the Plaintiff
CD = Counsel for the Defendant
CP: The accused has distorted the billboard area without my client's permission.
CD: My client has agreed to re-edit the film to remove all shots of the Times Square Billboard area, thus resolving the plantiff's grievance. Does my Learned Friend concur?
CP: What? Well...errr....oh bugger.
Political Correctness is doubleplusungood.
Can I sue the owners of the billboards on Times Square for replacing a few inches of Slashdot with this ridiculous law suit?
But seriously, the film makers could just say that the NY scenes where taking place in year 2031, or come up with a similar explanation.
God sucks at running this place. Impeach God at
Paraphrased from The Official Ninja Homepage
What makes Spider-Man so special that HE must be hyphenated but Batman, Superman, Aquaman, et al are not?
:-)
I would think if any of the super heroes would be hyphenated, it would be Wonder Woman (or is that Wonder Wo-Man?), since she's a liberated chick.
~Philly
Two major reasons why this is crap:
REASON NUMBER #1.
I am a news videographer (and granted, that is a different designation than commercial photographers) but there is no need to sign a release form for me to shoot a building.
But then again, my TV station, like all TV stations has an attorney on retainer for just such an occasion, when someone decides to tempt fate and the Bill of Rights.
That is bullshit. It is a public place. Because there is no release needed then there is no cause to sue over a lack of release. That category falls under public and private view. By the way, any place that doesn't say "NO TRESSPASSING" can be considered public view, within reasonable doubt.
I have punks and even regular people tell me constantly that they will "sue my ass to high heaven for invading their personal privacy." It usually involves their business shortchanging someone or they have done something horrible to others. So I quote me some law on 'em. (I then proceed to explain in tiny detail why they can waste their money on a First Amendment Violation. They usually will tell me that they are going to beat me and take my camera. I casually tell them that I am taping them, if they touch me it is battery and I will report them, camera theft is felony theft on the order of grand theft, and as a professional photographer my material is easily entered into evidence. And then say, "Now if you HADN'T COMMITTED A CRIME, well, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE.")
As a news photographer, I can shoot a camera inside a window showing you holding your dog hostage or whatever as long as a reasonable expectation of privacy is maintained. Reasonable privacy is really broad, at least for the news people.
I dare say there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in Times Square. Probably less of an expectation than ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. So asking permission to shoot advertising or exterior televisions by its nature is hilarious, due to its intent.
REASON #2:
Spider-Man is a work of fiction. Period. There is no requirement of any member of the film industry to maintain any continuity or realism whatsoever. That is totally a free speech issue. I am surprised that the MPAA hasn't "gone ape shit" on them yet. Even if it was a "documentary" they still don't have a leg to stand on. It is a private work. A private work that they can alter at will, without someone meddling with it.
Never before has there ever been a rule that an artistic work (yes, many of you will argue that a big budget hollywood film is art) has any "must carry" rules to it. Good luck, assholes. You're going to need it. I personally would countersue immediately for "unnecessary usage" of the court system. Maybe there is an Anti-SLAPP out there that can help on this one?
Besides, the blueprints of a building might be copy protected, but you are not going to be infringing to see it in the real freaking world, nor is anyone charging you to see it.
I hope whoever thought this plan up dies a horrible, horrible death and goes straight to a fiery pit. When they get there, they have taxis back over him for eternity under a giant jumbotron that keeps showing "the best of" episodes of She's the Sherriff starring Suzanne Sommers.
The Last Starfighter was a good movie! I here by beem the list creator King of the Retards!
OH NOES! TEH INTARWEB IS BORKEN!
As my local comic shop owner commented yesterday; Superman fans are a little thin on the ground these days :-/
that had they not changed it, the advertizers would have sued for copyright infringement and demanded payment?
Cynical? Me?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
where oh where is doc doom...doc oc...
my fave...oh man oh man...think circa 80's x-men...
THE JUGGERNAUT!!! MUH HA HA.
sure he's slow and dumb...but MAN does he give the x-chumps (and spidey included) a run for the money...
i'm thinking action style ala 'The One' smushed together with the slightly cheesy but VERY cool city-wide destruction scenes from Superman II...
anyone with me? uh...guys? hello? ok...nevermind...
:)
Where does Sony get off adding a USA Today ad anyway?
I mean this is a Spider-Man movie. What about the Daily Bugle?
My guess is that most of the time that we see Spider-Man it's not really footage of an actor, it's just CGI. I guess it's easier to hold your head upright if you're just a piece of software.
Miko O'Sullivan
Maybe they could have used the empty space left by the twin towers to create a massive CG advertising rack for American Airways "We fly you all the way to your office"
oh boy, thats gonna cost me..
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
It is getting really annoying when movies do their own add placement. If i pay $10.00 for a movie i do not want to see adds.
Of course there may be things that look like adds in the movie, but as long as they are not payed for it is ok.
To put it more clearly i think movies should represent either reality or the unobstructed vision of the makers, and not advertising agreements.
So i guess in the times square case it is ok to keep the original adds because they represent reality.
You can say my rule is arbitrary: "whats the diff between an nbc add and a usa today add?" Well there is a difference, because when some one pays for an add they usually put conditions on how it will be shown in the movie and those conditions, usually having to do with adds being clearly shown close to the main heroine's tits or something silly like that, make movies suck.
That they are sueing for such things?
Last I checked, there was originally the WTC in the movie, but it was removed after 9/11. However, when that part of the film was made, they *were* there. In another 3 months, will the same billboards be there, showing the same thing? I doubt it.
So I don't understand how they could possibly sue for something that is constantly changing. By the time this case actually gets underway, they'll look at the billboards again and some other ones will be there.
Not sure who CheeseburgerBlue is, or how complete a version of the film he saw. But I'm really hoping this turns out to be a good movie. I read Spider-Man as a kid in the early 70's, and that (together with Fantastic Four) was one of the things that fueled my interest in science. Peter Parker was a science geek, and also a kind of "common guy" who just accidentally picked up some superpowers.
So, I'm glad they are still emphasizing that aspect of his character in the film. I was glad when I first heard that Tobey Maguire would be playing Spidey; he seems about right. From the previews, the actress playing Aunt May doesn't look quite old/frail enough, but other than that I'm pretty happy so far.
(Minor spoiler below, but most fans probably know about it already.)
I'm a bit bummed that Spidey's webs are actually going to come out of his body in the movie, rather than from mechanical webshooters. I can see their argument, that nobody would believe a high-school science geek could invent some super polymer material that megacorporations can't even make. On the other hand, I'll be wondering, does he have to eat a lot of extra food to produce all that webbing? How quickly can he produce it? (Will he ever temporarily run out, as he did in the comics when he forgot to refill his webshooter cartridges?)
Star Wars Episode 2 I'm not so excited about. But I'll be in the theater watching Spidey on opening day. I really hope I'm not disappointed.
I can see DC's defense now. "Sony advertises onm Earth Prime's Time Square. We were trying to accurately depict Earth 1."
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how Sony would feel if a movie theater decided to flash a laser ad (capable of washing out the light from the projector) on top of a patch of screen that just happened to match up with one of those billboards in the movie...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Does anyone have a pic they can post so the rest of us can see what all the hype is????
many thanks
I watched this movie again recently on DVD, after seeing it a couple (like 5 or so) years ago, and they had changed all references in the movie from Taco Bell to Pizza Hutt.
It was hilarious to watch, because you could see that their lips weren't in sync with the words coming thru the stereo. Mind you, Sylvester Stallone doesn't make that task easy anyways.
Thats Really-dash-Capital A-Anal.
Did anybody explain why it was so important? I mean, besides "'cause we'll fire your ass if you don't do what we say". Was it because Stan-Lee hated being called Stanlee?
Miko O'Sullivan
Are you sure you don't mean Spider-Person? Or perhaps Spider-American or Arachno-American. Then of course there are those who believe it should be GNU/Spider.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Yay! A lovely ASCII arsehole! I haven't seen one of these on slashdot for far too long. It looks even nicer than normal since I installed KDE 3.0 with it's antialiased fonts.
Keep up the good work!
This is an artistic work.
It has effects all over the place.
I can film whatever public place I want and change it however I want in my own artistic work.
-I hope.
Someone please tell me I am correct in this belief.
corporate lawers go to hell.
comment directly in my journal
Perhaps you're referring to Peter's boss, "J. Jonah Jameson"? :-)
but as soon as I heard he was making the movie. I knew it was going to be a bomb. I love the story of spiderman. Marvel had it right when they made that comic. They recognized that that a comic hero had to have depth(personal life etc..) to truly sell over the long haul. I love Marvel for that, and consequently Image as well. Sam Raimi is a god for evil dead.. the one thing that Marvel and Raimi have in common is that they usually do not make good movies based on superheroes(granted, the X-Men and blade were pretty good) Darkman... Mantis... I would've picked a different person.
All you people don't get it! All those money grubbing scum corporations don't care what's right or wrong or what's legal or not. They do do whatever it takes to get away with whatever in order to make their money. That includes the courts. All they care is if the courts allow them to get away with it. You find the right judge who says that changing the billboards is wrong then so be it. It's all about abusing the court system to make the most money possible. That includes insane patents as well as insane lawsuits. It all comes down to convincing/fooling the judge.
Actually the golden age Wonder Woman used to be the JSA's secretary (subservient) and was always getting tied up by the bad guys (softcore bondage). Not exactly liberated.
Of course the modern age Wonder Woman can hold her own against anyone including Stuporman [sic].
I didn't see this, but if I missed it, sorry.
It is a fucking piece of fiction!!!!!! Let's have Pepsi sue Tolkien's estate for not including Pepsi ads in Middle Earth.
Don't movies always have that "Everything in the film is totally fictional, no matter how much it looks like your Uncle Ed"?
I wonder if I can sue reality for including me without my permission?
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
A direct link to the Complaint:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/spiderman/spide rman040902cmp.pdf
Or, find it on FindLaw's Document Archive. The Spider-Man Lawsuit is currently the fourth heading down the page.
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/
crib
Please don't read my journal
Isn't the idea of film making to make a movie that depicts the writer/producter's idea. Well what if his idea is a times square without certain ads. I mean what if the story takes place in a universe without a Samsung corp.
I would have to defend the artists decision to display whatever he chooses, and no one wopuld complain if all the ads were removes, so who cares if only certain ones are.
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
2. The marriage to MJ, rather than make the stories more interesting have made them worse. She's portrayed as a dumb harmless female. Geez, you'd think being Mrs. Spiderman he'd insist she take some Tai Kwon Do or Jujitsu and get a gun permit, after all the damn city is overrun with dangerous criminals all the time!
Last thought: Are we going to see the same stupid kill-off-the-villains that happened in the Batman movies? Talk about writing into a corner, without some of his prime adversaries, they'll have to invent new ones and ya know how lead-balloon-like that goes over.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
News for nerds, stuf that matters.
/. is becoming more a whiners festiveal anymore. I used to come here for the latestest on geek stuff but now it seems maybe 1 of 7 'articles' are actually relevent to geek speak. What the fuck does this 'news brief' on spederman have to do with geeks and technology. It's a rant by some pissant who doesn't enjoy life. Give me some news on the latest processors Transmeta is making. Give me the low down on VA linux and their future. Give me the latest scoop on the aftermath of Loki and it's IP. Don't give crybaby shit about the latest lawsuits or bullshit patent appications.
Bullshit.
Previous news: Biometrics on DL's? That's not geek news. It's a privacy issue. I'm all for privacy, but have not we harped on that enough. This is a geek news letter? I'll visit one of many privacy forums if I want to discuss the injustices of the system. This is geek news, let's get back to the basics of geeks and advocate privacy and lawsuits elseware.
Um, if I'm reading that argument correctly (there's a lot there and it winds across all sorts of metaphorical topics, no offense), your taking Sony's side because it does not accurately reflect the owners property.
I agree with your example. The Church would have a right to complain.... BUT. The property in question is basically an advertisement medium whose message can and will change from month to month. (I'm sure somebody got a score of 5 early in the thread for that point). Does that mean I can sue now just because the advertisments, even if faithfully portrayed at the time, no longer reflects the state in which I'm paying for them years down the road? Yeah, it's accuarate then, but 6 months later I'm advertising "Boogers Candy" on that board. According to that argument and Sony's, I now have a legitiment lawsuit even after the fact.
And why don't we take it one step further... We can no longer "destroy" that piece of property when the script calls for the demolision of a city block because Sony doesn't want there sign portrayed in a less than pristine condition. Yeah, right.
I would agree, if the image on the property were to remain static, representing a specific business or entitiy. But facts are it doesn't. The most they would be able to grab for is ensuring the billboard is accurately represented as far as who owns the property. Add this to the fact that it's a work of fiction anyway and I'm concluding somebody with a tie is too anal for their own good.
"Opinions are like armpits. Everybody has two and they stink."
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Wow. If you were man or woman enough to actually use a monicker out here you could check my file and see that it hasn't changed one bit "anonymous coward."
:)
Also, before you check out and decide to call me a scum sucker, you should ask me how many personal good stories that I have done to save people. Why I get apid so little to help people.
(This is an offtopic rant, but it is snap-judgement cocksuckers like that AC who are usually the ones that I have to get ballistic on, because they are the ones that tell me that I need "to get the hell out of our town" when I am asking for directions to a Child Cancer Telethon or a good story about human triumph.)
So here's a couple of points I would teach to anyone listening out there in slashdot land about the media business:
#1: It is exactly the "media scum" attitude hanging in people's mind that would make a person say scum-sucking scandal-shooter in the first place.
DID HE ASK IF I WAS OUT TRYING TO CATCH A PEDOPHILE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DAY? No, he just assumed it was scandal. Well, then, I suppose it wouldn't matter then, now would it. Unlenss you saw your children playing with said pedophile. Then you might have wanted to pay more attention instead of turning off the TV. I am not here to shoot scandal. I am here to keep the public informed.
It is that same kind of unbased, ridiculous, "media scum," "Geraldo asshole," "assume they are lying" attitude that makes a otherwise rational person try to attack me at something as benign as a street carnival.
PEOPLE THAT MAKE SNAP JUDGEMENTS AND HAUL OFF AND TRY TO BE SEAN PENN WITH THE MEDIA ARE THE REAL PROBLEM. I am just trying to get a few shots in. Not kill anyone or take away their freedoms, just take pictures. However, you would think that I was a criminal. Those that have the most to hide fear the camera the most, and subsequently act the most insane around me. They, for some reason, and on some unconscious level think that when I am pulling out a camera a block away that I am COMING FOR THEM SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SOMETHING TRIVIAL TWENTY YEARS AGO THAT THEY FEEL BAD ABOUT. Then they freak out. Then they threaten you with everything under the sun. Then they punch at me. I was just trying to cross the street.
#2: Nutbags love TV. Consequently, everyone who is mentally unbalanced doesn't walk, but sprints towards the camera, IMMEDIATELY. Then they act like a danger to themselves and others. I cannot help this.
#3: Everyone has an agenda. Period. The more aggressive they get, the more their bad past or real agenda shows. I'm not saying that the gorilla is in charge of the man, but I am saying that everyone has an agenda. It just might not be malicious like what the word "agenda" usually connotates.
Honestly, I don't eat my young. I am not a sub-human. I don't prey on misfortune. I spot problems and tell you about them. Unfortunately, I am not psychic and often spot problems immediately after misfortune. Once again, there is nothing I can do about it. Its the stupid nes that say I am a vulture.
Also, I am paid to get to the heart of controversial matters. I wouldn't be there if it as not somehow important.. unless of course you have a donkey that plays soccer or a waterskiing squirrel.
If you notice the only people in the world that consistently blame the media are politicians. If I am the fish that cleans the tank of humanity, then they are my dinner.
I'd like to say that I am not a scandal hound, and I am not a scum sucker, and whoever wrote that note to jab at a stranger needs to write to others like it was their mother that was going to read it.
I remember the movie 'Cobra'. In the beginning of the film, there is a crazy man holding hostages inside a supermarket. Obviously Stallone is the only one that can do anything, so he goes in to the store. Now for the sinister part.
After exchanging gunfire, Stallone takes cover in an isle. He takes a moment from his life threatening ordeal to pick up a prominently placed 'Coors' beer can, open it, take a drink (prominently placed logo that you can't miss) and set it down before jumping back out into gunfire and killing the 'bad guy'.
So, musicans are selling out their songs to the highest bidder for use in movies, commercials, or any other high-paying customer. Celebrities and directors are perfectly happy to endorse any product, in any context, if they get paid to do it. Hosts like Jay Leno and Conan O'Brian are whoring themselves for any corporate interest (at leat Conan will openly tell you he is whoring himself first).
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm anxiously awaiting the day the 'The Big One' knocks Hollywood off the map.
To quote my favorite band "TOOL" from the song "Hooker with a Penis":
Or even better, from the song "Ænema" (Long Quote, but a good one):
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
>If it's all CG, what filming permits were necessary?
...
That's to allow them to bother people, block undesirables from the set, etc.
Thanks buddy. I know what a filming permit is for. The CG part of my original comment means that they did it on computersDIDN'T ACTUALLY USE the actual location. They probably just built cg models of all the buildings. I would imagine with the scope of the use of that area, they would have built it all on their machines and then could do whatever they wanted with it.
But sure, maybe they just choreographed the whole thing and unleashed Spider-Man in Manhattan
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
And in that fictional, parallel univerise, there happens not to be that Samsung ad. That's all.
Defendant rests.
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
The way I figure it, they don't care if their case is a bunch of luncheon meat. All they want is cheap publicity.
Think about it: when people see this "news" item, some of them will go look at the dang billboards, possibly by webcam or whatever.
Bingo! More eyeballs! Even though they're likely going to lose, they come off cheaper than if they had actually bought coverage!
After all, there's a hoary old marketing proverb that there's no such thing as bad publicity...
Howdie,
I thought it was "Spiderman" and not "Spider-Man".
What's up with that?
Regards,
You don't need to see my
There are just far to many angles you could go with this.
"It's set 10 years in the future, when those billboards actually will show the signs we claim". Let's see them refute that one (although they'd probably suspend the decision for 10 years).
"It's a parallel universe". Probably the only time that argument can legitimately be used in a court of law.
"We claim countersuite against the owners of the billboards for not adequately reflecting reality as portrayed in the spiderman films."
And finally "It's fiction staring a guy who shoots web out of his wrists, YOU MORONS".
Next on their list to sue is Planet of the Apes: "By the positioning of the Statue of Liberty, Charlton Heston was clearly in Times Square. Where were our billboards!"
Do me a favor, pick up the latest issue of Rolling Stone (the one with Shakira on the cover), and flip to page 122--the Oakley Ad. See anyone familiar? Maynard has been affiliated with Oakley for a number of years now.
One of these times, you should read into the meaning of "Hooker With A Penis" more closely. Maynard is singing that the band has already sold out, simply by making an album. They sold themselves, hence the title of the song.
Come on, let's put this into perspective here. We've got a bunch of huge greedy megacorps suing another huge greedy megacorp over something as inane and banal as whose billboards appears in their damned overhyped movie. I say let them, it doesn't hurt anyone else, let them burn their lawyer dollars, it's not as if they're skint or anything.
If a little guy or even a medium guy was going to get burnt by this, such as one of the "independant" movie producers, then I'd be upset, but frankly when we've got Huge Monolith Corp #1 suing Huge Media Corp #2, I frankly don't give a shit.
Stuii!
Ok. I wear sunglasses on Times Square. This distorts the image of the billboards. Preferably, I will mask some areas so that the ads cannot be seen. According to the owners of that billboard, "Sherwood has not authorized defendants or anyone to distort the appearance of the area". That means they can sue me for wearing sunglasses. See how ridiculous this is??
Well.. it happens that Sony pictures is just removing billboards of competing companies. Does that stink or what?
J. Jonah , not Jonas.
If you had read the comic books and not lust looked at the pictures and watched the cartoon, you would have known this.
"If the suit goes forward, a judge will likely decide whether makers of a movie about a fictional character have the right to place him in fictional surroundings as well."
My deviantArt site
Well he hasn't been posting on /. much recently, perhaps he has found other work!
0xC3
I understand that since she didn't have a rack at the time she was in "Interview with a Vampire", she was overlooked by most of you, but her performance was impressive for a kid.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
I know my small city has wooed film companies with cash and many breaks in order to reap the benifits. In return, I'm sure they have some level of say as to what goes in the movie.
I would expect NYC has the same thing, perhaps as simply as "we'll provide security services for your filming for free, you show NYC accurately".
Many agree that the animated Spidey flying around looks like crap in the TV spots. Luckily, in context, it works. I found that what the C.G. webslinger lacks in verisimilitude is made up for in choreography -- the sequences of Spidey swinging through Manhattan and thrilling and fun.
Ha ha. I haven't seen the TV ads but as soon as I saw this up on Slashdot's front page, I thought, "You know, I'll bet the CG of Spidey's parabolic flights is real cheesy." Yup, according to this.
Lifelike motion modeling is still in a sad state of infancy. They spent, what, a hundred million dollars on this movie and they couldn't model an elastic cord? Maybe they should stick with props and models if the CG isn't up to the task.
As for "thrilling and fun," I presume you're referring to the fast cuts and extreme close-ups they use to avoid costly cinematography. It might be impressive on the big screen, but in reality you're paying eight bucks for TV-style film editing.
I'll grant that local news usually at least tries to respect the truth. But 'investigative journalism' such as 60 Minutes really does misrepresent the truth and thrive on the misery of others.
In an engineering class I have personally heard them criticized by one guy they interviewed in a story on TWA flight 800 (& I saw the story afterwards.) In spite of everything he told them before, during, and after the interview, they carefully arranged their footage and commentary to paint him as a sort of whistleblower, and the FAA as being unresponsive to concerns about safety.
They made no attempt to understand the actual engineering concerns. Instead they tried continually to get him to say that he warned the FAA (about the possibility of Center Fuel Tank explosions) and that they did nothing... when in real life, he raised the issue, the FAA investigated with his help, and they both agreed that no changes were appropriate.
I was surprised to learn that the questions in the interview are generally filmed after the answers. That was what really drove home to me what kind of presentation this really is.
It is very disturbing to watch these reports, and having some clue about how they were made. They simulate a sort of public trial held in the media, in which the actors often have little to no opportunity for their own, unfiltered response, but in this trial everything is manipulative to serve the predetermined "moral of the story" -- the outcome is been prejudged. And if
the journalists can't arrange a strong enough support for the the viewpoint they intended to portray, they simply don't air the story.
Also it is not surprising when residents of a small town are angry and suspicious when big city reporters come in, because it is so very rare that national news will ever bother to report on something good happening, especially a small, local type of event. Of course, local news is often much better about this.
Now, about you: I don't know anything about you, but I honestly can't see how you can "catch a pedophile" with your filming. If you do know about an actual crime being committed, surely it is your duty to report it to the law immediately. It is officers of the law who are best equipped to stop a crime in progress, and it is the judicial system which is best equipped to punish offenders. The media likes to think it is a populist institution, but it is the government which is given effectual powers to deal with these things, by the people. Of course if the government is neglecting its job it is very good for the media to report on this, but this has nothing to do with a photographer going to someone's house to "catch a pedophile."
It is more likely that a camera crew will go to film the residence of an accused pedophile or sex offender, not for the purpose of "catching" anyone, but simply to give a reporter someplace to stand while she does her best to turn yet another trial into a media circus.
Anyway, I am sure you mean well, and maybe you are not guilty of the various excesses seen so often in TV journalism. But remember: when Superman was created in the 1930s, and Spider-Man in the 1960s, it was natural to put make their alter-egos work in journalism. Whereas now, in the US journalists are disliked even more than politicians and lawyers. You guys have quite a challenge in restoring the public's faith in you.
Someone forgot the </OL> .
Regardless of how factual or fact-based they may be, don't most contemporary American films bear a disclaimer such as: "This motion picture is entirely a work of fiction. The names, characters and incidents portrayed in it are the work of the author's imagination. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events or localities is entirely coincidental." ?
Let's say it isn't unreasonable. Let's assume that it's perfectly legitimate for a company to be upset and feel entitled to the space...
What makes them so sure that their ad was up during that particular segment of time? If I remember correctly, Spiderman is a fairly old comic book and maybe the current ads wouldn't make sense if placed in that time. Sure, the movie seems to be set in the present, but where do you draw the line?
My last thought is the compensation. Obviously the CG billboards weren't auto-magically created, so someone spent time and effort on it. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to expect a fee associated with the space. If the companies feel so greatly about their stake, they should pay for it. I suggest making it a several hundred year contract. After all, if they stop paying for the real-life space, they should at least continue to pay for their Spiderman space. People won't see their physical billboard, but people will continue to watch the movie.
Well I don't happen to have a copy of Rolling Stone so I can't verify that right now...
Hooker with a penis talks about selling out. Obviously. However, just because he made a song talking about it, doesn't mean that it is true of himself... Even though it may be. I'm sure you know he has some songs, written in 1st person perspective, that can't be attributed to his own experiences.
Besides... That is off topic in any respect. It's just a quote, not a statement that Maynard should be the world's new moral leader.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I suspect that there is such a clause in the filming permit
That's pretty unlikely - they also removed the World Trade Center (they definitely removed it from the commercials, I dont know about the actual movie). That fact could have a significant impact on this case.
-dbc
(I swear this was reported on slashdot at the time, but can't find the link.)
This quietly manipulated reality and does seem like a big deal. Manupulating a fictional Times Square, though, for use in a work of fiction, doesn't seem like a big deal at all. Hell, in the original Planet of the Apes they manipulated the whole city of New York by burying it completely (except for the statue of Liberty).
"Well I don't happen to have a copy of Rolling Stone so I can't verify that right now..."
:)
A search through alt.music.tool would probably bring up a scan of the ad.
"Hooker with a penis talks about selling out. Obviously. However, just because he made a song talking about it, doesn't mean that it is true of himself... Even though it may be. I'm sure you know he has some songs, written in 1st person perspective, that can't be attributed to his own experiences."
I'm not sure how the song *couldn't* be about them lyrically. He meets a kid who acts "OGT" and accuses the band of selling out to the man. Maynard tells him everyone is the man, and that the band sold out themselves to make a record the kid bought.
"Besides... That is off topic in any respect. It's just a quote, not a statement that Maynard should be the world's new moral leader."
I know, I just like to argue.
It's a plausible reason they give for making Spidey's webs "biological", but did they have to make them squirt out of his butt?
Obviously, you haven't heard of this great new invention called "the internet."
Media and culture are sickly twisted. Nobody can claim to be an "objective reporter" just "reporting the news". These days the media IS the news. The medium IS the reality. Society of the spectacle, life through proxy, etc. etc.
I'm sure there are tons of authentic and genuine people in centralized media, but there is no denying that you are part of the big hairy beast for good or bad. Which is why indiemedia is so exciting.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Not that I know if anyone claimed to be: "OGT, from '92, from the first EP." Even if he did, it's quite possible that the talk about selling out & being 'The Man' could essentially be sarcasm. Writing is an art form... Some happens in standard fashion, and some is more abstract. Listening to the musically and lyrically complex songs that Tool turns out, I don't take anything at face value.
Of course, the fact that it can be alternatively interperated doesn't mean Tool hasn't sold out... And endorsing a product doesn't *necessarily* mean Maynard has sold out either. And, I've said more than enough on the subject. That's it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Yes. After we whittle it down, you and I are both correct. The hardest thing in the news business is not the resources, but the time.
Time, time, time. I just did a story about tax laws and they chopped the meat out of it for time so that we could add another relevant story. Was I pissed, hell yes. Did I think the other story was relevent? HELL YES. So I sucked it up and started whittling away.
Time is THE major difference between the media and a lot of other businesses in the world. Other businesses are not time constrained to the hilt. If you say that the plane will drop out of the sky if I don't get another week, then they give you another week. The world wants to know RIGHT FREAKING NOW.
My timetable is in minutes and seconds. Never hours or days. That is what I meant earlier when I said that many people could not mentally handle it. It is like shooting craps all day, but the difference is that your entire career rides on it... daily. Like I said, it is amazingly difficult. I've seen 35 year old men with money and no dependents quit their high end careers to get into the news game because it is interesting work and their dream to see all that we see, and flame out six weeks later. I'd say the turnover rate on starting employees is about 90 to 95%. It is the stress that really crawls up your ass.
That being said, I was the second in line to go to Afghanistan. Almost made it there. That is something no one else in the world gets to do unless you carry a rifle. And being in a crack house and the govenor's mansion in the same day is rather interesting, no other job can give me that.
I understand your concern about reporting the honest truth. And for the most part we (the collective media we) try our best to give it out, as soon as possible. We do give the truth. As we know it. But the truth we give is the truth of action, not the specifics that we cannot understand. You are a physicist. I have a great friend that is a MRI and elementary particles friend up at Northwestern that I cannot even understand anymore when he talks about his work.
If I did a story about physics I would royally screw it up. If you trieds to lay it out it would be impossible to explain. What would the public find out? Nothing. So we compress it so they don't turn the TV off when one thing comes up that they only have a passing interest in. Their reaction would be something like this.... "Hey, that's neato. Cool." Most info goes out the other ear, but it would stick to the physics enthusiasts and they would seek the specifics.
See, all I can really do is let the world know it is there. I may mess up a little but I generate some interest. When the phone is ringing, dinner is on the stove, the kids are crying, and the TV is blaring, the home audience is not going to get much about it with all of the distractions, but they will know something is happening, and that is what the news does.
Also, my job is on the line with anything I work on. My boss says, "you have one and a half minutes to tell it... make it good. At least make it interesting. Tell me one thing I didn't know about this story that I would be interested in."
That is the pressure of news. It is a curse for having a real interesting job.
They shot all three movies at once so the sequel is already done.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.