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.

1. "Worst opening titles sequence ever. Probably recycled out of un-used material from 'The Last Starfighter.' Truly IntelliVision-level graphics here.

2. 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.)

3. There is actually some credible character development. (Smacks own agape jaw in disbelief.) So much for the frickin' Batman franchise.

4. We are treated to several exciting shots of M.J.'s heaving bosom through clinging wet fabric, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

5. 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.

6. 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.)

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.)"

Comments

Re:Kirsten Dunst

[Harbinjer]

Naw, I'd much rather see Natalie Portman in Star Wars. Which despite the bad title could be decent.

Kirsten Dunst isn't that hot anyway(go see Tara Reid in Van Wilder)

Four ways to look at it.

[TellarHK]

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.

Re:It's not unreasonable ?

[thefalconer]

What do you expect? We're talking greedy capitalists here! Besides, the favorite two american words are free and more. Free applies to anything outgoing on our part, more applies to anything incoming. We want more and more, and all of it free. :)