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.)"
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.
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 ||
IANAL either, but I am a still photographer. I don't know if the same laws apply to motion picture filming, but generally you need a property release when photographing private property. It's not black-and-white (no pun intended), because if you photograph something like the New York or San Francisco skyline which is full of private property, you don't need a release. See more information on releases. Note this is referring to commercial photography, not vacation shots.
I'm not sure what a judge would rule, but I would hazard a guess that if the buildings and signs in question are 'part of the scene', it would be OK, but if they took a Samsung building and morphed it into Sony HQ and made it a key part of the film, it wouldn't.
Regardless, I can understand Samsung, et al, being a little miffed, but I also find the idea of taking this to court absurd. I guess I wouldn't make a very good lawyer...
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.